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]

#161

Post by edflsafoiewq » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 10:07 PM UTC

klyrs wrote: post #58

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.

In this model, what incentivizes safe drivers to have insurance? And then when a "safe driver" wipes out in a freak snow storm and racks up a million dollars in damages that they can't afford to pay, where's the win-win?

It smooths the costs out over time, ie. you regularly pay a fixed amount instead of having random huge bills you may not be able to cover.

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

#162

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 10:08 PM UTC

randcraw wrote: post #18

I can't imagine why this case should succeed if this same practice has long been tolerated by telcos or Facebook -- any company that provides no opt-out to collection and sale of personal info. If Texas had real guts, they'd pass a law that clearly prohibits the collection and sale of personal info without explicit opt-in. But nooooooo...

[deleted]

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

#163

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 10:11 PM UTC

stainablesteel wrote: post #101

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

[deleted]

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

#164

Post by fn-mote » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 10:21 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #158

Terr_ wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 homeown…

> Insurance is to spread risk equitably. That means accounting for disparate probabilities Everyone defines equitably according to their whims. Does it mean the riskier pay more? Those can afford it pay more? The unsympathetic pay more? Et cetera

I think that the real purpose of government is to negotiate these meanings.

That it is difficult does not mean that we should not attempt it. And then you see the other factors mentioned up-comment…

If the government does not work out this ambiguity, it gets worked out other ways - which is why we are having this discussion.

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

#165

Post by ds_opseeker » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 10:23 PM UTC

vel0city wrote: post #151

bobthepanda wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the point of insurance is to make sure if you get into a crash with somebody else and they are at fault, that they even have the means to pay you in the first place. if forced to, people make the decision to drive uninsured because it is nigh impossible to travel around this country otherwise, and then it's worse when they do get into an accident and cannot pay the other driver's costs. you can't squeeze blood from a…

Sounds like we need better enforcement of insurance requirements. Driving a car uninsured should have some extremely stiff penalties. Once again, maybe if the penalties are high enough and the costs expensive enough for more people, there'd actually be more of a push to re-think overly car dependent life. It will optimize society overall to have risky, uninsurable drivers not driving . It's not like healthcare. There…

> Driving a car uninsured should have some extremely stiff penalties.

I want to agree with you, but wonder if you have ever been poor? When you need the car to get to work so you can feed your kids, but you can't afford all of

- feed kids - rent - insurance

because you got hit by a surprise medical bill (kid got sick, maybe?)

I'm strongly in favor of your end goal (less car-dependent life), I'm just cautious about using punishment as a way to get there.

Unless we made the fine proportional to income?

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

#166

Post by tomrod » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 10:25 PM UTC

dontlikeyoueith wrote: post #150

EvanAnderson wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Jail for executives who approve or have knowledge of illegal activities sounds good to me. But then who would write the campaign contribution checks on which our government depends to survive?

You're getting it! This is what people want! I say this only half joking because I think you get it, so no /s required :)

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

#167

Post by mixmastamyk » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 10:27 PM UTC

steelframe wrote: post #149

When it came time for me to buy my most recent car I made a list of requirements. If I couldn't find a car that meet them I was resolved to not bother buying a car at all. The requirement at the top of the list was, "It doesn't spy on me." I ended up finding one that checked all the boxes once I removed its Data Communications Module (DCM) fuse.

Not gonna share your results? Only one?

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

#168

Post by fn-mote » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 10:28 PM UTC

kube-system wrote: post #114

pc86 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pri…

The right to privacy is not boolean. There is a spectrum of reasonable expectations of privacy. Also, the right to privacy in public is not necessarily zero. The varying degree of rights to privacy in public are less than in private settings, but often greater than zero. While your insurer may, by happenstance, see your license plate while you are driving around, they certainly are not following you 100% of the time.…

> they certainly are not following you 100% of the time

I don’t follow the argument being made here.

The state of modern surveillance is different from what is described. People are consenting to precise monitoring for slightly lower insurance premiums. The question is: should it be illegal (should we fight against monitoring) for some moral/philosophical reason, or are we accepting it because that’s the way things are.

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

#169

Post by candiddevmike » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 10:36 PM UTC

EvanAnderson wrote: post #140

akira2501 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> 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.

I mean... Shareholders are ultimately responsible for the company, they elect the board etc. If shareholders were impacted by this, maybe it would make more folks think twice about "passive investing"?

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

#170

Post by beart » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 10:47 PM UTC

candiddevmike wrote: post #169

EvanAnderson wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> 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. I mean... Shareholders are ultimately responsible for the company, they elect the board etc. If shareholders were impacted by this, maybe it would make more folks think twice about "passive investing"?

I don't see this doing much unless everyone stops at about the same time. The largest shareholders have a disproportionate amount of power to influence the direction of most companies.