This case exemplifies a broader trend we're seeing across industries: the tension between data-driven innovation and individual privacy. On one hand, collecting and analyzing vehicle data could lead to safer cars, more efficient traffic systems, and personalized services that genuinely benefit consumers. On the other, it raises serious privacy concerns and the potential for misuse.
The key issue here isn't just about GM or even the auto industry - it's about how we as a society want to balance progress with privacy. Do we want a future where every device is constantly collecting data about us, ostensibly to provide better services? Or do we draw a line and say some spaces - like our personal vehicles - should remain data-free zones?
Texas sues GM for unlawfully collecting and selling drivers' private data [pdf]
131–140 of 366 posts
Re: Texas sues GM for unlawfully collecting and selling drivers' private data [pdf]
#132Earlier 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…
I'm not generally for hyper analyzed metrics gathering in this case (I don't like the privacy implications), but I'm generally for riskier drivers paying significantly more. Individuals should feel the costs of their driving more in the US IMO. I don't like heavily subsidizing people who drive so recklessly.
Maybe then they'd realize overly building car dependent cities isn't that great in the end.
Convincing risky drivers to pick an option other than driving seems great to me. I'd be happy if a huge chunk of drivers couldn't drive anymore. It would make everyone safer and save a ton of lives.
Re: Texas sues GM for unlawfully collecting and selling drivers' private data [pdf]
#133Earlier 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…
> Firstly, the entire port of insurance is to spread risk.
I think that definition is incomplete: Insurance is to spread risk equitably.
That means accounting for disparate probabilities and disparate impacts. For example, consider "house burns down" insurance, where premiums depend on whether the house is/isn't near a wooded area, and whether it is a cheap/expensive house... And yes, also whether or not the homeowner has a passion for homemade fireworks.
> 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.
While I agree that various dystopic outcomes are possible, the problem is not better knowledge about risks itself. Improved information about the dangers we're trying to avoid or fix is--all else being equal--always a good thing.
The real problems stem from those other no-so-equal factors like:
1. Imbalanced power relationships. (Strongly implicated in the rest of the list.)
2. Opaque decision-making that cannot be reviewed or appealed.
3. Information not being fairly discovered/shared. (Customer hides known higher risk, insurer hides lower-than-expected risks to squeeze out more profit, etc.)
4. Bad contracts which pull the rug out from under people because of how they handle changes in knowledge even when risks haven't actually changed. Imagine health-insurance which covers Giant Monsterification, but later a test reveals patient has Godzilla genes, and now the customer is dropped... Even though the originally-covered probability itself hasn't changed, only our knowledge about it.
Re: Texas sues GM for unlawfully collecting and selling drivers' private data [pdf]
#134Earlier 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…
[dead]
Re: Texas sues GM for unlawfully collecting and selling drivers' private data [pdf]
#135Fun 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…
Because this isn't Europe -- US government is essentially owned by corporate interests, regardless of party in power.
Re: Texas sues GM for unlawfully collecting and selling drivers' private data [pdf]
#136Earlier 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]
Do you have any recent examples where this happened?
Re: Texas sues GM for unlawfully collecting and selling drivers' private data [pdf]
#137Earlier 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.
I actually work on self-driving cars, so I have some experience on this. Trying to predict safety performance based on more easily measured metrics like hard stops is hard. AV companies spend a lot of time thinking about it. I don't think they get it perfect either.
Re: Texas sues GM for unlawfully collecting and selling drivers' private data [pdf]
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
[dead]
Re: Texas sues GM for unlawfully collecting and selling drivers' private data [pdf]
#139Didn't Tesla recently move to Texas? What do they do with the data they collect?
[dead]
Re: Texas sues GM for unlawfully collecting and selling drivers' private data [pdf]
#140Earlier 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...
The owners of big companies include lots of pension plans, index funds, etc. Hurting those owners, who didn't have any say in the bad decisions, is probably not what we want.
Jail for executives who approve or have knowledge of illegal activities sounds good to me.