It wouldn't be a very solid argument. Telematics are universally disclaimed in owners manuals. A good chunk of modern owners manuals are legally-required disclaimers of various sorts which are all deemed valid for those reasons.
And a ruling that it doesn't matter because "nobody reads that" wouldn't be a good thing either -- basically that would make most SaaS engineer into criminals.
So I can put a disclaimer in remote shell malware I distribute on the internet and get out of a CFAA violation? I don't think that's quite right. A lot of this software is very clearly malware, that it's shipped by the manufacturer and includes documentation doesn't change that IMO.
Yes, a lot of software has remote access capability and it is legal when intended. The CFAA doesn’t care about how it works or why. It entirely hinges on whether the access was authorized. Your opinion about whether the software is good or bad is legally irrelevant.
Good to know, I guess I'll write an .ssh/id_rsa harvesting worm and chuck it in a pip package tonight with a license that includes a clause requiring surrender of any machine its installed on.
> No one in 2025 has a reasonable expectation they are not being surveilled by their new car.
This is not even slightly true. People are barely aware of the fact their car has any connectivity in the first place, let alone that it tracks everything you do in a way that's tied to your real life identity.
You're probably, talking mostly to us "techies". Anyone else probably wouldn't be too surprised if you told them, but they definitely wouldn't expect it to be like that.
They don’t have a reasonable expectation of buying a surveillance-safe new car because one does not exist.
Other than that I hear you. You’re talking about the reasonable expectation in someone’s head but I’m talking about the possibility even existing in the marketplace. I guess you could argue maybe the reality of the market is trumped by the opinion of a person as to the reality of the market. I’m not sure that makes sense (or that ut doesn’t).
I guess you’re saying “they do have that expectation” while I’m saying “regardless of anyone’s expectation, car manufacturers have all addressed the market in a way that makes the expectation false and therefore unreasonable.”
> You’re talking about the reasonable expectation in someone’s head
The legal concept of a person's "reasonable expectation" is literally this. But it doesn't really matter legally, because these systems are explicitly disclosed in the documentation that automakers provide.
That’s not correct: both the objective and subjective reasonable expectation are implicated. If the objective standard was not relevant, why would it matter if the manufacturer made the disclosure you mentioned?
And a ruling that it doesn't matter because "nobody reads that" wouldn't be a good thing either -- basically that would make most SaaS engineer into criminals.