2007 Ford E350 Passenger Van Airport Shuttle Taxi Church Bus on 2040-cars

Auto blog

How privacy fears are driving automakers in the age of the connected car [w/poll]

A recent GAO report concluded car companies don't adequately disclose how and why they share location data. As cars collect and store more and more data about the whereabouts of their drivers, automakers are responding to critics who say they should be more transparent about how those details are used. Ford is hiring a global privacy policy attorney to craft the company's customer privacy policies in the era of connected and autonomous cars. "In this emerging space, there is an important need to address customer privacy policies," reads a job description posted on the "people and careers" portion of the company's website. "As part of our compliance and ethics organization at Ford, this person will have an immediate and direct impact in shaping existing and future policy and corporate thinking in this area." Ford is creating the new position, based at its Dearborn headquarters, at a time technology advances are outpacing privacy protections. Earlier this year, a report from the federal government concluded car companies don't adequately disclose to motorists how and why they share location data. That report, from the Government Accountability Office, found many car companies did not describe how they shared location data, did not allow consumers to request their data be deleted and that there was a "wide variation" in how car companies retained vehicle-specific or identifiable location data. It noted there is increased risk of location data being used in ways "consumers did not intend." Ford was one of 10 companies the GAO surveyed while compiling its report. Customers are opting to share that data largely by using features like maps and turn-by-turn direction that are run by a vehicle's telematics unit. Depending on the company, it can be unclear how that data is collected, retained or shared. At the time the GAO report was issued, AAA, the nation's largest motoring club, urged carmakers to be more transparent in how they handle data and to offer stronger security protections. Shaping Autonomous Car Regulations At Ford, the new hire could change how the company handles that data. According to the job description, the successful applicant will, "demonstrate visionary thinking around privacy strategy – imagine how consumer and employee expectations around privacy may evolve and how business should adapt, develop approaches that maximize the benefit of data sharing for consumers and business, etc." (Emphasis from Ford).

Ford faces class-action lawsuit for selling vehicles without brake override systems

A total of 20 Ford customers are suing the automaker in a class-action lawsuit for selling vehicles "vulnerable to unintended acceleration." According to Reuters, the suit names 30 models built between 2002 and 2010 with electronic throttle control systems but without a brake override system. Those include the 2004-2012 F-Series pickups and the 2005-2009 Lincoln Town Car. Adam Levitt, a partner with the law firm of Grant & Eisenhofer says the plaintiffs in the case want "to be compensated for their economic losses by having overpaid for cars that contained defects." Levitt contends that the plaintiffs would not have bought their vehicles or paid less for them had they known there was no brake override system in place.
Ford began installing brake override systems in its vehicles beginning in 2010. In response to the lawsuit, Ford has pointed to research by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that indicated that unintended acceleration is mostly caused by driver error, saying in a statement that, "NHTSA's work is far more scientific and trustworthy than work done by personal injury lawyers and their paid experts."
Belville et al v. Ford Motor Co. will be heard in US District Court in the Southern District of West Virginia.

BMW, Hyundai score big in JD Power's first Tech Experience Index

While automakers are quick to brag about winning a JD Power Initial Quality Study award, the reality, as we've pointed out before, is that these ratings are somewhat misleading, since IQS doesn't necessarily distinguish genuine quality issues. JD Power's new Tech Experience Index aims to solve that problem. The new metric takes the same 90-day approach as IQS but focuses exclusively on technology – collision protection, comfort and convenience, driving assistance, entertainment and connectivity, navigation, and smartphone mirroring. It splits the industry up into just seven segments, based loosely on size, which is why the Chevrolet Camaro is in the same division (mid-size) as Kia Sorento and the Mercedes-Benz GLE-Class is in the same segment as the Hyundai Genesis (mid-size premium). It makes for some screwy bedfellows, to be sure. Still, splitting tech experience away from initial quality should allow customers to make more informed and intelligent decisions when buying new vehicles. In the inaugural study, respondents listed BMW and Hyundai as the big winners, with two segment awards – the 2 Series for small premium and the 4 Series for compact premium, and the Genesis for mid-size premium and Tucson for small segment. The Chevrolet Camaro (midsize), Kia Forte (compact), and Nissan Maxima (large) scored individual wins. Ford also had a surprising hit with the Lincoln MKC, which ranked third in the compact premium segment behind the 4 Series and Lexus IS. This is a coup for the Blue Oval, whose woeful MyFord Touch systems made the brand a victim of the IQS' flaws in the early 2010s. But Ford and other automakers might not want to celebrate just yet. According to JD Power, there's still a lot of room for improvement – navigation systems were the lowest-rated piece of tech in the study. Instead, customers repeatedly saluted collision-avoidance and safety systems, giving the category the best marks of the study and listing blind-spot monitoring and backup cameras as two must-have features – 96 percent of respondents said they wanted those two systems in their next vehicle. But this isn't really a surprise. Implementation of safety systems from brand to brand is similar, and they don't require any input from users, unlike navigation and infotainment systems which are frustratingly deep.