Data Mining and the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution

Recently, I purchase a new car. While reading the manual (I do that kind of thing), I discovered that the auto manufacturer was collecting data about my driving though, not one, but two separate yet parallel systems. Their reasoning was for "improving auto safety & performance" and "for use in lawsuits against them". What they failed to disclose, I found out only today.

I did not go looking for this, it came up in my regular round of news sites. The important bit is the second quote that is highlighted in yellow. The first quote is background.

U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION purchased technology that vacuums up reams of personal information stored inside cars, according to a federal contract reviewed by The Intercept, illustrating the serious risks in connecting your vehicle and your smartphone.

The contract, shared with The Intercept by Latinx advocacy organization Mijente, shows that CBP paid Swedish data extraction firm MSAB $456,073 for a bundle of hardware including five iVe “vehicle forensics kits” manufactured by Berla, an American company. A related document indicates that CBP believed the kit would be “critical in CBP investigations as it can provide evidence [not only] regarding the vehicle’s use, but also information obtained through mobile devices paired with the infotainment system.” The document went on to say that iVe was the only tool available for purchase that could tap into such systems.

According to statements by Berla’s own founder, part of the draw of vacuuming data out of cars is that so many drivers are oblivious to the fact that their cars are generating so much data in the first place, often including extremely sensitive information inadvertently synced from smartphones.

theintercept.com...

Now, you may say it's okay because it's being used only by the US Customs and Border Patrol to thwart illegal activity at borders, but and it's a big one, it is a flagrant attach on the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution.

The

Fourth Amendment: Protects the right of privacy against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.

www.findlaw.com...#:~:text=Fourth%20Amendment%3A%20Protects%20the%2 0right,and%20seizures%20by%20the%20government.

Does this access require a Search Warrant, the company that provides this "service" replied per the original article:

MSAB spokesperson Carolen Ytander declined to comment on the privacy and civil liberties risks posed by iVe. When asked if the company maintains any guidelines on use of its technology, they said the company “does not set customer policy or governance on usage.” [yellow]

To end, this from the founder of this company:

In the same podcast, LeMere also recounted the company pulling data from a car rented at BWI Marshall Airport outside Washington, D.C.:

“We had a Ford Explorer … we pulled the system out, and we recovered 70 phones that had been connected to it. All of their call logs, their contacts and their SMS history, as well as their music preferences, songs that were on their device, and some of their Facebook and Twitter things as well. … And it’s quite comical when you sit back and read some of the the text messages.”

The ACLU’s Tajsar explained, “What they’re really saying is ‘We can exploit people because they’re dumb. … We can leverage consumers’ lack of understanding in order to exploit them in ways that they might object to if it was done in the analog world.’”

This is exploitation, pure and simple. We need digital privacy. Left, right or anywhere in between.

Happy Saturday.

FyreByrd stared in disbelief. The user could have sworn they just typed up a post, confused, the user begans to switched between various windows on the Laptop.

Nothing

Where did the post go? Pondering the dilemma, the user post anyway, in some feign attempt that the post will pop back up...

4th Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Maybe some violated the OP's 4th Amendment rights.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Apologies for my initial empty post. It was not intentional, just a mistake.

As many are fond of saying these days: they are a private company and can do what they want. The constitution only protects you from a government which exists only to cater to these companies on a silver platter. So therefore all the hideous actions of corrupt companies are fine and dandy.

That being said i agree with you 100%

a reply to: FyreByrd
Thanks for the info.
Don't sign what you don't read.

In and of itself, its definitely a concerning trend. At a certain point, there is no "opt out" or anything either.

I believe the more concerning aspect is how this data is used. Many still seem to just think its relatively meaningless trivia..

But, its used to derive pretty significant amounts of information about behavior. Particularly useful, since it can be done in real time.

It can be used to see which news stories get you the most amped up (maybe your driving speed goes up 1% after reading a specific article at home). It can be used to literally shift the opinion and perception of all participants, in real time, and refine that process ever further through iterative processes and tracking.

Ohanka hit the nail on the head too. And beyond that, "Brand Loyalty" has been expanded to include much more than a simple, singular company name. Its a monolith that includes everything from media channels, to research channels, to politics.

It's time to apply the constitution to businesses.
Look what they did with Facebook...the "private" version of Lifelog, the darpa run program.
It was registered the day congress shutdown the program.
Just watch the fake brow beating of zuckefake.
They know exactly what fb is.
I'm not sure why the gov is seemingly war with its own people. It's fn psychotic.
It makes you question all tech companies. I wouldn't be surprised if they are all shill companies. Every single one.
Another interesting connection I've noticed is all this tracking bs really popped onto the scene after the auto bailouts.
It looks like they once again used tax dollars to spy on tax payers.
It's starting to get stupid.
Tax revolts are in order.
The corporate exemption to the constitution loophole needs dealt with.

originally posted by: Ohanka
As many are fond of saying these days: they are a private company and can do what they want. The constitution only protects you from a government which exists only to cater to these companies on a silver platter. So therefore all the hideous actions of corrupt companies are fine and dandy.

That being said i agree with you 100%

There's a bigger problem though...the politicians starting, buying, or overtaking the companies.
People look at it as a lobbying problem, when in reality they are starting a lot of these control apparatuses.

If you guys want help disabling this trash in your car, just let me know.

originally posted by: Mandroid7
If you guys want help disabling this trash in your car, just let me know.

Or buy a 1950 Chevy like I've got. My newest cars are both station wagons from '96 and neither have this crap as well. Screw keeping up with the Jones's.

Yes it's a problem but many dont want new regulation. As an aside, if you're walking/driving around leaking data all over the place and I happen to capture it I'd hardly call that a search or a seizure.

You volunteered it up.

originally posted by: AScrubWhoDied
Yes it's a problem but many dont want new regulation. As an aside, if you're walking/driving around leaking data all over the place and I happen to capture it I'd hardly call that a search or a seizure.

You volunteered it up.

I look upon your analogy as false and in this same manner:

If you're walking/driving around exposing your neck all over the place and Jack, the knife wielding maniac happens to attack said offered neck, you volunteered it up for him. People didn't "volunteer" their privacy up. It was stolen out from under them in sneaky, sub-legal ways that didn't used to exist.

This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. I thought it was common knowledge that new cars do this.

It goes without saying that you shouldn't plug your phone up to anything other than an outlet through a charging block. Don't connect your phone to your computer, your work computer, or lord forbid one of those free charging kiosks.

Also, don't use free wifi spots.

originally posted by: TrulyColorBlind

originally posted by: AScrubWhoDied
Yes it's a problem but many dont want new regulation. As an aside, if you're walking/driving around leaking data all over the place and I happen to capture it I'd hardly call that a search or a seizure.

You volunteered it up.

I look upon your analogy as false and in this same manner:

If you're walking/driving around exposing your neck all over the place and Jack, the knife wielding maniac happens to attack said offered neck, you volunteered it up for him. People didn't "volunteer" their privacy up. It was stolen out from under them in sneaky, sub-legal ways that didn't used to exist.

Clown shoes. Murder is a crime. End of.

You walking around with a transparent backpack and others getting glimpses is on you.

You drop a sensitive document on the ground and someone picks it up and read its on you.

You leak data from a device due to negligence or ignorance it's on you.

YOU agreed to the terms. Try reading them next time.

And yeah, # changes, that's the nature of progress.