Ford seeks patent for tech that listens to driver conversations to serve ads

https://therecord.media/ford-patent-application-in-vehicle-listening-advertising

by croes • 2 years ago

153 129 2 years ago

NotACop182• 2 years ago

unfortunately, outrage only lasts a few weeks and then the consumer rolls over. I can see a future market for dumb cars.

austin-cheney• 2 years ago

That depends on the person. I refuse to ever buy a Tesla because it’s filled with smart technology insanity and then they charge a subscription for this punishment they force on you.

All I need is a stick shift and radio smart enough to parse and navigate mp3 files. The car doesn’t even have to come with that radio as it’s a trivial aftermarket upgrade.

azhenley• 2 years ago

I’ve owned a Tesla since 2018 and never paid a subscription nor needed one.

darknavi• 2 years ago

My Model 3 and Model Y do not have AM but do have FM. Did they remove that from base models?

You can also play MP3 files from a flash drive and navigate.

Can't help you with the stick shift though!

junaru• 2 years ago

There is no future for dumb cars. They will be outlawed just like ICE ones in the coming decades.

You will not even be able to manually drive as you will be deemed too much of a hazard for all the autonomous cars.

hedora• 2 years ago

We’re starting to see this. For instance, some cars have absurdly overactive VESS (engine tone) systems.

Some are so loud they wake up neighbors. Others don’t shut off at the NHTSA recommended 30kph, and sound like distant ambulances on the freeway.

Even if it is legal to disable them, many insurance policies include a carve out that invalidates your coverage if you do so. So, you could lose your house as punishment without ever getting to defend yourself in front of a jury.

sandebert2• 2 years ago

I suppose a "dumb car" should be called "feature car", the same way as old-school mobiles are called "feature phones".

JohnFen6• 2 years ago

Feature phones are not old-school mobile phones. They're crippled smartphones. As near as I can tell, nobody actually makes good old, dumb, cellphones anymore.

SoftTalker3• 2 years ago

Another step towards the future where we do not own our cars. I'm not entirely opposed to the idea, depending on how it's implemented (and priced) but I wish they'd be up-front about it.

CSMastermind• 2 years ago

I'm entirely opposed to the idea. But I also recognize that I'm in a minority and will probably lose that fight.

SoftTalker3• 2 years ago

I can imagine a future where fully autonomous cars are available everywhere and from multiple providers, so that competition drives the price down to close to cost. I would not mind not having to deal with insurance, maintenance, repairs, parking, fueling, charging, and everything else that comes with owning a car. I'm not opposed to that, but I also think it's nothing more than a fantasy.

More likely that if we ever have cars that are safely autonomous, they will be kept scarce by a monopoly or oligopoly of companies who will have one-sided insight into the costs and demands and extract maximum prices from users. Similar to the games we're witnessing being played by large rental property owners.

JohnFen6• 2 years ago

I'm in the same boat. I think that the fight for reasonable cars is long lost, and that's why I expect that I'll just be driving older used cars for the remainder of my life.

But perhaps the day will come where some upstart company will begin producing cars that don't spy on you. You never know.

gspencley• 2 years ago

I don't like the idea that my car comes with a bug installed in it. By bug I mean the spy device.

While I can think of certain things that you might want to be able to do hands-free, these are mostly activities that don't have anything to do with the car itself. Hands-free radio controls, hands-free mobile calling etc. And I'd prefer that these features not be integrated into the car in a way that I can't choose to buy a car with, say, a different radio that doesn't have those features.

In other words, I can't think of a reason that a car should necessarily come pre-installed with any sort of microphone what-so-ever.

But the idea that there is not only a microphone, but that it is sending what it picks up to some remote server, is a notion that I am deeply uncomfortable with.

Most people view the inside of their car as being somewhat akin to the inside of their home. While people might expect less privacy in a car than in their homes, there is still an expectation of privacy to a degree. And that privacy expectation is typically more auditory than visual (of course you can get tinted windows but people expect you might be able to see inside of a car, but not necessary hear what two people are saying to one another).

SoftTalker3• 2 years ago

Many people willingly install Alexa or similar devices in their homes, and have always-listening assistants running on their phones. For these people, I don't think they will suddenly be concerned about privacy in their cars.

ale42• 2 years ago

Of course consumers will get some benefit in return, like heating seats for free instead of paying a subscription to turn on a resistor... right?

hagbard_c3• 2 years ago

Only for a while, after that they'll have to pay if they want it to warm up at a reasonable pace, then they'll have to pay for warm seats when the temperature is above freezing - all to save the environment of course - and then they'll just have to pay no matter what upon which a new cycle starts: camera's recording facial expressions which are used to detect susceptibility to coercion so ads can be launched at the most vulnerable moments but in return you get a premium seat heating subscription at the low, low price of ${lotsomoolah}.

akovaski• 2 years ago

Really they should charge more when it is colder out. What's the point of a free market if it can't respond to consumer demand? Our ChargeTooshie seat warmer uses our comprehensive 5g wiretapping network and innovative AI to provide drivers the absolute maximum value that they can afford. With ChargeTooshie, drivers can be assured that they will not freeze to death, because we now accept credit!

bogwog• 2 years ago

It will be like mobile games: watch these ads to earn free Heating Tokens(tm)

Or give <targeted-family-member> a lift and talk about <survey-topic> to earn 30 days of ad-free seat heating

lelandfe• 2 years ago

In his desk drawer he found the contract; since signing it he had found it necessary to refer to the document many times. Sure enough; payment to his door for opening and shutting constituted a mandatory fee. Not a tip.
"You discover I'm right," the door said. It sounded smug.
From the drawer beside the sink Joe Chip got a stainless steel knife; with it he began systematically to unscrew the bolt assembly of his apt's money-gulping door.
"I'll sue you," the door said as the first screw fell out.

Philip K Dick, Ubik

pndy• 2 years ago

For sanity sake, don't give them ideas

ASalazarMX• 2 years ago

altairprime• 2 years ago

I expect their plan is to deploy this in rental car fleets. You won’t earn a discount but the rental car company will get a kickback from Ford for their fleet purchase. Think RyanAir but cars.

gruez5• 2 years ago

It'll probably be baked into the price and therefore not directly visible to you, similar to how video game consoles are priced cheaply relative to their manufacturing cost with the expectation that they'll make up for it on royalties/connected services. It makes no sense to give some feature for "free" to make up for it, because the feature could still be used for product segmentation purposes. For instance heated seats is still useful as a differentiator for a premium trim, so it'd make no sense to give it to everyone for free.

beretguy• 2 years ago

Did you know BMW was trying to make heating seats a subscription service?

https://www.theverge.com/2023/9/7/23863258/bmw-cancel-heated...

aftbit• 2 years ago

This reminds me a bit of the Airbus patent for using bike seats on airplanes to save weight.[1][2] Of course it's a "good" idea in one narrow sense, saving weight on flights, but it's a bad idea in a few other senses, including safety and comfort.

Remember folks, filing a patent doesn't ensure implementation. If Ford starts snooping on our in-car conversations and injecting ads into our Spotify streams, we can just refuse to buy Fords. They know this. The patent actually makes it less likely that other companies will copy them, so we're less likely to end up in a situation where we have no choice.

Now if the NHTSA mandates that all new vehicles come with in-car microphones and AI to listen to conversations to stop drunk driving or some other crazy reason, we're in real trouble. That's why we have touchscreens in every car now - backup cams are mandatory, and if they have to have the screen, they'll use it for everything.

1: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/airbus-s-retractable-bicycle-s...

2: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20140159444A1/en

eximius• 2 years ago

If Ford starts snooping on our in-car conversations and injecting ads into our Spotify streams, we can just refuse to buy Fords.

If Ford does this, every other car company will find ways to license or come up with competing patents then do the same.

There is every incentive for informal collusion here and regulatory bodies are meant to express public sentiment that things like this are something that we, as a society, do not want.

wincy• 2 years ago

I think the pendulum is swinging back on using the touch screen for everything.

My 2024 Toyota Sequoia has a touch screen but it’s only for the infotainment stuff. No essential part of the car is controlled through it. Lots of buttons and knobs in the car. I think it strikes a good balance. Even the audio has a simple knob to turn the volume up and down, and a volume control on the steering wheel. I skipped an entire decade of vehicles because I thought using a screen for everything was absolutely ridiculous.

gruez5• 2 years ago

I think the pendulum is swinging back on using the touch screen for everything.
My 2024 Toyota Sequoia [...]

I don't think toyota ever went "using the touch screen for everything". For instance, both images for 2010 and 2018 Toyota Sequoias had knobs.

[1] https://static0.carbuzzimages.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploa...

[2] https://tadvantagebetaprod-com.cdn-convertus.com/uploads/sit...

kelseyfrog5• 2 years ago

we can just refuse to buy Fords.

I'm trying to think back to a situation where a product was shipped with something intrusive like this and customers didn't buy it. Can you help?

JumpCrisscross• 2 years ago

trying to think back to a situation where a product was shipped with something intrusive like this and customers didn't buy it

There aren’t many because most consumers don’t particularly value privacy. They presumably wouldn’t mind this. It’s only a problem for us if there is no choice in the market, or their choices have a negative externality on us.

virtue3• 2 years ago

Your smartphone

Anything by meta

Amazon Alexa/dot

All smart-tvs are uploading your screen and what you watch constantly. Source: I worked on adding interactivity to ads on certain TVs when they used content recognition on your sceeen caps

bee_rider2• 2 years ago

I think Google Glass and Facebook’s camera sunglasses didn’t work out over privacy concerns. Or maybe they didn’t work out because they were useless, IDK. In general, I think it is hard to think, especially off the cuff, of examples of products that didn’t work out.

thih9• 2 years ago

If Ford starts snooping on our in-car conversations and injecting ads into our Spotify streams, we can just refuse to buy Fords.

In practice often we can’t - people often prefer worse products and with user hostile features as long as they’re cheaper.

recursive3• 2 years ago

Who is Ford to deny people what they prefer?

jajko3• 2 years ago

There is very very little actual innovation in the cars - previous generation can still work 10-15 years with good maintenance.

Not long term solution, I know, and ie eco regulations will push them away eventually, but this is now a wild period when we are literally fucked by car manufacturers, and there is not yet clear legal framework on how to deal with it. There will be brutal fines, at least in EU, but thats at least 5 years down the line.

TBH for an European it may be actually beneficial to have Chinese car - I couldn't care less if chinese have tons of my driving data, I don't think they will sell it so easily elsewhere (but who knows).

Suffice to say I am keeping my pretty dumb BMW F11 family wagon (2014) for a long time unless it breaks apart.

sitkack3• 2 years ago

And they will be cheaper if they can reduce the price of the car with ads (which they will more than makeup for on the backside).

We need a no corporate eves dropping law, either directly or inferred. I still don't understand why corporations doing adversarial sigint against customers isn't running afoul of wiretapping laws.

mysteria2• 2 years ago

If Ford starts snooping on our in-car conversations and injecting ads into our Spotify streams, we can just refuse to buy Fords.

Well pretty much all car manufacturers today collect telemetry on driving habits, locations, and such, and more and more vehicles now have a built in cellular modem to send all that data back to the manufacturer. Their privacy policies also give them the ability to do whatever they like with that data [1], and there have been cases of them sending it to insurance companies and the like. Currently on some models you can physically remove the modem or antenna but in the future that may brick your vehicle or be prohibited by law or license agreements.

Today it's very hard to buy a car that doesn't have this tracking. I assure you that if Ford is making good money with this tech other manufacturers will follow.

1. https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/privacynotincluded/nissan/

gruez5• 2 years ago

Today it's very hard to buy a car that doesn't have this tracking. I assure you that if Ford is making good money with this tech other manufacturers will follow.

Not sure about Ford, but the website you cited also has a scathing review of Toyota, but toyota claims to have an opt out[1][2]. I guess you're technically right in the sense that all cars have the functionality built-in, but it's still possible to have a car without such tracking.

[1] https://support.toyota.com/s/article/Can-I-optout-of-Toyot-1...

[2] https://www.gr86.org/threads/vehicle-data-transmission-how-t...

JohnFen6• 2 years ago

Remember folks, filing a patent doesn't ensure implementation.

True, but it does indicate a direction their R&D is going in, and it indicates the sorts of things they want to do. That's why these sorts of filings are big red flashing warning signs.

sroussey• 2 years ago

A charitable stance is that by patenting this, no one else can do it. Which would be great, if you didn’t want to do it either. Then Android Auto is locked out of that feature, for example.

benhurmarcel• 2 years ago

More realistically, employees get a small bonus for filing a patent. It might not be at all what direction my domain is interested in, but if I can convince the patents department that it’s novel and useful, I’ll push it.

AlotOfReading• 2 years ago

A patent doesn't ensure implementation, but automakers have long memories and are always hungry for margin.

A few, slightly cynical hypotheticals:

1. Ford offers a "rental trim" package enabling advertising with a kickback to the rental company and a lowered upfront cost.

2. They collect the data anyway to support alternative revenue streams, even if they never manifest. Seen that before.

3. They use it in their commercial offerings instead, like school buses and airport shuttles.

mrweasel• 2 years ago

Ford already have a patent for the self-repossessing car, if I recall correctly. It doesn't mean that they'll use it.

screye• 2 years ago

At face value, surveillance to limit drunk driving is good. Problem is, no one trusts car manufacturers or the NSA to keep their eyes off the data.

Car crashes are the leading factor for years of life lost among Americans. Obesity, cancer and heart disease don't start killing till you're 60. On the other hand, cars do not practice such ageism.

mattmaroon3• 2 years ago

Was with you until the end. They don’t have to have touch screens (or large screens) for backup cams. Some of them just show in a tiny screen in the rear view on low end cars.

They have touch screens because drivers want touch screens.

JohnFen6• 2 years ago

They have touch screens because drivers want touch screens.

Most people I know hate those touch screens, so I suspect this isn't the reason. I think they have touch screens as a cost-reduction measure, and people are willing to tolerate them because they want a newer car.

raxxorraxor2• 2 years ago

The EU now mandates that new cars have an interface to allow installation of devices that measure your blood alcohol.

Perhaps this is well meaning, but there are countless ways to sabotage such a system.

Another example is the break assistant and collision avoidance. It isn't a solved problem and there are quite a few cases where cars break without any reason, which presents a huge danger itself. Still, such a system is now mandatory too.

That will make cars even more expensive. I think governments around the world are quite overtaxed...

minkles3• 2 years ago

I do believe I'd rather fucking walk than have this.

tomrod• 2 years ago

Right-to-repair should cover hackability to cut microphone and antennae wires

hagbard_c3• 2 years ago

Or just rip out the circuitry and hook up the wires to a power source with something like an ESP8266 or - for the real Luddites - a rheostat.

Then again walking is quite healthy and if you have a train station nearby, why not. Writing this from a train going between the Netherlands and Sweden, a trip I make regularly. Quicker and cheaper than driving and I get to hack away while going places.

minkles3• 2 years ago

I don't own a car or need one so yes that.

passion__desire• 2 years ago

Would you stop having smartphones? Because "they" do the same thing as revealed in news reports recently.

jajko3• 2 years ago

I certainly lowered my usage, removed ie all Meta apps (or linkedin) long before it became Meta, and no looking back.

Happy to remove any app that I don't like, fuck usability and convenience, I have some good respect towards myself and I know how to live well without phone. Are we really that retarded that threat to keep away from the phone is supposed to be something scary? When quality life happens often exactly due to lack of it in our hands.

minkles3• 2 years ago

No and anything like that is turned off and it's iOS so I trust that they don't do anything behind my back like that.

I also have no social media on my phone, everything is locked down and all the privacy options are enabled.

jl6• 2 years ago

“The ideas described within a patent application should not be viewed as an indication of our business or product plans,” the statement added. In a followup statement, Ford said it "will always put the customer first in the decision-making behind the development and marketing of new products and services."

Good to see a damage control statement.

Let’s hope they’ve got the message.

hightrix• 2 years ago

I always worry, with statements like these, that Fords definition of customer is not “person that buys a car” but instead is “advertising company”.

downrightmike• 2 years ago

They aren't the first slime bags to try to do this: https://www.techtimes.com/articles/307372/20240904/cox-media...

spl7572• 2 years ago

Greed is a more powerful motivator than consumer sentiment, unfortunately.

effingwewt• 2 years ago

We plebs aren't the customers anymore we are seen as consumers. The customers are the ad companies.

pbhjpbhj• 2 years ago

It's a weird presentation in my personal opinion. They could have presented it as providing information to vehicle users and only broken out the adverts in the later claims.

It doesn't sound new, based only on the article.

chris_wot• 2 years ago

Oh, please! If this prevents or makes as targeting more expensive for every other car company, I’m all for it. And I refuse to buy Fords.

Win-win all round.

neilv• 2 years ago

Techbro sociopath business leaders (and those of us henchpersons who wrote the code) were the ones who really pushed the surveillance capitalism envelope.

Now, Ford -- purveyor of pickup trucks to the salt-of-the-earth rural and working classes -- don't need to roll down the Overton Window, to reach out and grab their share of that money pile.

ChrisArchitect• 2 years ago

[dupe]

Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41471417

dboreham• 2 years ago

Well now we have two problems:

1.Psychopaths in Ford management.

2. Broken patent system.

stackedinserter• 2 years ago

Both could be fixed if we had a working democracy.

josefresco• 2 years ago

I would be more worried if I didn't have personal experience with digital marketers, and the businesses that hire them. They (ad tech) sell amazing, sometimes very scary, intrusive, tech but the implementation is almost always comically bad. The privacy concern is legitimate, but there are only a handful of brands smart/evil enough to use it as intended. The most common terrible example is Amazon ads: "No I don't want to buy another toilet because I JUST bought one". If Amazon can't figure this out, who is?

dghlsakjg2• 2 years ago

At a certain point they are going to run into wiretap laws, right?

Not a lawyer, but my understanding is that everywhere in North America is at least single party consent, and many places are all party consent for recording.

Ford can say that by buying a car I have agreed to the terms and conditions (although, I would argue that simply buying a product should be separate from terms and conditions), but my passengers haven't, and they certainly have an expectation that their conversations are private in my vehicle.

At a certain point, ad tech is going to run into an ambitious prosecutor or government attorney, and I can't wait.

linuxftw3• 2 years ago

No, because on page 397 of the EULA that pops up on the in-dash LED screen after the 3rd OTA software update specifically stated you authorized this.

jdsully• 2 years ago

But that's the point, you need consent of the person on the other side of the line too which didn't sign the EULA

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF• 2 years ago

That might work in a one-party consent state but the passenger who never interacts with the touch screen in a two-party consent state would have a stronger case. Though, even then, gathering the evidence that they're violating such laws would probably be a pretty big hurdle.

mysteria2• 2 years ago

For Nissan according to Mozilla [1]:

"You promise to educate and inform all users and occupants of your Vehicle about the Services and System features and limitations, the terms of the Agreement, including terms concerning data collection and use and privacy, and the Nissan Privacy Policy."

In addition some vehicles will display a notice on their navigation screens every time the car is started indicating that continued use of this vehicle implies consent to the agreements below. It's sort of like those banners appearing on some websites stating that all users are automatically subject to their legal agreements.

1. https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/privacynotincluded/nissan/

sogen• 2 years ago

Philip K. Dick wrote a short story about this, called "Sales Pitch" (1954).

Relevant specially its ending.

baxtr• 2 years ago

I mean if the car is for free…

candiddevmike• 2 years ago

What prevents me from patenting every draconian idea I can possibly think of in order to block corporations from doing it?

jajko3• 2 years ago

Patent office, maybe? Patent fees?

timmg• 2 years ago

Nothing. And if you work for a big tech company, you will get "patent bonuses" for doing so.

BadHumans• 2 years ago

Nothing but the legal fees from enforcing it.

bdowling• 2 years ago

Patent application filing fees and the time you spend preparing the applications, primarily. Also the loss of privacy (name, etc. in application) in applying for the patent.

Edit: Also the risk that your application is rejected so that you don't get a blocking patent, which would mean anyone else can use the invention or even patent an improvement. An improver might even cite your rejected application in their applications for more draconian inventions, which could be demoralizing.

a_wild_dandan• 2 years ago

Sounds like a good job for a new nonprofit named Black Mirror or something.

jobs_throwaway• 2 years ago

I will contribute to the gofundme

supportengineer• 2 years ago

Enshittification, Inc.

fallinditch• 2 years ago

The idea that my personal data could be used to manipulate my thoughts and actions is deeply unsettling. It makes me question the very nature of free will in a world where every click, like, and share is analyzed and used to predict my next move. I long for a future where privacy is respected and where I can navigate the digital world without feeling like a target for relentless advertising campaigns.

breck• 2 years ago

Helpful mnemonic device:

- Patents are for parasites

- Copyrights are for cons

- Licenses are for losers

charlangas• 2 years ago

I was listening to a podcast today where the speaker wanted to fight against the way that entrepreneurs and business people were portrayed in the media. In many movies and TV shows the bad guy is often an evil billionaire. This guy's argument was that in fact, entrepreneurs are the ones who can really change and improve the world, and while I don't disagree completely, corporations and executives have earned the way they're portrayed. I'm all for well-targeted, useful ads, but this sounds like a horrible intrusion of privacy.

FredPret• 2 years ago

Just as an aside, I think the bad guy should always be rich / powerful, because how boring would a story be if the bad guy is easy to defeat? Imagine a Bond villain with no advantage over the protagonist. There would be nothing for the forces of good to overcome, and thus no drama.

In reality society needs a healthy crop of entrepreneurs vigorously innovating every which way, with a minimal amount of common-sense regulation to prevent obvious abuses like this. Easier said than done.

probably_wrong• 2 years ago

From the patent:

"Such systems and methods further further provide the opposite force to a user's natural inclination to seek minimal or no ads. These systems and methods may intelligently schedule variable duration of ads, with playing time seeking to maximize company revenue while minimizing the impact on user experience."

They know users don't like it. They just don't care.

bloomingeek• 2 years ago

Time to brush up on my sign language skills so I can communicate with my wife in private while in the car. :\

on_the_train• 2 years ago

Just do it without a patent or asking, like everyone else.

dylan6042• 2 years ago

Looks like time to DIY a small speaker to attach directly to the microphone that plays white noise.

neverartful• 2 years ago

One more reason not to buy a Ford (as if I didn't have enough already).

moi2388• 2 years ago

I wish there were some regulations giving me the right to not see ads without my explicit, free consent.

EasyMark• 2 years ago

Beyond the privacy invasion this represents, isn’t there some limit to how obvious a concept is? People have been recording conversations surreptitiously since the first audio recorder was invented, how can you patent something so obvious? I mean I taped my parents having an argument in the back seat with my humongous cassette recorder deck when I was young while sitting in the back seat? Was some kind of child genius? Can I claim prior art?

lmaoguy• 2 years ago

Man I was thinking about buying a ford too. Wtf

bigmattystyles• 2 years ago

I’d like to think this is defensive, to stop someone else from patenting and implementing it.

spl7572• 2 years ago

Just another reason I would never buy a Ford vehicle.

treebeard901• 2 years ago

OnStar has been tracking locations and able to be used for conversation monitoring since the 90s.

webninja• 2 years ago

This could be good. Because then other car companies likely can’t do it. Also Ford does not have to implement it.

Ford seeks patent for tech that listens to driver conversations to serve ads

Related Stories