Last night, my Ford Bronco underwent an automatic software update, and by morning, it had started sharing extra driving data without my consent. I caught this change just in time and disabled it before I set off. Instead of merely feeling irritated about yet another update, I found myself pondering deeper questions. Why does Ford need more of my driving data? Who benefits from this collection? And how is it that a vehicle I own can alter my privacy settings without asking me first?
Manufacturers are able to gather vehicle data, transmit it wirelessly, analyze it, and often profit from it.
Seeing this update reminded me of a similar article I had written, focused on the right to repair, the connected vehicle landscape, insurance companies acquiring driving data, and automatic license plate readers. Initially, they seemed like separate concerns, but they really aren’t. They all hinge on a common theme: gathering more information about drivers while offering less control over that information to consumers.
Hub Cap
All connected vehicles include what’s called a telematics control unit. Most drivers probably haven’t heard of it, but it plays a crucial role in vehicle technology. It’s a communication center connecting your car to apps, manufacturers, dealers, and various cloud services while simultaneously recording a vast amount of information about the vehicle and its driver.
Automakers claim these systems enhance convenience, diagnostics, and customer service. That’s one side of the story, for sure. Yet, companies like General Motors faced lawsuits for sharing data collected through OnStar with data brokers, which eventually made its way to insurance firms, raising serious issues about user consent.
Supporters of the right-to-repair and connected vehicle advocates believed that repair legislation would give consumers and independent repair shops access to the data generated by these vehicles. However, a House committee removed the telematics provisions from the legislation before it passed.
Manufacturers can gather, transmit, and monetize vehicle data. Yet, when lawmakers had the chance to ensure vehicle owners could access the same connected data, those protections vanished. If the data belongs to the manufacturing company and not the person who purchased the vehicle, that raises some critical questions.
Cabin Fever
As I began looking into what automakers are developing, I found intriguing patents. Ford recently published a patent for a biometric system capable of lip-reading, iris scanning, heartbeat monitoring, analyzing facial expressions, and identifying occupants via internal cameras. Some of these applications could even compare biometric data with external databases.
Of course, just because a patent exists doesn’t mean the product will hit the market. Companies sometimes patent concepts that never materialize. However, these patents can indicate where research funds are going and what technologies automakers think future regulations and consumers might demand. And it seems Ford isn’t by itself in this pursuit; nearly every major car manufacturer is exploring similar technologies.
Kill Switch
On another note, there are laws that many Americans may not be aware of until they’re enacted. For instance, Illinois recently introduced an intelligent speed assistance program requiring specific speeding offenders to pay for electronic monitoring devices, costing about $30 a month for three years. If you own an older vehicle that can’t support the mandatory technology, you could lose your driving privileges.
On a federal level, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021, specifically Section 24220, mandates that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration develop standards for advanced technology to prevent impaired driving in future passenger vehicles. Although regulators admit that this technology isn’t reliable enough for widespread use yet, Congress is already moving forward with implementation deadlines approaching.
Bird of a Feather…
Outside of vehicles, automated license plate readers are becoming more common. While most people might recognize the name Flock Safety, others like Axon are also building similar systems. Each program offers various justifications—like reducing crime, enhancing road safety, lowering insurance costs, and diagnosing vehicle issues—but they all require the same components: more cameras, more connected technology, and greater data collection on everyday drivers.
That’s what made the Bronco update particularly noteworthy. It wasn’t just another software update; it was a connection to all these varied discussions about the right to repair, telematics, biometric patents, surveillance cameras, insurance data, and connected car mandates. They all depend on the same infrastructure: vehicles consistently gathering information about their drivers.
Once that infrastructure is established, the conversation evolves. It’s no longer just about whether data can be collected; it’s crucial who holds the reins, who gains from it, and how it will be utilized down the line.
These policies can each be defended on their own grounds. Sure, safer roads are admirable, and better diagnostics are beneficial for consumers. It’s essential to apprehend criminals. But as nearly every solution calls for increased monitoring, enhanced connectivity, and a heightened flow of information from drivers, it’s time to reconsider viewing these as distinct topics.
My Bronco didn’t initiate this trend, but I can’t overlook it any longer.
The issue isn’t just about whether modern vehicles collect more data than ever—it’s undeniable that they do. Instead, we must address who truly controls that information and if drivers are slowly losing control over the cars they thought they owned.
