I love this credo. Sadly, large enterprises seem to operate on the exact opposite model of "everything at XYZ corp is someone else's problem".
There's literally no way to fix our own problems. Everything beyond the application code is managed by an external team with their own priorities, and the best we can hope for is readonly access to their repos.
This has little to do with bloat. There's a complex array of backend systems involved in logging you in to your bank: Authentication, authorization, customer system, separate account systems for each account type (debit, credit, loans, investments), etc. The bank's login process has to wait for all of them to respond and collate the data before returning control to the UI.
Rest assured, online banking teams spend a lot of time trying to optimize login performance but they're limited by the slowest of the downstream systems. There's a lot of data on that "account summary" page you see after logging in.
The login process performance could be improved by landing on a simple "welcome" page but the majority of people want to see all of their account balances immediately upon login.
Source: I have worked on several online bank websites and mobile apps.
> The bank's login process has to wait for all of them to respond
Why? If e.g. one loan account is slow to respond seems like letting you in once auth is successful and showing a loading state for that slow account is a better experience
It may be that they've discovered that people feel more comfortable with bank logins taking a while. Maybe if it's too snappy people feel like it's insecure. Sort of like how tax software intentionally adds loading screens to make people feel like it's doing a lot of work behind the scenes even though it's essentially a glorified spreadsheet with instant calculations.
I have no data on this, purely just a theory as to why they may not feel an incentive to make login feel faster.
It is not what he campaigned on, nor what the majority of voters wanted. Not once did I hear “we are going to shut down clinical trials so your loved ones die.” I did hear a lot about grocery prices, which certainly aren’t going down because of this.
Then you weren't paying attention. There were plenty of clues that this is precisely what was going to happen. There were many of us sounding the alarms and too many people scoffed. If you want to see what comes next, take an in depth look at project 2025. It's all there. It's the plan. It was always the plan.
I'm astonished that anyone believed things would unfold any differently than they have. We were told exactly what will happen by everyone in power. And the kissing of the King's ring before inauguration should have been a clue.
Shit is going to get awful. It's already to the point that, when I'm on reddit, I can't distinguish between r/news and r/collapse headlines.
Trump did in fact explicitly say he “hadn’t heard of Project 2025” repeatedly during his campaign. Bullshit obviously, and his supporters were warned many times of this, but I still think it’s fair to say this specific set of actions isn’t what he explicitly campaigned on.
Folks think I'm saying "I didn't expect this" when what I'm saying is "Donald Trump didn't campaign on it." That's relevant and people need to be reminded of it every single day.
But I mean, it was part of the campaign. You can't be forgiven for not being able to read between the lines. The campaign went like this:
- Kamala: He's going to do Project 2025.
- Trump: No I'm not ;)
- You: Well he said he wasn't going to do it, he lied!
You missed the wink and the fingers crossed behind his back, but the rest of us picked up on it. Sorry you weren't paying attention to that, but Kamala pointed it out to you, so you can't say you weren't warned.
Being a dictator is absolutely what he campaigned on. He literally said it, and signalled it in every way possible. Those that didn't see that coming either weren't paying attention or wanted it to happen.
AFAIK there was information about Project 2025, so this was not secret was it?
And lot of people still support this as you can see it even here (as this thread is already flagged).
There are enough people who will reactively flag anything that touches the lines between politics and everything else, usually under a misunderstanding of the guidelines, that it's hard to infer intent behind a flag kill.
Project 2025 was getting grassroots attention & was becoming rabidly unpopular.
Trump denied any affiliation, claimed he didn't know these people. (Even though many are folks he's already worked with.) The media accepted that unquestionablably & regurgitated Trump's obvious lies.
Then frankly you weren’t paying attention. This was all laid out in Project 2025 and there were plentiful ties between it and Trump despite his deflection.
Communism? This looks like the end stage of capitalism affirms horseshoe theory. It was the capitalists who were sitting front row at the inauguration, not communists.
This is the most disheartening part of it all. I have immense respect for the ideals that formed the United States, but I'm increasingly in doubt about the actual implementation.
Anyone who wants freedom and to control the excesses and abuses of the people in power would support the ideals of the Constitution. Just because white people created it does not mean that non-white people may not want to also be free and protected from abuses of the powerful.
Considering how non-white people keep streaming into white countries that have benefited from these white created Constitutional limitations on power, it seems they too desire freedom and liberty even if they are being used and manipulated by the powerful in the white world to essentially break those shackles on the powerful by a kind of civilization fracking, pumping so many people into a system until it collapses and those shackles on the powerful can be removed and the powerful can once again act just like the powerful act in all the non-white countries that have not implemented the white created constitutional limitations on power.
People may not realize they are a tool of the rich and powerful to destroy the very freedoms you currently enjoy, but this has never been a white vs non-white issue even though the jealousy has been used to further the aims of the rich and powerful. It has always been a rich and powerful vs the middle class and poor, with the rich and powerful manipulating the middle and lower classes to act against their own interests and in the interests of the rich and powerful. The saddest thing is that people on the “left” and often the poor, are just useful idiots for the rich and powerful, no different than some gang leader uses and abuses people to commit more abuse and crimes to get richer and more powerful.
I’m not sure what people imagine will happen when white people, who essentially created everything we all enjoy, including freedoms from tyrannical violence and oppression, have been eradicated, but there is no indication that it will end well.
And no, I’m not white since that seems very important to you.
I'm pretty sure they're referring to "the ideals that formed the United States". They're not nearly as admirable as we like to believe.
Some of the worst atrocities are no longer in practice -- though it took the bloodiest war in US history to achieve some of them. But that's not the same as fixing the ideals, and many of those problems are still woven through the fabric of the law and the society.
Imagine what those "ideals" might have been if women, blacks, native Americans, poor people, and others had been in the room. Giving them the right to vote after the basic framework is laid down does not accomplish that.
> I’m not sure what people imagine will happen when white people, who essentially created everything we all enjoy,
Just... No. Not only non-whites created a lot of things we all enjoy (money, algebra), that are also foundational for our civilization. Also, white people also invented a lot of things we all should vehemently reject (such as fascism).
> including freedoms from tyrannical violence and oppression, have been eradicated, but there is no indication that it will end well.
Very hard NO on this one as well. Nobody is eradicating white people and nobody is even considering it.
He wouldn't be refusing to execute laws passed by Congress, he would argue he is exercising his own power that Congress is trying to restrict unconstitutionally. Incidentally he believes his own power is limitless, and it appears SCOTUS does as well.
The playbook is to slowly destroy the limits of power. First step is to bombard the opposition with a flurry of orders that will need to be questioned. Some will be, but some will stick. Rinse and repeat and, the next time, orders could be more extreme. By then, they'll be harder to stop, either because you are still fighting the first round, or because there is no one left to question the next.
> Given the spending that is now on hold was apportioned by Congress, it is likely this will face legal challenges about the scope of presidential power.
He's immune from prosecution. He can still lose court cases that say that he doesn't have the constitutional authority to do X, though, for many values of X.
At that point he can order his subordinates to ignore the ruling. If his subordinates claim that the court ruling overrides his orders then he can fire them. Court orders are purely advisory after the Trump v. United States decision.
Well, if he goes that route, there are still three things that could stop him:
1. Federal employees could refuse, even at the price of being fired, in enough numbers that there isn't a functioning government if he fires them all.
2. Congress could impeach for ignoring the court ruling.
3. The people could decide that, if he is going to ignore the constitution, then they're going to ignore him (and the whole federal government), since it's only the constitution that says that they need to listen to the president. If the president tries to enforce it by force, then it becomes a civil war; if not, then the country just collapses into the states.
(Keep in mind that the military's oath is to the constitution, not to the president. If the president is giving them orders contrary to the constitution - and contrary to a court order stating that the orders are against the constitution - it is far from clear that the military will obey them.)
But if none of those happens, then sure, the president can order whatever he wants.
> in enough numbers that there isn't a functioning government if he fires them all.
Sounds like it would be small enough to drown in the bathtub at that point. Mission accomplished.
> Congress could impeach for ignoring the court ruling.
Only if Democrats have a 60 vote majority in the Senate. Not happening. In the last impeachment, Trump argued he was allowed to extort a bribe from a foreign ally by holding up congressionally appropriated funds to benefit his reelection campaign, and as long as he did so with the benefit of the USA in mind, it cannot be grounds for removal via impeachment. The Senate agreed with him and acquitted him of all charges. Why in the world do you think that would go any differently a second time? And who is going to bring those articles? Republicans?
> The people could decide that, if he is going to ignore the constitution, then they're going to ignore him (and the whole federal government), since it's only the constitution that says that they need to listen to the president. If the president tries to enforce it by force, then it becomes a civil war
And herein lies the problem. This appears to be the only path forward if Trump keeps going in this direction and Republicans don't relent. Note he has already argued he has the right to use the military against US citizens.
I do think that congress would impeach if he said "I declare martial law and cancel elections". He'll have to get there piecemeal without creating a single moment for opposition to coalesce.
Why though? Why wouldn't the Republicans just go along with the new dictatorial regime, as they have been every step of the way? If they really had the character you imagine, they would have held the line at the insurrection. Instead they whitewashed it and put him back in power. I am in no way confident that group of people would check his power again.
It'll be much more subtle than that: simply deploy ICE personnel at polling stations who will arrest any non-white person who cannot prove their lawful residence on the spot. They'll be let out, but only after the election is passed.
He's not immune from prosecution, but prosecution requires evidence. But he controls the evidecne and witnesses, and there's no way to compel him to produce evidence, witnesses to testify, or really conduct any substantive investigation. So, how does one prosecute that case? And who prosecutes it? The DOJ he controls? Or the Congress who are in his cult? And who rules against him, the SCOTUS and judges he appointed? Who would enforce the decision, himself?
"immunity for official acts within an exclusive presidential authority that Congress cannot regulate"
Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024), is a landmark decision[1][2] of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court determined that presidential immunity from criminal prosecution presumptively extends to all of a president's "official acts" – with absolute immunity for official acts within an exclusive presidential authority that Congress cannot regulate[1][2] such as the pardon, command of the military, execution of laws, or control of the executive branch.
That's argument is easily contradicted by plenty of worldwide examples of opposition trying to use the courts to combat dictators. Dictators often ignore court decision they dislike because they have the ultimate power of enforcement.
> We gain more ground holding to truths than these easily debunked falsehoods.
Then you should display more candor in describing these situations rather than be reductionist about it. He was acquitted not because he was not guilty of those things, but because his political allies determined the things he was guilty of were not impeachable.
Trump argued:
"If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment"
The "thing he did to help him get elected" in this case was holding up Congressionally appropriated money to gain leverage over a foreign nation (Ukraine), which he used to to attempt the extortion of a bribe (opening a pretextual investigation against his political opponent, Joe Biden). That they acquitted him does not mean he didn't do those things. It was conclusively proven he did that. It's just that Republicans think that's legitimate political behavior, and refused to remove him.
As for the second impeachment, this is what Mitch McConnell said:
"There is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day... We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former Presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one... I believe the Senate was right not to grab power the Constitution does not give us."
Many of the Senators had the same reasoning, which is that while they blamed Trump they didn't feel they had the power to impeach him at that time, so they left it up to the courts. So no, they did not really acquit him, and yes, they did lay the blame at his feet for what happened (found him guilty).
As a final point, McConnell mentions that we have a criminal justice system to hold him accountable, but Trump argued that impeachment is the only tool that could, and indeed the SCOTUS agreed to a large extent. So if he can't be held accountable by impeachment, and not by the courts, he's above the law.
"He was acquitted" and nothing else matters. That is how the law works. Do you now want to get rid of the rule of law?
"practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day" does not make the thing he did illegal. "so they left it up to the courts", which again is the rule of law.
"So if he can't be held accountable by impeachment, and not by the courts, he's above the law." If the laws does not find someone guilty then that is the rule of law working. Being above the law would be being found guilty and then not having any consequences. He was not found guilty. Period.
Do you want mob rule? Vigilante justice? Or the rule of law?
Let me make it clear, I do not like Trump in the smallest bit, but acting like an authoritarian does not make me a better person.
First, impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. He was proven to have committed extortion and bribery by the House prosecutors in the first impeachment, and his defense was he was allowed to do it, not that he didn't do it. That to me screams "above the law", because what he was proven to have done was extort a bribe, and that is in fact an enumerated impeachable offense. You can't square that circle without using his party affiliation to elevate him above that clause of the Constitution. If he were a Democrat he would have been impeached and removed, but then again he would never have been elected as a Democrat.
As for the law, the legal process did not fully play out. We were promised courts would be the appropriate venue by McConnell when he voted to acquit despite saying that the evidence shows he is guilty. That's not really an acquittal in the way you're trying to portray because the only reason the acquittal happened was because McConnell felt the case deserved to be tried in court, not in the Senate.
But where is that trial? It was curtailed due to Trump's election as POTUS, and it was stymied by people he appointed to the court. So how are you going to talk about the rule of law, when justice has been denied to the American people for the crimes committed against us? Where is our trial? It was cancelled because... what's that? He's above the law until he's actually demonstrably bound by it. So far that demonstration has been elusive.
What I want is a trial, with evidence, a judge, and a jury. That's not mob rule.
I'd hate to compare Trump to Hitler, but many forget that Hitler and the National Socialist Party came to power completely by legal means - truly a feat of political engineering.
And furthermore, they were on the brink of total failure many, many times - but always managed to get a lifeline by the actions of indifferent politicians and statesmen - many whom could have stopped them, by simply saying no. They (NSDAP) could not believe what they managed to get away with, and the sheer luck they had.
What we're seeing now is sort of parallel to that, in the way that the people that do care, simply do not seem to take action. Maybe it's the fear of being primaried, maybe it's the fear of personal retribution, maybe they just don't want to rock the boat.
You could disagree by saying how or why you disagree, for example maybe you feel a dictatorship must have a singular dictator and not be a group of elected officials.
I don't like Trump, but many of the things he is doing technically could have been exercised a long time ago. Fortunately (or unfortunately) decorum was generally a thing, so said powers were not exercised.
Now we will see the extent to which these powers can, and should be used. The way the USA is supposed to work is a balance of executive, legislative and judicial powers. The problem mainly is that the legislative branch refuses to compromise and do anything. The judicial and executive branches seem to be taking the lead, with the executive, that is the president, at the helm.
I expect even the conservative Supreme Court to rule against most of the recent activity, though. Especially the 14th amendment stuff.
My cynical take on this is that he's shaking everything up on "day 1"-ish because that's what the people who funded him want and giving them what they want right after the election hits big and will secure more funding. I wouldn't be surprised if he's expecting all of these changes to be shot down and whatnot but doesn't care because they'll have forgotten all about it soon enough but they will remember this last week or so.
> they only do what’s strictly required to avoid a performance improvement plan. No one goes above and beyond anymore; no one takes initiative to improve things. Why? Because it doesn’t matter.
I see this at large Canadian financial institutions, too, but for the opposite reasons - employees recognize that it's really difficult to fire people based on performance. It's so hard, in fact, that it's easier to talk them up and get them hired internally by another team and make it someone else's problem.
You can strike the word Canadian out of it just fine. And anyway, it's not like firing a person is any different -- they just become a problem of somebody else.
> many studies of nutritional epidemiology that try to link dietary exposures to disease outcomes are founded on really dodgy data
I wonder if the data are always skewed in a particular direction. For example, do people typically underreport junk food and overreport salads? Or do they omit entire meals? Or snacks?
While far from being a potential silver bullet, I do wonder if continuous glucose monitoring could help with this. Your food log shows you didn't eat anything between noon and six in the evening but the glucose monitor shows a spike at 2PM? Your diet app could ask if you forgot to log something around that time. Maybe you want for a long walk aside while it was cold and that was the cause. Unless the question is asked, the tracking data for that time period will be questionable.
What can be done about this as a consumer looking to buy a new car?
- Can I turn off data collection?
- Can I corrupt data transmission and collection?
- Can I charge per kb for any data collected?
- Is the dealer obligated to disclose data collection?
I'll be in the market for a new car in the next few years but I do not want to buy anything that tracks or collects ANY data about me.
I was assuming that buying a cheap non-electric car would offer some protection but I'd love to know more.
> What can be done about this as a consumer looking to buy a new car?
For a consumer in the US, I have no idea, but I'm guessing your question is about that since the story is US-specific?
Probably off-topic, but buying a car in 2019 in Spain, they asked me if I'm OK with data-collection during the purchase, up until car delivery, and handed me a contract to sign for "treatment of personal data". I said no, we moved on.
After buying the car (2018 Audi A3), they threw in some remote-monitoring sensor "for free" that could let me/them see metrics about the car, for "maintenance" and whatever they claimed, that they offered to install. I again said "no", but kept the device itself to pick apart at some later time.
But overall, they seem required to ask (here, EU) but no one batted an eye when I said no. The car has a SIM-card reader, but never used it, I'm guessing if I install a SIM-card the car would ask me if data collection is OK, because we'll always have the choice at least.
Electric cars seems like a no-no for now (everywhere possibly), since all of them came with a "always on connection" regardless of what I want, at least last time I checked.
For a few years now, every new car sold in the EU needs a cellular connection for e-call (when airbags are deployed, the car calls 112 itself) functionality. I don't know if it's legal or common to reuse that radio for collecting other data. I would hope not.
Sometimes I feel bad for repeating myself but relevant threads keep appearing.
Mazda won't permit me to use remote start because I refused to install their app and enable connected services. The man I worked with on the lease was extraordinarily aggressive with me. Almost demanding I install and register this app to complete lease agreement.
So now I don't have remote start and every time I turn the car on I have to select cancel on an infotainment prompt asking me to enable connected services.
The TOS specifically says driving data will be sold to 3rd parties including law enforcement and insurance companies.
I never installed the app and I was asked to by the leasing guy though he wasn't pushy about it - for whatever reason, the lease/sales guys are incented to have it installed though, allegedly, mazda corporate says they don't incent them - I don't trust it
also, allegedly, since I didn't install it, mazda says my TPU is disabled which is fine by me - remote start is less important than saying many thousands of dollars on bogus insurance hikes
I didn't work for Mazda, but I did work for a large auto manufacturer, and I can tell you we did incentivize dealers to complete sign up for connected services for the reasons most of you would probably expect.
We wanted to collect your data to sell it, utilize it for maintenance, or for general product improvement. I.e. wanted it so we could make or save money. No surprise there I hope.
The dealer incentive was literally a payment when a customer signs up because the money we'd make with customer data outweighs the dealer kickback.
Renters of cars. Was that not clear from the context? Question was whether data collection and loss of privacy on rental cars should be expected by renters of cars.
Oh, so why did you ask ‘renters of what?’ and start talking about home rental?
Well, I think it’s unrealistic to not expect car rentals to track their cars. Renting gardening tools might be a different story. However, SASS subscriptions are software rentals, and GDPR makes it explicitly illegal to track what the software companies rent to EU citizens without consent.
To me it seems like the question in practice is not renting vs buying, it’s about what information is collected, what they’re allowed to do with it, and who it is sent to.
Car rentals could request or require consent as terms of rental. (They probably do, I can admit to never having read the entire contract.) One underlying issue here is whether the car rental company passes your name or identification on to the manufacturer, law enforcement, or service providers. It does seem like they should not have the right to do that automatically without informed consent (not buried in contract legalese). They probably should have the right to track where their car is until it’s returned, and then delete that data. So all depends on what they do with the data.
> Oh, so why did you ask ‘renters of what?’ and start talking about home rental?
Have people completely lost their reading comprehension? My comment:
> Renters of what? Items people can just take and leave with [...]
A car is a item "people can just take and leave with". I literally answer the question myself, right after stating it. And not until the line below I start talking about expecting privacy in a rented home.
> Car rentals could request or require consent as terms of rental
They very much do, at least in the countries I've rented a car in. Every time they asked for consent, like the regulations require them to in my region.
Unfortunately, a car like Tesla collects so much data. And it's only a matter of time before they start selling it. I don't know if any other car company that collects more data than Tesla.
Tesla state they don't sell "personal information" but they also explicitly say that "Tesla may also collect, use, and share information that does not, on its own, personally identify you" (so "anonymized" data) and also that "personal information" is subject to be processed to "fulfill contractual obligations with third parties, agents and affiliates", whatever that means. https://www.tesla.com/legal/privacy#how-we-may-use-your-info...
> Tesla states in its online “Customer Privacy Notice” that its “camera recordings remain anonymous and are not linked to you or your vehicle.” But seven former employees told Reuters the computer program they used at work could show the location of recordings – which potentially could reveal where a Tesla owner lived.
You know they're not taking anything seriously when claiming with a straight face in the age of geoguesser that potentially hours of road footage, starting/ending with you literally driving into your garage, could ever be anonymous.
Tesla states a lot of things, like that their second generation 2020 roadster is going to be ready next year (tm). I wouldn't put a lot of faith in anything they say, all it takes is Musk changing his mind down the line and then anything goes.
I think I’d pick Tesla, even if it’s more data, because they have never sold that data or indicated they ever would. Unlike literally every other manufacturer that has and does
lol has any OEM ever indicated they would sell data? Or was the truth pulled out of them after an extended legal fight where lawyers quibbled over whether weasel-words like "maintenance and quality assurance purposes" covered "selling technically anonymous information to a data broker but everyone knows there's enough metadata in there that the data broker attaches an identity when they resell it to the insurance companies"?
Gut check, sure, but I wouldn't trust the company that argued technically autopilot wasn't turned on in car crashes because they turned it off milliseconds before the sensed impact and blamed it on driver inattention as being a good, well-intentioned data steward.
I bought a Hyundai Ioniq 5. Hyundai never indicated that they’d sell the data, either. But guess what?
Here’s one thing neither Tesla nor Hyundai have ever said: that they won’t sell the data. (EDIT: I stand corrected on Tesla, as per reply comment. “ We do not sell your personal information to anyone for any purpose, period.”)
The cynic in me says that "do not" does not equal "will not", and even if it said "will not", that's toothless, as Google was for years famous for having "do no evil" baked into their manifesto, until one day they didn't.
I agree if only because Tesla seems so vertically integrated and dedicated to their vision. Nowhere in their vision is "establish a side hustle of selling user data for extra cash".
In my 2018 Chevy Volt Premier it's not too difficult to disconnect the LTE module. You lose OnStar, remote start, and other "connected" features, but the car and CarPlay still work.
I own a 2001 Dodge Grand Caravan. No tracking. Runs Great. I just keep fixing it, much cheaper than a new car. Plus I can live in it as well.
I do not know the year they started with all the tracking stuff but you can find an older car that does not have any tracking and spend the rest of the money making it mint.
There is no getting away from it though, we are all watched over by the machines of loving grace. You know with the new LoRaWAN and IoT everywhere scam they are rolling out there will be nothing you can do to escape the surveillance apparatus.
I am giving up. no sense in fighting it anymore. I am just a good little corporate boy toy now.
That is one of the worst cars to own. You will continue to fix it more frequently at an accelerated rate mark my words. So much cheap plastic parts the parts are right at that point where they will fail molecularly and you see an increased rate of failure. To top it off the replacement parts are mostly the same age and those 2 will look new but also fail quickly. Lastly Dodge sucks. They are basically the last car I would ever buy.
> I am deeply interested in better understanding faraday cages that can block transmission.
You cannot shield your car (ok, you can, but then you cannot drive it). What you can do is disturb the antenna so not enough power will be available to be sent.
Quick search seems to reveal Indium Tin Oxide (ITO) coated glass is transparent enough to let through visible light, but blocks transmissions. One could theoretically build a car with that for the windows. The rest seems easier.
There are more recent cars than going back to the 70s that doesn't force data collection on you... My car is from 2018 and has none of that stuff, and it even has buttons for all controls, no touchscreen (2018 Audi A3).
I like the feel of driving classic/older cars, but I really cannot justify the safety and pollution drawbacks if I wanted to use them daily.
Probably not the kind of car you are looking for, but my friend's 2015 honda odyssey (which he just traded in) had no smarts. No cellular, no GPS, console used knobs instead of a touchscreen... Whatever Deadpool's opinion of it was, it did make a great van for cargo and humans with good fuel economy for that class...
But, sooner or later it'll be a problem. What would be interesting to me is, is it possible to deactivate cellular on a modern car without losing key functionality, and, if it is ever reactivated (say, to pull updates) would it promptly push years of data upstream.
If you’re willing to do a little bit of work you can often remove the cellular radio from some modern cars to remove the data collection connectivity, not sure if it’d still be buffered on the device still but it’s a step in the correct direction. I’ve read about this in some modern BMWs so it might be worth a bit of googling if you have a particular modern car you are interested in. Or if no one else has done it with a particular model you could also blaze your own path here.
As mentioned elsewhere in the subthreads somewhere here, I got a 2018 Audi A3 in 2019, wrote about the experience re data collection + that purchase here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42736918
My second hand Citroën C3 originally sold on 2016 doesn't collect data AFAIK and has button and wheel controls. There is a small touchscreen (7 inches?) for configuration, trip data, radio stations etc but all controls are also on the wheel or around it.
many cars now have a TPU, used for connectivity and GPS, which will send telematics data when you start and stop the car. This tracking is not typically easy or possible to opt out of, in my experience.
I love this credo. Sadly, large enterprises seem to operate on the exact opposite model of "everything at XYZ corp is someone else's problem".
There's literally no way to fix our own problems. Everything beyond the application code is managed by an external team with their own priorities, and the best we can hope for is readonly access to their repos.