请问HN：OBD-II 远程信息处理数据是否比移动应用追踪更具隐私性？
我一直在研究提供基于使用的保险（UBI）的主要汽车保险公司的隐私政策。似乎大家普遍认为移动应用程序“更容易使用”，但它们需要广泛的操作系统级权限（如位置、运动），这在技术上可以全天候追踪你的行踪。
相比之下，OBD-II接口设备的硬件限制在于车辆的操作。它们知道汽车的驾驶方式，但不一定知道你停车后走到哪里。
从数据安全的角度来看，是否有技术上的理由更倾向于选择其中一种？我在这里写了一篇关于硬件权衡的比较文章：https://suretyinsights.com/blog/dongle-vs-app-the-hardware-of-usage-based-insurance。我很好奇是否有人对这些接口设备发送的实际数据包进行了逆向工程。
查看原文
I've been digging into the privacy policies of major auto insurers who offer UBI (Usage-Based Insurance).
There seems to be a consensus that mobile apps are 'easier,' but they require broad OS-level permissions (Location, Motion) that can technically track you 24/7.<p>In contrast, the OBD-II dongles are hardware-limited to the vehicle's operation. They know how the car is driven, but not necessarily where you walked after you parked.<p>Is there a technical reason to prefer one over the other from a data security perspective? I wrote up a comparison of the hardware trade-offs here: https://suretyinsights.com/blog/dongle-vs-app-the-hardware-of-usage-based-insurance
I'm curious if anyone has reverse-engineered the actual data packets these dongles send.