[HN Gopher] Automakers are sharing consumers' driving behavior w...
___________________________________________________________________
Automakers are sharing consumers' driving behavior with insurance
companies
Author : xnx
Score : 207 points
Date : 2024-03-11 11:55 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com)
| fn-mote wrote:
| > In recent years, automakers [...] have started offering
| optional features in their connected-car apps that rate people's
| driving.
|
| At least the programs are (currently) opt-in.
|
| This amusing anecdote is buried:
|
| > One driver lamented having data collected during a "track day,"
| while testing out the Corvette's limits on a professional
| racetrack. > [...] he was denied auto insurance by seven
| companies [...]
| xattt wrote:
| But are they really optional? I can't imagine that the
| telematics link is going unused for the value it provides (i.e.
| crowd-sourcing for speed and road map data).
|
| The worst part is that assumptions about who's driving the
| vehicle.
| cg505 wrote:
| Your quote is misleading. The "he" is in the next paragraph and
| refers to someone else who owns a Cadillac, not a Corvette.
|
| The track day thing probably was the funniest thing in the
| article, though.
| themaninthedark wrote:
| There is another commenter further up that says they had to opt
| out on a Toyota and the rep acted like he didn't know until the
| opt out text was read verbatim.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39667268
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| I would be willing to bet even if you told the insurance
| companies it was totally legal on a professional race track --
| they'd say "Nope, we still don't want to insure someone that
| takes his car on professional race tracks like that."
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > At least the programs are (currently) opt-in.
|
| The article makes clear that most people don't know what's
| happening with their data. They opt into something else and
| this data collection is included - that doesn't sound like much
| of an 'option'.
| themaninthedark wrote:
| All the companies were have bee hoovering up our data, where did
| you think this was going to end?
|
| Add in the fact that if you are not getting "growth" on the stock
| market, then you must be doing something wrong.
| bell-cot wrote:
| The Stasi didn't add anything to the GDP of the GDR, either.
| That wasn't the point then, and it isn't now.
| themaninthedark wrote:
| My point is that companies start to collect data; either for
| debug purposes or to try and better understand the customer.
|
| Then there is a lot of pressure to monetize the data. So from
| a consumer POV, it is better to not have anything collected.
| bell-cot wrote:
| Yes.
|
| My quip was to make a rather negative comparison, while
| noting that the whole collect-and-monetize industry is a
| net negative for both the economy and human society.
| jprete wrote:
| The US doesn't just need laws about disclosure of these
| practices. It needs to mandate that this kind of corporate
| surveillance must be a clearly labeled opt-in and cannot be
| mandated by any contract.
| bloomingeek wrote:
| Yes, but to me there's another important issue, with all the
| tracking tech in our vehicles, who actually owns them? We need
| to treat this similar to the "right to repair" issue! I paid my
| money, so I own the product. [IF] I own the vehicle it should
| be my right to say what software runs in the background.
|
| Of course the company can say, "If you don't like our product,
| don't buy it." If I want to keep up with the latest safety
| upgrades to my vehicle to protect myself and all car companies
| have the same tracking software, my only option is to look for
| a "dumb" vehicle. This is blatantly unsafe and irresponsible.
| So, they're saying that my safety comes with a price other than
| the $40K I shelled out?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _who actually owns them? We need to treat this similar to
| the "right to repair" issue_
|
| Ownership is a bad framework for this issue--it's too
| ambiguous. You can "own" a vehicle all you want, that doesn't
| give you the right to fuck with its odometer or catalytic
| converter.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| But.. it really does. As most states don't require annual
| inspection, you are free to smash up your odometer and sell
| your cat to the scrapyard. It hurts the resale value, but
| it's not illegal to do this at all.
| ixwt wrote:
| I disagree. You can mess with odometer as much as you like.
| Trying to sell it off with a different amount of miles than
| have actually been put on it is called fraud.
|
| You should own your car and be able to do as you wish. You
| should also be able to turn on or off any tracking. There
| are just consequences for some of the things you might want
| to do.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _should own your car_
|
| Ownership is a legal concept. What it means, what that
| package of rights tied to a piece of property entails, is
| entirely dependent on the law. Using ownership as a
| guideline for rule-making is bad form because it's
| tautology; I can justify and condemn anything on the
| basis of my or adjoining persons' purported ownership
| rights.
|
| The machine languages of ownership are control and
| possession. That's what we're delineating, and
| unfortunately it generally must be done piecemeal. In
| this case, the pieces are the data cars beam home.
| Currently, the manufacturer controls it. You and I agree
| --I think--that it should be the user, which we--by this
| conjecture--make its owner. The ownership flows _from_
| control, not the other way.
|
| (The problem is trebled with cars given they're typically
| driven on roads the driver doesn't own nor control.)
| PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote:
| ownership has a legal definition, the concept of
| ownership exists outside of the law.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _the concept of ownership exists outside of the law_
|
| Not really. The common definitions either fall back to
| control or invoke the term property, another legalistic
| word. What ownership means is incredibly fluid and
| context dependent; consider how ambiguous it is when it
| comes to its classic form, real estate.
| PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote:
| we should label this movement you're describing.
|
| how about "legal absolutism"? If it's not codified in law
| it doesn't exist and therefore cannot be a part of
| people's vernacular.
|
| Once this takes over we can update all our dictionaries
| to stop marking specific definitions as being legal
| definitions as they'll all, by definition (heh) be the
| legal definition.
|
| Or, to put it another way, this is the internet, where
| you're free to say whatever you want but that doesn't
| mean you'll be taken seriously.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _if it 's not codified in law it doesn't exist and
| therefore cannot be a part of people's vernacular_
|
| Within the context of lawmaking, for social constructs
| like ownership, absolutely. It's sort of like starting
| with legality when writing drug regulations; outside the
| lawmaking context, that makes sense, within it, it's
| nonsense.
|
| I'm not saying never use the word ownership in common
| parlance. But when discussing a new law, yes, it pays to
| be precise. Because starting from ownership will result
| in a law that is ineffective or misdirected.
| PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote:
| the comment that started this
|
| > You should own your car and be able to do as you wish.
|
| no "new law" was being discussed, you yourself tried to
| limit the scope to the legal definition and now you're
| trying to argue that no one should be discussing anything
| but the legal definition (well, for the second time, just
| with different words).
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _no "new law" was being discussed, you yourself tried
| to limit the scope to the legal definition_
|
| It's a normative statement. And I'm not solely talking
| legal definitions. But when we're debating the proper
| boundaries of ownership, it is tautological to invoke
| ownership in the definition.
|
| The original phrase is stronger as "you should be able to
| do [with your car] as you wish." Which is not a commonly-
| held view even if we restrict ourselves to vehicles
| solely driven on private property--to the point of
| absurdity, you can't mow down pedestrians just because
| it's your car and land.
| PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote:
| What's actually being discussed is the level of
| authoritarian control software has enabled to non-
| governmental entities in our lives and how it's so
| complete that it offers a level of control that not even
| violence can achieve.
|
| For example, you offer up that just because I own a car
| doesn't give me the right to murder people with it
| (stupid, but you went for it so let's roll with it). The
| level of control being exerted by software is such that I
| couldn't _stop it_ from happening regardless of my
| ownership status if a 3rd party decided it wanted my
| vehicle to murder people.
|
| the ownership thing is a red-herring from someone who is
| trying really hard to be smart but they're missing the
| point entirely.
|
| Put another way, It's the tail wagging the dog. "You
| don't _really_ own it, therefore 3rd parties have the
| right to exert that level of control over you" when
| what's being protested is the level of control being
| afforded 3rd parties. ownership is just the mechanism.
|
| you can't legally create a contract that allows you to
| charge 50% interest on a loan. You shouldn't be able to
| create a contract that allows a 3rd party to dictate what
| you can, and cannot do, with a vehicle they sold you.
| That should remain solely in the hands of the government
| (which is why your car murdering people analogy was
| stupid).
| drbawb wrote:
| >I disagree. You can mess with odometer as much as you
| like. Trying to sell it off with a different amount of
| miles than have actually been put on it is called fraud.
|
| For a long time this was just a fact of buying any car
| that lived long enough. I have bought several cars where
| the transaction went something like: "so the odometer has
| rolled over twice; so there's actually 376,000 miles on
| the frame... but only 118,000 of those are on this motor
| and I swapped the transmission with a reman 76,000 miles
| ago."
|
| Of course we've added a few significant figures to
| odometers since then, and in the era of digital odometers
| I imagine "rolling over" behaves very differently. (Will
| the chassis survive 4 billion miles? Seems unlikely. Do
| the display and storage have different bit resolutions?
| Is it a saturating counter internally? Externally?)
| thriftwy wrote:
| It does however give you a right to download any data that
| is being collected. I wonder if that's covered by GDPR.
| PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote:
| > You can "own" a vehicle all you want, that doesn't give
| you the right to fuck with its odometer or catalytic
| converter.
|
| Sure it does.
|
| This entire attitude is what's scary about software,
| actually. See, back in the ye olden days, no one disputed
| your right to remove the catalytic converter on a vehicle
| you purchased.
|
| It was no longer legal to drive and if you were caught you
| could get fined. But you absolutely had the right to do it.
|
| But now with software, there's enough control that 3rd
| party entities are dictating with 100% success what an
| owner can do with the vehicle. And you're defending it as
| right.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _there 's enough control that 3rd party entities are
| dictating with 100% success what an owner can do with the
| vehicle_
|
| Your key term here is control. When discussing a new
| rule, _that_ is what you focus on. Use the word ownership
| when selling the rule, sure. My point is rules drafted
| starting from ownership tend to be trivial to circumvent.
| Because they presume ownership is a natural state when it
| is a social construct.
| PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote:
| or, and this is a crazy thought, when someone pays for
| something they expect to have the right to do what they
| want with it. When a 3rd party is able to exert absolute
| control in hampering that ability, it becomes a problem.
|
| you purchase a video game from your religious friend and
| they decide you shouldn't be allowed to play the game
| between 8pm and 8am and they have the ability to ensure
| you can't.
|
| their ability to limit you isn't a social construct, it's
| as strongly bound as physical violence, and that's the
| problem.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _when someone pays for something they expect to have
| the right to do what they want with it_
|
| Where? When?
|
| Say you own private property and a car. Does that mean
| you are allowed to leak diesel all over it? Most
| jurisdictions say no, in part because that affects your
| neighbours' property values.
|
| Ownership is not, and has never meant, absolute
| sovereignty. It's a package of rights defined in terms of
| control. When we're discussing amending what ownership
| means, giving the owner more control, it's circular to
| start with ownership: you can do it. But it's _much_ more
| meaningful (and powerful) to talk about control.
| PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote:
| it's telling that all of your counterexamples involve the
| government when the entire discussion is around what non-
| government 3rd parties are allowed to dictate.
|
| Tesla is not the government. Toyota is not the
| government.
|
| stop it.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _all of your counterexamples involve the government_
|
| I'm trying to avoid the miasma of conflicting rights.
| Somewhere in this thread I referenced a car spilling
| diesel on private land. This impact the value of
| neighbouring plots. On entirely private merits, the
| owner's ability to operate their property, on their
| property, willy nilly, is curtailed.
|
| Simpler, if more absurd example: someone's pet or kid
| wanders on your property. This curtails what you can do,
| with your property on your property. You own both. But
| you don't control everything which happens upon it.
|
| Seizing on this distinction is immensely clarifying. It's
| the difference between talking about computers in general
| and knowing the protocols.
| PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote:
| In other words, you think it's ok to insist on a contract
| with a loan for 50% interest.
|
| I, and many others, disagree and think that's a heinous
| abuse despite the argument that both parties willingly
| entered into the agreement.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _you think it 's ok to insist on a contract with a loan
| for 50% interest_
|
| This is a total _non sequitur_. (And sure, if both
| participants are wealthy institutions and knowledgeable
| and uncoerced.)
| PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote:
| It's not a non sequitur so much as it was a preparation
| to make the point I'm about to make.
|
| There is no world in which two institutions with plenty
| of money, knowledge, and a lack of coercion are going to
| come to an agreement for a loan with 50% interest.
|
| Theory vs practice. In theory what you're saying could
| happen, in practice it's only going to happen when one
| party has a severe imbalance against the other party (and
| you know this or you wouldn't have tried to head off that
| argument). Since contract law deals with practice,
| contract law disagrees with your assessment that it
| should be allowed.
|
| Which goes back to the whole ownership thing.
|
| Just because someone _can_ draw up a contract to muddy
| ownership to the point that the seller of a $30k+ USD
| vehicle can retain control and absolutely limit what the
| purchaser can do does not mean contract law should allow
| it.
|
| And there's too much precedence for this sort of thing
| for you to have a leg to stand on (although I'm sure
| you'll try). Just because someone _can_ sign a non-
| compete with no expiration does not mean the law should
| allow it.
|
| ad nauseum.
|
| Arguing that because contracts today muddy ownership so
| you can't act as if the purchaser has certain rights is
| missing the point.
| throwway120385 wrote:
| The word "willingly" does a TON of heavy lifting here
| given the circumstances of both parties.
| chucksta wrote:
| You can do whatever you want to it, you just can't legally
| drive it on public roads anymore. You are forgetting about
| all the use cases which aren't general public transit.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| >you just can't legally drive it on public roads anymore
|
| Varies by state.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > Yes, but to me there's another important issue, with all
| the tracking tech in our vehicles, who actually owns them?
|
| It's even worse. Your car acts as a blackbox _against you_. A
| 1990 's car? I can do whatever the fuck I want to, I can
| drive it offroad, I can speed, I can even be near a bank
| robbery or whatever.
|
| A modern car? Someone robs a bank a few hundred meters from
| where I am, and now the police will come knock on my door
| because the IMEI of my car was near the bank when the robbery
| happened. I speed a little bit to overtake some dumbass
| driving 20 km/h below the limit, the police makes a dragnet
| subpoena against my insurance / the data processor from the
| manufacturer, and issues me a ticket.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| > Of course the company can say, "If you don't like our
| product, don't buy it."
|
| Honestly I'm pretty tired of that "our way or the high way"
| nonsense. Society needs to make it so they actually can't say
| that. Make respecting us a precondition for their continued
| existence. As in they literally get liquidated if they say
| that even once.
|
| That's how we deal with sociopaths leveraging these non-
| negotiable "terms" against us. They have zero empathy, they
| view us like cattle to be marked and monitored and turned
| into cash flow. So there is no reason to empathize with their
| nonsense viewpoints either. Just make whatever they're doing
| illegal. Doesn't matter how much money they lose.
| oliv__ wrote:
| It's pretty clear we've reached the point where technology has
| shifted to working against us, and not for us anymore.
|
| I work in tech but as far as I am concerned, you can keep all
| your smart homes, cars and other gadgets and soul sucking (anti)
| "social" apps.
|
| Somewhere along the way technology was hijacked to control us
| rather than empower us. And if you don't like it: shut up because
| "progress" is inevitable
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _we 've reached the point where technology has shifted to
| working against us_
|
| Everyone has always said this since the dawn of farming. It's
| not a particularly useful insight: the question is in how and
| how it is to be banned or balanced.
| oliv__ wrote:
| So you think today's technology is comparable to farming?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _you think today 's technology is comparable to farming?_
|
| That's a not what "since" means.
|
| If a technology causes social change, it will create
| winners and losers. Those winners tend to autocorrelate
| (inversely to the magnitude of the shift). As a result,
| small technological revolutions tend to result in a shift
| against the broader "us" while broader ones disempower an
| elite that tries to gain sympathy by aligning itself with
| that broader "us". If it doesn't do either of those, it is
| --almost by definition--not a technological shift that
| resulted in social change.
|
| As a result, complaining about technology working against a
| nebulous "us" is basically saying we had technology that
| caused social change. Which isn't a novel point.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| Technology is amoral. The power shift happened because we are
| no longer in control. It's these corporations who are the
| masters of the computers now. They're just _allowing_ us to use
| _their_ computers. Of course those computers work against us,
| they are treacherous by definition.
| barrkel wrote:
| > An employee familiar with G.M.'s Smart Driver said the
| company's annual revenue from the program is in the low millions
| of dollars.
|
| It doesn't seem in the car company's interests to take on the
| reputational risk for this kind of financial reward.
| rightbyte wrote:
| Short term profit long term losses things are done a lot.
|
| Also, companies seem to work against their own interests quite
| often. The spyware is probably on some separate budget with
| separate bonuses attached. So "locally" in the department it
| might make financial sense to spy on the users.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > It doesn't seem in the car company's interests to take on the
| reputational risk for this kind of financial reward.
|
| Tell that to Boeing, they're on course to tank the entire
| company out of the financial shenanigans they pulled after
| 1997.
|
| As soon as a company goes publicly traded, the incentives
| change - there is no more priority on long term, the only thing
| that matters is INVESTORS INVESTORS INVESTORS (read that one in
| your finest Steve Ballmer voice).
| astura wrote:
| What sort of "reputational risk" do you think they are taking
| on?
|
| Data sharing with third parties is ubiquitous in almost all
| industries. Every single company that deals with financial
| products reports account information to third parties
| (Experian, Equifax, TransUnion, Early Warning Services,
| ChexSystems). If you return an item at a retail store it gets
| reported to fraud alert databases. Most medium to large
| employers report the contents of the paychecks of their
| employees to The Work Number. Insurance claims are reported to
| LexisNexis. Oil change companies report milage to CarFax, which
| insurance companies use to look up if you're reporting accurate
| mileage.
|
| Data reporting and sharing is ubiquitous; it's standard
| operating procedure. Having a few "privacy nerds" complain
| about it on the Internet is not risking their reputation.
| sandspar wrote:
| Hear hear! And why not? Fuck the consumer I say! The one thing we
| can all agree on is that human dignity must be paid for in cash.
| If normal people wanted to be treated with respect then they
| would be high earners like us.
| max_ wrote:
| The problem with such issues of data misuse is that people only
| provide 2 solutions.
|
| a) Go off grid. Don't use The tech that these cars make.
|
| The problem with this is that it is impractical for people that
| use see alot of value in using this tech.
|
| b) Pass more regulation.
|
| I am a Hayekian and I believe that regulation will not help with
| people that know the ins & outs of the regulation, also it's
| doesn't stop them. It just means corporations are willing to
| misbehave as long as they can play the legal gymnastics and pay
| rudimentary fines.
|
| Now, The third option which I see would be the best but isn't
| talked much about is the promotion, and installation of
| homomorphic computing or homomorphic encryption.
|
| I am not a cryptographer so I really don't fully understand it's
| limitations. But adopting this would simply make all these data
| abuse issues vanish.
|
| Cryptographers, why hasn't homomophic Computing or homomophic
| encryption been massively adopted?
| Eisenstein wrote:
| Do companies ignore regulations? Sure, some do. But saying
| 'they will just pay the fines' ignores the fact that we could
| make the fines existential, or punish board members by kicking
| them out of the industry. The answer to 'the regulation we
| haven't even tried won't work if we do it improperly' is 'let's
| do it, and do it properly'. I have no idea what homomorphic
| encryption is, but rarely do 'let's add more tech to magic
| bullet a human problem of incentives' solutions work.
| floating-io wrote:
| Strangely enough, I know the answer to that, if memory is
| serving.
|
| Homomorphic encryption is where you can compute on the
| encrypted data without ever decrypting it.
|
| Logically, it sounds like a pipe dream to me, but apparently
| it's a thing.
| max_ wrote:
| Why is it a pipe dream I know companies that use it. And it
| serves their purposes well.
| floating-io wrote:
| I said it sounds like one, not that it is one. I don't
| know enough about the implementation of it to comment
| intelligently, but logically it seems to me that if you
| can compute on it, then it's likely to leak the data, or
| at least some metadata about the data.
|
| The truth of the matter may be something other. Life is
| not always logical.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _know companies that use it_
|
| We can only do a limited set of operations
| homomorphically. Moreover, it's more power intensive than
| conventional computation. In most cases, local
| computation is the more effective (and secure) solution.
| max_ wrote:
| Homomophic encryption simply means that the data is encrypted
| in a way that the person working with it cannot use it
| arbitrarily.
|
| Here is an example, I would for instance use Google Maps for
| Navigation but Google or any other third party would have no
| idea where I am going.
|
| I used it in the first company I worked for and it works
| beautifully.
|
| A) and B) work but they are not as effective as homomophic
| encryption.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Barring _regulation_ , why would car manufacturers
| currently profiting off the sale of this data spend extra
| money voluntarily implementing something that cuts off
| their revenue stream?
| themaninthedark wrote:
| Or why would one car manufacturer cut off a revenue
| stream that their competition has.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _use Google Maps for Navigation but Google or any other
| third party would have no idea where I am going_
|
| You don't need homomorphic encryption for this, just local
| route processing. In the case of car data, the auto
| companies aren't doing any useful processing of the data
| for the user. Homomorphic encryption is irrelevant.
| Phemist wrote:
| The keyword here is "use".
|
| Homomorphic Encryption reduces the breadth of computations
| that can be ran on the gathered data, by making it
| inaccessible outside of the specific homomorphic scheme
| that was chosen. So yes, in that sense it cannot be used
| arbitrarily.
|
| However, the results, i.e. knowledge derived, from the
| chosen computations can still be shared arbitrarily, which
| IMO is a much greater issue, as the need of the result
| sharing will inform the computations that can be done
| within the scheme.
|
| Who defines the computations? Surely not the users, and
| lacking regulations, also surely not regulatory bodies.
| mc32 wrote:
| I think a problem in this area is that if one avenue of data
| collection is denied, another one will be implemented and it
| becomes a game of whack-a-mole.
|
| For example the USG is forbidden from collecting
| communications from US citizens, but that does not keep it
| from buying this information from private domestic sources or
| from other governments.
| Eisenstein wrote:
| We did not freeze the ability to pass legislation or have
| courts decide on the constitutionality of governmental
| processes. Have you given up on democracy?
|
| Why is everyone so quick to say 'well, they are getting
| away with it, might as well let them' instead of trying to
| use our processes for the purposes which they were
| designed?
| mc32 wrote:
| Because they tend to build-in exceptions and only the
| likes of R Paul and 1990s Sanders would object. At the
| state level you saw Newsom and co. argue for increased
| minimum wage --except for restaurants serving bread -ala
| Panera. They are not, by and large, honest.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| Which specific regulation do you think has a history of not
| being impactful? I find that the devil is in the detail in this
| argument because most regulation us massively impactful and
| helpful and I find that the talking point that we need to get
| rid of it is generally loudest from those who would profit the
| most from not following those rules anymore.
| max_ wrote:
| GDPR for example has done nothing to protect people from this
| particular case of data misuse.
|
| The problem with English law, is that you have to explicitly
| declare what is wrong a head of time. So we just end up with
| endless needs for regulation ls.
|
| If we had legal systems like Hammurabi Codes, they work work
| way better.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _GDPR for example has done nothing to protect people from
| this particular case of data misuse_
|
| You're using one badly-written law to discard a category.
|
| Why not look at the FDA? When was the last time you were
| poisoned?
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| How is GDPR badly written?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _How is GDPR badly written?_
|
| Enforcement is fractured. It's a mandatory-complaint
| driven model, which is both intensive (every complaint
| demands manpower on both the regulator and regulated's
| sides) and prone to abuse (known tactic for quashing
| European competition: herding complaints). All that means
| it's ambiguously burdensome, which means there is a fixed
| cost to compliance even if you aren't doing anything
| wrong.
| dexterdog wrote:
| Poisoning people is accepted as wrong by most people.
| Monitoring devices so that you can "make them safer" or
| "save the children" or whichever other BS reason they
| give is easy to give them a pass on.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Poisoning people is accepted as wrong by most people_
|
| Sure. It was still prevalent prior to the F&DA of 1906.
| dexterdog wrote:
| Then why is it not more prevalent now that the FDA is
| owned by the food-producing cartels?
| pierat wrote:
| > Why not look at the FDA? When was the last time you
| were poisoned?
|
| How many deaths happened because of excessive regulation,
| extreme delays, and overall refusal to acknowledge other
| medical bodies' acceptance of treatment?
|
| The CATO institute, a Republican think-tank, put a number
| on FDA drug law alone from 20000-120000 deaths per
| decade. (I was aiming at another more impartial org, but
| sigh)
|
| https://www.cato.org/commentary/end-fda-drug-monopoly-
| let-pa...
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Side note: CATO isn't a particularly credible source.
| (Like Greenpeace.)
|
| That said, even though I agree with them in this case,
| that bolsters the case for regulation being effective. If
| the FDA were ineffective, pharmaceuticals could
| "play...legal gymnastics and pay rudimentary fines" to
| get around their power. In other words, the magnitude is
| undisputed; we're debating the sign.
| Sayrus wrote:
| You'd be surprised what French data authority (CNIL) has to
| say about this[1]:
|
| > Any use of personal data for an objective that is
| incompatible with the primary purpose of proces- sing is a
| misuse that is subject to administrative or criminal
| sanctions. > For example, a mechanic cannot sell the
| vehicle's technical data to insurers to enable them to
| infer the driving profiles of their policyholders.
|
| There may be a lack of enforcement, but it seems this type
| of data may be protected under GDPR.
|
| [1] https://www.cnil.fr/sites/cnil/files/atoms/files/cnil_p
| ack_v...
| max_ wrote:
| With good encryption we wouldn't need to spend alot of
| time trying to enforce these laws
| Sayrus wrote:
| As a corporation, would I use your encryption standards
| if I stand to make money legally by not using them?
| You'll need to enforce encryption usage to force me to
| use these. Which currently requires these kind of laws.
|
| What do you have in mind to ensure standards that are
| good for end-users are put in my place?
| EraYaN wrote:
| I mean the one thing GDPR did was scare the ever living
| daylight out of quite a few engineering teams and
| executives. Which honestly was what they industry really
| needed, people just needed to consider the data collection
| a bit more.
|
| And fines have been levied and are levied constantly. It's
| mostly a man power problem as to how many, but the fines
| pay for more man power in some places so it all works out.
| It's just slow, which is why people always complain that
| nothing ever happens.
| Sayrus wrote:
| If I am a corporation and I am willing to break regulations,
| how will you force me to use homomorphic encryption? Why should
| I pass on gathering data that I can resell?
|
| The average buyer won't understand or care about it so there is
| no direct pressure from consumers. I think regulations is not
| optional (and homomorphic encryption may be mandated if
| viable?). Breaching regulations is often a "cost of doing
| business", but some recent regulations (such as GDPR) can
| actually create very large fines in many countries. So it seems
| that what may be needed is good enforcement and measured
| penalties. Another deterrent would be having penalties that are
| not money.
| moooo99 wrote:
| > Breaching regulations is often a "cost of doing business",
| but some recent regulations (such as GDPR) can actually
| create very large fines in many countries.
|
| This is the issue with so many laws. Stricter fines basically
| never deter would be offenders from committing the crime.
| What deters people is a high chance of getting caught.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _isn 't talked much about is the promotion, and installation
| of homomorphic computing or homomorphic encryption_
|
| Sure, the car company will homomorphically encrypt your driving
| data when it sends it to its own servers.
|
| You're trying to solve a social problem with technology. That
| doesn't work.
| max_ wrote:
| >Sure, the car company will homomorphically encrypt your
| driving data when it sends it to its own servers.
|
| You can encrypt the data such that the insurance companies
| cannot target any particular individual (which is my problem
| her) but they can use the data to improve their insurance
| pricing models.
|
| I have no problem with a health insurance company using
| population data to find out how many are susceptible to say
| cancer.
|
| But I have a problem when they use this data to over price a
| particular individuals insurance because their gene say that
| they are susceptible to cancer.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _encrypt the data such that the insurance companies
| cannot target any particular individual (which is my
| problem her) but they can use the data to improve their
| insurance pricing models_
|
| We already have population claims statistics, a product of
| regulations that require reporting. What insurance
| companies want is discrimination within the variation.
| hobs wrote:
| Since nobody answered the question, the reason is its terribly
| absolutely insanely slow. It's possible, just requiring
| hundreds of thousands or millions of times as much work as say,
| a normal lookup in a database.
| h0l0cube wrote:
| Of the solutions:
|
| a) Impractical because cars are needed for daily life and
| there's no incentive for automakers to not sell your data.. so
| all cars will unless this becomes a compelling enough product
| difference to move the needle on profits,
|
| b) Legislation/regulation that creates the right incentives
| isn't easy, but certainly doable.
|
| c) Impractical because homomorphic encryption is absurdly
| computationally expensive, is still not a fully unsolved
| problem, and.. in what universe do automotive companies
| implement this far fetched and expensive means of privacy
| without sone.. err.. regulation?
|
| It doesn't seem to be superior to option b)
| smallmancontrov wrote:
| > I am a Hayekian and I believe that regulation will not help
| with people that know the ins & outs of the regulation, also
| it's doesn't stop them. It just means corporations are willing
| to misbehave as long as they can play the legal gymnastics and
| pay rudimentary fines.
|
| So you try nothing and are out of ideas. Amazing.
|
| > homomorphic encryption
|
| Let me get this straight, you think regulation is too hard
| because corporations don't want it, but you don't see any
| problem with homomorphic encryption, which is difficult to
| implement, poorly understood by consumers, AND provides privacy
| guarantees that corporations don't want?
|
| Really?
| _visgean wrote:
| > I am a Hayekian and I believe that regulation will not help
| with people that know the ins & outs of the regulation, also
| it's doesn't stop them.
|
| that is such a funny thing to say. Car industry is heavily
| regulated and car companies do work with the regulation. They
| are already regulated on safety, fuel standards, dimensions...
| Adding data protection into the mix makes sense.
| troyvit wrote:
| The auto industry has fought tooth and nail against safety
| requirements[1] and still fights today against more stringent
| fuel standards[2][3].
|
| Not only would they fight regulations like data safety that
| would open them to potential litigation when lose the data or
| sell it to the wrong player, but they would win. Privacy
| isn't the political football that the environment is, and you
| can't point to death statistics like you can with safety
| issues.
|
| [1] https://www.the-rheumatologist.org/article/revisionist-
| histo... [2] https://texasclimatenews.org/2022/03/19/decades-
| of-lobbying-... [3] https://www.cbtnews.com/auto-lobby-group-
| warns-fuel-efficien...
| _visgean wrote:
| The fact that they will fight it does not mean we should
| not try it. At least in EU the GDPR gives quite a bit of
| power to regulate this.
| ambichook wrote:
| they fight it because it _works_ and impacts their bottom
| line, i dont see how that 's evidence that regulation is
| ineffective as a whole because people can just find
| loopholes
| troyvit wrote:
| I don't think regulation is ineffective as a whole, but I
| do think that regulation won't be able to curb the
| industry's hunger for data or its incompetence in how it
| collects it. I believe this is the case because the
| industry will fight just as vigorously to collect this
| data while regulators will be less invested in stopping
| it. I believe regulators will be less invested in
| stopping it because there has been a steady degradation
| in our expectation of privacy in this area since smart
| phones. Any auto industry lobbyist just has to point out
| that tracking your driving habits and selling that data
| to insurance companies is little different from what
| google and apple already do.
| janice1999 wrote:
| > I am a Hayekian and I believe that regulation will not help
| with people that know the ins & outs of the regulation, also
| it's doesn't stop them.
|
| I work in the automotive industry. It is very heavily
| regulated. The majority of people have never heard of ISO 26262
| but it's keeping billions of people safe every day. Data
| privacy can work in the same way.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| > The problem with this is that it is impractical for people
| that use see alot of value in using this tech.
|
| I would be happy to turn down the tech, but I wonder how long
| until I can't feasibly buy a car (or a car I want) without
| it...
| batch12 wrote:
| When I got my last car, it had a sticker instructing me to press
| the SOS button to opt out of data collection. The gentleman that
| answered acted confused when I made the request, taking the
| stance that he wasn't aware of data collection from the car and
| maybe I should contact the manufacturer. It was only after I read
| him the sticker text verbatim that he went into a scripted
| response and confirmed the opt out. Shady.
| VHRanger wrote:
| Brand?
| batch12 wrote:
| Toyota.
|
| I still had the sticker- I peeled it off and put it in the
| manual. The exact text is:
|
| VEHICLE DATA TRANSMISSION IS ON! Your vehicle wirelessly
| transmits location, driving and vehicle health data to
| deliver your services and for internal research and data
| analysis. See www.toyota[.]com/privacyvts. To disable, press
| vehicle's SOS button.
| Kon-Peki wrote:
| Prepare to be creeped out:
|
| https://www.toyota.com/privacyvts/
| janice1999 wrote:
| People seem to unaware of it:
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/australia-
| news/2024/feb/08/toyot...
| HankB99 wrote:
| Yeah, right at the top
|
| > We may modify this Privacy Notice by posting a new
| version at this website effective on the date of
| publication.
|
| No actual notification needed. Are they screaming to be
| regulated?
| colpabar wrote:
| Isn't this how all ToS work though? They all contain some
| clause that says "actually we reserve the right to do
| whatever we want whenever we want and everything you read
| here is meaningless"
| giantg2 wrote:
| Yep, and that's why physically defeating the device is
| always better than relying on the other party to honor
| their word. Disconnect the wireless module/board and they
| _can 't_ send your data.
| andy99 wrote:
| Similar experience but to be fair at least toyota has a big
| sticker. Other cars are doing it too and just not telling
| you. Either way, my next car is going to be a 90s land
| rover.
| supportengineer wrote:
| I found this Facebook group called "Low Miles No Miles"
|
| https://www.facebook.com/groups/2066782386864241/
|
| I was very surprised how many people there are who buy
| cars from the factory and immediately stored them, in the
| 1990's. In some cases the owners did not even remove any
| of the factory stickers or plastic.
|
| This group must be showing just the tip of the iceberg.
| beej71 wrote:
| I was looking at the Prius Prime for a next car--thanks for the
| heads-up!
| arkadiyt wrote:
| If I get a new car I'm just taking the modem out.
| derwiki wrote:
| If an insurance company can't find data on you when they
| expect it, won't they just charge you the high risk premium?
| mr_toad wrote:
| If you won't tell them whether you have a car alarm or a
| secure garage they just assume you don't.
| gvurrdon wrote:
| I never saw one of those when buying my most recent car
| (Toyota). But, after creating an account on their website I was
| able to find this section: Consent Centre
| E-privacy: Your car data Help us improve our
| products by sharing car data and diagnostic info. We
| don't currently have your consent to use this data. This may be
| for the following reasons: Your car doesn't have
| Connected Services. Contact your dealer to check if they can be
| added. No (connected) car has been added to your
| account. Go to My Vehicle, add a car if needed, then connect
| your car via the Connected Services card. You have
| a connected car but have yet to consent. Go to My Vehicle, and
| open the chosen car. You will be requested to give your
| consent. Toyota thanks you for helping us to
| improve our products.
|
| FWIW, their smartphone app contains a "consent" section with
| various toggles for the usual reasons (e.g. "sharing data to
| improve products") and these are all turned off.
| m463 wrote:
| The confusion was likely a scripted response too.
|
| I had a friend who worked with call centers, taking orders over
| the phone. they had a script for everything, and after they
| quickly took your order, they started with a scripted upsell.
| If the person balked, they had responses for everything so they
| could continue. The only way out of the script was if the
| customer said "I will cancel my order". The call center person
| would be fired if they did not follow the script.
| staplers wrote:
| Xfinity similarly does this if they overcharge you on a
| contract. They try to upsell on a new (less value) contract
| for an hour before finally just changing tone and saying
| "you're right we messed up" and refunding you.
| dylan604 wrote:
| After all, you called them, which shows you're a ripe
| target. Every sales person knows that. Oh, you thought they
| were a support person? Maybe sales support.
| throwitaway222 wrote:
| This kinda confirms, unfortunately and sadly, that ChatGPT
| answers are probably just as good as human answers. And the
| data collection for your phone call went to training, not into
| a database where you officially opted out.
| pfist wrote:
| > This kinda confirms, unfortunately and sadly, that ChatGPT
| answers are probably just as good as human answers.
|
| These people are paid to follow scripts and strict protocols.
| At best, this may suggest that ChatGPT answers are as good as
| a call center representative's answers.
| xnx wrote:
| As a safe driver, I like the idea of dangerous drivers paying
| more. There's no good reason the participants should not be aware
| they are under surveillance though.
|
| Sidenote: I wonder if they've considered close follow distance or
| frequent lane changes as a risk factor.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| Its telling how you phrase this.
| mycologos wrote:
| If it's so telling then tell us, enough with the dark
| innuendos!
| RandomBacon wrote:
| Appearing "safe" via slow speeds and slow turns does not
| equal "safe" in the real world.
|
| Unless the car has cameras staring at you, it doesn't know
| if you're checking your mirrors before lane-changes, going
| 10-under the limit in the far left lane on a busy highway,
| etc.
|
| Even then, cameras aren't good because assuming people are
| telling the truth when they use test-taking software, there
| are false positives that have to be manually-reviewed by
| proctors when the computer thinks you're looking in the
| wrong place.
|
| (Edit: it also doesn't know if your mirrors are positioned
| properly so you do not have a "blindspot". In every modern
| vehicle I've driven, it is possible to set the mirrors so
| you can continuously see cars in the left or right lane
| next you - from the rearview mirror to the sideview mirror
| to the side glass. Hint, if you can see the side of your
| own vehicle in your sideview mirror: it is set improperly.)
|
| ---
|
| > frequent lane changes as a risk factor.
|
| People not willing to change lanes is how you get more
| traffic and more dangerous driving overall. Traffic should
| stay right unless passing - which means once someone is
| done passing, _they also_ need to move to the right. People
| crusing in the left lane is how backups happen and people
| trying to make more dangerous lane-changes to pass on the
| right. Less lane changes would be a bad thing to
| incentivise.
|
| If more people used cruise control in general, that might
| help (don't know if any studies have been done about that).
| As it is now, most people's speeds ebb and flow and that
| causes traffic, especially when they either consciously or
| subconscious try to speed up to match someone trying to
| pass them, or whether it's curves, hills, narrower lanes
| due to automated tollbooths, bridges, etc.
| jmward01 wrote:
| Spot enforcement with appropriate training and vehicle
| improvements is more than appropriate for numerous reasons: 1)
| Regression to the mean will happen with 100% enforcement/over-
| enforcement. The new standard for 'safe' will collapse to an
| unobtainable level which will not benefit society in the long
| run. 2) Safety is not my #1 concern. The number one cause of
| death on roads is being born. I value getting to my destination
| without being tracked more than the potential safety gains of
| strict monitoring. I believe in rational safety measures but
| "It's safer so we must do it" is an argument I no longer
| accept. I want to live a good life, not just a safe one. 3) We
| have seen time and time again that personal information
| collected by companies rarely benefits consumers and instead is
| always used to benefit companies. This is no different. I have
| negative trust in industry handling my data for my benefit.
| bluejekyll wrote:
| The thing that's somewhat ironic here is that the car companies
| could make cars safe by default. For example, they could make
| it not possible to accelerate faster than one needs to. They
| could put in speed limiters that are triggered by the speed
| limit on the road. They could stop marketing and selling over
| powered cars.
|
| Instead they market cars as exciting race track like vehicles,
| things that let you do what you want, when you want. And now
| they will collect data on the people who actually do that.
|
| Personally I would prefer a car that helps me be a safer driver
| by following the law. Ensuring there are no pedestrians or
| cyclists in front of me, etc. But at the end of the day,
| automated enforcement is a good thing, so maybe this will help
| some people become safer drivers, though the reality that's
| probably more likely is that fewer and fewer people will be
| able to afford/get insurance, and because our country is so car
| dependent, they will just drive without.
| MrDrMcCoy wrote:
| > For example, they could make it not possible to accelerate
| faster than one needs to.
|
| I was in a rental car that had this once. Was on the highway,
| needed to get around another driver who was being unsafe. Was
| unable to do so because of the limiter. It was easily the
| most unsafe vehicle I've ever driven as a result. These
| mechanisms lack situational awareness and nuance, and thus
| are a direct threat to my personal safety. They very much
| need to be banned as a matter of course until such a time as
| humans aren't allowed to drive at all.
| toast0 wrote:
| The idea of dangerous drivers paying more for insurance is
| fine. It's probably better than the idea of drivers with bad
| credit paying more for insurance.
|
| The problem is in how is dangerous driving assessed. Simple to
| apply rules lack the understanding of conditions. Telematics
| are going to be low bandwidth data, almost certainly without
| enough data to form an understanding of conditions.
| criddell wrote:
| > It's probably better than the idea of drivers with bad
| credit paying more for insurance.
|
| There must be some correlation between bad credit and
| likelihood to be in a collision.
| janice1999 wrote:
| The problem though is that inevitably they will eventually
| automatically label anyone who does not "consent" to total
| surveillance as risky or dangerous.
| jgalt212 wrote:
| I hope so. Get the animals off the road.
| 654wak654 wrote:
| Imagine a scenario where bunch of those animals brake check
| you, and then your insurance company calls you up and says "Hey
| jgalt212, we're seeing that you your forward collion avoidance
| system got activated too many times this year. We're going to
| flag you as a tailgater and up your premium by %80. Have a
| lovely day."
| jgalt212 wrote:
| As opposed to the jackass whose pulling high lateral G's and
| going 90 on the freeway. I think I can explain my way out of
| the insurance hike easier than the aforementioned jackass--
| who actually should be deemed uninsurable.
| throw_a_grenade wrote:
| https://archive.is/lmMp9
| mycologos wrote:
| I think there are a few reasons to be mad about this, but some
| are better than others:
|
| 1) People don't understand they're being monitored. I think this
| is a good reason to be mad. People should have some understanding
| of the agreements they make. It's part of being a functional
| adult in the world. It's also annoying that the companies keep
| spinning this as a tool to improve your driving, when it's
| clearly an attempt to price insurance against a person's actual
| driving habits.
|
| 2) The system's assessments are opaque. I don't have a good sense
| of how accurate any of these measurements are, nor what system is
| in place to ensure that. If the information collected is
| consequential enough to double a person's insurance costs, there
| should be some effort expended to be confident that the collected
| metrics actually reflect reality. I didn't see anything like that
| in the article, maybe I missed it, but it shouldn't just be some
| random team in a private company doing their best.
|
| 3) People's driving habits shouldn't be shared with insurance
| companies. This one ... this one I think is not great. It looks
| like the shared data at least tries to be anonymous -- they share
| driving behavior and times, but not actual location data. Heck,
| I'd be fine with scrubbing the times and just sharing the hard
| start and stop and speeding numbers (assuming point 2 above is
| addressed). I get that a knee-jerk defensiveness about privacy
| would make Thomas Jefferson proud or whatever, but we strike
| balances on public welfare and private freedom all the time. If
| you're itching to manufacture 1 gram of ricin to put in a sealed
| glass vial above your mantle, too bad, you can't. Cars aren't
| ricin, but they are the shortest path between most humans and
| homicide. If this kind of intervention induces people to be more
| careful to keep their current insurance rates, I think that's
| reasonable. Driving like a maniac is not a human right or a
| protected characteristic.
| everforward wrote:
| Location can be relevant. There is both a quarter mile drag
| strip by me and a circuit lap by me that both allow you to
| drive your own car on them.
|
| Both styles of driving would be... Alarming from a telemetry
| perspective.
|
| Afaik neither is covered by regular auto insurance anyways so
| it really shouldn't factor into rates. There's specific racing
| insurance, but it's quite pricey.
|
| Not that I want them sharing location data, but pure
| acceleration/velocity data won't show areas like that.
|
| I'm also not sure how well regionalized the data is. Though
| neither is good, there's a very big difference between going 15
| over on the highway and going 15 over on back country roads
| with blind turns. Or between going 15 over on the highway vs in
| a shopping center parking lot.
|
| Speeding is contextual.
| schreiaj wrote:
| It's also difficult to determine if someone is speeding from
| data.
|
| For example the road I live off of according to the speed
| limit the car thinks goes from 40 to 65 to 25 to 65 to 40 in
| about a 4 mile span. Spoiler it does not. It is 40 the whole
| way. But according to the car I am either going 25 under, 15
| over, or exactly the right speed.
|
| (And the 65 section in the middle? Blind corner. Idk where
| it's getting its data but it is very very wrong)
| everforward wrote:
| Indeed, the usual garbage in garbage out issue.
|
| Iirc, though, I think I read something about this and they
| were more interested in average speed (regardless of posted
| speed), and the rate/frequency of acceleration/deceleration
| (especially deceleration).
|
| The idea being that speed increases accident severity,
| regardless of posted speeds. Rapid deceleration is
| indicative of reacting late to something you should have
| seen and responded to earlier (eg following too closely and
| having to slam the brakes, not seeing someone merging, not
| slowing down for a yellow light, etc).
|
| Basically that a safe driver would have a fairly smooth
| acceleration/deceleration profile because they're aware of
| what's happening around them and pre-plan accordingly. If
| someone wants to merge in, give them room and then back up
| enough that you can brake slowly if something happens.
|
| I still don't want to be tracked, but their metrics seemed
| sane at first pass.
| schreiaj wrote:
| Maybe if the only thing you're reacting to is other
| vehicles or the road. The number of times I have to slam
| on my brakes on that particular road because of animals
| running into the road is way too high. And no, not always
| deer. I've come around curves and just had someone's dog
| sitting in the middle of the road on multiple occasions
| because for some reason people think it's totally safe to
| just let their dogs roam.
| bruckie wrote:
| That indicates real increased risk, though, compared to
| someone who drives in places where animals are less
| likely to be in the road.
|
| Insurers aren't trying to determine how good of a driver
| you are (conditional probability of you being in a
| collision given conditions). They're trying to determine
| how likely it is that you're going to be involved in a
| collision that results in a claim (unconditional
| probability of you being in a collision). If you
| frequently drive through deer infested forests, it seems
| reasonable that your insurer is going to expect more
| claims compared to someone who doesn't do that.
|
| It's similar to how driving late at night results in
| higher premiums. You can be the same good driver at night
| and during the day, but if you're frequently driving at 3
| a.m., you're a higher risk.
| volkl48 wrote:
| As someone in the Northeast US: Many of our highways were
| designed 80+ years ago, and do not have appropriate
| acceleration/deceleration lanes.
|
| The terrible drivers are often those with the most timid
| inputs, especially with regards to acceleration. It is
| perfectly normal here to need to merge into heavy, 60mph+
| traffic from a dead stop, or to need to quickly match
| speed and identify an appropriate merge spot to not wind
| up stuck at the end of a ramp.
|
| And it's not like they sit there for 15 minutes waiting
| for some exceptionally large gap to match their
| acceleration habits - that would be very annoying to
| other drivers, but theoretically "safe". They enter in
| the same length gap as someone that actually uses their
| gas pedal - but rely on oncoming traffic to hit their
| brakes/evade, as they fail to get up to speed quickly
| enough for the small gap they've entered in.
|
| -----
|
| Hard braking is something with fewer reasons it should
| happen regularly - but I'm still reminded of the usual
| adage about metrics. Do you really want people to be
| mentally reluctant to hit their brakes as hard because of
| the insurance hit? That seems like a recipe for
| increasing decision time and accidents.
| neuralRiot wrote:
| Just like any other data collection and "tailored" to it
| service the only purpose is to justify a charge not to
| actually work. Targeted ads work better than traditional
| ones? Who knows but how can you say that your service is
| better if it has nothing innovative. Just like "feature-rich"
| devices is just a sales pitch.
| beej71 wrote:
| I've avoided accidents by hard breaking twice in the last two
| years, once from deer bounding into the road, and once from a
| deaf old cat walking into the street.
|
| I haven't been cited for anything in decades, and have never
| been in an at-fault accident. I drive the speed limit and have
| a dashcam. With the deer, I was actually 10 MPH under the
| limit.
|
| So should my rates go up for these incidents where I
| successfully avoided hitting something? Insurers are
| unscrupulous and would use any excuse.
|
| No, thanks. I'll share nothing.
| nh23423fefe wrote:
| Amen. It's their job to calculate risk. Not my job to be
| "transparent". The ratchet only goes in one direction.
|
| I won't be an Amazon driver in my own car.
| andrei_says_ wrote:
| But they have the tech to collect the data and make extra
| cash by selling it and making you an Amazon driver in your
| own car. So if they can, they will. Unless there's
| something to stop them. Which in the absence of their
| goodwill would be legislation.
|
| Unfortunately legislation representing anything other than
| big money interests is difficult and rare to pass.
| tiltowait wrote:
| I did pest control for a while, and my truck was equipped
| with a monitoring device that would beep if it detected
| unsafe driving. The thing was inconsistent enough to be
| nearly indistinguishible from random. It sometimes nagged me
| while driving straight at normal speeds, or going over a pot
| hole, or just stopping like normal at a stop light. At other
| times, it _wouldn 't_ go off for what should have been
| obvious "offenses"--hard stops, last-second swerves to avoid
| road debris, etc.
|
| All in all, I think it was useless for actually policing
| driving behavior, but I did get identified (read: randomly
| selected) as the safest driver in the branch one month and
| got a bonus, so I guess that was nice?
| rurp wrote:
| I drove a newer Subaru for a couple days and it had a
| "feature" like this with a camera pointed at the driver
| that would beep if it thought you weren't paying enough
| attention. Just like the pest control truck it was
| innacurate to the point of being totally useless and very
| annoying. The stupidest part was that it couldn't be
| disabled. I was a happy Subaru owner for many years but the
| driver camera and a few other modern owner-hostile features
| totally turned me off to the company.
| bradleybuda wrote:
| Did your rates go up? Or is this a straw man argument?
| salawat wrote:
| >People should have some understanding of the agreements they
| make.
|
| People do not engage in meetings of the minds on these types of
| things. Manufacturers/insurance companies enter into agreements
| (and leave stickers that are unlikely to be read) which is a
| clear violation (imo) of contract law.
|
| It's one thing to be aware of agreements _you_ make, it is
| another to navigate a corporate surveillance hellscape of on by
| default consentless surveillance a bunch of psychopayhic
| corporate types greenlit.
| mikewarot wrote:
| > it's clearly an attempt to price insurance against a person's
| actual driving habits.
|
| I think it's a combination of two strategies.
|
| 1) searching for a reason to not pay a claim.
|
| 2) searching for a reason to increase your pricing, while
| hiding average driver behavior from you to increase their
| bargaining power
| randerson wrote:
| The flow of traffic on the highways where I live is
| consistently 15-20 mph above the posted limit. I wish everyone
| would slow down, but that doesn't change the fact that the
| safest way to merge is to accelerate hard and match their
| speed. The last thing I need is a financial incentive to be
| oblivious to my surroundings.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > It looks like the shared data at least tries to be anonymous
|
| One of the main points of the article is that insurance
| companies are using the data to raise drivers' rates. How can
| they do that if the data is anonymous?
| EwanToo wrote:
| The car company can share the details based on the chassis
| VIN number rather than driver details.
|
| Then the insurance company grabs the vehicle registration
| number when you ask for a quote and looks up the VIN on their
| side based on a security database to prevent resale of stolen
| cars or similar.
|
| Anonymous data becomes identifiable data...
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > The car company can share the details based on the
| chassis VIN number rather than driver details.
|
| That's hardly anonymized data! It's more obscured.
| moooo99 wrote:
| I'm a huge fan of s telemetry insurance. I have I personally and
| it saves me around 300EUR/year on my cars insurance because I am
| a very defensive driver.
|
| However, this being integrated into the vehicle in an absolutely
| intransparent way is a huge step up and a really unsettling
| privacy violation.
|
| For this to be ethically viable imho, there need to be a few
| prerequisites
|
| - it's transparent what has been transmitted
|
| - you can always easily opt out, but you may loose the discount
| you earned
|
| - your driving can't make your premium go up beyond the base
| premium without the discount (sensors will never paint an
| entirely accurate picture)
| FirmwareBurner wrote:
| In which country is that?
| PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote:
| They're describing what should be, not what is.
| FirmwareBurner wrote:
| No, I was asking about this statement which I assume wasn't
| hypothetical:
|
| _> I have I personally and it saves me around 300EUR /year
| on my cars insurance because I am a very defensive driver._
| PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote:
| gotcha, I misunderstood.
| QVVRP4nYz wrote:
| I don't know about OP but in Poland https://yanosik.pl/
| offered such deals ( https://payhowyudrive.pl/ ). It is
| probably a bit self defeating - the app's main function is
| warning about speed traps, that means unsafe drivers as
| significant part of its users.
| moooo99 wrote:
| Sorry for the late answer. But this is for my insurance in
| Germany, which is extremely expensive because I'm a young
| driver
| beej71 wrote:
| I'd be a fan, too, if they couldn't use the information to
| raise rates. But even the best drivers brake hard to avoid
| accidents from time to time, and in the US, insurers are dirty.
| andrei_says_ wrote:
| From the other side, it's essentially a fine for people who
| respect their privacy. Insurance prices will adjust to the
| adoption of this discount, will rise to the current normal and
| only people who don't opt in will be hit with the extortion fee
| forcing them to opt in.
| rcMgD2BwE72F wrote:
| >you can always easily opt out
|
| No, that should definitely be opt-in, with explicit consent to
| data collection and process purposes.
| explorigin wrote:
| Surely these cars have an "offline-mode". Anyone know how to
| force it? (I almost said "airplane-mode".)
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _almost said "airplane-mode"_
|
| My old Jetta's door once fell off.
| MarioMan wrote:
| Disconnect the antenna or the whole modem itself.
| mancerayder wrote:
| My insurance went up 10 percent out of the blue. Wonder if Tesla
| shares?
| 654wak654 wrote:
| Could've just been "inflation" (read: Opportunity to jack up
| prices) too. Although if one car company is going to be on the
| bleeding edge of data collection & sharing it'd probably be
| Tesla. They're the most Silicon Valley of all.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| 10% is below average, you should feel lucky. Car insurance
| premiums have been rising dramatically, especially for EVs.
| techdmn wrote:
| My biggest concern is that rather than comparing difficult to
| identify behavior against claim rates, they will penalize
| behavior that is easy to identify. For example, yesterday I was
| traveling 15 MPH over the speed limit on a multi-line highway
| where traffic is often traveling 10+ MPH over the limit (the
| limit is objectively wrong for a divided, grade separated, access
| controlled highway). I typically drive as far right as I can to
| make room for faster vehicles, but eventually got stuck behind
| someone camping in the left lane. When opportunity presented
| itself I went around them in the center lane. They expressed
| anger at this by encroaching into my lane to squeeze me against
| traffic in the right lane. There were four inches between their
| vehicle and my side mirror. Who is driving dangerously, and more
| likely to cause an accident? I would argue it's the driver who is
| obstructing traffic and behaving aggressively toward others on
| the road. But if GPS isn't accurate enough to show their lane
| deviation, it's a lot easier to ding me for my speed.
| 654wak654 wrote:
| Making it easier to determine who's at fault in cases like you
| mentioned would involve more sensors, radars, cameras etc. So
| we either 1984-ify everyones car or we just don't do any
| monitoring at all (since half-assing it can lead to false
| positives). I have a feeling insurance companies (and therefore
| governments) will slide more towards the 1984 side to save a
| couple dollars.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| More concerning is how we are not able to view and challenge this
| data. It's a one-way street.
| fabiofzero wrote:
| Some insurance companies make you use an app if you want lower
| payments so this battle is mostly lost.
| elevenones wrote:
| (From the Toyota Connected Services Disclaimer)
|
| Your Responsibilities Your responsibilities
| include: (1) informing passengers and drivers of your vehicle
| that data is collected and used by us, and (2) notifying us of a
| sale or transfer of your vehicle. If you do not notify us of a
| sale or transfer, we may continue to send data about the vehicle
| to the subscriber's Account Information currently on file, and we
| are not responsible for any privacy related damages you suffer.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| This needs to be illegal.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Senator Wyden has been a champion of data privacy. If you are
| an Oregon resident, please reach out to his office.
|
| https://www.wyden.senate.gov/
| m463 wrote:
| I remember driving a nissan leaf. You had an opt-out prompt
| every time you drove the car.
| prometheus76 wrote:
| I called to turn off the data in a Toyota, and the guy wanted my
| name, phone number, email address, physical address and even more
| I can't remember right now. I was like "why do you need this
| info?" He said, "We need a record of who made this request for
| our records." I told him "do you understand that I am calling
| your company specifically because I don't want you to have
| records?" This went round and round about three times before I
| just gave him fake info.
| MrDrMcCoy wrote:
| Were you able to obtain any records of your own where they
| agree to cease collection that you can hold against them if
| they continue? Do you have any means of verifying that the
| collection has ceased? I don't believe that their word means
| much without these.
| prometheus76 wrote:
| I just wrapped my truck with several layers of copper mesh,
| so it should be fine.
|
| In all seriousness though, no. I have no way of confirming
| the data transmission has stopped.
| kkfx wrote:
| Ladies and gentleman if we want a fair society we MUST:
|
| - mandate FLOSS by law, starting from the first SLoC, meaning no
| company can sudden publish software to sell something with it,
| the software must be published since the day zero of it's
| development or the hw/sw/service can't be on sale;
|
| - mandate local first for anything, so connected cars are ok, but
| they just offer a simple DynDNS mechanism the owner can add to
| it's own domain name as a subdomain like car.mydomain.tld and
| reach a relevant set of APIs the car offer. All data collected by
| the OEM must pass though the car owners systems, in an open and
| readable and documented form.
|
| If this is not mandate, by popular acclaim, surveillance
| capitalism will stay, since it's the new tool to know and conform
| the masses. Surveilled people are known, and knowing they are
| surveilled try to behave in a "social norm" way, fearing the
| judgment/social score, as a result people evolve toward slaves
| who obey those who establish and update current social norms. We
| all know cooperation is needed to do anything, those who compete
| then need many who cooperate, obeying their orders, to craft
| anything. In the past was religion, then money, now social
| scoring the way to stiffen the masses. Such powerful tool is not
| something anyone accept to loose without a desperate and
| limitless fight. Only a large public reaction can force a change.
| ljosa wrote:
| Is there a good source for which makes, models, and model years
| "phone home"? I would absolutely take it into account when
| shopping for a new or used car, but I've had no luck with
| Googling.
| cebert wrote:
| I'd imagine any car since 2019 can likely share such data.
| leotravis10 wrote:
| Gift Link:
| https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/11/technology/carmakers-driv...
|
| US lawmakers can put a stop to this and every other privacy
| scandal over the years at any time you know by passing a strong
| privacy law but nahhhhhh we can't do that!
|
| It's yet another reason why people should buy older cars
| (preferably 2012 or older) since the automotive, insurance, and
| data broker industries don't give a total jack about your privacy
| and sadly the US aren't going to do jack about this either until
| we can elect more people in office that does care and pass a
| strong privacy law in the process.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| > An employee familiar with G.M.'s Smart Driver said the
| company's annual revenue from the program is in the low millions
| of dollars.
|
| Is that a lot of money for GM? I would have guessed no, but it
| doesn't seem like very much for selling out their customers like
| this. Either it's more to GM's profits than I'd expect, or they
| really don't expect much PR blowback risk at all?
|
| I don't know if they are right or wrong, but...
|
| > Drivers who have realized what is happening are not happy. The
| Palm Beach Cadillac owner said he would never buy another car
| from G.M. He is planning to sell his Cadillac.
| morninglight wrote:
| They share your data in order to help lower your insurance rates.
|
| Imagine what your premium might be without this service.
|
| For example, I drive less than 900 miles a year, have had no
| accidents, citations or thefts and keep my 10 year old car in a
| garage. Yet my payments are $1500 per year. And after getting
| estimates from several companies, this was the lowest we could
| find.
|
| Even with this service, the inflation rate for auto insurance is
| higher than anything else in our family budget.
|
| Thank the lord for data sharing.
| NN88 wrote:
| I mean, I knew...but... I didn't know...
| theogravity wrote:
| After seeing this article, I did a bit of searching and you can
| also get your LexisNexus report and also opt-out of data sharing
| along with deleting associated data.
|
| I did it and recommend everyone else does as well.
|
| https://consumer.risk.lexisnexis.com/consumer
| alexjplant wrote:
| All new manufacture cars sold in the US already have "black box"
| data recorders that can be dumped in the event of an accident. In
| many cases this can even be done without a warrant as of a decade
| ago [1] - not sure whether that's changed. In any event it seems
| as though this is a natural evolution in concert with those
| voluntary ODB-II devices that insurers started using to record
| driving habits.
|
| [1] https://www.edmunds.com/car-technology/car-black-box-
| recorde...
| alwaysrunning wrote:
| There needs to be a Pi-hole for cars.
| navigate8310 wrote:
| GrapheneOS for Automotive
| unethical_ban wrote:
| Can this be opted out at the dealer? Black box collection OR
| wireless connectivity?
|
| If not, are there guides on disabling the modem without damaging
| diagnostics or infotainment?
|
| I want a car that does not transmit data. Which means I may need
| to get my 2010s crossover rebuilt and reupholstered instead of
| getting a new car.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Yes, many models have guides out there for disabling wireless
| connections. On a previous vehicle of mine, it was as simple as
| disconnecting the bridge/jumper between the main board and the
| wireless board.
| macNchz wrote:
| I think it varies manufacturer to manufacturer, but even those
| that make it possible seemingly make you jump through hoops. I
| was researching potential replacements for my 16 year old car
| and found a lot of discussion about this re Mazda models:
|
| https://www.cx30talk.com/threads/thoughts-on-tcu-disable.374...
|
| > Mazda CEC makes it quite difficult to actually
| request/disable your TCU. It can take many phone calls and
| escalations to get someout to understand the request and
| actually "push the button" to send the disable event to your
| car.
|
| Honestly I'm just totally disinterested in just about every
| current new car model.
| ytx wrote:
| > "More specifically, automakers are selling access to the data
| to Lexis Nexis, which is then crafting "risk scores" insurance
| companies then use to adjust rates. Usually upward"
|
| In an ideal world, such data-harvesting might lead to cheaper
| prices / a more efficient insurance market - which would make the
| privacy loss worth considering from a trade-off standpoint, at
| least in theory.
|
| Unfortunately it's instead likely to just lead to higher margins
| for insurance companies. And the only way to compete would be to
| harvest more data for better predictions.
| elzbardico wrote:
| Basically they keep the profits and socialize the risks.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| > Unfortunately it's instead likely to just lead to higher
| margins for insurance companies.
|
| Why? Insurance pricing is heavily regulated, and profit margins
| for insurers have always been very low.
| thfuran wrote:
| In an ideal world, such data harvesting would be illegal, with
| liability adhering to the executives pushing for and approving
| the initiative as well as any legal counsel involved. Acquiring
| the data should require explicit, truly informed, and revocable
| consent not buried in a bunch of BS and not required for the
| purchase of a vehicle or insurance.
| ytx wrote:
| I wholeheartedly agree that the dark patterns around consent
| are atrocious. But I also think hn is probably biased in its
| valuation of an individual's data.
|
| If companies offered say a $50/month discount on car
| insurance premiums in exchange for gathering data, I imagine
| a large proportion of people would indeed opt in to that
| (setting aside issues of selection bias or trust in this
| ideal world)
| thfuran wrote:
| People should be free to do that. My objection is to the
| fact that currently just existing in modern society (in the
| US) means you're being spied on by everyone from the
| manufacturer of your tv to the grocery store, and huge
| amounts of your personal data is sold to anyone who wants
| it.
| xboxnolifes wrote:
| > In an ideal world, such data-harvesting might lead to cheaper
| prices / a more efficient insurance market - which would make
| the privacy loss worth considering from a trade-off standpoint,
| at least in theory.
|
| In an ideal world (read: perfect information knowledge), this
| would lead to insurance being a bad deal for every consumer of
| it. In the theoretical position where insurance companies can
| accurately price each individual customer based on their
| habits, they will charge them exactly what they cost _plus_ a
| margin.
|
| This is only useful for a consumer if they cannot access cash
| or a credit line to pay for a sudden large expense. Instead,
| insurance effectively becomes paying the credit line ahead of
| time.
| username332211 wrote:
| Insurance companies don't have to make money from
| underwriting or insurance.
| nhance wrote:
| I have been convinced for several years now that insurance
| companies are likely buying up personal data from many different
| sources. They seem to be ideal consumers because it'll lead to
| better outcomes when they can increase rates on those that
| identify as risky.
| ldayley wrote:
| This has been true for several years. An insurance agent once
| told me that there are life insurance companies dropping the
| requirement for blood draws / medical exams and are just buying
| prescription records to correlate with financial, educational,
| and other behavioral data.
|
| Edit: changed prescription "data" to "records"
| dml2135 wrote:
| Wouldn't this violate HIPAA?
| warkdarrior wrote:
| Depends who is selling that data. Some pharmacy delivery
| services or billing services may not be covered by HIPAA,
| since they are not necessarily "covered entities".
| ethbr1 wrote:
| Is this true?
|
| My understanding of HIPAA (possibly incorrect) is that
| it's attached to the data.
|
| If a covered provider is leaking HIPAA covered data to a
| non-covered business associate entity... that's a big no-
| no and a fine.
| cmpxchg8b wrote:
| If you agree to the data being shared when signing up for
| insurance it wouldn't be a violation.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| Do you have any details on this?
|
| I'm sure there are legal HIPAA data escape pathways
| (given the financial incentives for companies to find
| them), but I'm curious on the details.
|
| Afaik, there's no way to make HIPAA-covered data non-
| HIPAA-covered, and absent that everyone in the custody
| chain is responsible for anywhere it eventually ends up.
|
| That said, I expect the way this works in practice is
| more likely data that originates with _non-HIPAA-covered_
| entities, but can be massaged /combined into a similar
| product.
| simpletone wrote:
| Not only that, don't insurers offer 'discounts' for
| installing tracking apps on your phones and devices?
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| The whole point of an insurance business is to insure against
| unknown and unlikely risks.
|
| If it is insuring known or likely risks, then it becomes a
| subsidy or wealth transfer (which should be the domain of
| governments).
| mc32 wrote:
| It's still unknown if someone engaging in risk will end up in
| costly collisions, or other events. Just because you engage
| in risk doesn't mean it will bite you, only that it is more
| likely to bite you.
|
| Besides why should less risky drivers subsidize riskier
| drivers?
| IG_Semmelweiss wrote:
| You are right but what matters is disclosure.
|
| Here is a car that sells your driving data. Here is one
| that won't
|
| If you knew they were selling your data you could
| objectively demand a discount from one of the 2 .
| giantg2 wrote:
| "Besides why should less risky drivers subsidize riskier
| drivers?"
|
| They essentially do. If the safe drivers are never at
| fault, those premiums went somewhere. If the risky, repeat
| accident drivers aren't paying thr full price replacement
| vehicles, that money came from somewhere.
| toss1 wrote:
| If they have an ACTUAL measure of lower skilled and higher
| risk drivers, fine.
|
| But when they use overly simplistic data (or use it in an
| oversimplified way) that makes the highest-skilled drivers
| appear in the same batch as low-skilled and high-risk
| drivers, that is not subsidy, it is unfair penalization by
| stupidity.
|
| (see other comment on logging of g-forces)
| warkdarrior wrote:
| > The whole point of an insurance business is to insure
| against unknown and unlikely risks.
|
| Unknown to whom? To you, the insured? Or to them? Business
| thrives on customers with incomplete information.
| icepat wrote:
| I knew a guy who worked in Finance. Whenever he would buy
| alcohol, or cannabis (legal where I lived) he would only pay
| cash. His concern was that, if his credit card usage data were
| sold, it could increase his premiums.
| jabroni_salad wrote:
| That's why I buy my liquor at the gas station, on the same tx
| as the gas.
| rnk wrote:
| The credit card company could access subcategories of your
| purchase. It would make sense for them to do that to track
| you
| Cheer2171 wrote:
| This isn't a secret. Go read one of the world's largest data
| broker's annual report to investors, ctrl-f for "insurance":
| https://www.experianplc.com/content/dam/marketing/global/plc...
| ethbr1 wrote:
| Absolutely. Annual financial reports by public companies are
| a gold mine for this stuff, as they are literally required to
| talk about it.
|
| You can also get a sense of the scale of the problem by the
| reported revenue and growth rates (which they're always eager
| to highlight).
| ozymandium wrote:
| The easiest way to disable this is by physically removing the
| cell modem from your vehicle, which is very straightforward.
| Without egress, the only way for data harvesting to occur is by
| physical access, typically at a dealership. However, virtually
| all automotive cell modems are either packaged on the same chip
| as the GNSS receiver, or colocated on the same daughter board. As
| such, choosing to retain control over your data typically comes
| at the cost of foregoing the built in navigation system and other
| features such as emergency calling.
| elzbardico wrote:
| Unless most people do it, their answer will be to put you on
| the high risk bucket by default.
| chongli wrote:
| There are insurance companies that allow you to voluntarily
| submit to tracking in exchange for reduced premiums. What is
| happening here is that those savings are being passed on to
| auto makers as an extra revenue stream.
| rubatuga wrote:
| The easiest way to disable this in a Chevrolet with OnStar is to
| pull the fuse (Fuse 38 under the dash for the Chevrolet Malibu
| 2024). Other options disconnecting the antenna (can still connect
| if strong signal), or pulling out the box/microphone (disassembly
| required). At least for the 2024 model CarPlay features seems to
| keep working, but I haven't tested Bluetooth yet.
|
| There's somebody on YouTube describing the parts of the OnStar
| feature: https://youtu.be/TZILodhvjdw?feature=shared
| foobarian wrote:
| > (can still connect if strong signal)
|
| Wonder if that would still work if you additionally shunted the
| antenna with some kind of impedance matched load.
| thereddaikon wrote:
| All the Hams scramble to grab a spare dummy load.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Many GM models used to have a bridge/jumper between the network
| daughter board and the rest of the car. Pretty easy and didn't
| affect anything else (sometimes the fuse for OnStar also
| covered your Bluetooth or voice commands).
| Mistletoe wrote:
| Is there any hope for something like a Privacy Bill of Rights to
| ever be passed? I feel like privacy is an inalienable right for
| all humans and the passage of something like this would be a
| light speed jump ahead for personal freedom in the new era we
| find ourselves in. Just because tech enables it doesn't make this
| any creepier than someone following behind you in the woods
| stalking you on your horse 200 years ago.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Nobody has privacy while driving. You even sign away your
| rights to the privacy of your own blood when you get a license
| to drive. Driving is extremely dangerous and detrimental to
| society, so I fully endorse the biggest most amazing and
| comprehensive surveillance apparatus imaginable for drivers.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| Many things people do are extremely dangerous and detrimental
| to society. Not sure that's a great rationale for stripping
| someone of their privacy.
|
| > You even sign away your rights to the privacy of your own
| blood when you get a license to drive.
|
| I'm not sure what this is referring to. Is any random
| government agent allowed to take a DNA sample if you're
| behind the wheel of a car?
| jeffbee wrote:
| Yeah, pretty much. It is called "implied consent".
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| I assume that person is talking about blood tests for
| suspected DUI's.
|
| >"All U.S. states have driver licensing laws which state
| that a licensed driver has given their implied consent to a
| certified breathalyzer or by a blood sample by their
| choice, or similar manner of determining blood alcohol
| concentration."
| -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_consent
| rurp wrote:
| Like it or not most of the US is oriented around driving and
| it's basically unavoidable for most adults. Using that as
| justification to erode everyone's rights feels deeply wrong
| to me.
| tengwar2 wrote:
| Nobody? There are countries other than the USA. I've never
| heard of signing away rights in respect of blood as a
| condition of getting a licence. Is this a real thing in the
| USA?
| hiatus wrote:
| If you get in a car crash and are suspected of a DUI, in
| most states you must submit to a breathalyzer or you are
| presumed guilty by default. Where you live, is that not the
| case? Or can you get out of a drunk-driving charge by just
| refusing to blow?
| scaryclam wrote:
| Getting a driving licence and being suspected of drunk
| driving and causing a crash are two different things.
| Where I'm from your blood would be drawn after you were
| arrested for a suspected criminal offence, not just
| because you had a license.
| hiatus wrote:
| It is a condition of getting your license that you will
| consent in that event, at least in the US. [1] It would
| be interesting if someone who was driving illegally
| without a license could get away with not consenting to a
| breathalyzer.
|
| [1]: https://www.baronedefensefirm.com/breathalyzer-
| refusal-and-i... (for instance)
| AngryData wrote:
| Yes. If a US cops demands a blood or breath test you
| basically have no choice if you were driving or you are
| presumed guilty of a crime and then they pull a warrant for
| a blood test anyways. The right not to be tested is
| essencially given up when you sign for your drivers
| license.
| sickofparadox wrote:
| And despite all of that, every lawyer will tell you to
| refuse a blood or breath test until they have that
| warrant and strap you down in the hospital to forcibly
| pull blood.
| hammond wrote:
| If you actually believe this, then please reply here with the
| start and end GPS coordinates of your last driven commute
| to/from where you live.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| Topic is previously discussed (163 comments, 2 days ago) off NYT
| article at: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39666976
| mperham wrote:
| Anyone know where I can find /etc/hosts on my Ford? /s
| mh- wrote:
| Behind the firewall.
| nemo44x wrote:
| There's a lot of jerk drivers who go way too fast and drive very
| dangerously. They should have to pay significantly more for it.
| For people that drive correctly, they should be charged less as
| well. I don't see why this is an issue.
| loeg wrote:
| The cars are not capable of measuring how dangerous the driving
| is.
| nemo44x wrote:
| Sure they are. Speed is easy to detect for instance. Someone
| driving 50mpg in a 25mph school zone should have massive
| increases to their insurance as they present huge risk.
| thfuran wrote:
| Should the fine be the same regardless of whether it's five
| minutes after school let out out or 3AM on Christmas day?
| nemo44x wrote:
| It would be up to the insurer and how their models
| reflect and manage risk. The point being, individual
| insurers would be able to better price insurance based on
| discrete customer behavior.
| thfuran wrote:
| Should cell providers sell customer data/metadata to car
| insurance providers? It, after all, in the best interest
| of the insurers.
| nemo44x wrote:
| If there's enough data to suggest that with a high degree
| of probability people using their cell phones in certain
| ways while operating a vehicle causes damages then yeah,
| there should be a market for that. I'm not saying there
| shouldn't be legislation that limits which types of data
| can be shared, but certainly if there's useful
| information that has a market that leads to better safety
| and lower insurance prices, then I'm all for it.
| jabroni_salad wrote:
| Fun new line of business idea: Manufacturers could claim the
| texas abortion bounties by reporting any motorist who travels
| to an out of state clinic.
|
| The problem with allowing this kind of data usage is you will
| also have _other_ moral authoritarians that wish to use the
| data as well.
| yodon wrote:
| There are plenty of data brokers who will sell your personal
| location data, independent of your vehicle, obtained from the
| apps on your phone.
| itsoktocry wrote:
| I mean, Tesla has their own insurance product that they claim is
| better and cheaper than alternatives because of the data they
| track. People cheered for this.
|
| Personally, I"m not opposed to dangerous drivers paying higher
| rates, but the devil is in the details.
| toss1 wrote:
| The worst thing about this is that all of their conclusions about
| what data constitutes "bad driving" or "risky driving" is dead
| wrong.
|
| The signs they consider to be "bad driving" are high-g braking
| and turning.
|
| Yet these are _EXACTLY_ the same signs created by highly-skilled
| driver or racer operating at the limit, as they would to avoid an
| accident (thus costing the insurer $0), where the same situation
| would catch 90% of the low-g drivers into a wreck that totals the
| vehicle and causes injuries. A core element of high-performance
| driving for accident avoidance and racing is to understand the
| limits of tyre traction, and how to operate the car up to those
| limits -- but not over them -- i.e., just under the limit of
| sliding (sliding friction is always less than static or rolling
| friction), and to choose lines that maximize available traction.
|
| Distinguishing the signs to tell a high-skilled driver from a bad
| driver requires more than just "is that number high?". You must
| look at the circumstances, the frequency, the conditions, the
| rate of increase and decrease of pressure, the slip angle, the
| grip state of all 4 tires, and more. But of course, no one
| bothers to do this.
|
| It is the same kind of institutional stupidity that causes a
| world-class weightlifter with 4% body fat to be classed as
| "obese" because s/he scores high on the stupidly simplistic BMI
| scale(a ratio of weight to height).
|
| Except with BMI insurance companies are not allowed to re-rate
| people and doctors can instantly adjust treatment when they see
| the person is obviously not obese but highly trained.
|
| With auto insurance, they can secretly re-rate us on bogus
| numbers that actually down-rate the highly skilled.
|
| Seems more attractive with every passing year to rebuild older
| nice cars than get into the new rolling spyware contraptions.
| rnk wrote:
| I'm skeptical of this argument. I don't want to be on the same
| road with people who self identity as expert drivers going at
| the limit.
| toss1 wrote:
| I completely agree.
|
| My example is _NOT_ about "self identified" "experts", but
| _REAL_ experts who _ACTUALLY_ have the skills. They also are
| typically very safe on the roads and know that race-like on-
| the-limit driving on the streets is idiocy.
|
| The point is that people who _ACTUALLY_ have these skills
| have a far wider margin of safety than the ordinary driver,
| and far better capability to avoid accidents. But, they will
| also -- with that far wider margin of safety -- often turn or
| brake with higher than ordinary G-forces.
|
| For example, ordinary street tires and suspensions on modern
| cars can handle 0.9G lateral or braking acceleration.
| Ordinary people get uncomfortable at 0.2G lateral
| acceleration.
|
| An unskilled driver approaching 0.25G lateral acceleration
| does risk exceeding adhesion limits and losing control
| because they are insensitive to inputs and feedback. In
| contrast, a skilled driver can turn at 0.25G all day with
| virtually no risk, as they are accustomed to driving at 3-4
| _times_ those Gs, and are situationally aware, sensitive to
| inputs and feedback, and choose lines and inputs that avoid
| the limit.
|
| They are far less of a risk than an unskilled driver at 0.1G.
| Yet, the skilled driver will get flagged as "bad".
|
| With deeper understanding and analysis, they _could_ make the
| distinction between actual expert drivers vs overconfident
| idiots. But I see no indication that this will happen.
| bobim wrote:
| Well, if one is stupid enough to get a race car with telemetry
| then the spying is deserved. The skill level is irrelevant
| insurance-wise, as it doesn't last, varies within the day, and
| is of no use on open, shared streets.
|
| Now the dream car will soon be an electrified lada niva, no
| electronics, speeding impossible.
| toss1 wrote:
| Who said anything about racecar telemetry?
|
| You do realize that wheel speed sensors and g-force sensors
| are already standard equipment in most cars, and that this is
| part of the data they are selling, right?
|
| Electrified Lada Niva, eh? Depending on how it's electrified,
| it might go _waaayy_ faster than would be sane... ;-)
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| [dupe]
|
| Some more discussion:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39666976
| g9yuayon wrote:
| Can someone educate me why insurer should not know one's driving
| habits? I'd imagine that the risks calculated from one's driving
| habit will be more accurate than that derived from only past
| accidents, car color, user profile and etc.
| JTyQZSnP3cQGa8B wrote:
| For me it's because of this dirty concept called "privacy" and
| it's the reason why insurers don't have access to the list of
| items that I buy at the grocery store (also health records,
| name of sex partners, what I do all day long, whether I walk
| enough every day, etc.)
| achristmascarl wrote:
| https://web.archive.org/web/20240313200717/https://www.nytim...
| theogravity wrote:
| You can get your data from LexusNexus or opt out and delete data
| if you're in a state that mandates the option (such as CA) here:
|
| https://consumer.risk.lexisnexis.com/consumer
| nijave wrote:
| When I worked in car insurance, besides our own telemetry, we got
| at least
|
| - Willis Towers Watson (WTW) aggregated driving data
|
| - Verisk (afaik this was mostly around vehicles, not people)
|
| - Various reports directly from state governments
|
| - LexisNexus (multiple different report types)
|
| Really any mobile app that has accelerometer or gyroscope access
| (even without GPS) can estimate driving safety. Using phone
| movement and angle, you can estimate driver vs passenger.
|
| Cambridge Mobile sells equipment a lot of insurers use and afaik
| also data
|
| The magic keyword to look for is "telematics"
| bluishgreen wrote:
| Gives the creepy vibes, but if you stop to think about it - this
| can stop good drivers from subsidizing the bad drivers. Not like
| the insurance companies are doing to lower the premium on good
| drivers, if you have a problem with that talk to capitalism. But
| bad drivers getting higher premiums is good for everyone.
| rmbyrro wrote:
| oh f**, we invented this shit in software, now it's coming back
| to bite us
| jevoten wrote:
| Being mad about this is like being mad the thief who stole your
| belongings then pawned them. The crime was spying on you in the
| first place. Automakers should not have _any_ data, to share or
| sell or give to law enforcement with a subpoena.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-03-13 23:01 UTC)