Concern grows over driver data collected by cars

Concern is growing among some lawmakers over the vast amounts of driver data carmakers are designing vehicles to collect.

Tesla, for example, has secured a patent for technology that can detect the facial features of a car’s occupants using advanced facial recognition. When the camera installed in the car’s interior recognizes the driver’s features, it will greet the driver by name and adjust the settings of the car based on a user profile stored by the vehicle’s system.

In addition to facial features, the car will also detect the “spatial locations” of each occupant so the car can properly customize settings, such as adjusting the air conditioning and audio focus for the driver and each passenger. Body movements, body shapes, and user behavior will be tracked and stored “for further analysis,” says the patent.

All biometric data — including images and video of facial features — will be stored in the vehicle’s system, along with other metrics which will be used to determine a driver’s state.

The car will constantly monitor the driver’s baseline behavior, eye and body movements, seating position, tone of voice, and “health parameters.” If there is a deviation in these patterns — such as a change in tone of voice — the vehicle will ask the driver if they need assistance. If the driver does not respond within a certain period of time, the car will send an emergency signal to a hospital and call for emergency services. In some cases, the car will drive itself to the nearest medical center.

A similar protocol will be activated in the event of a collision.

If the car detects the driver closing their eyes or bobbing their head, it may blast a signal to alert the driver, blow cold air on the driver’s face, and/or stop driving.

According to a September study of 25 carmakers by the nonprofit Mozilla Foundation, 84% of car brands share or sell data they collect on car owners. Some of the data collected can include, as in Nissan’s case, a driver’s sexual activity, or in Kia’s case, “information about your race or ethnicity, religious or philosophical beliefs, sexual orientation, sex life and political opinions” and “trade union membership.” Six car companies said they collect “genetic information” on drivers.

At least 56% of car brands say in their privacy policies that they may voluntarily share personal driver data with law enforcement upon “request” and without requiring a warrant.

Ford applied for a patent earlier this year for “self-repossessing technology” which would link the car to the driver’s lending institution so that the vehicle would automatically repossess itself if the driver misses car payments. In the patent the carmaker lists a host of possible punishments for drivers who miss payments, such as restricting air conditioning or only allowing the driver to commute to certain places like school or work. Other scenarios include drivers being locked out of their cars or the car playing unpleasant sounds until the next payment is made. The car may even drive itself to an impound lot or junkyard. 

All the while, Ford’s systems will monitor the driver’s emotions to determine which punishment is most effective.

This data collection and sharing has prompted inquiries from legislators who are concerned about privacy violations.

“Cars should not — and cannot — become yet another venue where privacy takes a backseat,” wrote Sen. Edward Markey (D-MA) in a letter to car companies last month. “As more and more cars become computers on wheels, automakers must implement strong privacy policies to protect users.”

But other legislators do not appear as concerned.

Last month congressional lawmakers voted down an amendment by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) challenging a driver monitoring mandate which will require automakers to include “kill switches” in cars sold after 2026.

The mandate was voted into law in 2021 as part of the Biden administration’s Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Buried within the 1,039-page bill is a directive requiring the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to develop rules for driver monitoring technology. Vehicles will sense whether a driver is drunk or “impaired” in which case the vehicle will not operate.

“To ensure the prevention of alcohol-impaired driving fatalities, advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology must be standard equipment in all new passenger motor vehicles,” reads Section 24220.

While the bill cites drunk driving statistics to justify the law, it emphasizes several times that the mandate would also apply to drivers who are “impaired.” The term is not defined.

In addition to monitoring a driver’s blood alcohol content, the bill requires vehicles to “passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired; and prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected.”

Nor does the legislation provide clues as to how the technology might work. That is to be decided by the NHTSA by next year, and automakers will then have two years to implement the systems in all new vehicles.

“It’s so incredible that I have to offer this amendment,” Rep. Massie said on the House floor Tuesday. “It almost sounds like the domain of science fiction, dystopian science fiction, that the federal government would put a kill switch in vehicles that would be the judge, the jury, and the executioner on such a fundamental right as the right to travel freely.”

But opponents of the amendment offered their rebuttals, which included Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) flatly denying that the mandate requires anything other than monitoring.

“The amendment . . . does not require auto manufacturers to install kill switches. It does not do that,” Schulz said, which prompted Rep. Massie to later read the law verbatim on the House floor. Schultz also claimed the purpose of the mandate is to “save lives” and protect “public safety” while dismissing Rep. Massie’s argument for personal liberty.

“You don’t have a right to engage in potentially fatal behavior that we know poses a major health threat to public safety,” she said. 

Massie’s amendment failed in a 229–201 vote.