Ford Files Patent to Surveil Drivers

News release from Armstrong Economics

By Martin Armstrong

Governments are pushing the public to switch to smart vehicles to reduce fossil fuel consumption, but there is also a second motive – surveillance.

This September, Ford filed a new patent to eavesdrop on riders. They plan to share this information with third-parties to personalize the advertisements riders hear. Ford will also take the driver’s destination into consideration to determine location-specific advertisements and suggestions. The technology will factor in the weather, traffic, and all external sensors to fine tune when and what to market to passengers.

Advertisements are perhaps the least ominous use of voice data based on the plans that these car manufacturers have. Car insurance rates in the United States spiked 26% in the past year, which is partly due to car manufacturers sharing ride data with insurance companies. Even older cars with basic features like OnStar have tracking devices that report your driving behavior to the manufacturers who share your data with insurance companies and, ultimately, the government. LexisNexis, which tracks drivers’ behaviors and compiles risk profiles, has been sharing individual data with General Motors, who passes that information along to the insurance companies. General Motors.

One driver demanded that LexisNexis send him his personal report, which was a 258-page document containing every trip he or his wife took in his vehicle over a six-month period. LexisNexis said that this data will be used “for insurers to use as one factor of many to create more personalized insurance coverage.” They even reported small issues such as hard breaking and rapid acceleration, according to the report. “I don’t know the definition of hard brake. My passenger’s head isn’t hitting the dash,” an unnamed Cadillac driver enrolled in the OnStar Smart Driver subscription service told reporters.

“Cars have microphones and people have all kinds of sensitive conversations in them. Cars have cameras that face inward and outward,” a researcher with Mozilla Foundation told the Los Angeles Times. In fact, 19 automakers in 2023 admitted that they have the ability to sell your personal data without notice. Law enforcement may subpoena these records as well.

Ford claims that the patent was submitted, but they do not necessarily plan to use the technology. “Submitting patent applications is a normal part of any strong business as the process protects new ideas and helps us build a robust portfolio of intellectual property. The ideas described within a patent application should not be viewed as an indication of our business or product plans. No matter what the patent application outlines, we will always put the customer first in the decision-making behind the development and marketing of new products and services,” Ford said in a statement released to MotorTrend.

Now, the US Department of Transportation is permitted to mandate that certain manufacturers provide them with vehicle data. Sens. Ron Wyden of Oregon and Edward Markey of Massachusetts testified that all vehicles in the United States with a GPS or emergency call system are collecting travel data that car manufacturers have remote access to via the computer chips. The computer chips are compiling data on vehicle speed, movement, travel, and even using exterior sensors and cameras to record the vehicle’s location.

All of this violates the Fourth Amendment which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures without probable cause. These car manufacturers are surpassing what anyone would consider a reasonable expectation of privacy. Governments, third-party advertisement companies, and insurance companies all have warrantless access to personal data, and drivers are largely unaware they are being spied on. Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act permits the government to have backdoor access to this data.

The aforementioned senators’ concerns fell on deaf ears at the Federal Trade Commission. The Department of Transportation clearly is not listed within the US Constitution. People are already experiencing stiff consequences from autos sharing data with the sharp uptick in insurance rates.

Up Next

Automakers Hit Reverse On Idealistic Electric Vehicle Targets Despite Billions In Biden-Harris Subsidies

Don't Miss

Europe’s EV Market Collapse Provides A Lesson For UAW Leadership

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Free Money? What a UBI Would Really Do to People … and the National Debt

Economy / 3 hours ago

Federal mismanagement to blame for Canada’s immigration backlash

Frontier Centre for Public Policy / 4 hours ago

Did the CBC prove in 1962 that no children are buried at Kamloops?

Automotive

Two thirds of Canadians say banning conventional vehicles by 2035 is “unrealistic”

Published on October 4, 2024

Todayville

From the Montreal Economic Institute

Seven in 10 Canadians are concerned about the negative impact of cancelled energy projects on Canadian jobs.

More than half of Canadiens are against the federal mandate forcing all new cars sold in Canada to be electric by 2035, shows a new MEI-Ipsos survey released this morning.

“Across the country, Canadians are a lot more hesitant to ban conventional vehicles than their elected representatives in Ottawa are,” said Krystle Wittevrongel, director of research at the MEI. “They have legitimate concerns, most notably with the cost of those cars, and federal and provincial politicians should take note.”

The poll shows that 55 per cent of Canadians disagree with Ottawa’s decision to ban the sale of conventional vehicles by 2035. In every region surveyed, a larger number of respondents were against the ban than in favour of it.

Among Canadians who don’t already own an electric vehicle, slightly fewer than one in four said their next car would be electric.

Key reasons cited for this lukewarm attitude included the high cost of the cars (70 per cent), the lack of charging infrastructure (66 per cent), and their reduced performance in Canada’s cold climate (64 per cent).

Across the country, only 26 per cent of Canadians believe Ottawa’s plan to ban the sale of conventional vehicles is realistic. Meanwhile, 66 per cent maintain that the plan is unrealistic.

“Canadians understand that 2035 is sooner than Ottawa thinks, and nothing indicates electric vehicle adoption rates are going to follow what federal lawmakers anticipated,” notes Ms. Wittevrongel. “Concerns with their high cost, the lack of charging infrastructure and their poor performance in our cold climate remain strong.”

The survey also found Canadians were troubled by the effects that federal legislation has had in stalling or cancelling energy projects.

Seven in 10 respondents were concerned by the negative impact on Canadian jobs arising from the cancellation of tens of billions of dollars in energy projects due to regulatory hurdles.

Slightly more than three in four Canadians (76 per cent) say the federal government’s environmental impact assessment project takes too long, with only nine per cent taking the opposite view.

“Canadians understand that our energy industry plays a key role in Canada’s economy, and that lengthy approval delays from regulators have a negative impact on a project’s chances of happening,” explains Ms. Wittevrongel. “They are looking for leadership in Ottawa and in the provinces to cut down on bureaucratic hurdles and shorten the time it takes to get shovels in the ground.”

A sample of 1,190 Canadians 18 years of age and older was polled between September 18^th and 22^nd, 2024. The results are accurate to within ± 3.3 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

The results of the MEI-Ipsos poll are available here: https://www.iedm.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/ipsos_survey_energy_in_canada_september_2024.pdf.

The MEI is an independent public policy think tank with offices in Montreal and Calgary. Through its publications, media appearances, and advisory services to policymakers, the MEI stimulates public policy debate and reforms based on sound economics and entrepreneurship.

Economy

Federal government’s environmental policies will do more harm than good

Published on September 25, 2024

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Matthew Lau

The study covered grocery bags, food packaging, soft drink containers, furniture, t-shirts and other plastic products. In most cases, replacing plastics with alternatives causes greenhouse gas emissions to rise by 35 to 700 per cent.

Through a variety of regulatory and spending initiatives, the Trudeau government is expanding its control over our lives, often in the name of climate change or other environmental objectives. For example, the government plans to force consumers to buy electric vehicles instead of conventional cars and has proposed or implemented plastics restrictions on consumers and businesses—everything from plastic drinking straws and plastic utensils to clothing material and food packages.

However, while evidence of the high costs to consumers continues to mount, evidence of the environmental benefits is notably absent. Indeed, many recent studies provide evidence that Ottawa’s restrictions on consumers may well cause net environmental harm. One reason is that the plastic products the federal government is so intent on restricting are more environmentally efficient than alternatives.

A study published earlier this year in the journal Environmental Science & Technology concludes, “15 of the 16 applications a plastic product incurs fewer greenhouse gas emissions than their alternatives.” The study covered grocery bags, food packaging, soft drink containers, furniture, t-shirts and other plastic products. In most cases, replacing plastics with alternatives causes greenhouse gas emissions to rise by 35 to 700 per cent.

Why? Because plastic generally takes less energy to manufacture and transport than the alternatives. In fact, many plastic products that are more environmentally friendly than non-plastic alternatives (according to the study) are products the Trudeau government wants to ban or curtail through regulation.

Other evidence shows plastic bans of the type imposed in Canada cause environmental ruin, contrary to the predictions of politicians. For example, research in New Jersey found after single-use plastic bags were banned in 2022, shoppers switched to the heavier reusable bags. “Owing to the larger carbon footprint of the heavier, non-woven polypropylene bags,” reported the Wall Street Journal, “greenhouse gas emissions rose 500%.”

Similarly, the New York Times reported that while California banned single-use plastic bags almost a decade ago, in 2023 “Californians threw away more plastic bags, by weight, than when the law first passed, according to figures from CalRecycle, California’s recycling agency.”

Also from the Wall Street Journal, analyses suggest electric vehicles often emit more particulate pollution (dust, dirt and soot) than conventional vehicles. That’s because most particulate pollution these days is not from the tailpipe but from tire wear. EVs are much heavier than conventional vehicles so their tires wear out faster, increasing particulate pollution. The firm Emissions Analytics compared a plug-in electric to a hybrid vehicle and found the plug-in electric, which weighed more, emitted about one-quarter more particulate matter than the hybrid as a result of tire wear.

Last year, the chair of the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board noted that EVs manufactured by Ford, Volvo and Toyota were all about 33 per cent heavier than conventionally powered versions of those same vehicles. That’s a problem not only for the environment but also for driver safety—and yet more evidence that the Trudeau government’s EV mandates will harm Canadians.

When it comes to vehicles, plastic products and many other things, the Trudeau government should begin reducing its control over consumers. The harm to consumers is evident; the compensating benefits to the environment—if any—are not.