Here is a more useful and direct link for those looking to take more actionable steps.
There are other categories too, but I do not trust any of Mozilla’s assessments whatsoever. Their approval of the Apple HomePod Mini is a clear reminder of why I keep my relationship with them locked down.
Here is the quote that rang the alarm bells in my head:
About as safe as trusting Mozilla and Apple combined.
Purism needs to make a Librem car.
I can see it now though … yes, it runs AGL … but … the “bootloader” is locked down so that you can only install firmware signed by the manufacturer … and all the signed firmware “collects data from your car”.
In other words, like Unprivate Secure Boot, but without the option to disable it.
I think this would present some difficult challenges for the regulatory authorities - since a car that is running non-standard, buggy firmware could be a lethal weapon, lethal to the driver or lethal to other road users. Who is going to take legal liability if the firmware goes awry?
Note that under existing Purism policy, Purism would not sign the firmware. If it is signed at all, you would sign the firmware (to prevent an Evil Maid Attack).
Running non-standard firmware might void your Compulsory Third Party insurance (or such other name as it might be known in other jurisdictions) and it might void your Comprehensive insurance (ditto) and it might void other insurance. So the right to run your own firmware might in practice not be worth much.
These legal problems of course exist regardless of whether the Librem Car exists. That is, as cars become more and more complex, who is liable when something goes wrong? There have already been a number of court cases - and the manufacturer will want to “collect data from your car” so that they can use it as exculpatory evidence for themselves in the event of a court case.
Discussion identified and indexed.
A little good news: One of the major sellers of detailed driver behavioral data is shutting down | Ars Technica
Legislative attention: Senators Expose Car Companies’ Terrible Data Privacy Practices | Electronic Frontier Foundation
And: US senators claim car makers sold driver data for pennies • The Register
The future no driver wanted is here: Who wants in-car ads tailored to your journey, passengers? • The Register
Ugh… Kill me now.
Technically, no, it’s not “here”. And best case scenario it is genuinely a defensive patent that will never be implemented by Ford.
I believe that for safety reasons this shouldn’t even be legal. If someone has an accident and claims that the accident was caused by being distracted by an advertisement at an inopportune moment, look out for a mega-lawsuit. Legislation (road rules / regulations) should demand that it at least be possible to disable this functionality completely.
No doubt Ford will claim … oh but we use in car monitoring of the car’s speed and location etc. to determine when the car is just cruising and it’s safe to hit the driver with an advertisement or even … oh but we use in car monitoring to determine when the driver’s attentiveness is declining and we use advertisements to liven the driver up.
(My car occasionally badgers me to keep my hands on the steering wheel even when I have not taken my hands off the steering wheel. Not sure how that works. Or doesn’t work. Low priority problem though.)
We are in agreement though that the future of cars looks grim from a privacy (and security) perspective - across this and many other issues.
Punk’s not dead!
Ford Motors has patent on devices in vehicles to listen in to passengers and/or driver conversations so their AI can better build a profile so ads are targeted.
Would you let a mattress company put a bug in your mattress so they can learn what you’re doing and send targeted ads? Have you checked it for bugs? 
The problem is. They will do it with or without our permission. Once you buy a car, or lease it, you give up your rights to privacy. Even if you paid cash.
All in the game of shoving ads at us, in our vehicles and any other devices we use.
I think it only proper, fair and good for public relations if vehicle manufacturers want to put a listening stalker in our private property, we should be able to tune in and listen to manufacturers CEOs, all Board members, their families, friends, passengers, shareholders etcetera.
IMO
George Orwell’s 1984 is not a story. It is an instruction manual for corporations and governments.
*SMIRC
Stalk you
Monitor you
Inject Code to
Record and
Control you.
~s
Amazingly, the U.S. gov’t has its own agenda in this matter:
So if I understand correctly:
If you purchase a Chinese-made car before the proposed deadline of 2027, you can avoid having your car listening to your conversation and show you relevant adds - but you will have the PRC tracking your location and monitoring your whereabouts
if you buy american-made, you can avoid Chinese state surveillance, but at the risk of dying in an accident because an obnoxious commercial was shown to you at the worst moment
What a strange world we live in…
Ironically, the only ‘American Made’ car is the Toyota 
Everything else is made elsewhere
Really? If this is indeed the case, we should expect some amazing chain supply schemes!
This industry hasn’t been hit yet with this sort of attacks, but it surely will. BOM/SBOM will be such a terrible headache
What vehicles do they make in Detroit? Ladas? 
If you could import a used Lada from the front it may come with its own frequency jammer.
What country makes the most cars that have a stalker built in?
~s
Most likely the People’s Republic of China: List of countries by motor vehicle production - Wikipedia
Wow - that US propaganda machine works wonders. At least the US is up front with their known stalkers placed in US assembled vehicles.
The US, and Canada too, “Most likely” don’t tell about the unnamed stalkers they build into vehicles…
Thanks for the reply
~s
BTW If we remove the words like might, most likely, maybe, possibly, probably, could be, allegedly, anonymous, and anything using single quotes to paraphrase, as in ‘She did say she hated the news.’ there would be more truth rather than dark propaganda.
So, ‘most likely’ means most likely neither of us really know. 
