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]

#171

Post by throwaway48476 » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 10:48 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.

Companies need to have to name someone who is criminally responsible for the companies actions.

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

#172

Post by throwaway48476 » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 10:49 PM UTC

ensignavenger wrote: post #116

nine_zeros wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I say, let the company be forced to be auctioned away and a ban on the executives from holding board/executive position for the next 5 years

GM is nowhere near a monopoly in the automobile market, so that isn't an issue in this case.

Given the recent demonstrative pricing power the auto industry appears to be an oligopoly.

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

#173

Post by Retric » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 10:50 PM UTC

dontlikeyoueith wrote: post #154

jajko wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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 Except spread out over time, which is still a net-benefit.

Ultra efficient premiums should include the time domain by charging premiums in winter vs. summer based on risks.

Keep getting better and a ‘perfect’ system would bump the premiums pre accident to cover the full costs of that accident immediately before your accident. Making insurance a pure dead loss for consumers which means insurance must be inefficient to be useful.

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

#174

Post by kube-system » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 10:54 PM UTC

fn-mote wrote: post #168

kube-system wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

There is not necessarily informed consent with the type of informatics data collection described in these suits.

This isn’t a lawsuit about a “progressive snapshot” type of device.

It has been described by many that these vehicles had been opted in at the dealer with little to no notification, and the data subsequently sold to brokers, who then sold the data to insurers.

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

#175

Post by tacocataco » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 11:07 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).

If corporations are people, why doesn't their corporate charter get revoked while they "serve their time"?

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

#176

Post by laweijfmvo » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 11:16 PM UTC

hondohondo wrote: post #118

GM aka Government Motors will never learn. Will they?

At some point my tax dollars will be bailing out GM due to GM having to pay fines for stealing my data, so I’m just paying someone to steal my data?

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

#177

Post by crest » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 11:19 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).

Executives behind bars and multiple times the revenue from their illicit deals should work as incentive to guide the industry.

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

#178

Post by Terr_ » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 11:26 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

While it's true that Solutions Are Hard, that doesn't change the fact insurance is absolutely not meant to spread risk blindly.

Even early proto-insurance of seagoing merchants mutually carrying one-another's trade-goods on their various ships (in case one sank) still cared about how some cargoes were more valuable and some ships were more seaworthy.

They didn't just roll dice to do it.

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

#179

Post by openasocket » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 11:27 PM UTC

stctw wrote: post #108

dylan604 wrote: post #71

Earlier 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…

“Inside the two-year fight to bring charges against school librarians in Granbury, Texas” : https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna161444

That’s librarians at a school subjected to a two year criminal investigation, complete with search warrants and interrogations, because of the books that were on their shelves

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

#180

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 11:32 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #173

dontlikeyoueith wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Except spread out over time, which is still a net-benefit.

Ultra efficient premiums should include the time domain by charging premiums in winter vs. summer based on risks. Keep getting better and a ‘perfect’ system would bump the premiums pre accident to cover the full costs of that accident immediately before your accident. Making insurance a pure dead loss for consumers which means insurance must be inefficient to be useful.

[deleted]