269
This is becoming a real concern. An ambulance company in my area has been found to have cameras facing the patients recording audio and video.
This shit is getting out of hand.
Edit: Replaced with a better link.
Ambulances in germany have a camera recording everything that is happening inside.
It protects the patients if the first responders fuck up or are psychos. And it protects the workers from false claim court cases.
Whats bad about that?
Hmm thinking about it, I guess in germany the ambulance is not run by companies.
Whats bad about that?
One issue is particularly in regards to the audio. While an argument can be made that having video record protects the patients from malpractice and protects the EMTs from abusive patients, the audio would contain a LOT of HIPAA-protected details such as the patient's name, date of birth, insurance details, known diagnoses, prescribed medications, etc. While the video obviously captures a person's face and body, possibly in injured or nude states, a lot of that technically isn't HIPAA-protected material so there's conceivably a loophole for video. But audio contributes basically nothing to anybody's safety, and only serves to potentially leak a patient's PII.
Why can’t you just add HIPAA controls around the video and audio content?
HIPAA isn't an issue here, the audio and video would just be treated as PHI protected health information, like the video of a colonoscopy.
That’s my point.
There isn’t an issue recording these things, they just need the proper controls
Funny, I was just arguing with someone who swears up and down that no car company is actually doing this.
It's the law that every US car company will be doing this soon!
And its very silent on major news Media. Wonder why. Should be mass outrage and riots.
Does this also mean they can't discuss patient information around Alexa or Google Nest, or pretty much any smartphone? It's really hard to not get your voice recorded and sent to the corponet these days.
In the case of Alexa or Google Nest, it's not actually constantly recording or sending stuff to the cloud. Those things have a special wake-word chip, that is trained on one or a few phrases (okay google). That's fully offline, and only once it detects the wake word does it activate the actual microphone and processing.
If you believe Google and Amazon, that is. Which I surely don't. But if they were actually constantly recording and sending that data somewhere, security researchers would have noticed odd traffic in their network.
Tl;dr: However they’re supposed to work you can’t trust them.
There’s no “chip.” Alexa, Google assistant, and Siri are always listening. They are looking for the command word, and in the case of Alexa and Google assistant they take at least a thirty second buffer from before the command word for “context.” It was verified several years ago (not sure if it has changed since) that Siri is the most conservative, stripping anything before the command word. All of this is handled in a subroutine that is running as part of the OS for these devices.
There have been documented cases where Alexa and Google devices were recording and uploading 24/7, these were dismissed as “bugs” but they were also only discovered because the users were checking network usage at home. I have not heard of that happening with Siri but that doesn’t mean it hasn’t.
Documented where? I've never been able to find any sources for that claim.
This was the one for the Google Home Mini... the fabric on the top was causing some of the devices to constantly record (there is a sensor up there that you could tap to ask a question instead of using the wake word). Once it was discovered Google disabled the tap feature.
I remember hearing about issues with Alexa also constantly recording some years ago, but I don't recall the specifics of that case enough to be able to easily search for it.
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence
Oops, I cut the power cable to the camera when I picked up the loaner, my bad~
That would be $999.999
Microphones..
That would be the dealership, not Audi themselves. On top of that she said she would have preferred paying for a rental car. Okay? Go ahead and pay for the rental. I'm not supporting putting cameras or audio recorders in loaners, but this woman/article is dumb.
What a dummy, not reading all the fine print and not spending hundreds of extra dollars to enjoy the privacy that a reasonable person would just expect
That's not what I said at all. If you get in the car and realize you don't want to be in that car and would rather pay for a rental, you can always pay for a rental. It is literally an option that you have. If you say you would rather pay for a rental and then you don't, that is on you. It's creepy, but the dealership can do what they want with their loaners they give to people for free. If you don't like the free transportation provided by the dealership, don't take the free transportation provided by the dealership. Not like she didn't see the gigantic box in the car when she got in. Have your car serviced at a different dealership. Drop the car off and use alternate transportation. Call corporate and complain. But don't say you would rather do an option available to you and then not choose that option.
She said she would have paid the $700 if she'd known the level of surveillance from the Lytx apparatus at the time. And you know not everybody can afford to pay $700 right? For a thing that's basically necessary to exist for working Americans?
First of all, no she did not say that. Did you read the article? Not only did she not say that, it specifically says it is constantly monitoring you and telling you it is monitoring you by telling you what to do. I am unsure what you think you are getting out of lying? I already said I do not support this, I am just pointing out stupidity in this particular article.
You realize that many dealerships don't offer free loaner cars at all right? People deal with not having transportation given to them while their car is being worked on every day. In fact, the majority of Americans are not given free transportation while their vehicle is being worked on when it breaks down. So your whole argument there goes right down the drain.
First of all, no she did not say that. Did you read the article?
Yeah, and I understand that time passes between signing an agreement and hearing your car beep at you from a device installed on the passenger side.
You realize that many dealerships don’t offer free loaner cars at all right? People deal with not having transportation given to them while their car is being worked on every day.
...Okay? And she got lucky, or thought she did, and now is apparently not in the position to pay $700 any more. Even if she is, plenty of people wouldn't be.
Just keep getting angry about what you perceive instead of rightfully getting angry about the facts.
Maybe she should have thought about that before she bought the car...
In the title it says the car was a loaner. You didnt even have to read the article to realise she did not choose to buy this car. She was lent this car by her dealership.
I'd like to live in a world where that isn't a concern
this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2026
269 points (100.0% liked)
Privacy
10461 readers
7 users here now
A community for Lemmy users interested in privacy
Rules:
- Be civil
- No spam posting
- Keep posts on-topic
- No trolling
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS