It's not lawfully required and this is the USA. Contacting the product manufacturer is exactly what we should do. Linking to publicly-available data is not doxing.
You are right that political feedback is also required to ward off future legislation, but there is no law in the USA that requires this today.
Furthermore, the demo units we drove when they came into the country last year as a "preview" of what we were ordering, did not have these intrusive systems.
In America we can buy an 700+ HP RWD car off the lot that has no nannies and will disable all traction control systems by hitting one physical button twice.
It's not lawfully required and this is the USA. Contacting the product manufacturer is exactly what we should do. Linking to publicly-available data is not doxing.
You are right that political feedback is also required to ward off future legislation, but there is no law in the USA that requires this today.
Furthermore, the demo units we drove when they came into the country last year as a "preview" of what we were ordering, did not have these intrusive systems.
In America we can buy an 700+ HP RWD car off the lot that has no nannies and will disable all traction control systems by hitting one physical button twice.
Correct. There is no law requiring it. However, the NHTSA requested it of all automobile manufacturers in 2023. Please see the press release link I provided earlier to educate yourself on the issue.
As with every maker, there will be model year changes. I have no idea what model year Grenadier you tested but the unit that I test drove in January, 2024 had the ADAS system. All 2024 model year Gren’s have it. Are you suggesting that Ineos tricked you at point of sale with a modified unit?
Yes, you could buy a 700hp engine in the past… but times are changing. Technology is evolving and, without a political upheaval, the nanny state will continue to expand. The over speed warning that Ineos choose to include as per the NHTSA’s request is currently easily defeatable. I doubt that will be the case in the future.
As for third party publishing an Ineos executive’s contact information on an enthusiast forum without that person’s consent: it is absolutely doxxing. Please look up the definition of doxxing if you need clarification.
There is a customer service mechanism in place to handle these issues. The person who published the Ineos executuve’s information did so with the sole intention of harassing the Ineos executive because they’re annoyed they have to push two buttons to disable the government requested speed warning. There is absolutely zero need to usurp the chain of communication because the clicks are annoying them. Doxxing is publishing someone’s contact information without their consent. Period.
Just because someone chooses to list their phone number in their neighborhood directory or county club phone list does not give another party the right to publish the information elsewhere. LinkedIn requires a login and, in many cases, a paid subscription to view a member’s information. It is assumed that these requirements will defeat spammers and harassment. But not on this forum…
