An Annapolis, Maryland-based company, Berla Corporation, provides the technology to some car manufacturers but does not offer it to the general public, the lawsuit said. Once messages are downloaded, Berla’s software makes it impossible for vehicle owners to access their communications and call logs but does provide law enforcement with access, the lawsuit said

Is what the second top last paragraph says. Can someone explain in simple terms to me : why is the car downloading the data but not giving access to the owner of the car? What is the data being downloaded for?

The last paragraph says

Many car manufacturers are selling car owners’ data to advertisers as a revenue boosting tactic, according to earlier reporting by Recorded Future News. Automakers are exponentially increasing the number of sensors they place in their cars every year with little regulation of the practice.

But if you read the two paragraphs logically, it isn’t really saying berla is selling the data. It’s saying some of the car manufacturers are seeking the data. So I’m at a loss.

  • pragmakist@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    8 months ago

    State law is one thing, but to me it seems obvous that “his or her right to be secure in their papers” has been broken.

    Edit: Unfortunately the founders formulated that as a limit on government, again not actually succeding in securing any rights.

    • andruid@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      We need to have an honest conversation and additional amendments as to limitations as to businesses incorporated with the State should have imposed on them. They are clearly apart of what anyone would call “the state” IMHO.

      • pragmakist@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        The usual solution outside the US is to not mention the state at all.

        All you need is a right to privacy, not a list of those who are not allowed to peek

  • detalferous@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    8 months ago

    This must be illegal in states where one or two party consent is required for wire tapping though, right?