[patrickk]

The ship has sailed on that one. The telematics from the car can also be sent back to the mothership, i.e. if you’re driving like a lunatic, pulling donuts, harsh acceleration and so on.

[hsbauauvhabzb]

Which is even more absurd. You can watch illegal things on TV too. Both are a gross breach of monopolistic power.

[aziaziazi]

you can directly hurt more people with a car than a TV though

[dzhiurgis]

On flip side not having telematics on your most expensive assets (house, car and health) is negligence.

[MereInterest]

There’s a difference between the owner having telemetry on their own car, and the manufacturer having telemetry on the cars they’ve sold. One is taking care of your assets, and the other is spying on customers.

[quickthrowman]

‘Telematics’ is not how the word ‘insurance’ is spelled. Anyone that owns an uninsured car or home that cannot afford to replace a total loss or hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills in the case of a major accident is negligent. Anyone without wealth lacking health insurance is negligent.

Having sensor logs of the space temp and CO2 ppm in your house when it’s burning down isn’t going to help you at all.

Car telemetry might help diagnose car issues, but I’m not aware of manufacturers using it that way, I’ve heard plenty about selling location data and driving habits.

Constantly monitoring your heart rate and blood pressure sounds like a good way to develop hypochondria.

[sallveburrpi]

Are you saying that not monitoring e.g. heart rate constantly through some electronic device that sends the data somewhere (let’s assume somewhere under my control) is negligence?

[DrewADesign]

Laws can change, but I’m not hopeful, tbh. Digital privacy problems are just too abstract to viscerally anger most people. That may change as people that grew up in surveillance capitalism mature, but being so used to invasive data grabs might replace ignorant complacency with aware complacency.