11–20 of 109 posts
Absolutely. I'm not one to normally fall victim to the mindless "think of the children", but Amber Alerts are rare and specific enough that they seem perfectly useful and legitimate usage of this tech. (I find most of the rest of the tech between useless and invasive, but flagging Amber Alert tags I'd support.)
Man this is a really creep company. What do they imagine their business model really is? The warning thing is not a good business. Presumably they really want to sell this data to insurance companies.
*By "their videos" I mean videos from users using the application that get uploaded to their servers and posted to their YouTube channel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There was an article recently about obd2 scanners recording information such as throttle application, brake pressure, etc and after recording information for 15 minutes could determine with X% accuracy who was driving and after 60 minutes of data, could fingerprint who was driving with 97 (or maybe it was 100%?) Accuracy. Pretty interesting stuff
This is neat. My roommate in grad school developed a somewhat related idea but for identifying someone's "typing cadence". He used it for an additional security factor in the way that a person types their passwords in a browser.
Google has one, a few banks use it to identify potential fraud cases appearntly even simple things about how you navigate a webpage can produce a fairly unique fingerprint even across different devices.
Both Yelp and Travelocity turned from awesome to pretty much useless within a few years. Reviews and ratings can be bought. Employees are forced to leave positive reviews.
Great who needs debate around static ALPR (license plate readers) data collection when we will soon have swarm of cars running with connected dashcams. The resolution is already good enough for face recognition on bystanders/people crossing street. Things will get even more interesting once we get self driving cars equipped with omnidirectional video recording capabilities. I am very interested in what can be done, w…
We can't have companies violating privacy like this. Only the government can do that.
Great who needs debate around static ALPR (license plate readers) data collection when we will soon have swarm of cars running with connected dashcams. The resolution is already good enough for face recognition on bystanders/people crossing street. Things will get even more interesting once we get self driving cars equipped with omnidirectional video recording capabilities. I am very interested in what can be done, w…
You realize that this kind of power will be banned and put under the control of the government only right? We can't have companies violating privacy like this. Only the government can do that.
As is typical today, it uploads all the data to a server and the service operator keeps all the rights to the data. Sigh.
Using it to pass around hard braking info is not useful, though. That's what radars are good for. They'll always see the car ahead, whether it's equipped or not. The widespread use of radar-controlled auto-braking is the next big thing in auto safety. BMW, Mercedes, etc. already have it, so it's a proven technology. Not car to car communications, which don't solve any non-advertising related problem.
If you're a "good driver," as defined by a lack of tickets and accidents, you get discounts. There's really no way to tell if you're _actually_ a "good driver" because "good driver" is a hidden variable, and the only observables from an insurance standpoint are tickets or accidents. I know horrible drivers who never have accidents and avoid tickets via luck or skill. Conversely, you can be a good driver who's unlucky enough to have multiple accidents in a short period of time. Outcomes = baseline truth + random noise.
Most corporate data grabs bad news, but I'm ok with it when it comes to pricing insurance (outside of health). If I run a business that has rock solid, well enforced policies in place to mitigate risk, I don't want the insurance company's priors over my company's sector driving the premium. I only want to pay for coverage on idiosyncratic risk - the risk that remains after addressing everything that I can. Same goes for driving habits. Things like health are almost entirely idiosyncratic risk (ergo, let's agree that doing this for health is a bad thing), but when that's not the case pricing policies using true states (the baseline) and not observables (baseline + noise) puts you as the policy buyer more in control, not less.
That said, I have major concerns over the implementation. A breach is all but inevitable, so there needs to be a means of updating models online, and rules against data retention. It's also bad news if flawed models or corner cases incorrectly price someone out of a policy and there's no sanity check. Unfortunately, that's not too different from the actuarial status quo.
Today I pulled into a turn lane and stopped alongside the car ahead of me to let them know their brake lights were out. Had to honk incessantly to get their attention. Then I waited in the wrong lane (no one behind me) to pull back into my original lane to go straight through the light. Probably would get a demerit from an AI for that maneuver.