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]

#101

Post by stainablesteel » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 7:16 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).

its not just that

i don't want electronics built into cars

i don't want data coming from my car

i don't need a phone to be built into my car

i don't need navigation to be built into my car

they need to stay in their lane

we need anti-enshittification laws

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

#102

Post by IncreasePosts » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 7:17 PM UTC

01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote: post #100

IncreasePosts wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm not justifying the specifics of your own car ratting you out behind your back, merely the idea of having more data would let insurance companies segment users based on driving habits.

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

#103

Post by pc86 » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 7:18 PM UTC

akira2501 wrote: post #98

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.

The common belief is that Texas === Republican (it doesn't), and folks here need to virtue signal that they're definitely not one to be or support any Republican in any way ever under any circumstances. This is clearly one of the single-digit number of aberrations where a Republican has done something that isn't objectively evil, right?

I don't know why we can't just say a good thing is a good thing and leave it at that. Every politician has done good things. Every politician has done bad things. Every politician (or very close) has probably done something you'd consider downright evil.

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

#104

Post by stctw » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 7:20 PM UTC

tristan957 wrote: post #72

infamouscow wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Where was the lie in OP's comment?

I have a better question: where's the balance in it? All I see are links to biased, left-wing sources. Not a source from the right or center, and not a mention of the defendant's counterclaims.

So the only conclusion one can reasonably draw from it is that the commenter thinks that Paxton is a crook--not that Paxton is one.

But, of course, anyone taking even a neutral position here is heavily downvoted, because Paxton is a Republican, therefore he is guilty. And so the echo chamber echoes.

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

#105

Post by trhway » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 7:20 PM UTC

akira2501 wrote: post #96

fooqux wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 econo…

>You want to hurt the company and it's owners

No. What you'd really want if you really wanted to fix things is to hurt the top and mid-managers who decided to commit those offenses. Unfortunately it almost never happens.

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

#106

Post by pc86 » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 7:25 PM UTC

kube-system wrote: post #60

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…

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

I think these systems are bad and I think vehicle manufacturers piping data directly to insurance companies should be illegal whether you consent or not. That being said, "but privacy" has always struck me as a weird argument.

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy when a vehicle with a particular license plate is at a particular intersection or on a particular public street. Some jurisdictions extend some privacy rights to whether or not a particular person is driving it but many don't.

So when it's in public, the location of your car is not "private" information. How is acceleration, braking, or other engine telemetry data private?

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

#107

Post by pc86 » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 7:27 PM UTC

warkdarrior wrote: post #33

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…

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

It's illegal because GM sending this data to insurance companies without explicitly user consent violates Texas law.

Protected class has nothing to do with it.

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

#108

Post by stctw » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 7:30 PM UTC

dylan604 wrote: post #71

sidewndr46 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> Banning books

I don't see how comments saying that are accepted here. Everyone knows that no books are being banned anywhere in the country. You can go to a bookstore or web site and buy whatever books you want. They can be bought in public or delivered to your home. Publishers can publish whatever they want. The First Amendment protects authors, publishers, and readers.

Meanwhile, in the UK, if you share a message consisting entirely of a couple of emojis on Facebook, you can be sentenced to 2 months in jail, being convicted and sentenced in merely 3 days.

Yet people here continue to make accusations of "banning books." I hope that the Internet enables humanity to eventually "graduate" out of this state in which we have infinite access to information yet consume enormous amounts of propaganda.

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

#109

Post by pc86 » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 7:36 PM UTC

tristan957 wrote: post #72

infamouscow wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Where was the lie in OP's comment?

He did say "regard anyone as" so didn't actually say the GP lied, but that their arguments are so one-sided you can just assume they are lying until it's proven they're not. I don't really agree with that way of approaching things but I can see why you might do that.

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

#110

Post by digging » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 7:39 PM UTC

akira2501 wrote: post #98

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.

Paxton is a crook though, abuses the power of his office, and generally would prefer to act in ways that hurt his political opponents rather than ways that server the public. He works against the public interest and should be called out for it. So, it's genuinely shocking for the TAG under his direction to be protecting consumers from these kinds of abuses.