352
US judge rules: if you can't prove damages, car-makers can continue to intercept and record customers' mobile phone activity. (therecord.media)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world
121 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] 60 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (10 children)
[deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 28 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    the question here is, on it's face does an invasion of privacy constitute an injury? I'd argue that yes, it does. Privacy has inherent value, and that value is lost the moment that private data is exposed. That's the injury that needs to be redressed, regardless of whether or how the exposed data is used after the exposure. There could be additional injury in how the data is used, and that would have to be adjudicated and compensated separately, but losing the assurance that my data can never be used against me because it is only know to me is absolutely an injury in and of itself.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    For privacy to have inherent value, it first must be an established, inherent right. Unfortunately, the Constitution doesn't talk about it to my knowledge. I've always inferred that our rights against unlawful search and seizure basically encapsulate the concept, but whatever.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I mean how did I get checks from Google and Facebook for violating privacy then?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Sure except under this logic there's no injury to someone peering through your windows. After all they didn't do anything else...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    Nice take.

    I myself am fine with the ruling, but only if we get a full-ownership deal on the car, and can legally completely gut and replace parts that do that. Also, the car should be sold with a warning label regarding these issues.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent