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.