Police records show that car subscription features increase the risk of government oversight.
What is clear from the documents is that US police are aware of the control of their control companies in achieving the data of vehicles and expressing fear that they suddenly decide to eliminate certain abilities at any time.
In a letter sent to the Federal Commerce Commission in April 2024, Ron Widen and Edward Marci – Democrats in Oregon and Massachusetts, respectively – concluded that a wide range of automakers from Toyota, Nissan and Subaru would like to respond to a unauthorized position. At the same time, the Volkswagen had its own laws and limited summoning to less than seven days. Senators noted that these policies, contrary to public obligations previously carried out by some carmakers, needed guarantees or court order before submitting information to the customer location.
Senators wrote that “carmakers” are significantly different about the important question of whether customers are spying on them. “They said, at the time of the letter, only Tesla had a policy of informing customers about legal demands.” Other car companies do not tell their customers about government demands even if they are allowed to do so. “
“We respect the privacy of customers and take our responsibility to protect their personal information seriously,” says Bennet Lidin, a spokesman for T-Mobile.
“Like all companies, we are obliged to provide information to law enforcement and other government agencies in accordance with court orders, summons and other legal discovery requests,” said a spokesman for AT&T.
Verizon did not respond to the comment’s request.
Ryan Shapiro, executive director of the people’s assets, the government’s non -profit, who obtained the CHP submission documents, says: “Especially now, with US civil liberties, people must take a lot of caution in the granting of new oversight of law enforcement.”
Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst at the US Civil Liberty Union, points out that the police documents reviewed by Wired contain significant details on car monitoring that appear to be unavailable to the public, indicating that companies are much more open than their customers by law enforcement.
“This is a continuous scandal that this kind of monitoring happens without people being aware of it, let alone allowing it,” says Stanley. “If they do the public’s supervision, people should know. They must have meaningful knowledge and have significant satisfaction before any supervision is activated, which is not clear.”
