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]

#191

Post by 8note » Thu, Aug 15, 2024, 12:32 AM UTC

ds_opseeker wrote: post #165

vel0city wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 us…

Rather than subsidize the poor person being poor via insurance, we can subsidize them by say, building public housing nearby their place of work, or direct payments.

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

#192

Post by 10u152 » Thu, Aug 15, 2024, 12:41 AM UTC

beambot wrote: post #148

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

Let's add "renewable energy sources" for good measure. Then the only viable solution is a horse. Ha!

Horses are the OG self driving vehicle, they’ll happily plod home if they know where they are

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

#193

Post by dredmorbius » Thu, Aug 15, 2024, 12:42 AM 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.

Institutional shareholders actually play a strong role in governance over companies, both in choosing where to invest, and in directing companies (and their boards) as to how they should operate.

Pension and hedge funds finding that their assets are at risk due to changes in perceptions around privacy are actually among the most effective market mechanisms for changing corporate behaviour. Far more so, it seems than the consumer/retail side of the market, where leverage is effectively nil.

Investors can effect leverage because they're not stuck with a monopolistic / oligopolistic market with a small number of vendor choices for a particular good. Investors have the entire market of stock corporations as potential investments, and can enter into or exit from those which pose attractive opportunities or undue risks with very few additional concerns.

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

#194

Post by steelframe » Thu, Aug 15, 2024, 12:44 AM UTC

mixmastamyk wrote: post #167

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?

I guess I was just trying to keep my comment short and on-topic rather than blab on about my car. Anyway I also wanted the ability to use gasoline for road trips, a manual transmission, emergency brake activated with a cable, knobs and buttons for the controls, ability to shut off or disable the center display, AWD, hatchback, plenty of get-up-and-go, made by a manufacturer with a reputation for reliability, broad availability of parts and places where I can get it repaired, reasonable price, and relatively small size to fit in cramped spaces in the city. I ended up with a Toyota GR Corolla.

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

#195

Post by khc » Thu, Aug 15, 2024, 12:46 AM 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.

> Jail for executives who approve or have knowledge of illegal activities sounds good to me.

I suspect one possible outcome is many people wouldn't want to take the risk to become an executive, and the percentage of executives who wouldn't mind taking risks of going to jail will increase, which is not a desirable outcome.

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

#196

Post by quantified » Thu, Aug 15, 2024, 12:49 AM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #66

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…

>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. Insurance is a business, where the insured pays an insurer to pay for costs for damages that the insured cannot afford to pay. The insurer's job is to calculate the amount of premium necessary to ensure they ca…

> The goal is not to label drivers as aggressive or not aggressive. The goal is to tease out the factors that lead to claims.

The goal is to label the drivers as more or less likely to lead to claims, and "aggression" is considered a factor.

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

#197

Post by quantified » Thu, Aug 15, 2024, 12:51 AM 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

As Eric Schmidt of Google noted long ago, your privacy is already dead. License plate readers are all over the place. Please don't shoot yourself, and good luck to you.

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

#198

Post by gustavus » Thu, Aug 15, 2024, 12:58 AM 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 love when people bring this up. I passively invest by which I mean I take a couple of bucks every couple of paychecks and throw them into an index fund or buy one or two shares of stock of a company. Not to mention my 401k. How about we hold the people making the decisions accountable all the way up and down the chain instead of letting the go with the whole "following orders" defence.

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

#199

Post by xyst » Thu, Aug 15, 2024, 1:04 AM UTC

If every state sues GM, GM might go bankrupt. Then the American tax payers will be footing another bailout. Thus earning GM the moniker, Government Motors (again).

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

#200

Post by dchftcs » Thu, Aug 15, 2024, 1:04 AM UTC

beart wrote: post #170

candiddevmike wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

For much of SP500, the largest shareholders are the passive investors. It's common that an activist hedge fund can influence decisions with a mere 3% or so stake because the likes of BlackRock and Vanguard support them or abstain.