Comment by pesus
15 days ago
Ignoring the fact that it's absolutely unhinged and bonkers to include that in the first place, I don't even understand how they could possibly ever get any information about that. Are they using LLMs to generate these policies without review? Or are there really lawyers out there who thought this was pertinent and important to include?
Any car that can record audio in the cabin could have information about your sexual activity. Could also argue it based on location data.
Some laws require discussing very specific lists of categories of information they might have. I'm guessing this is a completionist CYA lawyer accounting for this.
I was thinking all it takes is an IMU to tell if the car is a rockin'
150lbs on each front seat at 8pm, 300lbs on one rear seat at 2am, they gotcha like Kalanick & the Uber one night standers
https://web.archive.org/web/20140827195715/https://blog.uber...
Or malicious compliance by a true friend to privacy.
They’re just including everything to be clear that you have no privacy in this agreement, so they don’t have to think about it too much when they realize there’s something more they can collect.
Well, there's the old cliche of someone being conceived in the back seat of their grandparent's Chevy... so a little extra DSP analysis with the seat occupancy sensors? :-)
Now I want a hacker competition - I’m seeing utilizing the microphone, TPS, roll sensors, seat occupancy/airbag sensors …
I get your point of view. But many many many years ago meta searches for persons already included categories like "sexual orientation" and got this data points from myspace profiles no one ever thought of. So, in a lawyers mind there might be some logic behind it, when marketing says, they collect data about people, who recently became parents and the conclusion to somehow classify this type of information into a data category of "sexual activity" as collecting such data is by law allowed in some countries, while collecting data about relationship or children is prohibited. For me, this sounds very much like this corporate thinking of how to defend against the slightes legal risk of undisclosed data handling.
Legal wiggle room in case the sleepy eyes cam catches some action? Disclaimer: no idea how the tired driver sensors work.
But that safety functionality doesn't require storing or transmitting the footage ...
You’re thinking like a consumer and not a business who could make money by transmitting that footage and using it for other purposes!
Apparently there are cases of passenger's jaw closing on the driver's protrusion on crash, causing injuries
Just wait until genome sequencing becomes cheap enough...