You must log in or # to comment.
wow, ok. fuck privacy when it comes to cash, right?
Sounds like the states privacy laws might be dogshit…
recording of mobile phone activity did not meet the Washington Privacy Act’s standard that a plaintiff must prove that “his or her business, his or her person, or his or her reputation” has been threatened.
They should just re-file the suit in California.
Its damn hard to prove injury without discovery…
What the fuck is wrong with that judge?
Judges are supposed to rule based on what the law says, not what they think is a good idea. Most likely the law is just inadequate.
Fuck no. The judges interpretation is bullshit.
But the appellate judge ruled Tuesday that the interception and recording of mobile phone activity did not meet the Washington Privacy Act’s standard that a plaintiff must prove that “his or her business, his or her person, or his or her reputation” has been threatened.
Privacy violations ARE A THREAT. Identity theft is a massive threat. Any man in the middle attack is a threat.
Federal judges are corrupt as fuck. I bet that was a Trump appointee.
I bet that was a Trump appointee.
You would lose that bet. David G. Estudillo was appointed to the state judiciary by Gov. Jay Inslee and then to the federal judiciary by Biden.
However, the article misrepresented the ruling. The actual decision (my emphasis) was:
a plaintiff must allege an injury to “his or her business, his or her person, or his or her reputation.”
An injury is more than a threat, it’s an actual monetary loss. To show an injury, you need to “bring the receipts” as it were. In this case, the plaintiff did not formally state their injury.
So we don’t have privacy as individuals because it doesn’t hurt our bank account, but of course that means all businesses get their right to privacy because reason$.
Cool.
It’s a state law, so if you live in Washington state then you have to show actual damages to win a lawsuit. It should be easy to do so if (for example) a privacy breach led to identity theft. And this requirement applies to both individuals and businesses.
If you live in another state, YMMV. Maybe you have more right to privacy, maybe less.
“His or her person has been threatened” implies physical harm. Sounds dumb or corrupt for privacy legislation, but unless the car companies were using the data to conduct identity theft, it wouldn’t be considered a direct threat. Obviously we know them storing the data at all is a threat, even without the data brokers, but the law is shit… and judges are usually technologically illiterate rich kids anyway.
Basically the judge said the plaintiff could not show any harm done to them. Someone who has been arrested based on this could definitely sue and get it stopped.
God this place is a cesspool. How do armchair lawyers get upvoted like this?
Privacy is becoming a luxury
You want privacy, pay us, and we’ll still collect and save the data tho.
Why are cars even getting text messages in the first place?
The idea is the car reads your texts to you via TTS so it’s less tempting to look at your phone while driving.
I just turn the phone on silent. In fact silent is the default mode. To many spammers. There is nothing important enough in my life that requires immediate attention. Might change if I find a woman and get kids but not likely.
I wonder if this interacts with Android Auto. AA essentially uses your car’s speakers and screen as peripherals for your phone, so hopefully it’s sandboxed out of the car’s systems (except then it’s Google reading your messages).
It sucks but the easiest thing to do is to never enable your phone to connect to any of the car USB ports and/or their Bluetooth data service. Also find out were your car connects to voice speaker and remove the fuse from it or if you want to just cut the cable off completely.
I’ll bet this is not as cut and dry as the headline makes it sound.
Explain.
