OnStar Committing ‘Brazen’ Invasion Of Privacy, Says Senator
On Thursday, we told you about OnStar's new terms of service, which go live this December. Among the more controversial features in the company's new customer agreement, OnStar now reserves the right to share details about owners' location, speed, and other factors with third parties. Worse: OnStar says it will continue collecting that data even after folks cancel their subscriptions.
Now, Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) is calling foul. He's calling on the Federal Trade Commission to investigate OnStar's new TOS to see if they violate federal consumer protection laws. Said the senator: "OnStar is attempting one of the most brazen invasions of privacy in recent memory."
Until now, OnStar's new TOS had received minimal attention, overshadowed by bigger public-relations disasters, like the trainwreck instigated by Netflix. To its credit, OnStar has tried to get ahead of the game, sending out letters to subscribers and owners well in advance of the launch date, and even going so far as to publish a video apologizing for the confusion those letters have caused. But with a well-known Senator of a populous state now calling attention to the TOS, OnStar might have to do some more serious backpedaling.
Our take
Like any corporate entity, OnStar is entitled to create products and terms of service to support its bottom line, so long as they don't break any laws. Conversely, the public is entitled to purchase those products (with their TOSes) or ignore them.
Frankly, we're not completely bothered by the possibility of OnStar selling data to third parties. After all, OnStar exists to capture data on customers -- without that, features like navigation and roadside assistance wouldn't be very useful. And though the practice of making customer data available to other companies for a fee might seem a little sketchy, it isn't too different from cable companies tracking subscribers' viewing habits so they'll know how to sell advertising.
No the problems here are (a) OnStar's intention to track data on non-subscribers, (b) OnStar making data collection for non-subscribers opt-out instead of opt-in, and (c) OnStar's ineptitude in handling the whole TOS rollout.
Item C can't be helped (other than replacing the company's PR staff). Items A and B, however, could be addressed with a couple of quick changes to the TOS. The new rules don't become effective for over two months -- surely there's time for a re-write.
This story originally appeared at The Car Connection
Consumer Groups Lobby For Liability Warnings on Chrysler Vehicles
The United States Federal Trade Commission has received a petition from consumer organizations worried about Chrysler vehicles manufactured prior to April 30, 2009, when the company entered bankruptcy court. Specifically the organizations are concerned about Chrysler Group (aka "New Chrysler") and its liability for those automobiles, and they've asked the FTC to require the company to post stickers on such vehicles, notifying buyers of potential liability risks.
The petition has also gotten the attention of elected officials on Capitol Hill: a Senate committee recently passed a spending bill that acknowledged the petition and included a stipulation that the FTC report to the committee about the liability issue within 90 days of the bill's passage. Assuming that the legislation passes both houses, and assuming that the FTC-related language remains intact, the Senate could take any number of actions if the FTC finds in favor of the consumer groups -- for example, providing additional funding for the FTC to enact related regulations. Legislators have set a goal of getting a final spending bill to president Obama's desk by September 30, meaning that it could be the end of the calendar year before the FTC presents its findings to the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Meanwhile, the consumer groups estimate that upwards of 30,000,000 Chrysler vehicles lost their liability protection on April 30. Owners who wish to file liability claims on those vehicles can still do so, but only through US bankruptcy court, which offers little opportunity for recovery. No word yet about the Obama administration's position on the matter, though it has come out forcefully against the dealer-reinstatement legislation currently under consideration, arguing that it would upend much of what was accomplished during the Chrysler and GM restructurings.
[AutoNews]
This story originally appeared at The Car Connection
