Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The problem of creeping commercial surveillance (2022)

elnion.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 140 posts

Re: The problem of creeping commercial surveillance (2022)

#91

Post by theonlybutlet »

stvltvs wrote: post #86
malfist wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does that do that using uBlock with a decent block list doesn't? Not trying to be contrarian here, genuinely curious and wondering if I should install it on my phone.

It blocks trackers in other apps, not just in its own browser. It does this by acting as a VPN last I checked, so it wasn't useful in my case because it couldn't run at the same time as my other VPN.

A handy alternative, is to temporarily utilize the app over a week or two to see what's making requests and then go into app permissions on that app and prevent it from using mobile data in the background and running in the background.

Re: The problem of creeping commercial surveillance (2022)

#92

Post by Nextgrid »

csydas wrote: post #80
thfuran wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work in medical software and I can tell you from first hand experience that regulations absolutely affect how companies gather and handle data. That regulations don't constrain what they don't regulate is sort of tautological. That's an argument against specific regulations, not against regulation. At any rate, it simply isn't true that all regulations have special carveouts for government.

i think the idea is less that the regulations aren’t followed, but more that the companies are maliciously compliant. GDPR and the cookie banners are the perfect example. GDPR never says you need the gigantic banner, just that you cannot track without consent and it must be as easy to retract consent as it is to give it. somehow, this devolved into the cookie banners/walls, which are not required and in fact likely n…

The GDPR devolved into (non-compliant) consent popups because it's not being enforced strongly enough. The majority of those consent popups aren't compliant with the regulation.

Re: The problem of creeping commercial surveillance (2022)

#93

Post by SoftTalker »

theonlybutlet wrote: post #91
stvltvs wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It blocks trackers in other apps, not just in its own browser. It does this by acting as a VPN last I checked, so it wasn't useful in my case because it couldn't run at the same time as my other VPN.

A handy alternative, is to temporarily utilize the app over a week or two to see what's making requests and then go into app permissions on that app and prevent it from using mobile data in the background and running in the background.

Is there a good reason to ever allow any app to do these things?

Re: The problem of creeping commercial surveillance (2022)

#94

Post by tristor »

BurningFrog wrote: post #90
tristor wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True. The problem is that telematics can’t tell you who is a bad driver and who isn’t. Instead they approximate bad driving by rate of acceleration, brake pressure, and speed. To these systems anyone who drives the way you are taught to drive in any serious course outside high school would be flagged as a bad driver, despite statistically have lower accident rates. The things that actually make people bad drivers are…

This argument assumes that insurance companies can't do math and/or don't care that they're losing money on this. I'm 100% convinced they have both the math skills and the greed to know this is profitable for them. I'm less sure it's actually happening. Only proof I've seen is the internet comment a few levels up claiming it.

I never said it wasn't profitable. I said it wasn't accurate. Insurance companies aren't concerned with the accuracy, they are concerned with the profit. It effectively provides some "data" to give them license to increase rates, whether its accurate or not. As long as their rates outpace their claim payouts, they'll be profitable.

It's also definitely happening, not only do insurance companies buy telematics data from automotive companies, they also provide discounts (sometimes) for customers that voluntarily provide telematics data using devices which connect to the vehicle OBD2 port. One example: https://www.progressive.com/auto/discounts/snapshot/

Re: The problem of creeping commercial surveillance (2022)

#95

Post by syndicatedjelly »

anonym29 wrote: post #51
voidpepe wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Insurance companies get these information from more direct sources. For example how you drive your car is sourced straight from the car manufacturers. And they pay big time for it. I can confirm this at least for one large automotive company that I cannot mention because of legal reasons, but they were founded by one infamous failed artist.

>For example how you drive your car is sourced straight from the car manufacturers. This is why I do not, and never will, own a car with telemetry capabilities. I'm happy with my old dumb car. No smart crap for me.

That type of car in 20 years will become as rare as one without OBD, sadly

Re: The problem of creeping commercial surveillance (2022)

#96

Post by hansvm »

pnut wrote: post #81
tristor wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True. The problem is that telematics can’t tell you who is a bad driver and who isn’t. Instead they approximate bad driving by rate of acceleration, brake pressure, and speed. To these systems anyone who drives the way you are taught to drive in any serious course outside high school would be flagged as a bad driver, despite statistically have lower accident rates. The things that actually make people bad drivers are…

Whether due to someone being distracted, under the influence, a crappy driver, or a spirited, trained driver, I'd say someone driving fast and accelerating/decelerating hard is inappropriate behaviour on shared transportation infrastructure, and don't have a problem with the net being cast wide enough to discourage the practice.

It's too clumsy of a cudgel.

The sensors themselves are imperfect, the thing you actually measure is probably the thing easiest to measure rather than actually pushing the tire grip toward its limits, even if you actually measure the right thing (hard acceleration/deceleration) you miss the fact that even an ordinary trip around town is often safer with more acceleration than a naive model would predict (e.g., short on ramps, or just that your speed when close to merging should probably be a bit higher than your intended merge speed in most cars), and actions like hard braking can rightly indicate appropriately slowing down for unexpected construction.

Misaligned incentives aren't something to be trifled with (something something Goodhart's Law). Maybe cutting all the hard-braking at every stop sign would be worth it, but if even a few people chose to merge more slowly onto the freeway that would greatly increase accidents and have ripple effects in rush hours and traffic patterns.

Re: The problem of creeping commercial surveillance (2022)

#97

Post by tristor »

pnut wrote: post #81
tristor wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True. The problem is that telematics can’t tell you who is a bad driver and who isn’t. Instead they approximate bad driving by rate of acceleration, brake pressure, and speed. To these systems anyone who drives the way you are taught to drive in any serious course outside high school would be flagged as a bad driver, despite statistically have lower accident rates. The things that actually make people bad drivers are…

Whether due to someone being distracted, under the influence, a crappy driver, or a spirited, trained driver, I'd say someone driving fast and accelerating/decelerating hard is inappropriate behaviour on shared transportation infrastructure, and don't have a problem with the net being cast wide enough to discourage the practice.

> I'd say someone driving fast and accelerating/decelerating hard is inappropriate behaviour

On what basis? You probably have something different in your mind than what I am actually referring to. I'm not talking about people skidding to a stop or laying a stripe of rubber when they take off, and short of that, there is basically no increase in risk from accelerating or decelerating more rapidly than a grandmother hypermiling a prius, which is how the insurance companies want you to drive.

Regarding speeding, in most cases speeding is required to /not/ cause accidents. The correct and safest behavior is to observe the road conditions and your surroundings and drive predictably within the limits of those conditions. That means driving the speed of traffic, not what it says on the sign. Sometimes that speed is lower, sometimes that speed is higher. Sometimes the speed is different in different parts of the country or city. What's most important is that other drivers can understand and predict your behavior on the roadway, and that you can do the same for others. It's /far/ more dangerous to do 65 in a 65 when the prevailing speed is 80 than it is to do 80, but combining speed data with GPS data will still get you penalized by the insurance company for doing 80.

Re: The problem of creeping commercial surveillance (2022)

#98

Post by hansvm »

Spooky23 wrote: post #77
BurningFrog wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bad drivers should pay more for car insurance.

What’s a bad driver? This stuff isn’t exactly peer reviewed data, and insurance companies don’t publish the telematics data they produce or how they make decisions. They are funny with how they evaluate certain things. If you have 3 accidents in a certain period, they’ll drop you regardless of fault because you’re unlucky. But they’ll also penalize you if brake heavily and avoid accidents.

The only winning move is not to play ;)

I'm half serious. All else equal, if you drive less you'll have fewer problems that lead to insurance penalties.

Re: The problem of creeping commercial surveillance (2022)

#99

Post by voidpepe »

nerdponx wrote: post #31
voidpepe wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Insurance companies get these information from more direct sources. For example how you drive your car is sourced straight from the car manufacturers. And they pay big time for it. I can confirm this at least for one large automotive company that I cannot mention because of legal reasons, but they were founded by one infamous failed artist.

Doesn't mean they should be allowed to. Or that your car should even be sending that data without your explicit consent.

The upcoming Euro 6 standard requires the car manufacturer to collect all data related to emissions. The current wording is so wide that it could also include things like if you have a heater on or how loud is your music because all of those systems consume energy and contribute to the emissions.

One can only imagine what is hiding behind these regulations.

Re: The problem of creeping commercial surveillance (2022)

#100

Post by voidpepe »

nerdponx wrote: post #31
voidpepe wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Insurance companies get these information from more direct sources. For example how you drive your car is sourced straight from the car manufacturers. And they pay big time for it. I can confirm this at least for one large automotive company that I cannot mention because of legal reasons, but they were founded by one infamous failed artist.

Doesn't mean they should be allowed to. Or that your car should even be sending that data without your explicit consent.

Also, I'm aware that some car manufacturers are planning to pay users for their consent to collect more data about them from the car. However it's supposed to be a one time payment not worth more than a full tank.
Post reply on HN