@Ford - Why do I have share driving data to get charging status?

[MrLoganRoss]

This should be simple enough to resolve. I simply want to see current charging status in the FordPass app. However, because I have declined to share driving data, for example - acceleration and brake data, access to charging status information is denied.

Can you please comment on this? And more importantly, can you please address it?

Sponsored

 

[timbop]

By disabling metrics reporting from the car, you disabled metrics reporting from the car. The SOC is a metric like all the other stuff you don't want to share with Ford. They are within their rights not to make the SOC a special case

 

[MrLoganRoss]

While that is an accurate description of what Ford does, it doesn’t address the fact that they don’t have to do it, and they could fix this “oversight” with a firmware update.

 

[Maquis]

And Rob isn’t going to answer you. ?

 

[luckie]

While that is an accurate description of what Ford does, it doesn’t address the fact that they don’t have to do it, and they could fix this “oversight” with a firmware update.

if you tell the car to not let data leave the car, then it cannot get to your FordPass as a result.

 

[hybrid2bev]

Gotta give to get

 

[bbulkow]

This should be simple enough to resolve. I simply want to see current charging status in the FordPass app. However, because I have declined to share driving data, for example - acceleration and brake data, access to charging status information is denied.

Can you please comment on this? And more importantly, can you please address it?

This is extraordinarily reasonable, don't let these naysayers get you down.

It should be clear by now that driving data and charging data are HUGELY different privacy concerns.

Back when I worked in privacy for a major company, we talked about "granularity". There is a difference between the millisecond by millisecond eye tracking data, and minute by minute. With millisecond, you can fingerprint a user and know what they're looking at.

I had a similar ask for Ford, was going to create a thread, gonna put it here.

Ford - I read the privacy statement I signed. I can tell you there are TWO WORDS that change your entire privacy agreement from a good solid foundation of your business, and a weapon against GM's clear lack of attention to privacy, to a worthless document.

In several key sections, driving data (the only one I really care about) will be maintained by Ford and shared *WITH PARTNERS*.

It's those two words, "WITH PARTNERS", that creates a loophole you can drive a Cybertruck through.

There is no statement of who a "partner" might be, the controls a partner might have, or the purpose the data might be put to. A "partner" is an extraordinarily vague term.

By publicly stating "your data won't be used for insurance", well, the plainly read text contradicts that. A "partner" could be an insurance company, that partner could resell to insurance companies, the data might never be retrievable. The Partner would be free to associate with a specific individual when they resell the data.

What's aggravating is that other than those two words, the privacy agreement is quite solid. It carves out data categories and purpose limitations, it places a wall between Ford and everyone else, it states there will be categories available in the car's data, that data will be anonimized in the cases of use for R&D, deletion requirements, everything you'd really like to see in an agreement of a company that is taking my privacy seriously.

Except for *WITH PARTNERS*.

@Ford Motor Company please consider amending your agreement to either clearly specify the class of business that Partners are, the limitations that Partners have, or take that language out.

I think there could be good legal cause for action, given the difference between the company's public CEO statement of privacy and the document. There also could be a cause for action in linking reasonable vehicle features (charge state) to a very privacy sensitive feature (driving data to partners), but they're both pretty weak cases as I understand case law. I certainly don't have the energy to pursue, nor a likely case of harm until it's too late.

How about just fixing the agreement?

 

[Dear_OP]

Yet another pay to play model. Don't think there are any mfg that doesn't do this.

Data is the new currency.

 

[ReRe]

Why does this matter.......

 

[luckie]

Why does this matter.......

I'm guess folx are concerned that your driving behavior might be shared with your insurance company and if you drive let's call it "spirited" that might not be appreciated, although folx who drive more "low key" might benefit.

 

[generaltso]

I'm guess folx are concerned that your driving behavior might be shared with your insurance company and if you drive let's call it "spirited" that might not be appreciated, although folx who drive more "low key" might benefit.

Sharing with insurance is a separate setting tat can be turned off independently.

Sponsored