I currently drive a mid 2000s Ford truck, which runs great and meets my needs, but lately I got interested in minivans/people carriers. I pretty quickly realized that newer vehicles seem to not just record, but export a lot of driving data.<p>The minivan market is small. There are really only 4-5 available and every single one sends telemetry data from the car and makes it hard/impossible to opt out of selling your data. Additionally, without pretty extensive work there is no means of physically disabling the telemetry, which forces you to trust they'll honor your opt out request (vs re-enabling it with some update).<p>I'm clearly in the vast minority on this, but it's so frustrating that there are no options beyond buying and installing a third-party bypass to disable this type of tracking. Worse, I'm aware that the absence of data is data itself. Is my insurance going raise my rates because my vehicle won't provide telemetry for them to buy?
Ford until recently sold a minivan that was ugly as sin (looked like an '87 Vanagon) because it was a panel van with seats added. They are popular with the campervan community.<p>As it was essentially a commercial vehicle meant for upfitters turning them into work vans for electricians and plumbers, it would probably be easiest of all to disable telemetry.<p>From what I can find, permanently disabling FordPass at the hardware level is as simple as unplugging the cell modem or pulling its fuse.
I have the Ford Transit Connect "Wagon". It's a 2016 model with no internet connectivity. It can fit a double mattress in the back and is tall enough to sit up on the bed, unlike nearly every SUV. I cannot recommend it enough for an everyday vehicle that doubles as a camper.<p>Of course, Ford discontinued this model in North America because their margins are better on trucks and SUVs.<p>As for the aesthetics, we really like it. It's certainly a darn sight better looking than a truck or SUV, which are all aggressive-looking pedestrian killers.
If you don't mind used, the Ford Transit Connect Wagon is an excellent option for an everyday vehicle that doubles as a camper. We have one and love it. It fits a double mattress with plenty of headroom room to sit up in bed. Ford discontinued it in 2023, hence the used requirement, but I believe you can turn off the internet connectivity on that model. We have a 2016 model (still going strong after 150,000km!) which has no internet connectivity, thankfully.
Buy a slightly used one that has a 3g modem. My 2018 car no longer can phone home.
I know some models of Ford allow you to pull the modem out. It doesn't even nag you about a connection problem.
> Worse, I'm aware that the absence of data is data itself.<p><i>The Burrow, Franz Kafka</i>
> absence of data is data itself<p>oh that is endless.. if you are aware enough to do something about telemetry IMHO do that and don't obsess about loose ends.
> Is my insurance going raise my rates because my vehicle won't provide telemetry for them to buy?<p>They will do it <i>and</i> some sneering POS in the comments will defend the practice.
> Is my insurance going raise my rates because my vehicle won't provide telemetry for them to buy?<p>Thanks, I hate it.
You can get tesla insurance and it monitors your driving.<p>If you do not agree to this monitoring, they will not insure you.<p>also, full self driving (or autosteer) both require the cabin camera to be enabled and to monitor you.
Already happening. To get the lowest rates from some companies, you have to install monitoring software in your car. We missed the boat on this one.<p>One example: if you don’t get it from State Farm, you can pay 30% more in insurance costs.<p><a href="https://www.statefarm.com/insurance/auto/discounts/drive-safe-save" rel="nofollow">https://www.statefarm.com/insurance/auto/discounts/drive-saf...</a>
I tried using an older version of that program, and it was especially annoying because it only worked if you let it monitor and phone home continuously, not just while driving. If the app couldn't steal your information often enough, you were disqualified from the program, stating that it assumed you were hiding some driving activity.
A bargain.
<p><pre><code> if an owner decides they are uncomfortable with the data sharing described within them, they are faced with (arguably) unfair choices:
- 01 accept the agreements regardless of their concerns
- 02 stop using their car's connected-vehicle features - which includes remote start, the app, and other very useful features
- 03 stop using the vehicle entirely
</code></pre>
Easy, I take #2. Is that it? This whole time I thought the article was talking about telemetry the car sends regardless.
I have essentially gone with option 2 in my Audi A3. Every time I turn the car on, it puts up a dialog that warns me that I've made the terrible, terrible decision to not allow remote data and forces me to say, "no, do not turn it on for me now," before I can do anything else on the screen. Every, single, time.
This, but worse, happened with my inlaws when they purchased a new Lexus (IIRC, a 2025 RX350). It has whatever kind of built in navigation & traffic feature but they wanted to use Android Auto. You can do that, but not until after you go through Lexus' vehicle/driver registration process to enable their built in system. If you don't, not only will neither AA nor CarPlay work, but if you try to use the built in nav it will fail with a superimposed modal after a couple of minutes to nag you into creating an account.
Disappointing but not surprising. Those touchscreen interfaces are usually full of nags. I liked the Versa I rented recently cause its "low-end" radio system was the only thing that let me listen to the damn radio without jumping through hoops. Toyota's is an L even though their cars are better otherwise.
I long for a future in which we can do what we did 20 years ago, when we just had double-DIN radio sockets in the dash so we could just choose, buy, and upgrade the car's stereo and touchscreen/phone interface at will.
Like #2 prevents the spying.
Let's ask some smart TV brands executives their opinion on the matter.
"We own the infotainment system"<p>I've thought about what I can possibly do if I ever need to buy a modern car. Bring my own cell phone tower spoofer? Threaten to not buy the car if they don't disconnect the antennas first?<p>It's good that these things are starting to catch the public's interest. Gamers' Nexus' exposé on LG TVs. The lawsuits against car manufacturers for selling driving data (indirectly) to insurance companies. The pushback against Flock. I wonder what else is needed to actually move the needle globally.<p>I see a good sign in that Gen Alpha seems to find using disconnected devices to be trendy. I hope it's a trend that stays long term.
Smart TVs need wifi to be smart though. The cars have cell modems.
On top of that you must never take it for servicing at a dealership since that's another point they can do a data export if your car isn't always-on.
If cars are "smartphones on wheels" then who pays for the cellular subscriptions<p>Smartphones allow the user to disable cellular data ("mobile data")<p>If cars are "smartphones on wheels" then why not turn cellular data off<p>If that's not possible then perhaps cars are not "smartphones on wheels"
> As one notable exception, Honda improved its data collection practices to prevent sending precise geolocation to a third party associated with user tracking.<p>I know what my next car will be.
I already like Honda and own models before they were connected to the cell network. But they are still not 100% there for current models:<p>> Amplitude received from HondaLink: VIN, Location. Cross-context tracking: Amplitude received the VIN plus Location from HondaLink — an unresettable identifier tied directly to other personal data.<p>They are so close they should say "fuck it, we're going to be different, we'll disable all the crap" and then market the heck out of it.
Hope to see a new market for disabling telemetry and phonehome features from cars. It should be legal to do so, if you own the car I suppose. I'm thinking that rigth now few pople even know how much spying their new car does to them but this will change and as awareness grows more and more people will want to do it.
The ongoing theme of all these responses was shifting the blame to the consumer.<p>As expected. I think consumers also need to push back on these practices, but the problem is, majority of consumers are tech savy but not privacy savy.
I'd love to push back, I'm not sure what that looks like though. I can't even get an open source/open hardware phone that's decent, let alone a car.
It looks like lobbying for increased consumer protection laws. Either you put on a suit and talk to politicians, or you work with and donate to groups that do.
You might want to check out Slate. It's about the closest thing to an open vehicle platform I can imagine.
Interesting and thank you! Just like I'd like a "dumb" tv that I could just plug a Linux machine running Kodi into, I'd like a car that was 100% free from smart features, yet gave me the hooks to power any of the systems with my own software/hardware.
Does Slate actually make any statements about the level of telematics/surveillance in their vehicles?
Yes.<p>If you buy a completely option-free $24,950 truck, there is no telematics/surveillance in their vehicle.<p>Which also means there's no remote app features that people enjoy.<p>The spirit of the vehicle is you can option out just about anything and DIY-it; very, very few "from the factory" options, but dozens upon dozens of DIY accessories from the factory.<p>Including a $275 telematics module - <a href="https://www.slate.auto/en/store/ACCIT010" rel="nofollow">https://www.slate.auto/en/store/ACCIT010</a> - Which enables remote app features.<p>The current description for the module on their website:<p>> A plug-and-play solution that acts as a cellular bridge between your smartphone and your Slate vehicle, enabling features like remote access and battery pre-conditioning.<p>It's not clear to anyone exactly what features the module has to enable the above, or if it does more than all that.<p>Once the thing actually ships, there'll be manuals, and there'll be people hacking it to find out exactly what it both does and doesn't do.<p>And since it's a DIY addition, if you later become uncomfortable with what you added to your vehicle, you can remove it!
>no remote app features that people enjoy.<p>I do enjoy watching my friend remote start his Colorado through the app, it only takes 30 seconds for the app to load and sign in, and then he presses a button that used to be on the key itself.
They say their vehicles have no modem by default, only leaving it as an option for fleet users. They also have no infotainment system to contain any sort of camera or microphone.
IIRC, they don't have a cellular radio in the vehicle (or even a FM radio). All the connectivity is done via Bluetooth with a mobile app.<p>It's been a while since I read up on them and things might have changed, but I have a lot respect for what they're doing. Full embracing right to repair and customer privacy when the entire industry is moving at lightning speed in the opposite direction.
Aren't their companies that are doing their telemetry over bluetooth bridge to phone' internet? Not saying slate necessarily does, but it's certainly an available exfil surface, especially if there's a 'manage your slate vehicle' app.
Look at the options on the table for you: Either do nothing and buy new cars, or buy an older car and maintain it for the rest of your life. There is no option C, as you note.
For my part, I will not be purchasing a new car until they bring back physical controls and dump the spyware.
Mee, too. And that's why I've made my peace with the idea of never again buying a new car. They're all garbage quality, outrageously expensive, and effectively unrepairable, anyway, so it's not a big loss. Probably most cars and trucks older than about 2018 are safe, I figure...
DMCA needs to be repealed or at least radically changed. Currently it's used as a cudgel by manufacturers to prevent customers from modifying the software in the stuff they buy. Legislation that requires vendors to provide documentation and stuff like "right to repair" would also go a long way.
> I'm not sure what that looks like though<p>Two wheels and some impressive leg muscles !
Using a smart phone doesn't make someone tech savvy.
Ha ha, you fools! No one is collecting my data from my 22-year-old Scion while I drive past Flock cameras every day.<p>Wait...
There’s “oh he’s at the grocery store” data,<p>and then there’s “he’s driving in a way we don’t like, let’s make him pay more for his insurance” data.
Meanwhile Grocery chains: "lets buy that data so we know whats inconvenient for him at any moment and price accordingly"
Don't forget the banal in comparison "we've locked him out of hardware already installed in the car with a perpetual software license check"
Mm, I don’t really care about that, at least assuming it can partially-counterintuitively lower the manufacturing cost of a car by a penny or two.<p>Computer chips [used to?] end up getting nerfed and it saves resources/saves us all money. I can get over it, even though normally “the principle of the thing“ is a really big deal for me.<p>OK it does stink for the used car market actually.
More like "we can't prove he's driving in a way we like so we'll make him pay more for insurance"
Well if you're driving dangerously why shouldn't you pay more?
You already do if crashes or tickets show that you’re a bad driver.<p>Insurance company profits are not a valid reason to implement pervasive surveillance, especially given all the potential for abuse of this data.
Part of the problem is it just gets shoved into a model without enough data support. So I hit the gas hard merging onto the freeway? Of course; your brakes are much more powerful than your throttle if you need to take evasive action, and merging onto the freeway at 50mph is dangerous. The model just sees that you like keeping your foot on the gas from time to time. To keep your rates low you have to drive more dangerously, and that's not the sort of incentive structure I like to participate in.
The fight is on multiple fronts.
May be relevant: noticed a new car dealer today, entered to inquire. Full "gadgety" monsters, pointless bothersome tech just for any-tech thirsty customers.<p>Salesman told me that it does not work without a smartphone.<p>And that it requires the dealer - the vehicle is a still statue without a whole infrastructure behind it to let it work (must be network connected and exchanging with some servers in China, he said - I do not know to which extent; the company greenlights the links to your other gear, and without that the car will not work... Things like that).
Interesting to see how this has evolved. Mozilla had conducted a detailed investigation on this topic by carmaker a few years ago: <a href="https://www.mozillafoundation.org/en/blog/privacy-nightmare-on-wheels-every-car-brand-reviewed-by-mozilla-including-ford-volkswagen-and-toyota-flunks-privacy-test/" rel="nofollow">https://www.mozillafoundation.org/en/blog/privacy-nightmare-...</a>
This seems like something that needs legislation to address.
I'm sure that will go about as well as protecting the privacy of individuals in the face of "but the CHILDREN!" age verification.<p>In-vehicle monitoring allows car manufacturers to remind the user to buckle up, keep their eyes on the road, stay off their phones, remind them to take breaks, turn the radio down in tense traffic, remind the driver to take a breath based on increased heart rate to minimize road rage, etc.<p>Heck, we could really reduce lack of seatbelt related injuries and deaths if we could eliminate the 'drive' function while seatbelts are not properly worn (which we can now check with our AI cameras )<p>What are you some kind of anti-safe-driving nut?
There's a certain irony in a touchscreen modal popping up to tell you to keep your eyes on the road.
All new cars in the EU really have in-vehicle monitoring reminding you to keep your eyes on the road
>What are you some kind of anti-safe-driving nut?<p>What are you some kind of anti-kids-being-able-to-roam nut?<p>Huge and tall vehicles and distracted and drunk drivers have made prisoners of anyone not in a car in much of the USA. Loss of freedom for people in cars is an acceptable price to regain freedom for people outside of cars.<p>Maybe drivers will stop distracted driving and be responsible with their freedom when the camera shows them looking at their phone while they mow down a pedestrian or bicyclist and they are charged with manslaughter.
Until people care about this, there is no reason for our representatives to limit it.
good luck!<p>sadly, politicians are very happy about the centralization of power... they are the same team with the corporations.
Still driving my GR Corolla with the data communications module fuse pulled.
I was gifted a 90's ford pickup from a family member and plan to get caught up on maintenance and keep it forever. It runs fine and has been a good project. No telemetry and easy to work on.
While the researchers noted Tesla as having privacy options that can be enabled in the car’s settings, they didn’t seem to test how this changes the # of ATA results. Would have been interesting to see how enabling privacy features changes things.
It's sad that the paper does not mention even once a straightforward solution, which is to pull the cellular modem's fuse or to outright unplug it.
I'm not surprised the Mercedes has the best privacy...
See also the warning from Dutch intelligence about connected vehicles: <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/oct/01/cars-smart-features-spy-gps-chinese-imports" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/oct/01/cars-smar...</a><p>The article focuses on Chinese vehicles, but caution should be exercised with all vehicles.
What is the situation like for people who rip out the entertainment system out of older cars and install Android Auto? How "bad" is that?
I've been on GrapheneOS for over 3 years and won't look back.
When I buy an EV, one of the first things I intend to do is disable or block the chips using Wi-Fi and/or cellular from broadcasting further. If that means a faraday shield around the computers in question, so be it.<p>Everything I need can be handled via CarPlay or physical dials/buttons in the vehicle. All this surveillance - on post-COVID priced vehicles no less, averaging ~$50k - is absurd, and I refuse to engage with it.
And this is without even looking at any Chinese manufactured vehicles...
I don't trust any of my devices anymore (including/especially my car). At the very least I figure that they're spying on me. In the most extreme cases, such as Israel's terrorist pager attack, they may even kill you.<p>I wonder if this is going to create a market for older tech/vehicles that were made prior to ease-of-malware integration? I imagine some sort of cyberpunk future where people are scouring landfills for old 16-bit video game console chips that haven't been backdoored.
I feel seen. I used to think rms was just a crank, but maybe he was right all along: I increasingly treat any closed-source software (and even some open-source--vscode for instance) as hostile and untrusted.
Wouldn't be surprised if in a few decades you see the ultra elite start favoring older maybe early 2010s at most cars. The risk surface of a modern car is astounding. I mean cellular connection and drive by wire, screw planting a car bomb, you just steer it off a cliff from your arm chair halfway across the world and it looks like an honest accident to boot. The old cars on the other hand are airgapped. You actually need physical access to sabotage them. Risk surface is so much lower.
I was kinda wondering the same. Only issue will be when insurance companies refuse to insure you because they can't get the "commonly available" data.
> Israel's terrorist pager attack<p>Terrorist Israel’s pager attack.
So except for Tesla, which sends lots of telemetry regardless, other manufacturers send little if you don't use their companion apps. The companion apps already seemed excessive to me; even more reason to kick them to the curb.
It's so annoying, actually. I’d rather not switch to a newer car because of it.
...Adobe? What interest do they have in data harvesting so much from vehicles?
Not to take away from the point but wow absolute ai slop of a website
Yeah, my AI-slop-detector isn't very good, but this one really jumped out at me.<p>I'd look at the Consumer Reports page if you don't want to read the paper linked in a sibling comment: <a href="https://www.consumerreports.org/electronics/personal-information/your-car-is-sharing-data-with-big-tech-companies-study-finds-a4474820962/" rel="nofollow">https://www.consumerreports.org/electronics/personal-informa...</a>
I think it does take away from the point. I could not be bothered trying to filter the information out of whatever this llm layout is.
Just read the paper instead: <a href="https://automatictransmission.khoury.northeastern.edu/paper.html" rel="nofollow">https://automatictransmission.khoury.northeastern.edu/paper....</a>
[flagged]