this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2026
179 points (94.5% liked)

Fuck Cars

16096 readers
286 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
toaster@slrpnk.net
grue@lemmy.world
Toaster1@lemmy.world
179
How To Opt Out Of Your Car’s Surveillance State (Before It’s Too Late) (www.carsandhorsepower.com)
submitted 1 week ago by Changelin@discuss.tchncs.de to c/fuckcars@lemmy.world
87 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Modern cars are spy hubs on wheels, tracking your location, conversations, and behavior.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] JustEnoughDucks@slrpnk.net 8 points 6 days ago (1 children)

It is very funny that this article seems to be under the impression that opting out does anything at all.

Oooooo, maybe now they don't save your data under your legal ID directly. One time connection with your phone and they know your fingerprint that is already linked with an identity lol.

Opt-out is the biggest lie in the tech world.

[–] VitoRobles@lemmy.today 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

My job has a big marketing department, and I'm part of it.

Opting out does opt you out of a few things, like marketing emails.

But we definitely always still store your data. So yeah, it's a pretty big lie and all very legal unfortunately. It's sucks.

[–] x00z@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

all very legal unfortunately

Not in the EU.

[–] JustEnoughDucks@slrpnk.net 1 points 5 days ago

Too bad most mega corporations are based in the US so they will take the risk of a slap on the wrist from a foreign entity to keep valuable advertising data for millions of people in a different country outside of their jurisdiction.

Those regulations discourage small companies doing those bad practices, they aren't proportional to revenue so are just the cost of doing business for almost trillion euro companies.

[–] lechekaflan@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

If an older internal combustion engine car with only a dashboard radio is not an option, then a bicycle.

[–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 2 points 6 days ago

I will not drive any combustion vehicle newer then 2008, and before people tell me that is too old its that or not drive. A line must be drawn, limits expressed and principals kept.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 35 points 1 week ago (26 children)

Just don’t buy a new car. Simple as.

[–] greenMeanHoppinMachine@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I want to have my cake and eat it too, though (privacy plus electric).

I'm looking at the new electric Slate pickup. As far as I can tell, this is the one EV that might not spy on us.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

I already made my deposit.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 50 points 1 week ago (30 children)

That's not going to be a choice forever though. Even the best maintained cars eventually fail.

[–] Landless2029@lemmy.world 6 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

My 2010 Honda is trucking along but I wanted to upgrade to a hybrid... Fat chance of that happening.

Now I'll ride this one until it dies.

[–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Then we build them ourselves. Capitulation is not inevitable.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I'm not saying to capitulate, but building them yourself is not an option. First, they need to meet certain regulations. Most homemade vehicles can't. Second, there's already a federal law (maybe a bill) in the US that says some of these systems are required for new vehicles, IIRC. It does not make an exception for homemade vehicles. Maybe they can be disabled, but still technically in the vehicle?

[–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Or americans can grow a spine and stand up to this overreaching bullshit. Stating there is a law and nothing can be done is american capitulation. You ether roll over or fight this sort of stuff, but if you roll over you don't get to sit on a high horse.

People have been making stuff since stuff was made, or do you think everything ever was made from a company's factory? This "nothing can be done" shit has gotten to such a degree of putting the boot on your own neck that you are saying its not possible for people to make a motor vehicle without backing.

If people did make there own cars (or more likely use old frames) and did not put spy tech into their own stuff what's the government's recourse? Enforcement at this degree is not possible, hell you americans hardly have a rule of law left.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

The first paragraph is not really relevant to this thread. Yes, people should be fighting back. Sure. Things are happening regardless though.

People have been making stuff since stuff was made, or do you think everything ever was made from a company's factory?

Making things to function at home is great! We should do more of that, and more FOSS. However, driving on a public road requires that you meet certain conditions. You can't just throw a lawnmower engine on a set of wheels and call that enough. Yes, it'd drive, but it wouldn't be legal. There are many types of vehicle that function that are not road legal. It is possible to meet those requirements with something built at home, but it requires serious technical knowledge, skill, and equipment. It also still has to conform to state and federal regulations.

Also, I agree with this, assuming it isn't abused. I'm an Anarchist, but even I see the need to regulate vehicles people should be allowed to drive. We're driving tons of steel at each other at high speed, just inches apart. You're subjecting others to the danger you create. If your car breaks and swerves into incoming traffic at 60mph, that isn't something the other party willingly consented to. It is the government's role to protect people from harm. We go too far usually, but it needs to exist. I don't want to be on the road where a bunch of homemade junk that hasn't been regulated is driving around.

[–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Regulating a car to spy and make actions based on that spying is not a valid regulation outside of a nightmare.

And no it is not the government's role is to protect people from harm, this is "think of the children" sort of shit that leads to bad law. Ether we are responsible for our actions or are under control. I don't want to share the road with these new vehicles but apparently have no say, this nonsense is why we all get to live in clown world.

The single greatest safety invention in automobiles by reduced death and injury was the collapsible steering column, everything since has had diminishing returns. In the last 10 years we have seen auto accidents increase (lots of pedestrian strikes) due to stupid new vehicle design. Yet we don't see the demand that new stuff is pulled from the road, instead we see the demand for new rules putting more bad ideas in. This is and never had been about safety.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Regulating a car to spy and make actions based on that spying is not a valid regulation outside of a nightmare.

Obviously. I'm pretty sure I stated that. Regulations are needed though, so people making shitty cars in their garage is not a reasonable expectation. It's just like I don't expect people to build their own graphics cards on their own. Is it possible? Sure. Is it feasible? Hell no.

And no it is not the government's role is to protect people from harm, this is "think of the children" sort of shit that leads to bad law. Ether we are responsible for our actions or are under control.

Ok, I'll throw you a softball. Let's say there's a corporation that wants to use your labor, but doesn't want to pay you. They buy up all the housing in the area, and all the stores, and they refuse to allow you to buy food or shelter unless you give them your labor, and they'll give you a credit that you can only use at their stores. That's bad, right? The government should be there to protect the people from this exploitation, right? If not, the people end up with no freedom.

Again, it should be limited, but it is necessary.

This is and never had been about safety.

Some of it has. You can watch vehicle safety tests and see the improvement. Crumple zones, for example, are pretty great. I agree though, the new designs should be regulated to be less likely to kill pedestrians. Front ends should not be allowed to be that high or flat, like they are now. Do you not agree? Sure, this isn't being done right now, but you would agree with it being done, right?

[–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Ok, I’ll throw you a softball. Let’s say there’s a corporation that wants to use your labor, but doesn’t want to pay you. They buy up all the housing in the area, and all the stores, and they refuse to allow you to buy food or shelter unless you give them your labor, and they’ll give you a credit that you can only use at their stores. That’s bad, right? The government should be there to protect the people from this exploitation, right? If not, the people end up with no freedom.

The company store is small back (called loyalty programs), all this is again happening it stopped before due to some very violent incidents and the political fallout forcing legal change. Like most of the government backed rights given. You are discribing the difference between a well run nation (where this shit gets regulated due to the betterment of the state) and the us. Its not the government's job to protect its people from themselves, but to govern a nation towards a better future while keeping outside powers in check. It can look like the government is protecting people, but having that mindset is how you get a police state (see america).

We both agree that regulation is needed, but we don't agree on why and the clear limits that have been crossed. Automobiles are not safer, in fact there are more "accidents" then ever due to blinding lights, over reliance on automation/sensors and limited visibility. What the new standards have done is make crashes more survivable, basicly the idea of fuck you I got mine in large metal and plastic form.

The more people just roll over and take it the more of a circus we all live in. Clown world is going strong just on the inertia of inaction. Americans used to stand up against things they did not agree with, it was called civil disobedience (and more) and got shit done. Now the people of the states get new horrors a dystopian novel would have a hard time coming up with on the regular and they treat it as if its some other peoples issue.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

The company store is small back (called loyalty programs), all this is again happening it stopped before due to some very violent incidents and the political fallout forcing legal change. Like most of the government backed rights given. You are discribing the difference between a well run nation (where this shit gets regulated due to the betterment of the state) and the us. Its not the government's job to protect its people from themselves, but to govern a nation towards a better future while keeping outside powers in check. It can look like the government is protecting people, but having that mindset is how you get a police state (see america).

How do you say that this is prevented from happening again due to legal changes, but also say the government shouldn't be doing that? Do you think they should be allowed to? Do you think people should just fight them every time they try it? If the latter, what's the difference between that and a government? (Hint: there isn't one. That is a government.)

Yes, the US is failing to fulfill its obligations to the people. I've made that point. Saying that this means they have no obligations is insane though.

We both agree that regulation is needed, but we don't agree on why and the clear limits that have been crossed. Automobiles are not safer, in fact there are more "accidents" then ever due to blinding lights, over reliance on automation/sensors and limited visibility. What the new standards have done is make crashes more survivable, basicly the idea of fuck you I got mine in large metal and plastic form.

I don't recall stating where I think the limits should be. To be clear, my limits are where it helps protect other people. I don't give a shit if you choose to drive a personal deathtrap, as long as others are as safe as possible, who did not consent. We are failing this but, again, that doesn't mean we should do nothing. It means we need to change things. I'd rather not live in a Mad Max style free-for-all.

Edit: Also, there should be privacy protections. Even if it helps other people, there's no need to destroy all privacy. Your privacy should have protections, just as other people's rights need protecting from your vehicle.

load more comments (28 replies)
load more comments (24 replies)
[–] ArchEngel@lemmy.ca 30 points 1 week ago (7 children)

This article may be at least partially ai written - this paragraph under number 7 in particular is quite suspicious:

"For extra paranoia, some owners store their entire car in a Faraday garage or use signal-blocking paint—extreme, but effective."

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 7 points 6 days ago

Em dash!

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›