Extreme example, yes. But such data is collectable, and sellable. Admiral Insurance has just been stopped using Facebook data to load drivers premiums. Such data as young peoples use of "OMG!!" and not been specific as to meeting times ect, indicating that the user is overly confident and unorganised and therfore more of a risk.

www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/02/admiral...s

Again, it was entirely voluntary, and the Grauniad article even says so ...

Admiral says that firstcarquote offers a way for young drivers to identify themselves as safe rather than having to wait years while they build up a track record and a no claims bonus.

Dan Mines, who led the firstcarquote project at Admiral, denied that it was invasive of personal data.

“It is incredibly transparent. If you don’t want to use it in a quote then you don’t have to,” he said. “We are doing our best to build a product that allows young people to identify themselves as safe drivers.”

Mines said Admiral could eventually develop the scheme further, meaning it could include other social media sites and increase the price of insurance for some drivers.

The spy in the cab is frankly the least of our worries (that is, the worries of the cynical, sceptical and paranoid readers' group of which I will happily claim membership!)
The extent of CCTV and ANPR coverage in the UK, plus widespread use of dashcams without a second's thought of privacy and Data Protection issues never fail to amaze me. And yet only a minority in Britain seems to want ID cards or even require drivers to carry a driving licence or any of the usual documents on their person or in the car.
Just as one example which I do not believe is insanely paranoid - a dashcam-equipped car driving past a school at closing time will photograph and retain images of dozens, maybe hundreds, of children's faces without their parents' knowledge, less still permission, and these images can be used for whatever purposes the driver chooses.

Edited by Bilboman on 28/02/2017 at 21:02

Just as one example which I do not believe is insanely paranoid - a dashcam-equipped car driving past a school at closing time will photograph and retain images of dozens, maybe hundreds, of children's faces without their parents' knowledge, less still permission, and these images can be used for whatever purposes the driver chooses.

I think that's insanely paranoid, I think we have to accept that most of the population are normal. Having a dashcam itself could be construed as paranoid.

Agreed, it does seem a little bit excessively paranoid. The people are on the street, in a public area. A person could just as easily take pictures surreptitiously with a smartphone, or a decent long lens on a good DSLR from a few hundred yards away.

Some good points in your posts Bilboman. Although as quite a keen photographer, it is my legal right to take a photograph of pretty much anything I like if I am not on private property, even a policeman, barring certain anti terrorist imitiatives. ON private ground, I need in theory to ask the permission of the owner, hence why cameras and the like are banned from school concerts these days, if I recall. Sensible enough as there are a lot of wierdos about, even though it can seem a little draconian, as indeed, most of us folk out there are normal! I am more concerned with the encouragement of the authorities to snitch on each other by handing in dash cam footage of wrong-doing. That is a very slippery slope which we are falling down which smacks of East Germany and the great experiment. There's a very good film, which I think is called "The minds of others" which is worth watching to see what the surveillance state can be like. With the present comedians in charge, it's scary stuff!