___

  • cloud@lazysoci.al
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    346
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    https://www.nissanusa.com/privacy.html

    Sensitive personal information, including driver’s license number, national or state identification number, citizenship status, immigration status, race, national origin, religious or philosophical beliefs, sexual orientation, sexual activity, precise geolocation, health diagnosis data, and genetic information.

    Please make this reach the front page because it’s beyond ridiculous

    • ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      98
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If you don’t mind, please also highlight

      health diagnosis data

      genetic information

      Because omfg, think about those for a second, and how any data that leaves your control is subject to eventual collection by law enforcement, legal or not, and anyone else willing to pay for it (or steal it):

      For example, some bonehead rears your vehicle one day, but your health diagnosis data says you have a heart condition, or maybe just high blood pressure. These conditions can involve occasional lightheadedness, though you know yours is well controlled. You don’t even think about it anymore because you take care of yourself and all your regular tests are good. But suddenly, you’re in this minor accident, not even your fault, and it’s no longer a simple rearending because some asshole has brought your health history into it so that YOU and not he will be on the hook for monetary damages.

      (Triple if the bozo who hit you is some lame ass drunk rural county sheriff or elected official.)

      And “genetic information” is code for DNA. How they would collect your DNA from your car I don’t know, but do you REALLY want your genetic information associated with your vehicle and outside the confines of GINA* for the convenience of data sellers? I know I don’t. (GINA is also the law that binds companies like 23andMe from selling your genetic data.) But the whole point of trying to legislate personal control over your own genetic information is because of all the dystopian scenarios that can easily evolve from others having it without your consent.

      Yet now your car wants it too? Question this. Letting anyone have it by such means does a complete end run around any law meant to keep your personal genetic information private, and guts any rights you may have to your own privacy under the law, because you signed it away. Imagine the billions insurance companies could make, both health and auto, by refusing to pay for this or that because genetically it was a “pre-existing condition” or a “contributing factor” to you getting rearended by a drunk.

      I’ve never been so thrilled to drive an ancient beater in my life.

      *Note: GINA is weak already, but legislators are trying to weaken it further still: in 2018 a proposed change meant that “Employers would have been able to demand workers’ genetic test results if the bill were to have been enacted.”

    • Styggen på ryggen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      48
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      At the very least… cant the US implement one of the basic rules from GDPR?

      In simple terms, what data can companies keep?

      Data need to have: OK

      Data nice to have: Not OK

      • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        54
        ·
        1 year ago

        The US will absolutely not implement anything remotely like GDPR, because that would hurt the profits of a LOT of companies who happen to have a LOT of lobbyists on K street.

      • ZC3rr0r@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’d much rather they implement the right to deletion. I know they will get their hands on a ton of data, regardless of how we write the clause. But at least let me delete that data when I want it gone.

          • ZC3rr0r@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            I know, this was inresponse to the other post about which parts of the GDPR to implement. If I had to pick any one feature to carry over from the GDPR into whatever legislation we get on this side of the ocean, I’d pick the right to deletion.

          • nao@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            No matter how often you ask or what the answer is, you likely won’t be able to tell if it has actually been deleted anyway.

          • ZC3rr0r@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Companies are held to certain expedience standards when it comes to removal. If you request it and the company doesn’t delete within the described maximum time, they will get fined under GDPR.

    • blackn1ght@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      1 year ago

      How do they even capture this stuff? Are you expected to write some essays before you can buy the car?

      • jimbo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        1 year ago

        Meh, it’s a CYA policy. They’re not actively collecting that data, but if you mention something in those categories in an email, chat, phone call, etc to a Nissan employee, that data might be stored.

      • Boddhisatva@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        Per the article…

        They can collect personal information from how you interact with your car, the connected services you use in your car, the car’s app (which provides a gateway to information on your phone), and can gather even more information about you from third party sources like Sirius XM or Google Maps.

        In addition, my car uses text-to-speech to read texts to me and I can even reply to them with speech-to-text. Any data that passes from your phone through your car could easily be harvested. You should also assume that any data on your phone can be harvested by the car’s app if you install it.

          • Boddhisatva@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Any information they get is going to be examined for keywords at the very minimum. If, for example, you text your wife about test results from the doctor’s office, they can add that to the profile they’re making of you. If you get a text from a cardiologists office saying your results are in, they can infer you have heart troubles. Things like that.

        • books@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          I was real curious about that too. Seems like its just a disclaimer that ya might get hacked and have you car sex leaked on pornhub.

      • ProfezzorDarke@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        by you parking four hours infront of a known brothel or by you shagging someone on the backseat of your char, clearly. /some sarcasm in there

    • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t see how the things you highlighted are worse than any of the rest of it.

      It’s all bad.

  • Sami_Uso@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    191
    ·
    1 year ago

    I got an email from OnStar the other day saying it contacted my bank and updated my card info because I had gotten an old card and hadn’t updated the info, I don’t pay for OnStar but the dealership MAKES you set it up even if you don’t use it.

    How the fuck are they allowed to contact my bank and get information like that? Weirded my TF out to say the least.

    • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      91
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      They did that to me. I specifically gave them a card I knew was going to expire before the trial period was over and they got the new information anyway.

      If I remember correctly, it’s a “feature” the credit card companies have so your subscriptions don’t lapse.

      • money_loo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah and it’s very useful, looks like this place is just as bad with the kids as that other place.

          • money_loo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            The fact people here don’t even understand how credit cards work is a pretty big sign my guy….

              • brygphilomena@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Because banks don’t give out credit card details.

                You created an authorization code which is independent from the credit card details. The authorization code doesn’t get revoked automatically when a card expires or a new card issued.

                • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Jesus tap dancing christ. I understand the difference between CC + CCV + expiry date and an oauth token (or whatever protocol they’re using for identification and authentication). I’m saying that not expiring auth codes when new cards are issued is a security and privacy issue. Users should ideally be given a switch to opt in to behavior like that. It should not be the default.

        • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          1 year ago

          If I want to keep a subscription going I’ll give them the new CC information myself. Like a responsible adult. Hard disagree on the usefullness.

          Not sure what point you’re even trying to make about children and Reddit.

          • money_loo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            There are lots of situations you wouldn’t want your service to be cancelled, so it’s a useful feature is all we’re saying. People acting like it’s malice are hilarious and/or children.

            • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              And in those situations I will contact the vendor to give them updated information. I don’t find it useful when a free trial I haven’t thought about for three years suddenly charges me several hundred dollars.

              Nobody ever said malice, but it’s a service that flies in the face of the whole concept of an expiration date.

      • brygphilomena@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is more based on authorization vs CC details. It’s much safer for a company than holding onto credit card numbers. Creating a subscriptions generates an authorization code which is good for the account, not just a specific card number. Revoking that authorization is a separate call to the bank rather than just having a credit card replaced.

        • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          That authorization shouldn’t be indefinite either though. After three years of no activity and a card expiring, OnStar was still able to make a charge to renew that trial subscription.

          And looking around the web, there are a few stories from that 2016 time frame to indicate that it was a new-ish, or at least not well known, practice at the time.

    • ramble81@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      1 year ago

      Credit cards have actually been doing that for years. It’s a feature for recurring payments to reduce the amount of trouble users had when their CC number was compromised or it expired.

      • AquaTofana@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, it sucks too. A couple years ago I was trying to get out of a Sirius Satellite subscription I had opted into during the height of the rony 'rona.

        Instead of sitting on the phone with CSRs for hours on end while they pass me around and offer me incentives to stay, I thought I’d be smart and report that my credit card was lost. (At the time you couldn’t disenroll online, that changed I happily found out a few months ago)

        Joke was on me though. Sirius updated my new card info, and I was without a credit card for ~8 days.

      • brygphilomena@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Authorizations are different from CC details.

        You can call a bank and cancel an authorization without canceling a card.

    • MrZed411@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m not sure when you purchased your vehicle, but when I purchased my vehicle Dec 2022 I had to do that OnStar setup crap as well and just denied giving them any information. They said I wouldn’t be able to get this or that but I didn’t care so they didn’t get that information. It took about 15 minutes with the person on the other side being a bit confused but just gave up when I said it the like 5th time.

      Either way they don’t need that information at any time unless you want their free trials that are almost never worth it.

    • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Weirded my TF out to say the least.

      Honestly that shouldn’t weird you out too much, that’s just a convenience feature. And yeah, I know, some people put quotes around the word convenience. But others actually just use the word as is, a convenience.

      What should freak the hell out of you is when you and your significant other are in the car talking about buying a new pair of tennis shoes, and then that evening when you’re sitting at home YouTube shows you a commercial for tennis shoes, when you’ve never seen any ads for tennis shoes on YouTube before.

      • Sami_Uso@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        The emergency features are free, they want you to pay for in-car wifi. You also cannot cancel online and have to cancel with a rep over the phone. The service itself is fine, but dealerships requiring you to sign up “even if you aren’t going to use it” isn’t .

        • money_loo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Oh really?

          One of the most expensive plans comes from OnStar, which charges $29.99 a month or $299.90 a year for its Safety & Security Plan after a free trial period. It’s the least expensive OnStar plan that includes automatic crash notification, which it calls Automatic Crash Response. OnStar says these subscription fees are necessary to pay for the resources used to operate the feature.

          “Certain features and services, including Automatic Crash Response, require ongoing updates, network connectivity, staffed call centers, among other recurring costs to operate,” an OnStar spokesperson, Rita Kass-Shamoun, told CR.

    • OberonSwanson@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      60
      ·
      1 year ago

      No kidding, it’s ridiculous to think they expect us to fork over $25k for cars that will invade our privacy. I have a 23 year old car I’ll drive till it’s dead before that ever happens.

    • thesprongler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      I will drive my 2013 Honda Fit until the wheels fall off. I love it and with a $20 Bluetooth adapter, it has all the amenities I could need. I think it’s insane that people are driving around with a tablet that controls their heat and radio.

      • Gork@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Honda Fits are amazing little cars. I only would want them to be able to be modernized to have some of the advanced safety features like Lane keeping assist, adaptive cruise control, and automatic emergency braking like in the newer cars, but would require a redesign and additional sensors added to the windshield area.

        I’m able to fit a double sided mattress box spring in it which is insane for a subcompact car. It’s a mini minivan.

        • Dion Starfire@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I knew someone with a newer model (2019 I think?) Honda Fit with the emergency braking feature. It did absolutely nothing to prevent them from running into the back end of a pickup truck that swung out in front of them and slammed on the brakes. Literally it didn’t engage at all.

          Also, the interior room on the Fit is terrible post-2013 due to some design changes. My 2010 Fit was a TARDIS - a 6’, 400lb guy could ride (or drive) it comfortably. That same guy riding in the 2019 model was cramped as a passenger. We didn’t try asking him to drive, after seeing how he fit as a passenger.

      • extant@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        HondaLink came out in 2013/2014 so your car may have wireless services, but it’s probably for an older network that mostly doesn’t exist anymore. So your car may have at one point been collecting information, just not what newer vehicles are doing today.

    • dantheclamman@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      I did use Onstar, but when my 2013 Volt went offline because of the 3g network sunset, I lost that functionality. Would have loved the ability to upgrade the cellular module in my car so I could have the security and safety features back, but one silver lining is disconnecting :) Of course, GM was going to quietly continue charging me for the same service after the connection died, but I canceled.

    • EngineerGaming@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      It would be a long time until I get a car (because it’s convenient to live without one anyway), so I’m afraid the older “dumb cars” could become harder to buy or maintain then. I wonder if there are modern ones that you can make fully “dumb”.

  • wrath-sedan@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    116
    ·
    1 year ago

    Tesla is only the second product we have ever reviewed to receive all of our privacy “dings.” (The first was an AI chatbot we reviewed earlier this year.) What set them apart was earning the “untrustworthy AI” ding. The brand’s AI-powered autopilot was reportedly involved in 17 deaths and 736 crashes and is currently the subject of multiple government investigations.

    How utterly unsurprising. Also,

    "Consent” is an illusion
    Many people have lifestyles that require driving. So unlike a smart faucet or voice assistant, you don’t have the same freedom to opt out of the whole thing and not drive a car.

    This is the kicker, many people need cars for unrelated reasons and the fact that ALL car brands abuse our data means there is no alternative.

  • BobbyTables@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    95
    ·
    1 year ago

    Thank you for that link and Thank you to Mozilla for doing those tests. I always suspected something like this but it is good to have it tested and in writing.

    My only gripe with the article is this:

    All of the car brands on this list except for Tesla, Renault, and Dacia signed on to a list of Consumer Protection Principles from the US automotive industry group ALLIANCE FOR AUTOMOTIVE INNOVATION, INC.

    Renault and Dacia aren’t available in the US, so there is really no need for them to sign those principles. Which makes Tesla the only one where this is relevant.

    • extant@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      1 year ago

      Wasn’t the next line that this agreement they all signed was just something they made up and don’t actually follow and no one enforces?

    • Obi@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Are there really 0 Renaults in the US? Or I guess maybe just a few imported ones, but like they aren’t officially sold there?

      Are any other French brands available? I know at least the Germans are.

      I guess French cars are too “sensible” for the US market?

      • TheIllustrativeMan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        The only French automaker in the US is Bugatti, and it’s questionable how French they are.

        I’m hoping the Stellantis merger leads to more French cars here. Peugeot, Renault, Alpine, Citroen, and DS all have cars I’d be interested in.

        • Obi@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          They’re sensible cars, do what they say on the tin and aren’t too expensive to buy and repair. Back in the days I wouldn’t buy them and preferred Japanese for reliability but I hear in more recent times they’ve become much more reliable as well.

      • lemmyvore@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Renault used to have a 46% stake in AMC back in the '80s but sold it to Chrysler and hasn’t been back since.

      • BobbyTables@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t know if there are zero Renault in the US but Mozilla themselves say that Renault aren’t sold in the US:

        While Renault cars haven’t been sold in the US since 1992, their cars are big in Europe, South and Central America.

        source

        So it is kind of strange to hold it against them. On the other hand that doesn’t seem to be too important because nobody cares about what they signed or not.

  • RegularGoose@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    77
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It’s legitimately cool that buying a new car and having any self-respect whatsoever are mutually exclusive now.

    Fuck cars.

  • SokathHisEyesOpen@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    68
    ·
    1 year ago

    Oh cool! So cars will be free now since the manufacturers are turning drivers into the product. Right? Right guys? Cars will be free?

  • malloc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    1 year ago

    US needs to regulate how data is collected by all companies. This shit is just gross. Is this perhaps one of the reasons why right to repair is opposed so strongly across industries? In addition to selling overpriced manufacturer repair they don’t want us to cripple one of their revenue streams.

    From what I understand, right to repair would give consumers and independent repair shops the ability to repair their items and grant them access to schematics/repair manuals, specialty tools, and parts.

    In theory, this should make it easier to develop aftermarket parts. And for electronics and software, be able to develop drop in replacements, flash aftermarket hardware, and that function of the car should still work.

    In this case car manufacturers don’t want people to rip out their embedded spyware and thus uncouple them from using their data collecting phone apps.

    Currently aware of at least one report of a couple of car manufacturers backing some astroturfing groups to oppose right to repair [1]

    [1] https://www.ifixit.com/News/80635/car-companies-are-astroturfing-right-to-repair

    • Vespair@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      US needs to regulate how data is collected by all companies. This shit is just gross.

      This would be lovely, and I agree with you, but unfortunately the people scraping every inch of all of our data are the exact same people drafting legislation that they then turn over to their purchased politicians to submit with no edits.

      Something needs to be done, but it can’t be done in the system as is. We need a real overhaul, at least of electors if not the system itself, before anything is going to get better.

      • TORFdot0@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        What kind of fantasy land do you live in that people replace their phone every two years and car every 3 years? You might as well lease a car if you are replacing it that fast.

        This might be anecdotally true in your circle but if it was true for the market at large then every manufacturer wouldn’t be forecasting major downturns in smartphone sales and the used car market wouldn’t be so far upside down as there would be a glut of supply from people selling their used car every 3 years.

        I think your points about privacy features, micro transactions, and headphone jacks are valid but I think it’s a stretch to apply that to cellphones and cars and say that companies are against right to repair because of consumer attitudes. My observation is that the companies (ie John Deere) that have opposed right to repair are about protecting revenue streams from part sales and franchising/licensing fees and decreasing support costs from having to service products with non-genuine parts.

  • sigmaklimgrindset@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    1 year ago

    Guess I’m driving my 2010 Honda Accord and burns oil and leaks steering fluid a few more years.

    Should probably get the steering thing fixed.

    • limelight79@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      I believe that the 2012 Honda Accord V6 we had was near the height of automobiles.

      Quit laughing.

      It had excellent power - 270 HP. It was comfortable and reasonably fun to drive. It had modern safety features like air bags. It didn’t have any of the nanny driver crap that drives me nuts in the car that replaced it. It got decent mileage for a heavy V6 - on trips we’d see around 32 mpg, 25 mpg around town, day-to-day driving, in part because of the cylinder deactivation when cruising. Damn thing likely would have run forever if it hadn’t been wrecked - at 8 years old and 100,000 miles, we had zero plans to replace it. And at that point, aside from regular maintenance, I think we had replaced the driveshafts and one lug stud that had broken (which was likely the result of someone overtightening it at some point, not a failure at the manufacturer).

      I never thought I’d say this about an Accord, but: Damn, I really miss that car. A lot.

      Maybe a 2013 to get the better styling and improved infotainment system; the 2012 was not a looker, and it didn’t have things like music over Bluetooth, and the DVD-based nav system was dated when the car was new. But it ran and ran and ran, and I never had to worry about that car.

      Since then, cars have become less powerful in a bid to offset inefficient SUVs and still meet CAFE, and they have those irritating driver nanny features with alarms blaring as the system misinterprets the situation and thinks you’re about to crash into something. God, I hate the car that replaced that Accord. And pretty much all cars have those damn “features” now, so even if I turn them off, I gotta pay for them and carry them around all the time.

      That era was apparently the sweet spot where you could buy a modern, comfortable, powerful, efficient sedan and still have fun driving it.

      • Classy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        My car is “dumb smart”, having some features like Bluetooth but nothing like Android Go or whatever other internet functionality in it. It’s like the end of the era of cars that have CD players and AUX ports, no Sirius, the only connectivity it really has is playing audio through my phone.

        Toyota Corolla 2016, I’m very happy with it. I’m approaching 130k and I’m sure it’ll go over 300 if it’s well taken care of.

    • money_loo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yeah! Fuck the environment when your car wants to track which apps you use on it!

      *Edit: Lol you guys would be hilarious if the climate situation wasn’t so dire.

      Is it better for the environment to drive an old car?

      In conclusion, buying a used car may avoid the carbon emissions of manufacturing a new one – but you should also bear in mind the lower fuel economy, higher exhaust emissions, and ongoing maintenance requirements.

      So no, it’s not always better to just drive a leaky piece of shit forever instead of upgrading. The car you’re buying has already been made, it’s carbon been produced, and now you’re generating less emissions with the newer more efficient vehicle. This is pretty simple stuff to keep in mind next time you want to act smug about smog.

        • money_loo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          …not if it’s already environmentally unsound, gene yes.

          Please, go back to school.

            • money_loo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Good point, I change my stance, let’s all burn oil and leak chemicals together to expedite this journey to its inevitable conclusion.

        • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Not to mention the best way to address an oil leak is to fix the fucking leak, not get a whole new car.

      • drathvedro@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The car you’re buying has already been made, it’s carbon been produced, and now you’re generating less emissions with the newer more efficient vehicle

        Actually, no. If millions of cars are sold it doesn’t mean that all of them immediately popped in existence, materials brought, wages paid and emissions produced. They do them in batches and scale production based on demand. One person not buying a car might not make a dent, but a thousand will. So, while the carbon emissions of that car you see at a dealer’s has already produced, by buying it you’re giving manufacturer the funds to produce the next one, effectively the same as if you’ve enabled the carbon emissions of that car in the first place.

      • Steak@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Lol and the only reason “that car is already made” is because car companies can bank on people thinking like you are. If people like you didn’t exist they would pull back a bit on the production of new cars.

          • Steak@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Why would they continue making the same amount of cars if less people are buying cars? Go on then explain, this should be good.

      • valkyrie@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        I bet you it’s more environmentally friendly to keep driving a car you already have as opposed to getting a new one even if it’s “cleaner.”

        • money_loo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          See my edit, there is a cut-off point. And if your old car is already burning oil (a contributor to climate change) and leaking fluids (terrible for the ground water and environment) then you may have hit that point dawg.

          • valkyrie@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            You’re right it’s possible, but I’m still not sure if it outweighs the emissions to create a new car. Ideally we would have widely available public transit and we could do away with cars for the most part. That’s what we really need to solve climate change, not drive cleaner cars.

        • money_loo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          When was that ever posited?

          The statement was from a person who was going to upgrade his bad for the environment car for a newer, and thus better for the environment car, but decided against it because he’d rather burn oil and contribute to the downfall of the planet than give over his information that he’s already sharing from his phone anyways.

      • sigmaklimgrindset@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Your inflammatory tone aside, I do understand the impact of my car environmentally, and I have the privilege of being able to take public transportation for a lot of my work and university trips. But unfortunately I do need to use my car sometimes.

        I bet I’m still making less of a carbon footprint from my car than someone who drives a newer car everyday though.

        • money_loo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I imagine my “tone” would be better if we weren’t already facing catastrophic global sea level rises, bigger and stronger and longer hurricanes, intense droughts and heatwaves that persist for weeks, wildfires six times the size of normal, global temperature increases, more tropical diseases moving north….but hey, I guess I should just be nicer to people that think it’s okay and would rather be a contributing factor to all that than be tracked by their car less than their phone!

          • sigmaklimgrindset@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            1 year ago

            And most of that comes from private jet usage or large corporate manufacturing. But yes, go off on some random university student on Lemmy because -checks notes- I drive an old car.

            • money_loo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Collectively, cars and trucks account for nearly one-fifth of all US emissions, emitting around 24 pounds of carbon dioxide and other global-warming gases for every gallon of gas.

              Oh shit, well if it’s only 20% we shouldn’t even think about it then! Blame-less Blame-less Blame-less! Woo!

              • sigmaklimgrindset@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                Cool stat, I don’t live in the US. Sounds like Americans have more to answer for than I do in regards to car emissions. By your own (uncited) quote, taking every car off the road would still leave 80% of polluters operating. I wonder how many of those are related to some sort of corporate entity.

                I already said that I take personal responsibility and take public transportation unless I absolutely cannot, but you don’t care because you just like being angry, so whatever. How much exactly are you doing to stop carbon emissions?

                You know that meme where people say “eat the rich” and then target doctors and artists who charge $200 commissions instead of billionaires? That’s you rn.

          • brygphilomena@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Privacy is very important to a lot of people. It doesn’t seem like it is to you, but to some of us it really is a reason why a new car is simply unacceptable to us.

            There is no reason they couldn’t make newer vehicles that are eco friendly without the data collection. Just because you are willing to trade your privacy for marginal emissions gains doesn’t mean everyone is.

            And I say marginal, because many older vehicles could easily be maintained at a much lower cost than a new vehicle is. And an older vehicle, well maintained, can easily get very close or better than modern vehicles emissions, excluding EVs.

            It isn’t the age of the car that’s the issue so much as maintenance and size. Sedans and coupes are far more ecological than trucks and SUVs.

            • money_loo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              It’s going to take both of those things combined to overcome the natural instinct for human apathy. People overwhelmingly don’t give a fuck until something affects them.

      • GortexGary@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        By buying a new car, the car companies continue to invest to build more new cars… Just because it is made now doesn’t mean a new one has to be made to take its place… SMH

      • Toadiwithaneye@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        A new car lasts for about 6 years, needs upkeep like an old car, and has little if any resale value. You then buy a new car, using more materials many that are plastic and cannot be recycled. Even a electric car is not green, the batteries alone are a mess, not really recyclable and made of non-renewable resources. New cars are not meant to be re-used and repaired they are disposable like everything else in our society. What we should have as an environmental goal should be a dynamic public transportation, right to repair, and end our disposable ways.

  • hypertown@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    1 year ago

    I drive 25 years old car. It was pretty expensive when it was new so it has all the features I care about. I will not buy a new car until I’m forced to. Also the option to just turn on seats heating without having to pay monthly is quite a bonus.

    • Tinks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      Absolutely. My 2006 car is in the shop right now getting fixed and will ultimately end up costing me around $3.5k. They were a bit surprised I told them to fix it, but I don’t WANT a new car. I like my car, it has all the features I want, is a manual, doesn’t connect to the internet, and most importantly, has physical buttons and dials to control everything! Overall it’s in great condition as well.

      I love my car, and like you will be keeping it until it becomes prohibitively expensive to repair vs buy something else, or I can no longer get parts. Hopefully by then something will be done about the privacy and touchscreen situations.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I love my car, and like you will be keeping it until it becomes prohibitively expensive to repair vs buy something else, or I can no longer get parts.

        I fully intend to keep my old cars going even past that point.

  • Iron Lynx@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    1 year ago

    Does this apply to European cars as well? Do we need to start filing GDPR complaints against car manufacturers?

    • Acters@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Hopefully, it will apply to anything with internet connectivity and your personal data.