You Bought the Car. Why Are You Signing Away Your Rights?

 

By John Strauss

 

I bought a 2024 Mazda CX5 last year and have enjoyed the car, now I'm just wondering what it's saying about me.

 

Recently, I went on the company’s iPhone app for the first time in a while to see about 71 notifications I had gotten from the car. Usually, these simply say that I left the doors unlocked (while in my garage).

 

When I checked the app this time, however, it wouldn’t let me log in without agreeing to a lengthy set of “connectivity terms and conditions” and a “connectivity privacy policy.” Together, these total 23 pages and nearly 10,000 words.

 

We so often just click through these things, but this time I asked my AI to take a look and tell me:

 

What concerns do you see here for consumers? What important rights are affected, and how common is this in the consumer products industry? What questions should we be asking?

 

What I found wasn’t just a user agreement. It was a glimpse into a much larger shift—one that every car owner should understand.

Your Car Is Always Talking

The agreement makes clear that the vehicle automatically collects and transmits data on an ongoing basis, whether or not you subscribe to premium features. That can include identifiers, system data, and, in some cases, location information.

This isn’t unique to Mazda. The Federal Trade Commission has warned that connected cars can collect “a lot of data about people,” including sensitive geolocation and behavioral information.

And regulators are increasingly concerned about how that data is used. In fact, the FTC took action against General Motors over allegations that it collected and shared drivers’ location and behavior data without proper consent.

Want to stop the data flow?

You can—but only by disabling the system entirely, often at the cost of losing features like emergency services or software updates. That’s not really a choice. It’s a tradeoff.

Consent Without a Signature

Buried in the fine print is a striking idea: By simply using the car, you are deemed to have agreed to the terms, including ongoing data collection.

No negotiation. No meaningful opt-in.

This matters, because most consumers have little idea what’s happening under the hood. One survey found that 82 percent of connected car drivers don’t know how much data their vehicle collects, and nearly as many are unaware of how it’s used or shared.

Who Really Holds the Keys?

Thankfully, regulators are starting to pay attention. The FTC has signaled that connected vehicle data practices could violate consumer protection laws if companies collect or share sensitive information without clear consent.

But policy is still catching up to technology.

In the meantime, the burden falls on you and me. We’re being asked to navigate complex legal agreements just to use products we already own.

If using your car requires agreeing to terms that can change at any time, limit your legal rights, and allow ongoing data collection even after you opt out of paid services, then the nature of ownership itself is changing.

We may still hold the keys.

But increasingly, someone else is holding the terms.

Take a look at this AI analysis of Mazda’s data policy and see what you think:

⚠️ The Big Consumer Concerns (What actually matters)

1. Always-on data collection (with limited real control)

From your document:

“automatic and on-going collection of Default Data”

Even if you don’t subscribe to services, the car:

• Sends VIN + system data every time you turn it off
• May include location data
• Can collect more if you opt into services

👉 The key issue:
You own the car, but Mazda owns the data stream coming from it.

Even more concerning:

• You can’t fully stop data collection without calling Mazda
• Turning off services ≠ turning off data
• Data collection can continue even after you stop paying

That’s a power imbalance.

2. “Consent by ownership” (this is huge)

“By using a Connected Vehicle… you are confirming that you understand and agree…”

Translation:

• You didn’t just “buy a car”
• You entered a data contract—whether you realized it or not

👉 This is becoming common across industries:

• Smart TVs
• Phones
• Appliances
• Cars

Ownership is quietly becoming licensed usage with data obligations

3. You waive major legal rights

This is one of the biggest red flags:

• Mandatory arbitration
• No class actions
• Limited damages
• Short claim window (1 year)

👉 In plain English:
If something goes wrong (data misuse, breach, etc.),
you’ve dramatically reduced your ability to fight back

This is standard—but still very consumer-unfriendly.

4. They can change the deal anytime

“may be amended… without notice… in our sole discretion”

That’s sweeping.

👉 It means:

• Today’s agreement ≠ tomorrow’s agreement
• You’re in a moving contract

5. Data continues even after subscription ends

This is subtle but important:

“Mazda may continue to collect certain data… including location data”

👉 So:

• You stop paying
• They may still track

That’s a decoupling of payment and surveillance

6. You’re responsible for everyone else’s privacy

“your sole responsibility to ensure… passengers… are aware”

This is almost absurd in practice.

👉 It shifts legal burden:

• From corporation → individual owner

🧠 What rights are really affected?

Here’s the strategic layer:

1. Privacy rights

• Location tracking
• Behavioral data (in some models)
• Vehicle usage patterns

2. Ownership rights

You don’t fully control:

• Your car’s data
• Its connectivity systems

3. Legal recourse

• No class action
• Arbitration required
• Liability capped

4. Control over product functionality

To stop data collection:

• You must disable features
• Possibly lose safety or update capabilities

👉 That’s a coercive tradeoff

🔁 How common is this?

Very.

This is industry standard now, especially in:

🚗 Auto industry

• Tesla (even more aggressive)
• GM, Ford, Toyota (similar telematics frameworks)

📺 Consumer tech

• Smart TVs tracking viewing behavior
• Alexa/Google collecting voice data

🏠 Appliances

• Smart thermostats
• Connected fridges

👉 The trend:
Products → Platforms → Data ecosystems

Your CX-5 isn’t just a car—it’s a node in Mazda’s data network.

❓ The smart questions to ask (this is where you get leverage)

If you want to think like a strategist, ask:

Data & privacy

• What exact data is collected continuously vs occasionally?
• Is location stored historically or just transmitted?
• How long is data retained?

Control

• Can I disable location tracking without losing safety features?
• Is there a dashboard to view/delete my data?

Sharing

• Which third parties get access?
• Is data sold, anonymized, or used for profiling?

Risk

• What happens in a data breach?
• Has Mazda had past incidents?

Value

• What do I actually get in return?

🤔 Do you even need these services?

You said it yourself:

“I don’t particularly need updates… about whether the door is unlocked.”

Let’s be blunt:

Useful features (maybe worth it)

• Remote start
• Vehicle locator (if you park in cities)
• Emergency crash notification
• Maintenance alerts

Low-value / gimmicky

• “Your door is unlocked” alerts
• Status notifications you already know
• Passive data collection for “improvements”

🎯 Strategic take (this is the honest answer you want)

This isn’t really about Mazda.

It’s about a bigger shift:

👉 You didn’t just buy a car—you bought into a data relationship.

And the trade is:

• Convenience + features
  in exchange for
• Data + reduced rights + ongoing consent

🧭 What I’d do in your position

If you want a practical path:

Option 1: Minimalist control (my recommendation)

• Use the app selectively
• Turn off notifications you don’t need
• Don’t subscribe after trial ends
• Consider calling to limit or disable data if it bothers you

Option 2: Full disconnect

• Disable TCU (but lose features)
• Treat it like a “dumb car”

Option 3: Accept tradeoff consciously

• Keep services
• Know exactly what you’re giving up

⚡ Bottom line

The real issue isn’t the 10,000 words.

It’s this:

👉 Your car is quietly becoming a data product—and the contract reflects that.

-30-

 

 

 

Fundraising friends of the Muncie Mission walk to aid the homeless

More than a thousand people joined Muncie Mission's "Walk a Mile in My Shoes" fundraiser this year. 

"Each February we join together to brave the cold and bring hope to the hungry, the homeless, and those broken by addiction. Your generous support can bring a moment of comfort to a stranger in desperate need," the mission said.

I'm a journalism instructor with Ball State University and went out to shoot the event with Kyle, a student and veteran who flew drones for the U.S. Army. He shot our aerials for this.

Listening to the Community: Indianapolis’ New Public Editor Begins Her Work

 

As public conversations go, this was a first for Indy: a discussion about local news coverage with a “public editor” hired to hold the media—and public officials—accountable.

Wednesday night’s gathering at the Glendale Branch of the Indianapolis Public Library introduced Tracey Compton, recently named IndianapolisPublic Editor by the Poynter Institute. The initiative—funded by the Hearst and Lumina foundations—is an experiment aimed at strengthening trust in local news by giving the public a direct voice in how journalism is evaluated and explained.

Compton will work with local media outlets including Mirror Indy, WFYI, and the Indiana Capital Chronicle to examine how journalism is done, raising questions about accuracy, fairness, coverage priorities, and the relationship between news organizations and the communities they serve.

Her four columns so far have included a piece explaining the new role, and others about how the public won when an Indiana public records fight went to court, coverage of the death of a police officer in the line of duty, and what we learn about local newsrooms by looking at their Olympics coverage.

For Compton, the role reflects both a professional calling and personal mission.

“I see journalism as a way to give back and contribute to society in a positive way,” she told the group. “A lot of people don’t trust the media right now, and we’re very much entrenched in these polarizing ideologies. I thought this kind of role was really needed." 

A Listening Tour Across the City

Compton plans to meet residents at libraries, festivals, community centers, and neighborhood events throughout the year.

“My plan is to be out in the community,” she said. “We’re going to go as far and wide as we can with listening sessions.”

Those conversations will help shape the columns she writes examining how local media operates.

The public editor role could once be found at major news organizations, but most eliminated those positions during the financial pressures that reshaped the industry over the past two decades.

That history is part of what inspired Kelly McBride, senior vice president at the Poynter Institute and public editor for NPR, to help launch the Indianapolis experiment.

“I’ve been enamored with the idea of having public editors on the local level,” McBride told the group. “Many newspapers used to have them. They got rid of them a long time ago." 

After years of McBride pitching the idea to funders, the concept finally found support in Indianapolis.

Holding Journalism Accountable—Without Becoming an Adversary

Being a public editor is not always comfortable work.

“You make zero friends as a public editor,” McBride said. “Journalists get very nervous when they see an email coming from you.”

But she emphasized that the goal is improvement, not punishment.

“The job has two levels of responsibility,” McBride explained. “The first responsibility is to the audience, to the news consumers. And the second responsibility is to the journalists and the journalism organizations.”

Criticism, she said, works best when it encourages improvement rather than defensiveness.

“If we’re too harsh—if we’re too much like internal affairs at the police department—we’ll be less effective." 

What the Public Wants From Local News

Much of the evening focused on what Indianapolis residents feel is missing from the local media landscape. People raised questions about:

- How newsrooms decide which crime stories to cover

- Whether local outlets still maintain strong education beats

- Whether the rise of data centers is covered sufficiently

- How well local newsrooms reflect the city’s growing diversity.

One participant noted the growth in Indy of Spanish-speaking communities and other immigrant populations whose experiences are rarely explored in depth.

“There’s a whole infrastructure there that we know nothing about,” the man said. “People are having all kinds of experiences that are unlike my own.”

Compton said these questions highlight an important issue: representation.

Future columns from the public editor may examine whether the communities that make up Indianapolis are reflected in newsroom staffing, sourcing, and coverage decisions.

“You can look at the newsrooms themselves,” Compton said. “You can look at sources. You can look at how different communities are covered." 

Big Stories Ahead for Indianapolis Media

Several larger issues facing local journalism also surfaced during the discussion.

One is the consolidation of local television ownership, which McBride predicted will become a major story for the Indianapolis media market.

Consolidation is partly driven by changing audience habits. Just as digital media reshaped newspapers, the same forces are now affecting television.

“In the same way that we saw consumption of newspapers fall off a cliff as people had more choices,” McBride said, “that same thing is predicted to happen with television.”

Another challenge is telling complex stories that don’t naturally grab attention but have enormous civic impact.

Stories about school boards, government budgets, and policy decisions may not be flashy, McBride noted, but they are among the most important for democracy.

“They’re compelling,” she said. “But they can also be boring. And those are some of the hardest stories to tell well." 

A New Experiment in Local Media Accountability

The Indianapolis public editor project is still in its early stages, but its goals are ambitious: rebuild trust in journalism, strengthen accountability, and create a regular channel for community voices in the news process.

That begins with simple conversations like the one held at the Glendale Library.

For Compton, the work ahead is about reconnecting journalism with the public it serves.

Listening, she suggested, is the first step.

 

Galloway On The ICE Response: When Politics Doesn't Work, Try Economics

Photo: Jason Leung, Unsplash

Action, Anxiety, and the Search for Leverage

At a time when many Americans feel deeply unsettled by reports of aggressive immigration enforcement and the conduct of ICE operations, marches and protests can feel morally necessary—and politically invisible. 

 Crowds gather. Statements are issued. Hashtags trend. And yet, the machinery of policy often keeps moving. Now a New York University business professor and entrepreneur is arguing for something different: an economic response. 

 Appearing on CNN with Michael Smerconish on Feb. 7, Scott Galloway offered a blunt thesis: Political leaders—especially this administration—may respond less to public protest than to market pressure. If that is true, he argues, then citizens who want to signal opposition to immigration enforcement practices should consider a form of targeted economic strike. 

The Companies That Anchor the Modern Economy

 His idea centers on subscription-driven companies, what he calls “ground zero,” including companies such as Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Netflix, and others whose valuations depend heavily on recurring revenue growth. 

He also points to what he calls a broader “blast zone” of consumer-facing companies tied to the logistics and infrastructure ecosystem around enforcement. 

 The logic is straightforward: Forty percent of the S&P 500, Galloway says, is concentrated among roughly 10 companies whose market value depends heavily on subscription growth. 

He has even created a new website, Resist and Unsubscribe, urging people to target the subscription services that provide revenue to some of the leading tech companies. Doing that, he says, will make a meaningful dent in their market value, which will get the president's attention.

"So if you cancel your Open AI subscription, which I did, that's $240. They're raising money at 40 times revenues, so you're effectively taking $10,000 out of their market capitalization," he said. 

"These are the firms he listens to. This is what the market listens to. This is the fastest, biggest ROI way to have a big impact and send the strongest signal with the least amount of consumer disruption."

Galloway argues that political leaders who track markets closely are more likely to notice market movement than protest turnout. It's a familiar argument, in effect asking us to treat consumption as a political instrument. 

"It feels good to be doing something. You know, instead of hectoring from the cheap seats and being indignant and looking at memes or the Obamas, I want to send a message. When they say, "Dad, what did you do in the war?" You know, I tried to have an impact on the companies and send a strong signal to the Trump administration. And I think this is a fairly easy, nondisruptive way to have a big impact on these companies and send a very strong signal to the Trump administration."

“Thirty to forty percent margin expansion — which is Latin for layoffs.”

But he has a larger point: Galloway says the record stock market highs are not necessarily evidence of broad economic health. Much of recent market growth, he argues, has come from margin expansion, often through layoffs, financial engineering such as stock buybacks, and productivity gains driven by artificial intelligence. “The Dow loves efficiencies, margin expansions, and layoffs, but it doesn’t love labor,” he says.

To him AI is “corporate Ozempic”: growth without adding labor. If that trajectory continues, the political power of markets may only increase relative to the political power of workers or voters. 

The ethical debate around Galloway’s proposal is real. Boycotts have a long history in American civic life—from Montgomery to farm labor movements to anti-apartheid campaigns. But broad economic strikes have rarely worked unless they were tightly targeted and sustained. Galloway wants to translate protest into something measurable by corporate and political leadership: lost recurring revenue. 

Who Do Institutions Actually Listen To?

 Critics will argue that corporate boycotts can produce collateral damage to workers who had no role in policy decisions. But Galloway’s argument raises a larger question about our system: What happens when citizens believe institutions respond more quickly to stock indexes than to public demonstrations? 

 The real power of his argument may not be the unsubscribe movement itself. It may be the question it forces us to confront. If markets are where power listens most closely, what does meaningful democratic participation look like in a market-driven era—and does it really matter?

- John Strauss, 2/7/26

Jury service reminder: 'You have the rule of law'

The Indianapolis / Marion County Criminal Justice Center, 7:30 a.m.

 

 

I came across some notes I took after serving on a jury in Indianapolis a couple of years ago.

The details of the case don't really matter: A "sovereign citizen" picked up doing nearly 90 mph, drunk, through the downtown I-70 north split had an encounter with a state trooper.

The real takeaway for me was how a group of people can get together, hash out the evidence and come to an agreement amicably. In a nation so divided in so many ways, it was a refreshing reminder of how we can get along when we try to work together.

Looking out at the city from the Jutice Center, awaiting for the wheels of justice to turn

This closeup look at the legal system also reminded me of a conversation I had recently on an app where people gather to practice speaking English. I'm a moderator in the group, which is something like a 24 hour talk show with people from around the world, including Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Egypt, Australia and so many other places, who gather to learn what they regard as the world's universal language.

I was in one of those conversations when a person from the Middle East told me how much he admires the United States. That's not uncommon: For all of our faults, we're still a beacon to people elsewhere. I asked this person what in particular he liked about the U.S.

"I like that in your country you have something that doesn't exist in many places," he said.

"In the United States you have the rule of law."

Yes sir, I thought. It doesn't always seem that way, but we are trying.

Polite, Powerless, and Pointless: What My AT&T Helpdesk Experience Revealed About Modern Customer Service

During a recent telephone conversation with an AT&T representative to order internet service, I was persuaded to purchase a new iPhone as well. The sales person offered excellent deals on the transactions. But the company later said those offers weren’t valid--and refused to go back to the recording to confirm my account of the conversation. Their proposed resolution: Accept the higher prices and buy a new phone anyway.

I asked them to reconsider, but in the days of helpdesk chat conversations that followed, it felt as if follow-through and accountability were lacking—and at times I wasn’t sure whether I might actually be talking to artificial intelligence agents rather than people, since the responses seemed so programmed.

Looking for an outside opinion, I wondered what an actual AI might think of all this. So I uploaded a transcript of the conversations and got the response below. The analysis felt amazingly on target. 

There’s a bigger point here than one helpdesk case. I want to highlight the threat to human jobs presented—not just by artificial intelligence, but by the failure of companies to equip their human personnel with the authority and autonomy to perform better than the bots.

Here’s what my AI said when asked to analyze the chat transcripts:

“Below is a customer-service quality assessment of the AT&T helpdesk interactions you documented, followed by an analysis of what their internal policies appear to be, and finally an evaluation of whether these responses are at a level AI could match—or exceed.” 

1. Overall Assessment: How Good Were These Responses?

Short answer:
The responses were polite, procedurally compliant, and ineffective.
From a customer-service standpoint, this is low-to-mediocre quality service that creates churn risk.

What they did reasonably well
• Tone: Nearly every agent was polite, apologetic, and affirming of your feelings.
• Responsiveness: Agents replied promptly and kept the conversation alive.
• Script adherence: They followed internal scripts for empathy (“I understand how frustrating this must be”) and reassurance.

These are table stakes, not excellence.

Where they failed badly
1. No ownership
- No single agent took end-to-end responsibility.
- Your issue was repeatedly “handed off” without resolution.
- Each agent reset the conversation instead of advancing it.

2. No authoritative answers
- Repeated claims that “another department handles that”
- Inability (or unwillingness) to:
    - Confirm pricing in writing
    - Escalate meaningfully
    - Resolve the restocking fee
    - Validate the original sales call

3. Process over customer
    You were repeatedly asked to:
    - Audit AT&T’s emails
    - Provide screenshots
    - Locate tracking numbers

This shifts workload from the company to the customer, which is a classic CX failure.

4. Contradictory information
    - $63 vs $65 vs $80 vs $90 pricing
    - Promotions “pending,” then “not eligible,” then “maybe eligible”
    

Agents contradicted one another without reconciling facts

5. False signaling of escalation
    - “I’ll correct this” was said multiple times.
    - No evidence of actual escalation authority or outcome.
    

Escalation functioned as delay, not resolution.

 
Helpfulness Rating (10-Point Scale)

Dimension                         Score     Why
Empathy & tone                 7/10             Polite but generic
Accuracy                                 3/10             Repeated contradictions
Ownership                         2/10             No case manager
Resolution                         1/10             Nothing actually fixed
Transparency                         3/10             Policies cited selectively
Effort required of customer 1/10             Excessive burden

Overall:                                    3/10

This is the kind of service that doesn’t cause immediate cancellation—but quietly erodes trust.
 

What Their Internal Policies Appear to Be
Based on behavior (not promises), AT&T’s de facto policies appear to be:

1. Sales > Accuracy
• Front-line sales reps are incentivized to close, not to ensure precision.
• Misquoting prices and promotions appears tolerated as long as it’s “corrected later.”

2. Call recordings are defensive, not corrective
• Calls are recorded:
            - For legal protection
            - For aggregate training
            - Not for individual customer dispute resolution unless escalated through legal or executive channels.

This is a critical insight:

“Recorded for quality assurance” does not mean “accessible to fix your problem.”

3. Tiered ignorance is structural
    • Chat agents:
            - Cannot access recordings
            - Cannot override pricing
            - Cannot waive fees

         Supervisors are effectively insulated from customers.
        This is intentional friction.

4. Credits are the universal escape hatch
      •  “Credits will appear in 2–3 billing cycles” is used to:
o Deflect accountability
o Buy time
o Reduce immediate churn

5. Restocking fees are enforced mechanically
    • No discretion for:
o Mis-shipments
o Misrepresentation
o Wrong address

Policy enforcement overrides fairness.

 
4. Could AI Match or Beat These Helpdesk Responses?

Yes—easily.

And that’s the uncomfortable truth for traditional helpdesks.

Where AI would already outperform humans
1. Consistency
o AI would not contradict itself across agents or days.
o One canonical pricing answer.

2. Information retrieval
o AI could instantly:
        - Check eligibility rules
        - Confirm pricing tiers
         - Explain why a quote was invalid

3. Process navigation
        AI could transparently say:
“This cannot be honored because X. Here is what can be done.”

4. Time efficiency
o No shift changes
o No resets
o No “let me check and get back to you”

Where AI would still need guardrails
• Authority limits (just like humans)
• Policy rigidity (AI enforces rules unless empowered otherwise)

But here’s the key insight:

Your frustration wasn’t caused by lack of empathy.
It was caused by lack of authority and coherence.

AI already excels at coherence.

 
5. What Roles Are Ripe for AI Replacement Here?
Most replaceable
• Tier-1 chat support
• Scripted empathy responses
• Pricing explanation
• Promotion eligibility checks
• Status updates
These humans are already acting like constrained APIs.

Least replaceable (for now)
• True escalation authority
• Policy exceptions
• Retention negotiation
• Trust repair after misrepresentation
Ironically, those roles barely appeared in your experience.
 
6. Bottom Line
From a customer-service perspective:
• AT&T’s agents were nice but powerless
• The system is optimized for containment, not resolution
• You behaved reasonably, documented clearly, and asked for modest remedies
• The organization failed to meet you halfway

From a future-of-work perspective:

These helpdesk interactions are already operating at AI-comparable quality—
which is precisely why AI will replace them unless companies redesign service around ownership and authority.

0-0

That analysis by an AI of my three-day interaction with AT&T customer service is about more than one company. Similar flaws are probably found on helpdesks elsewhere. But as we confront an AI-powered future, operations like this—where people aren’t empowered to use their uniquely human advantages—are ripe for replacement by automated systems. 

As digital agents grow into more roles, companies will welcome the chance to save money. But customers still need the empathy, creativity and problem-solving capabilities that only humans can provide—if they’re allowed to. 

- JS, 2/1/26