Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Transportation Privacy Hardware Your Rights Online

Ask Slashdot: Will Cars Eventually Need a Do-Not-Track Option? 170

Posted by Soulskill
from the could-use-one-now dept.
Nerval's Lobster writes "Earlier this month, a very public argument erupted between Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk and New York Times reporter John Broder, who claimed in a Feb. 8 column that his electric-powered Model S sedan had ground to a halt on a lonely stretch of Connecticut highway, starved for power. Musk retaliated by publishing the data from Broder's test drive, which suggested the reporter had driven the vehicle at faster speeds than he had claimed in the article (which would have drained the battery at a quicker rate) and failed to fully charge the car at available stations. Musk seems to have let the whole thing drop, but the whole brouhaha raises a point that perhaps deserves further exploration: the rising use of sensors in cars, and whether an automobile company—or any other entity, for that matter—has the right to take data from those sensors and use it for their own ends without the owner's permission. (For his part, Musk has claimed that Tesla only turns on data logging with 'explicit written permission from customers.') What do you think, Slashdot? Do we need the equivalent of a 'Do-Not-Track' option for cars?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ask Slashdot: Will Cars Eventually Need a Do-Not-Track Option?

Comments Filter:
  • Welcome (Score:5, Funny)

    by puddingebola (2036796) on Friday February 22, 2013 @04:43PM (#42983929) Journal
    Greetings undercover CIA personnel, welcome to glorious leader's free wi-fi access. Please feel free to communicate with your contacts and login to accounts and databases in United States and Japan. All communications 100% encrypted by glorious leader himself, ensuring the utmost confidentiality in communications. Also, please friend and like us on Facebook.
  • by Gabrill (556503) on Friday February 22, 2013 @04:50PM (#42984011)

    By admitting the need for an opt-in requirement, you are implicitly agreeing with the need for an opt-out mechanism. You're arguing semantics.

There's a whole WORLD in a mud puddle! -- Doug Clifford

Working...