That's a qualified statement, there is nothing irresponsible about that. Telematics companies bear close watching anyway. Right now it is as far as I'm concerned a content free statement.
It's absolutely irresponsible, even with qualifications, given what we now know about how people use that information. Witch hunts happen even with qualified statements, and down the road people who read qualified statements tend to forget the qualification and give the negativity more weight than it deserves.
Knowing like most industries, the layers of ODMs and OEMs etc, it's hard to pin down who exactly is responsible for a security cockup. And, funnily enough, having an interview there I wasn't inclined to do a recce on their infrastructure. Also, not having a device, I didn't have endpoints or traffic to test.
I went to an interview 3 years ago. The only 'evidence' I have is the UI looks vaguely similar, and my questions about their security posture were met with non-committal answers.
If you knew about the industry, they could have rebranded somebody elses software, bought a previous version, lots of things.
Why would I hold myself to something that may be libelous, without the evidence the OP has?
Because right now you are an anonymous entity on the internet making statements about other un-named entities which may or may not be the same as the one the article is about.
To me that's a content free statement, if you were either not anonymous or you named the company the statement would have some force as it is it is a big fat 0.
