Texas sues GM for unlawfully collecting and selling drivers' private data [pdf] • Hacker News Board

Re: Texas sues GM for unlawfully collecting and selling drivers' private data [pdf]

#51

Post by fooqux » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 5:49 PM UTC

subsubzero wrote: post #41

Fun fact, as a owner of a GMC auto I got a innocent looking email about the discontinuation of the Onstar Smart driver service which was the service in question that violated many US laws and sent data to insurance companies without customers authorization. I hope this hits GM really hard as this type of behavior will never cease until massive amounts of money is extracted from the perpetrators(GM etc).

And not just massive. It needs to be an order of magnitude more than they made from those deals. Too many times companies get slapped on the wrist for an amount considerably less than they made from their illicit activities.

Which I never understood. Normal people that get caught doing things like selling stolen goods have to pay a fine on top of all money they may have made from selling it. Why aren't companies treated the same?

Re: Texas sues GM for unlawfully collecting and selling drivers' private data [pdf]

#52

Post by jordanb » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 5:50 PM UTC

AbrahamParangi wrote: post #36

fmajid wrote: post #19

Paxton is a crook, but in this case he's fighting the good fight. Texas collected a $1.4B settlement from Meta for its facial-recognition scanning, and in this case the monetary damages to the victims are far worse in terms of higher insurance premiums. https://boingboing.net/2024/07/31/meta-to-pay-1-4bn-for-unau... He should then go after the insurance companies who used this data next, and force them to disgorge th…

In an efficient market insurance premiums are essentially zero sum. The more that one person pays to offset their own risk, the less everyone else pays. Safe drivers subsidize unsafe drivers and this subsidy can and should be reduced when possible with better predictive information.

Firstly, the entire port of insurance is to spread risk. If the the market for insurance is "too efficient" at determining who is high-risk and who is not, then it is no longer fulfilling its social function.

Secondly, you seem to be implying that only aggressive drivers are getting flagged by the data. But the computer doesn't know if you accelerate and brake hard because you're an aggressive driver, or if your circumstances require it. Maybe you have to commute to your job in heavy stop-and-go traffic with difficult merges.

Finally, this kind of surveillance changes behavior in ways that may make things less safe. If you're driving down a street and a ball bounces out from behind a parked car do you slam on your brakes out of fear that there is a child chasing after it, or do you think that hitting the brakes might make your premiums go up so you just hope that there isn't a child coming.

Re: Texas sues GM for unlawfully collecting and selling drivers' private data [pdf]

#53

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 5:51 PM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #47

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their modeling will penalize safe drivers who have to deal with non ideal scenarios. The OBD2 accelerometer modules are a bad idea when you live in an area where traffic and road design requires bursts of acceleration to make turns. You're going to be lumped in with the bad drivers when the data is not comprehensive enough to separate good from bad. Nor will they put in the effort to ensure fair driver ratings with t…

Restricting insurers from using relevant data to calculate risk premiums is not the way to subsidize people who live in an area where traffic and road design are subpar. If there is an unfair situation that needs to be rectified with a subsidy, it is best for the subsidy to transparent to prevent corruption. For example, the knowledge of this subsidy can help propel political change to remedy road design so that some…

[deleted]

Re: Texas sues GM for unlawfully collecting and selling drivers' private data [pdf]

#54

Post by mikeyouse » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 5:51 PM UTC

muaytimbo wrote: post #49

mikeyouse wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's a well known crook.. he's been repeatedly indicted for serious financial crimes but due to his position in government, the charges either were dropped for nonsense reasons or just never prosecuted for over 9 years... https://apnews.com/article/paxton-indictment-texas-d5e57fc6c... Then afterwards nearly a dozen of his staffers whistleblew to the FBI about his relationship with an Austin-based real estate develope…

[flagged]

Cool - which is why I expanded the post to include all sorts of other evidence of crimes. And indictments don't mean "literally nothing" -- they mean that a prosecutor convinced a grand jury that they had enough evidence to bring charges against you, no matter how catchy the slogan from some judge from 40 years ago happens to be. As I'm sure you can appreciate, the rules of evidence and general criminal case law has changed pretty dramatically since the 1980s.

Re: Texas sues GM for unlawfully collecting and selling drivers' private data [pdf]

#55

Post by klyrs » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 5:52 PM UTC

AbrahamParangi wrote: post #36

fmajid wrote: post #19

Paxton is a crook, but in this case he's fighting the good fight. Texas collected a $1.4B settlement from Meta for its facial-recognition scanning, and in this case the monetary damages to the victims are far worse in terms of higher insurance premiums. https://boingboing.net/2024/07/31/meta-to-pay-1-4bn-for-unau... He should then go after the insurance companies who used this data next, and force them to disgorge th…

In an efficient market insurance premiums are essentially zero sum. The more that one person pays to offset their own risk, the less everyone else pays. Safe drivers subsidize unsafe drivers and this subsidy can and should be reduced when possible with better predictive information.

> Safe drivers subsidize unsafe drivers and this subsidy can and should be reduced when possible with better predictive information.

Okay, that's an interesting perspective, let's explore. A policy that can be unilaterally cancelled at any time, and forces you to put cameras in your car, could be the most efficient insurance ever. As long they manage to predict that you'll be in an accident in time to electronically cancel your policy, they'll never need to pay out more than refunding your premium.

Re: Texas sues GM for unlawfully collecting and selling drivers' private data [pdf]

#56

Post by burkaman » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 5:53 PM UTC

muaytimbo wrote: post #49

mikeyouse wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's a well known crook.. he's been repeatedly indicted for serious financial crimes but due to his position in government, the charges either were dropped for nonsense reasons or just never prosecuted for over 9 years... https://apnews.com/article/paxton-indictment-texas-d5e57fc6c... Then afterwards nearly a dozen of his staffers whistleblew to the FBI about his relationship with an Austin-based real estate develope…

[flagged]

In this case he narrowly avoided trial by agreeing to pay significant restitution to his victims, do community service, and attend a legal ethics education course. He is a rich person with significant resources, he would not have agreed to this settlement if there wasn't a good chance of conviction.

Re: Texas sues GM for unlawfully collecting and selling drivers' private data [pdf]

#57

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 5:53 PM UTC

muaytimbo wrote: post #49

mikeyouse wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's a well known crook.. he's been repeatedly indicted for serious financial crimes but due to his position in government, the charges either were dropped for nonsense reasons or just never prosecuted for over 9 years... https://apnews.com/article/paxton-indictment-texas-d5e57fc6c... Then afterwards nearly a dozen of his staffers whistleblew to the FBI about his relationship with an Austin-based real estate develope…

[flagged]

[deleted]

Re: Texas sues GM for unlawfully collecting and selling drivers' private data [pdf]

#58

Post by klyrs » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 5:55 PM UTC

IncreasePosts wrote: post #43

saagarjha wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps the market should not strive for optimal efficiency then.

Why? You'd probably have better outcomes for everyone with more information. Unsafe drivers might start reigning in their bad habits because it is costing them money every month, and safe drivers will save money. Seems like a win-win. I'd love it if my dash cam could do ALPR and send a video to the registered insurance agency when I see some absolutely ludicrous driving.

In this model, what incentivizes safe drivers to have insurance?

And then when a "safe driver" wipes out in a freak snow storm and racks up a million dollars in damages that they can't afford to pay, where's the win-win?

Re: Texas sues GM for unlawfully collecting and selling drivers' private data [pdf]

#59

Post by api » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 5:55 PM UTC

Dangerously invasive data like location should be subject to HIPAA-like regulations. Leak or sell without authorization? That'll be $100k per data point of unauthorized location data per user.

This would convert data like that into a liability rather than an asset, which would pretty much fix the problem.

Re: Texas sues GM for unlawfully collecting and selling drivers' private data [pdf]

#60

Post by kube-system » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 5:59 PM UTC

jordanb wrote: post #52

AbrahamParangi wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In an efficient market insurance premiums are essentially zero sum. The more that one person pays to offset their own risk, the less everyone else pays. Safe drivers subsidize unsafe drivers and this subsidy can and should be reduced when possible with better predictive information.

Firstly, the entire port of insurance is to spread risk. If the the market for insurance is "too efficient" at determining who is high-risk and who is not, then it is no longer fulfilling its social function. Secondly, you seem to be implying that only aggressive drivers are getting flagged by the data. But the computer doesn't know if you accelerate and brake hard because you're an aggressive driver, or if your circ…

Also, the surveillance is bad because of the inherent breach of privacy.