Autonomous vehicles; police, insurers and government
 

Future telematics realities/horrors; takeover hacking, any law enforcement can 'order' and stop any self-driving vehicle, auto insurance companies 'constantly' track travel habit data, GPS locations shared/sold to third-party marketing and local/state governments track your mileage tax/fees...
RAND report: Self-driving cars could give police new powers.

Hardly limited to self-driving vehicles. All of that can, in principle, be done with any "connected" vehicle. Some of it has been demonstrated - see links elsewhere in the forum.

It'd also be possible (again, in principle) to build a self-driving vehicle that isn't connected, and therefore would be immune to hacking &c by anyone who doesn't have physical access to it.

Insurance companies could today require every one of their customers to install a tracking device as part of their coverage. Technically the autonomous cars wouldn't need the tracking as they would already be driving in a safe manner.
What we need isn't to eliminate every possible technology that could be abused by government, but to eliminate every government official who would want to use that technology to abuse the people. What the IRS has already done is so much worse then any possible thing that might happen 20 years from now this article discusses.

That is one reason (among many) *why* GM implemented OnStar™ years in-advance of gooberment (EPA/DOT) mandate for "tracking" capabilities, ie: "remote & continuous" emissions monitoring (OBD-III). They (GM) marketed it for the "driver's" capabilities & enhancements, but it is truly about GM feedback and gooberment tracking & control over vehicles.

I just read the article and it brings up interesting points of discussion. At the end of the article it asks the question, "should a warrant be required to access vehicle logs"? Of course the answer is yes, just as a warrant would be required to access the information on any other computer I own. I don't find that particular question to be very interesting, unless I'm missing some important reason the government should have access to such information without restrictions.

I think it would be very easy to argue for giving officers control of a vehicle where the occupant has been identified as a criminal. We already allow officers to perform "pit maneuvers" in these instances, and sending a command to a vehicle to pull over is just a less violent approach to forcing compliance.

Of course, criminals will always find ways to circumvent systems of control that maintain order. It's the same problem laws that regulate who and where firearms can be carried is ineffective. Law abiding citizens don't need the system of regulation, and criminals ignore the regulation.

I can see a lot of boring movies in the future without the car chases.

Most people are already being tracked by GPS by third party through their smart phone, its part of the useage agreements in either the contract, or to use many apps. And it has already gone to court about law enforcement needing a warrant to get access to that information.

Warrants. Riiight. Didn't that Snowden guy release a couple papers detailing exactly how much the folks we hired actually care about warrants and other legalities?

But, the smart phone owner can "turn OFF" that GPS function when/if they desire to...you can't do that in your car, short of pulling certain fuses, which the car dealership won't tell you about.

Shutting off the GPS will make all apps that use it not work...

Shutting off the location history will make some apps not work as well... At least that's what they claim. Its just a matter of knowing what you use can make you easier to follow. I know its there but chose to use it anyways.