Not going to help. "They" got a hang of the fact that people are trying to hide/mask/disguise their whereabouts (actually, well before Internet existed), and there are well known techniques that makes things like this ridiculous. Just one: collate all the trips that originate in the vicinity of (X, Y) - and it becomes painfully obvious who you are regardless of whom your car is registered to.

Too bad they're going extinct. Unless you have a run of the mill "people's car" for which there are zillions of zealous followers and billions of aftermarket parts and upgrades, you're going to run into parts no longer manufactured, and, worst of all, problems that simply can't be realistically fixed even if parts are available. In some places, it is body rust, in other where it doesn't rust, plastic and rubber disintegrate (and that means wire harnesses - there's no easy cure for that). Not to mention that the quality of life with these vehicles wouldn't be what you've been looking for by coming here.

 

"Buy an older car that doesn't tattletale on the user"

Buy an old Defender! Spares are plentiful (and always will be) it's okay to drive and cool as well.

As standard they're fairly rough and ready but can be improved

 

Dang! Wish it was a class action lawsuit. I have no fantasy of collecting a penny, I just want to contribute whatever I can to knifing the ba$4@rds.

 

Not to worry, the class actions will eventually happen. Just a matter of time. GM is currently in the hot seat for a related class action in TX. These class actions are not only happening in the automotive world alone, and we will see stricter privacy laws going forward, I hope! Sadly, nothing is private anymore in this digital age. I miss the old analog days with no internet and no cell phones. Life was so much less complicated.

 

Correct, people don't. One thing to consider: in order to achieve their goals, they don't have to work realtime. They collect historical data, it is sufficient for their purposes. Disks are cheap.
Doesn't matter; since they operate with assumption that laws and procedures are violated already, they tie facts together. If it so happens that N vehicles do things that can be attributed to the same person or set of persons operating them, a link is made - and it becomes your problem if this link is wrong. A word I already used in one of these discussions: breadcrumbs. We leave a very visible trail of them wherever we go and whatever we do. Just one more easy thing to do: collate vehicle trips with cell phone trips, and then it becomes "beyond reasonable doubt". Pile on credit card purchases... and so on.

The time scale I meant is different - 20+ years. 10 years ago all this surveillance stuff was already in full swing - to put things in perspective, OnStar was founded in 1996.

 

This lawsuit appears to be a fishing expedition, based on the admission by other vehicle manufacturers that they do this and the assumption that JLR is lying when it says that it doesn't. The only evidence presented is that JLR vehicles measure and record vehicle data, and that JLR vehicles are connected to the internet. No evidence is provided to support that JLR is selling those data - that allegation is offered with the caveat that it is based on "information and belief", which is to protect the plaintiffs from legal consequences if their claim turns out to be false.

https://www.classaction.org/media/hu...merica-llc.pdf

 

Although I hate abusive privacy practices by car manufacturers with a white-hot burning passion, I agree that this one is exactly that: Fishing for sweet settlement dollars by piling on JLR alongside all the other manufacturers.

 

I totally agree! Had the same reaction first time I read it.

 

You may believe that this might be a fishing expedition by hungry attorneys, and I despise frivolous lawsuits for the same reason. However, this particular one is really a genuine one. OEM's are selling their customer's data and especially their driving data to insurance companies without their customers' consent. In return, customers are getting an increase in their insurance premiums and in some cases cancellation of their insurance.

 

There is no question that at least some manufacturers are doing this - some have admitted it. However, JLR has denied doing it and the plaintiffs here have conceded that they have no actual evidence, and so this is, by definition, a fishing expedition.