As a member of the automotive industry, I have always believed that making a car is a matter of threshold, it is not the entertainment industry, and it cannot pay attention to traffic as the king. From the helmsman of the car company to the assembly line employees, in the face of the car with more than 20,000 parts, the car people must have a sense of awe.
Nowadays, the traffic topics of the car circle are one after another, as if there is a bit of drama in the entertainment industry, and there is a lot of irony between car companies.
Yu Chengdong and He Xiaopeng shook hands because of the fierce argument of "AEB", and then Li Xiang turned a new chapter with the topic of "extended range will replace multi-gear PHEV", and then came to the "Great Qin Army Shaanxi Regiment" to create a farce of "Equation Leopard Leopard 5 high-speed fuel consumption 18L", and now there is a lot of excitement about the topic of understanding the winter test of the car emperor, and then bringing all parties together in the center of the vortex of discussion.
Speaking of understanding why the Chedi winter test caused public anger, there is no suspense that the test results have caused "dissatisfaction" among many car companies. The achievement rates of Wenjie M7, Geely Galaxy L6, and Wei brand Blue Mountain DHT-PHEV are respectively. 78%, especially the M7 and Geely Galaxy L6 are almost at the bottom.
In response to the winter test of the car emperor, more and more car company bigwigs have joined the team that questioned the lack of rigor of the "understanding the car emperor winter test", and Huawei Yu Chengdong took the lead in opening up, he believed: "The winter test is a test that pits people and misleads the people!."Science and rigor are the basic rules that should be followed!”
The winter test incident has triggered a number of car company executives such as Wenjie, Geely, Great Wall, and Kia, and the topic has caused more than 3 on Weibo90,000 people discussed, happy to mention the top of the hot search list. (The development of events is shown below).
As one of the three major vertical media in China, with the holding of various large-scale test projects, the influence is increasing day by day, so the test results must have a greater impact on the follow-up sales of various models, and the major car companies have denied the results one after another, which is not difficult to understand.
The topic I want to talk to you about is not whether you understand the rigor of Chedi Winter Test, but the boundary between data security and user privacy that has not attracted everyone's attention.
With the rapid rise of new energy, the penetration rate has rapidly exceeded 35% in a few years, and the OTA function that new energy is proud of allows users to experience the freshness of keeping pace with the times and being commonly used and new.
On the other hand, the OTA upgrade also leaves a back door for the car company, and the vehicle's every move is almost transparent in the background of the car company, and the user's car privacy has become an urgent issue for the industry.
Car companies such as Wenjie, Great Wall, and Geely "hardened" understand Chedi, and question that the evidence of the other party's lax testing comes from the back-end data of the vehicle.
The official claimed that the test vehicle was in the maintenance stage, and the air conditioning and heating took a total of 71 minutes, during which the vehicle had more than ten times to open and close the doors and windows, and even knew that one of them lasted more than 3 minutes.
Great Wall Motor said that the background data showed that the test vehicle had a long time of 60-72 minutes of maintenance, more than 10 times to open and close the doors, open and close the windows, and even the vehicle turned on the seat heating.
Geely Automobile also called up the background data of Geely Galaxy L6 and Lynk & Co 08 EM-P, and the official records are very detailed. Idle time, number and duration of door opening, etc. are recorded.
A number of car companies have posted detailed dynamic data of vehicles, and if you think about it carefully from the perspective of users, you can't help but think about it carefully. Does the release of vehicle driving data by car companies be considered an invasion of personal privacy?As far as I know, especially new energy vehicle companies, in addition to the brands mentioned above, there are Tesla, BYD, NIO, Aion, etc., all of which have the so-called monitoring function of vehicle driving or battery operation.
In order to collect the operating status of vehicles, provide data reference for vehicle updates, iterations or OTA upgrades, and monitor the safety of battery operation to ensure the safety of users, car companies do need to grasp the detailed dynamics of vehicle work, and collecting vehicle data is also the consensus of car companies in the industry.
Of course, car companies collect vehicle operation data, there is a good side and a risk side, if the car company reaches out to cross the line, does not control the sense of proportion, illegally collects the user's voice, ** portrait and other information, the result is unpredictable. At worst, it is no less than a personal whereabouts being completely exposed on the other side of the network, as if being monitored at all times, and there is a hidden danger of data black hole.
Nowadays, there is a growing consensus that when consumers buy a vehicle in full, the ownership of the vehicle should belong to the user, including the acceleration and braking of the vehicle, the driving track, and the operation data of other functions. The actual situation is that the driving data of the vehicle is generally stored on the car company's side, and the car company has a higher decision-making power, and the decision power is all in the car company.
Of course, there is another view that the vehicle's driving directions, brakes, battery level, battery operation data, etc. are general information, not sensitive information, and should not be classified as invasion of privacy, and only the collection of information such as audio recordings and cameras can be regarded as an invasion of personal privacy.
In short, at present, it is still said that the public is reasonable, and the mother-in-law is reasonable, and the actual operation level is also ambiguous. Although the "Personal Information Protection**" also has a description of privacy information, there are still big differences in the interpretation of vehicle driving data. Fortunately, with the increasing awareness of car owners to protect their rights, they are also urging car companies to be more cautious when calling vehicle driving data.
For example, the previous equation leopard leopard 5 fuel consumption 18L incident, BYD was also quite strict when issuing the notice, in order to respond to the unreasonable high-speed fuel consumption test of the parties of the "Great Qin Army Shaanxi Regiment", the words such as "should be requested" are also a correct way to reasonably avoid violating user privacy.
Although the user's driving is considered by some netizens to be suspected of violating the user's privacy, as mentioned above, the official reasonably avoided the name, ID card and other information of the "Great Qin Army Shaanxi Regiment", and only disclosed the vehicle operation data such as speeding, sudden braking, and air conditioning. If the boundaries are blurred, no matter which brand will be backlashed.
Finally, under the transformation of electrification, automobiles have entered a new stage of intelligence, and it is inevitable for car companies to collect users' car information. While we enjoy the common and new experience brought by OTA upgrades, on the other hand, we have to accept the car company's collection of personal car behavior Xi. However, how to maintain the privacy and data security of users requires the self-discipline of car companies and the improvement of industry regulations.