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

Automakers are sharing consumers' driving behavior with insurance companies

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 333 posts

Re: Automakers are sharing consumers' driving behavior with insurance companies

#151

Post by ambichook »

troyvit wrote: post #139
_visgean wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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…

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

Re: Automakers are sharing consumers' driving behavior with insurance companies

#152

Post by theogravity »

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

Re: Automakers are sharing consumers' driving behavior with insurance companies

#153

Post by PH95VuimJjqBqy »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #143
PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

> 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…

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).

Re: Automakers are sharing consumers' driving behavior with insurance companies

#154

Post by wolverine876 »

mycologos wrote: post #59

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…

> 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?

Re: Automakers are sharing consumers' driving behavior with insurance companies

#155

Post by wolverine876 »

fn-mote wrote: post #2

> 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 [...]

> 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'.

Re: Automakers are sharing consumers' driving behavior with insurance companies

#156

Post by PH95VuimJjqBqy »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #141
PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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…

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.

Re: Automakers are sharing consumers' driving behavior with insurance companies

#157

Post by JumpCrisscross »

PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote: post #156
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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.

> 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.

Re: Automakers are sharing consumers' driving behavior with insurance companies

#158

Post by oliv__ »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #58
oliv__ wrote: post #8

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

> 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.

So you think today's technology is comparable to farming?

Re: Automakers are sharing consumers' driving behavior with insurance companies

#159

Post by PH95VuimJjqBqy »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #157
PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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…

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.

Re: Automakers are sharing consumers' driving behavior with insurance companies

#160

Post by dexterdog »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #48
dexterdog wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Poisoning people is accepted as wrong by most people Sure. It was still prevalent prior to the F&DA of 1906.

Then why is it not more prevalent now that the FDA is owned by the food-producing cartels?
Post reply on HN