“you could probably match everything to a single person if you wanted to.”
You could probably match it to a single car owner but I'll bet you'd have a hard time matching it to a single person purely using data without some research, and people let other people borrow cars more frequently than mobile phones. Though you probably could fingerprint someone's driving style based on starts/stop cadence, turn velocity, routes, destinations, etc. and some insurance companies may already do it. They use this data to modify their clients rates automatically, already. That's why I opted to not use my housing insurer, Lemonade, to insure my car. I don't need surveillance capitalism invading yet another part of my existence.
In the case of red light cameras (https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/01/18093/), I think the legal consequences are so comparatively minor that nobody bats an eye when this gets flubbed. When it comes down to this being used as evidence in a major crime, that will probably be harder and surely defense attorneys will be all over it. From a commercial data privacy perspective, it's probably enough of an edge case that their customers wouldn't care much.
I think civil cases may be the more interesting venue for this inconsistency. I don't know if it's still true, but in file sharing cases, folks often didn't question the idea that an IP address could be mapped to a specific person. I'd guess this wouldn't be that much different than having a series of witnesses spotting a license plate without getting a clear view of the driver?
> Safety Event camera recordings are automatically captured only if a serious safety event occurs such as a vehicle collision or airbag deployment. These short clips are up to 30 seconds and associated with your VIN in order to aid in providing emergency services, vehicle evaluation, and Roadside Assistance (and such recordings may include timestamp and location metadata).
For the inside of the car:
> Cabin Camera: Model 3 and Model Y vehicles, and 2021 or newer Model S and Model X vehicles are equipped with a Cabin Camera that is located above the rear-view mirror. For eligible vehicles, the cabin camera can determine driver inattentiveness and provide you with audible alerts, to remind you to keep your eyes on the road when Autopilot is engaged. To protect your privacy, camera images do not leave the vehicle itself and are not transmitted to anyone, including Tesla, unless you enable data sharing. Even in the event of a safety concern like a collision, only a log of the alerts displayed to the driver may be transmitted to Tesla, excluding camera data. If you choose to enable data sharing, in the occurrence of a serious safety risk or a safety event like a collision, it allows the vehicle to share short video clips with Tesla to help us further develop future safety features and software enhancements such as collision avoidance updates and more. To adjust your data sharing preferences, use your vehicle’s touchscreen to tap Controls > Software > Data Sharing > Allow Cabin Camera Analytics. To protect your privacy, this data is not linked to your VIN, and used to continuously improve the intelligence of features that rely on Cabin Camera. You may change this setting at any time.
You could probably match it to a single car owner but I'll bet you'd have a hard time matching it to a single person purely using data without some research, and people let other people borrow cars more frequently than mobile phones. Though you probably could fingerprint someone's driving style based on starts/stop cadence, turn velocity, routes, destinations, etc. and some insurance companies may already do it. They use this data to modify their clients rates automatically, already. That's why I opted to not use my housing insurer, Lemonade, to insure my car. I don't need surveillance capitalism invading yet another part of my existence.
In the case of red light cameras (https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/01/18093/), I think the legal consequences are so comparatively minor that nobody bats an eye when this gets flubbed. When it comes down to this being used as evidence in a major crime, that will probably be harder and surely defense attorneys will be all over it. From a commercial data privacy perspective, it's probably enough of an edge case that their customers wouldn't care much.
I think civil cases may be the more interesting venue for this inconsistency. I don't know if it's still true, but in file sharing cases, folks often didn't question the idea that an IP address could be mapped to a specific person. I'd guess this wouldn't be that much different than having a series of witnesses spotting a license plate without getting a clear view of the driver?
Strange times we live in.