Hacker News Reader

Comment by Animats | Hacker News Reader

I recently sent the following message to Fiat Chrysler Automotive's privacy group:

I was considering purchasing a 2020 Jeep Wrangler, but after reading the terms of service for your "UConnect" monitoring system, I no longer want to. I will consider it if I receive satisfactory answers to these questions:

Can a Jeep Wrangler with advanced safety be purchased without Uconnect?

If not, is FCA willing to state in writing under penalty of perjury that "Opt Out for Privacy Reasons" causes all data communication between the vehicle and any other party to cease? Actual severing of communications, not some weak claim that you will not use the data.

Currently the owner of an older Jeep Wrangler.

I have not yet received a reply.

View on HN

This doesn't even make sense. The advanced safety feature is the FCA equivalent of ONSTAR. You want to buy a car that has a safety feature based on them tracking your vehicle, but you simultaneously want them to guarantee you they won't track your vehicle??

If you don't want to be tracked, don't buy a truck with the advanced safety feature, pretty simple...

Sure some safety features, like sending out a request for help when an accident occurs, might require tracking. But other systems like adaptive cruise control or active lane keep assist shouldn't require tracking. There needs to be a good reason for disabling tracking to disable a safety feature.

The "advanced safety" option is auto-braking and lane departure warning. All onboard sensors. That doesn't require phoning home.

It's supposedly possible to turn off tracking. There's a "privacy opt out". That means you no longer get the "Monthly Vehicle Report" emailed to you.[1] The question is whether it really means that communications with the mothership stops. Companies lying about opt-out is common.[2][3]

[1] https://www.mopar.com/en-us/my-vehicle/vehicle-health-report...

[2] https://www.hoganlovells.com/en/blogs/hldataprotection/ftc-o...

[3] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-7804121/Face...

None of that requires tracking when the feature isn't in use.

It could be built so that the air bag deployment is what enables the cellular connection to operate. Until the air bags deploy, the radio doesn't get any electrical power.

I'd love a vehicle that is completely radio silent, incapable of transmitting or receiving, until there is a crash.

What's so unreasonable about wanting to disable a feature? Having to buy a completely different product is a big hassle.

The safety feature does not need to be on at all times. If it's anything like what Ford has, then it will only be activated when the car detects a crash.

If they would make it such that it only connects when it has to, then it would be a reasonable compromise.

Do you intend for them to be able to reply, when you threaten them with legal action if they do?

Was thinking the same thing. OP sounds like a real gem for the front line customer service person to interact with.

And by the way, it's a little bit of puffery and arrogance to think that you can make some state something "under penalty of perjury". You're not a court of law.

It helps to establish that if you get lied to that they will have a hard time in court to explain to the judge why your five figure purchase should not be annulled. Think of it as saying: assuming that you are telling the truth will get me to for over my cash, if it turns out you did not tell the truth you will have an appointment with a judge and this will be entered into evidence as though you swore an oath that it was true.

It probably reduces the chances of an answer to nil unless they have the ability to deliver what you ask for. But the idea that a giant like FCA is going to bend over for you to disable some feature that is standard on their car is a non-starter, there simply is no process for a thing like that.

But at least their marketing&sales department is informed that they could have sold one more vehicle but did not, which given the fact that the OP is anything but stupid is probably what he was going for anyway.

> I have not yet received a reply.

I suspect you won't be getting one. I also suspect that's the first letter of that kind they've ever received.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com