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]

#91

Post by gadflyinyoureye » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 6:50 PM UTC

itsoktocry wrote: post #81

jordanb wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. This might be definitionally correct, but that doesn't mean it's right. There's no reason you shouldn't rewarded for being a better-than-average driver (or conversely, punished for being worse). > Maybe you ha…

> You don't think we have the technical ability to determine this, to some degree? We have self driving cars for crying out loud.

Depends on how granular the data is. If it’s second by second telemetry, you could tell this. If it’s an aggregate report for a month, you can’t.

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

#92

Post by shagie » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 6:51 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…

> 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.

I would contend that this doesn't matter in terms of risk. It doesn't matter if the risk is caused by the person being a bad driver or if the risk is caused by the commute route that you take at a certain time of day.

In either case, there's risk that is shown by the data. If you are driving a route that is stressful and risky, it doesn't matter if you're a good driver or a bad driver - you're doing something that is risky.

In days of old this was done by looking at the commute distance and likely route (the insurance company has home address and work address).

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

#93

Post by hansvm » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 6:54 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…

> 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.

Then we need to break whatever that social function is away from the umbrella of "insurance." Mandatory car insurance is predicated on the fact that you can pay enough on average to cover your damages to others but might not be able to do so in the worst case. If we're in a world where somebody's driving exceeds the external damage bounds they can afford _even on average_, subsidizing those people is no longer the job of insurance.

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

#94

Post by Scaevolus » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 6:59 PM UTC

fooqux wrote: post #51

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 trea…

IIRC the amounts involved were absolutely pitiful compared to the reputational damage-- they were being paid on the order of $10/car/year.

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

#95

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 6:59 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…

[deleted]

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

#96

Post by akira2501 » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 7:02 PM UTC

fooqux wrote: post #51

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 trea…

> Why aren't companies treated the same?

It's more of a hostage negotiation. You want to hurt the company and it's owners, but if you sue too hard, you're likely to just hurt it's workers and it's customers.

It's why preventing companies from reaching _anything near_ monopoly size is so important for corporate jurisprudence. "Too big to fail" is just the tip of this insane iceberg we've allowed to grow into our economy.

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

#97

Post by 0cf8612b2e1e » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 7:05 PM UTC

vel0city wrote: post #85

0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A crook is someone who is dishonest. You don't think someone cheating on their wife is dishonest?

Not playing a game of word association. When accusing a public figure of being a criminal, focus on explicitly illegal, not immoral acts.

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

#98

Post by akira2501 » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 7:08 PM UTC

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…

> Paxton is a crook, but in this case he's fighting the good fight.

The Texas Attorney General is an entire office of people. It's always nice to know that while you want to judge the book by it's cover you're willing to put that aside.

It is always odd to me that people feel the need to announce this.

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

#99

Post by 01HNNWZ0MV43FF » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 7:12 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.

They can learn about my safety per mile from my odometer and my spotless driving record, not my real time location

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

#100

Post by 01HNNWZ0MV43FF » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 7:13 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.

If I can't have any privacy I'll shoot myself, which is a worse outcome for me