this post was submitted on 07 Apr 2025
400 points (99.0% liked)

Technology

68763 readers
5201 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
400
An unreleased version of a Waymo privacy policy found by Jane Manchun Wong says it may use interior camera data to train AI models and sell ads. (programming.dev)
submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by Tea@programming.dev to c/technology@lemmy.world
21 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Waymo is working on Generative AI training using “interior camera data associated with rider’s identity,” provides opt-opts for this and data sharing under CCPA

Waymo explicitly states in this unreleased Privacy page it may share your data for personalized ads

Source.

top 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world 44 points 1 week ago (1 children)

And some people still think Bill Hicks was exaggerating.

[–] billwashere@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago

I wasn’t.

[–] GnuLinuxDude@lemmy.ml 37 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The URL you shared has an unnecessary user tracker in it and can be shortened to https://www.threads.net/@wongmjane/post/DIFF_P3B9u2

[–] Tea@programming.dev 18 points 1 week ago

Thank you, I fixed it.

[–] MunkysUnkEnz0@lemmy.world 25 points 1 week ago (2 children)

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/sep/06/cars-collect-extensive-personal-data-on-drivers-study-warns

Its worse than they think. They're even recording you having sex.

[–] pezhore@infosec.pub 14 points 1 week ago (2 children)

When I bought my Hyundai they pushed fucking hard to sign up for their Blue link product. Free for life! Look, map updates! You can personalize your driver profile pic! Want to remote start your car over the Internet?

Luckily, my VIN wasn't working for registration (I guess it hadn't quite gone through fast enough that the car was purchased). I've gone two months without BlueLink and I'm hoping that's saving me from some of the info gathering (or at least it's not directly linked to me.

[–] phx@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Free for life? Here is always been free for only the first few years of ownership and then you pay, plus the system is fucking terrible and doesn't work half the time.

[–] pezhore@infosec.pub 2 points 1 week ago

Yeah, evidently they really, really want you to sign up. They upped the period from the first three years to as long as you own the car (it doesn't transfer to a new owner if you sell it).

[–] boonhet@lemm.ee 1 points 1 week ago

The sad part is there's almost certainly demand for an app that would let you remote start your car and use other built-in features without the associated tracking, but unfortunately the only way a 3rd party app can do it without installing an expensive 2 way alarm system or similar device, is by using the manufacturer's APIs, which means the car has to be connected to the manufacturer :/

[–] misteloct@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

What other reason would tech billionaires and CEOs care to spy on you? They bought everything else, they have a privacy fetish obviously.

And the engineers who work there too.

[–] softcat@lemmy.ca 18 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Say "McDonald's!" to continue ride

[–] bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 2 points 1 week ago

Drink verification can

[–] Jehuty@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 week ago

Nothing but end-times news these past couple of weeks.

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago

I remember when ads were considered a bad way to create a business model for a website. Now everyone just tries to stuff more ads into everything like they were doing with cheese in pizzas in the 90s.

[–] brianpeiris@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Man, Waymo was one of the more exciting things I was looking forward to, but I guess I should have waited for the other shoe to drop. Disappointing.

[–] boonhet@lemm.ee 10 points 1 week ago

Owned by Google. Unfortunately it was never going to be without data collection.

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 1 week ago

They're making a strong argument for opt-in-only regulations stacked on top of ToS simplicity regulations.

May have to wait until after the revolution, I suppose.

[–] FourWaveforms@lemm.ee 7 points 1 week ago

Nope!!!!!!!!!!

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org 4 points 1 week ago

Don't know why they need that when they already have your Google account

[–] 11111one11111@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Why does this change anything if it's an unreleased policy? Doesn't that imply they dont use the collected data to train ai if their current policy doesn't include this? I'm not defending anything I'm just wondering why everyone here is ready to take a screen shot of an "unreleased" document as valid proof a company is doing devious shit instead of the possibility it might be that they went a different direction. I mean I know it's owned by Google so this is prolly not a good scenario to argue but I'm just saying this seems like such a seedy source for every comment in her to be like yeah fuck them.

Edit: lol I 100% admit this sounds like a total shill comment so obligatory fuck Google to assure anyone I'm not defending Google or waymo just wondering why everyone seems to accept this source.

[–] StereoCode@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

I had the exact same reaction. Like who cares about an unreleased version of a document. if this was a version they released than yeah ok. But it's not, so why do we care at all? Do people live in a fantasy land where you suppose employees wouldn't think about collecting this kind of info. It probably went through a review and was thrown out. I can't wait for them to leak the drafts of these policies in the future, can you imagine all the spelling errors!!