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

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

texasattorneygeneral.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 366 posts

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

#71

Post by dylan604 »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #67
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…

I can't really see how enriching the state of Texas to the tune of 1.4 billion US dollars is "the good fight". Meta does something that negatively effects individuals & the outcome is the state collects a paycheck? No thanks.

Banning books and squashing rights doesn't pay for itself! /s

said as a Texan that vehemently disagrees with the gov't in charge

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

#72

Post by tristan957 »

infamouscow wrote: post #46
kardianos wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you say "Paxton is a crook", do you mean you believe he steals, or do you mean he was convicted, or that he should be convicted? Was Paxton convicted of a crime? Was Paxton accused of a crime you believe he is guilty of?

[flagged]

Where was the lie in OP's comment?

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

#73

Post by lotsofpulp »

ethagknight wrote: post #69
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.

Insurance premiums also fund salaries, bonuses, massive ad campaigns, high end office leases, and more. If we just had a simple common slush fund (like amongst a large family self-insuring), our insurance would be far cheaper. The data harvesting boosts profitability but does not necessarily equal lower premiums.

>If we just had a simple common slush fund (like amongst a large family self-insuring),

Like a mutual insurance company?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_insurance

>A mutual insurance company is an insurance company owned entirely by its policyholders. It is a form of consumers' co-operative. Any profits earned by a mutual insurance company are either retained within the company or rebated to policyholders in the form of dividend distributions or reduced future premiums.

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

#74

Post by kube-system »

lithos wrote: post #37
warkdarrior wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is the insurance companies' use of this data illegal? Unless you can show discrimination against protected groups, not sure how this is illegal.

Why would you be allowed to use illegal data? Especially if you have the means to know if it's illegal or not. Not even Ebay/Craigslist has managed to keep itself immune from liability of vendors selling stolen items.

Do insurance regulations prohibit it?

Stolen property is a little bit different, there are laws that explicitly prohibit possession or dealing in property known to be stolen.

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

#75

Post by muaytimbo »

mikeyouse wrote: post #54
muaytimbo wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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…

[flagged]

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

#76

Post by 0cf8612b2e1e »

muaytimbo wrote: post #44
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.

In an efficient market safe drivers wouldn't be compelled to subsidize unsafe drivers.

I pay for insurance to avoid the chance of catastrophic loss. No matter how safe I operate, an innocent accident (instigated by myself or another) could still lead to financial ruin.

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

#77

Post by 0cf8612b2e1e »

tristan957 wrote: post #70
kardianos wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you say "Paxton is a crook", do you mean you believe he steals, or do you mean he was convicted, or that he should be convicted? Was Paxton convicted of a crime? Was Paxton accused of a crime you believe he is guilty of?

[flagged]

I think he is a real POS with bad beliefs, but I am not sure that say 4 & 7 are directly relevant to being a crook.

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

#78

Post by shitlord »

lithos wrote: post #37
warkdarrior wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is the insurance companies' use of this data illegal? Unless you can show discrimination against protected groups, not sure how this is illegal.

Why would you be allowed to use illegal data? Especially if you have the means to know if it's illegal or not. Not even Ebay/Craigslist has managed to keep itself immune from liability of vendors selling stolen items.

Insurance is regulated so maybe it's different, but plenty of companies rely on illegally obtained data. Websites like haveibeenpwned.com and identity theft protection services couldn't exist without hacked/stolen information. I guess the distinction is that they didn't commission it.
Post reply on HN