A government ethics panel in Quebec just spent the better part of a year producing a 64-page indictment of your dashboard, and the case it built about consent, insurance, and cloud storage reads almost like a legal brief the FTC already filed against General Motors. Only this time, the target isn’t one automaker’s fine print. It’s the entire idea that “I agree” still means anything once you’re driving a computer with seats. The report comes from Quebec’s Commission de l’ethique en science et en technologie, a provincial body that usually spends its time on subjects like artificial intelligence and biotechnology, not bumper-to-bumper traffic. Its president, Luc Begin, working with a committee of outside experts, spent months mapping what happens to the data a modern car generates every time it moves. They identified twelve distinct problems, and none of them are hypothetical. The Consent Model Was Built for Websites, Not 4,000-Pound Objects Start with the finding that should worry car enthusiasts more than the others: the report concludes that the classic model of individual consent is fundamentally broken for connected vehicles. That isn’t a vague complaint about long terms and conditions, though the commission notes that only about seven percent of people ever read them. It’s a structural problem. A privacy policy assumes the person who clicked accept is the same person using the product for its entire life. Phones mostly work that way. Cars don’t. A car gets driven by a spouse who never opened the app, a teenager who borrowed the keys, a valet, a rental customer, and eventually a used-car buyer who has no idea what account is still synced to the infotainment system. Nobody re-consents at any of those handoffs. The data keeps flowing regardless of who’s actually behind the wheel, which means the person described in