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]

#121

Post by tristan957 » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 8:13 PM UTC

stctw wrote: post #104

tristan957 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Paxto…

What makes my variety of sources left leaning? What is a right wing news source? Why don't you post them yourself? I trust the Texas Tribune, The Associated Press, and the other sources I posted.

If you're going to tell me to use a right wing news source like Alex Jones, Breitbart, True North, Newsmax, or OANN, then I would tell you to get better news sources. Everything I posted can be easily confirmed, yet you choose not to. Why won't you confirm everything I've posted?

I live in Texas, specifically Austin, and know first hand how terrible Ken Paxton is as a person, lawyer, and politician. How many times is he going to sue cities from decriminalizing marijuana usage? Citizens of those cities voted for it, yet he chooses to waste taxpayer money on disrespecting the will of the people.

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

#122

Post by jajko » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 8:24 PM UTC

vel0city wrote: post #83

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…

> the computer doesn't know if you accelerate and brake hard because you're an aggressive driver, or if your circumstances require it Preface: I'm not strongly for these hyper monitoring systems of driving patterns for insurance. Often being in a situation where you have to slam on your brakes means even if you're a good driver you're in a lot more riskier environments than a driver who doesn't often have to. A good…

Yeah but if you really optimize it to ad absurdum, everybody will pay according to damages they will cause, negating whole point of 'socialized' spread-across-variable-population insurance.

End users shouldn't generally want insurance to run over-optimally, that benefits just shareholders of given insurance and not population overall. That I consider myself above-average driver changes absolutely nothing in this. And those stupid enough who think similarly and think they should therefore pay less can and will be easily hit from unexpected angles and end up same or worse (age, old injuries/mental diagnoses, family history and gazillion other params which are/should be mostly illegal to optimize against, and you have little to no control of).

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

#123

Post by mcguire » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 8:27 PM UTC

Didn't Tesla recently move to Texas?

What do they do with the data they collect?

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

#124

Post by kjrfghslkdjfl » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 8:27 PM UTC

ensignavenger wrote: post #119

stainablesteel wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I absolutely want electronics built into car! Requirements for antilock brakes, electronic fuel injection, and other electronics in vehicles has made them safer and more efficient. The other items on your list I can agree with, though.

[dead]

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

#125

Post by bluGill » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 8:28 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?

I find that people say it is dishonest when they otherwise oppose the person doing it, and normal minor things not to worry about if they agree with that person.

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

#126

Post by RIMR » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 8:34 PM UTC

Texas, the state whose AG said that they were entitled to private medical data about patients in other states?

https://www.thestranger.com/news/2023/12/21/79315926/texas-t...

Not surprising that Texas cares more about privacy related to your property than they do privacy related to your body.

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

#127

Post by RIMR » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 8:36 PM UTC

AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #80

kstrauser wrote: post #11

I say this rarely, but way to go, Texas! Every state should be pursuing this against every manufacturer who does this.

As they say, even a stopped clock is still right twice a day.

A backwards clock is right 4 times a day.

A clock running at 10,000 rpm is right 14,398,560 times a day.

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

#128

Post by brendoelfrendo » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 8:42 PM UTC

ensignavenger wrote: post #119

stainablesteel wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I absolutely want electronics built into car! Requirements for antilock brakes, electronic fuel injection, and other electronics in vehicles has made them safer and more efficient. The other items on your list I can agree with, though.

And ECUs make it so easy to manage all of these things! I love 80s/90s Japanese sports cars, but I don't think we need to go back to the era of using a gazillion vacuum lines to control all kinds of esoteric valves and sensors. But I agree with everything else; I don't want my car to connect to the internet, I don't want my car to track my travel and driving habits, and I definitely don't want that data sent to the manufacturer to be sold.

It really just smacks of greed and nothing else... selling cars has a long history of being a profitable business on its own. You don't need to steal your customers' data to turn it into another revenue stream, but it sure looks good on a financial report.

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

#129

Post by devman0 » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 8:49 PM UTC

jajko wrote: post #122

vel0city wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the computer doesn't know if you accelerate and brake hard because you're an aggressive driver, or if your circumstances require it Preface: I'm not strongly for these hyper monitoring systems of driving patterns for insurance. Often being in a situation where you have to slam on your brakes means even if you're a good driver you're in a lot more riskier environments than a driver who doesn't often have to. A good…

Yeah but if you really optimize it to ad absurdum, everybody will pay according to damages they will cause, negating whole point of 'socialized' spread-across-variable-population insurance. End users shouldn't generally want insurance to run over-optimally, that benefits just shareholders of given insurance and not population overall. That I consider myself above-average driver changes absolutely nothing in this. And…

Hot take: maybe that is actually desirable? If insurance has a plethora of good actuarial information and risk modeling, and one's insurance costs are high, that's the market telling that person that they probably shouldn't be driving. If high insurance costs promote alternate means of transportation for highly risky drivers, that's a net win for everyone on the road.

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

#130

Post by kaibee » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 8:54 PM UTC

brendoelfrendo wrote: post #128

ensignavenger wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I absolutely want electronics built into car! Requirements for antilock brakes, electronic fuel injection, and other electronics in vehicles has made them safer and more efficient. The other items on your list I can agree with, though.

And ECUs make it so easy to manage all of these things! I love 80s/90s Japanese sports cars, but I don't think we need to go back to the era of using a gazillion vacuum lines to control all kinds of esoteric valves and sensors. But I agree with everything else; I don't want my car to connect to the internet, I don't want my car to track my travel and driving habits, and I definitely don't want that data sent to the m…

> It really just smacks of greed and nothing else... selling cars has a long history of being a profitable business on its own. You don't need to steal your customers' data to turn it into another revenue stream, but it sure looks good on a financial report.

Its not only greed, its also a race to the bottom. If you're GM, you might prefer not doing that, but if your competition starts doing that, then you're at a competitive disadvantage, because they'll have more money to invest in engineers/production optimization, etc. So the logic then goes that you might as well do it first.

This is a case where you need government regulations to enforce mutual disarmament.