The Ford Privacy Promise: You're in Control of Your Data

If you follow the links, the first thing it tells you is "Download the app".[1]

Vehicle Data Sharing appears to be opt-out, not opt-in. They do say "If you’d like to ensure you’re not sharing data, check Vehicle Connectivity in your Settings menu in-vehicle and toggle it off." After doing that, someone should check to see if the wireless modem is still emitting.

[1] https://www.ford.com/data-and-privacy/manage-your-settings/c...

▲

QDwQ1 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Personally I would like a car that simply does not generate any "data" in the first place.

▲

lacoolj 41 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You know who really needs to do this? BMW.

First thing it told me when I was setting up the customization area was something around ...if you enable BMW account sync, this car will transmit all audio, video and any other data recorded to BMW for its use blah blah...

Ugh

▲

midtake 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

All I can read from that title is double-speak about how it's your responsibility to opt out, your problem if you don't.

▲

lazide 39 minutes ago | parent [-]

Even better, knowing someone with one of these trucks - every time it does a software update (which it does over the air, and which apparently cannot be disabled), it re-enables a bunch of shit and forces you to opt-out again.

Super creepy.

	▲	dismalpedigree 30 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Can confirm. Reverts opt-outs. Resets some settings. Generally a worse experience with each update. Why would I want to know how fast my truck is charging at a supercharger? Thats no longer an option.

▲

ChiMan an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don’t want a privacy policy. I want my data, and I don’t want them to have it.

▲

ChiMan an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Even more, I don’t want to be generating data when I drive. It’s a god*mn car. I want it to move me down the road and stop when I press the brakes. That’s it.

▲

rootusrootus 44 minutes ago | parent [-]

So the right answer is to provide an option for you to do that. Which hopefully this policy is saying that they do. But if what they are asserting is correct (and I think it is plausibly so), the majority of customers want features that can only function with the data.

	▲	simoncion 27 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> ...the majority of customers want features that can only function with the data. So the right answer is to leave the data collection mechanisms entirely disabled until the customer enables a feature that requires it, enable only the data collection mechanisms required by that feature, and disable them again -and purge all data collected by them- when the feature is disabled. The physical modules that collect this data and transmit this data should be easily removable by the customer, for those who know that they will never want those features to be provided by their car. The odds that this is what Ford is doing -at least in the US- are 0%.
	▲	rockskon 28 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		They keep telling the public that. Their assertions do not have value without trustworthy data to back them up.
	▲	Hizonner 25 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Like what? Features that require the data to be available to Ford, please.

▲

Glyptodon 26 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

But it would be too inefficient for you to compute with it locally. Thinks of all the AI companies that will be harmed by your vehicle's RAM usage! /s

▲

xnx 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Don't let Ford PR crowd out the primary message that they collect and sell your data.

	▲	rootusrootus 44 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		They only tried to crowd it out with the word "No." however.

▲

Luke2642 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"Your data is safe with us."

No, our data is barely even safe with ourselves. It's definitely not safe with anyone else!

▲

SamInTheShell an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Easiest way to control your data is to pull the telemetry unit out of of your car and never take the car to the dealership. This isn't easy, but it's worth it.

▲

hackingonempty 4 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> never take the car to the dealership. This isn't easy, but it's worth it.

How much is the first 3 years of maintenance worth?

▲

jimt1234 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

There should be an "airplane mode" for cars.

	▲	jedbrooke 42 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		not the “flying cars” we wanted, but it’s the “flying cars” we need

▲

Terr_ 37 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

OK, so what's the punishment if they do it anyway? What's their skin in the game beyond and oopsie-apology?

	▲	rootusrootus 30 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Well, didn't GM just lose a 9-digit lawsuit? That sounds like punishment.

▲

calvinmorrison an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why is there even data

▲

rootusrootus an hour ago | parent [-]

Because a lot of people like the ability to remotely access certain features on their car, and this requires telemetry.

▲

rockskon 27 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Features such as....?

▲

calvinmorrison an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

it requires telemetry to remotely access certain features on their car? that doesnt seem correct.

▲

rootusrootus 43 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

How else would you imagine making those features work? Short of magic, I am not seeing a way.

▲

vel0city 42 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

When that feature is remote telemetry, yeah it is correct.

Its nice knowing the doors are actually locked when you issue a remote unlock and then lock command when a friend is trying to grab something and you didn't want to handle the logistics of them getting to you to get the keys to get to the car and then back to you. Or making sure you really did lock it when you walked away.

It's nice knowing the state of charge while the car is on the charger and get that data somewhat live while it's charging and you're in a restaurant or whatever.

It's nice having the last known location on a map when you're trying to find the car in a maze of a parking lot and it turns out it wasn't parked in lot H row 72 like you thought you remembered.

It's nice starting the AC or heat well before you get to the car and are far out of range of the key remote.

There's a lot of telemetry that's kind of nice to have, assuming you can have control over it and who it's shared with. It's not nice having it shared without your consent and potentially used against you.

▲

userbinator 33 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

We had remote starters and heaters long before the Internet. Local communication ensures someone halfway around the world won't be able to control your car, but apparently it's too difficult (really?) or not invasive enough for their surveillance desires.

	▲	vel0city 28 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Remote starters generally had really poor range. I know, I've owned a few of them over the years. Often you need direct line of sight and have to be somewhat close, usually only slightly better range than the regular fob assuming you installed it right. It was a terrible experience compared to being able to issue the command from anywhere. I can be in the middle of a shopping mall and start having the car cool down well before I get there, while before I'd practically have to already be on the right floor of the parking garage.

▲

calvinmorrison 33 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

in a room full of experts, sometimes it takes an idiot to point out, really none of these things requires Ford to store data in a way it can access

	▲	rootusrootus 25 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The technology required to make it possible for you to send a remote HVAC command to your car without Ford necessarily being able to tell that you did that is complex enough that I expect most FAANG companies wouldn't pull it off successfully.
	▲	vel0city 22 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		It takes someone to store some of this data somewhere. I'd prefer more choices on how this data is handled, no doubt. See the last sentence of my previous comment. But yes, generally speaking and replying to your original question of "requires telemetry to remotely access certain features on their car", yes it takes some kind of access to telemetry data to access telemetry data. The whole feature is access to telemetry data in the end, presented in useful ways. Whether Ford uses some kind of homomorphic encryption to handle that data or sets up end to end encryption between your phone and the data receiver from the car or allows you to configure third party telemetry retrieval services is a whole different question to ask.

▲

advisedwang an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I really have one big question about connected vehicle privacy: do you provide the data to insurance companies? This website is opaque enough that I can't even find the answer to that question. What a joke to be celebrating your privacy principles when that isn't even answerable.

▲

water-data-dude 42 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I'm not going to say I'm not suspicious, but the third bullet point under "Our Privacy Promise" says "We also never sell data about how you drive your vehicle to data brokers". Then further down the page we have the FAQs, which has:

Q: "Does Ford sell customer data about your personal vehicle's driving behavior to data brokers or insurance companies?"

A: No

Again: I don't know how much I trust them, and when I get a new car I'll probably be doing some research to see which ones will still run after I physically disconnect the wireless modem, but they DO answer that question

▲

dismalpedigree 29 minutes ago | parent [-]

They don’t sell. They might just make it available through some other arrangement though

	▲	Smoosh 15 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Yes, like Google does it. If they sell it, the other party has a copy to keep and use. If they rent access charged per query they have an income stream.
	▲	rockskon 13 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Do they sell the information to another entity that, in turn, will sell it to insurance companies or data brokers?

▲

rootusrootus an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> do you provide the data to insurance companies? This website is opaque enough that I can't even find the answer to that question.

It is literally one of the few specific questions they address:

"Does Ford sell customer data about your personal vehicle's driving behavior to data brokers or insurance companies?" And their answer was one word.

	▲	Silhouette 31 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		And if you changed one word - from "Does" to "Will" - then it would be worth more than the almost nothing the current answer is worth.

▲

godshatter an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

It's in one of the questions you have to open to see the answer to. The answer they is simply "No".

▲

bell-cot 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'll guess they timed the announcement, to contrast with GM paying out 9 figures for selling consumer data - https://arstechnica.com/cars/2026/10/gm-to-pay-220-million-a...

It'd be lovely if other automakers followed suit, but I wouldn't actually bet on Ford keeping its Promise.

	▲	rootusrootus 41 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		A 9-digit payout is a lot of incentive. I imagine the pennies they get from selling your data surreptitiously just is not worth the hassle. It costs way less than $220M to write up a privacy policy and provide working toggles in the user interface. And they may even generate goodwill.

▲

basilikum 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

These fuckers don't even allow anonymous access from Tor to this very site where they claim to honor your privacy.

▲

kmeisthax an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I fully expect a Louis Rossmann video by tomorrow detailing every privacy fuck-up Ford has done in the last 3 months and how this promise is really just a promise to take away ownership in the name of protection.

▲

jwibby 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[dead]

▲

ksudb 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[dead]

▲

vel0city 39 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]