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]

#341

Post by account42 » Fri, Aug 16, 2024, 8:13 AM UTC

isr wrote: post #184

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).

How about this. For criminal behaviour which crosses a certain $ threshold (as in, what size of fine is levied by the courts/fed authorities), the entire remuneration given to anyone who served on the board of directors is considered forfeit, and used to pay the fine. That means seizing secondary properties from current or ex directors, and other assets. Once that pool is exhausted, then you ding the shareholders (vi…

> Sure, this would give rise to some schemes of "how do I squirrel away my bonuses, in case they come after me tomorrow", but hubris & the unpredictability of this would still lead to some big, eye watering examples. Which would have the necessary deterrent effect.

The simple solution to such games is the same as with other monetary fines for individuals: if you can't pay the fine, you go to jail.

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

#342

Post by AnthonyMouse » Fri, Aug 16, 2024, 8:17 AM UTC

account42 wrote: post #340

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So here's the problem. There are some crimes that have a relatively low probability of detection. It doesn't even have to be that low; say it's 40%. Then there are people with nothing to lose. Some mid-level manager who isn't very good at it, isn't making his numbers. If he plays by the rules, he's about to get canned and lose his house and his wife. If he cheats and gets caught, there's a 40% chance he goes to jail,…

> To fix this you need to attach a penalty to someone who both has something to lose and is in a position to detect the crime. But the someone with something to lose are the owners and when they're diffuse passive investors they're not in a position to detect the crime. If they had any accountability they would find ways to put themselves in such a position.

No, they wouldn't. They are you. If you have a 401(k), you probably have shares of some of these companies -- likely hundreds if not thousands of different companies. You don't have time to investigate each of their inner workings and if one of them was convicted of mass murder and fully imploded causing their share price to go to zero, you would typically lose a fraction of a percent of your portfolio and might not even notice.

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

#343

Post by PROMISE_237 » Fri, Aug 16, 2024, 9:20 AM UTC

10u152 wrote: post #192

beambot wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

[dead]

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

#344

Post by tempfile » Fri, Aug 16, 2024, 11:05 AM UTC

mrguyorama wrote: post #311

tempfile wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hurting those owners, who didn't have any say in the bad decisions Why do you think this? Executives have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders, so if these actions are more profitable, they are legally required to perform them. Moreover, the primary beneficiaries are the owners. Indeed, if you harm the shareholders by reducing the price of shares, you are harming them in the most fair way possible: In p…

>Executives have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders, so if these actions are more profitable, they are legally required to perform them. Zero percent of this is correct, and even if they had a legal responsibility to make "as much money as possible", which they don't, that would definitely not force them to commit crimes The "fiduciary responsibility" is NOT "to make every dollar possible", it is a "don…

Surely it must be at least fifty percent correct, since you grant the first clause :)

Of course the duty does not extend to committing crimes. I was being a bit cynical. You are right that profit maximisation and fiduciary duty are distinct concepts. In practice, though, the owners are profit maximisers. Companies that do not profit maximise are less attractive to investors, attract less investment, and are outcompeted.

To advocates of the market system, this is a feature and not a bug. But its effect is that companies operate "optimally" within the bounds of the law - said differently, the line between legal and illegal conduct is generally skirted as closely as possible. And when, as other commenters have noted, punishments for breaking the law are on average less than the profits incurred by illegal activity, selection bias means you are left with lawbreakers in the long run.

You are right that this is not a (direct) consequence of the fiduciary duty of an executive. I stand by my main point, though, that this behaviour is a consequence of the owners' selection criteria, and they deserve to be punished for it.

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

#345

Post by ericmay » Fri, Aug 16, 2024, 12:03 PM UTC

rockskon wrote: post #338

ericmay wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about them? The roads are still there and they can still use them. I’m suggesting that future growth can be handled better by providing alternatives to forced car ownership, and so if you don’t want your data collected by your car you can have an alternative.

???? There is no reasonable alternative. Public transport is unreasinable for most people when you look at suburban and rural areas for the bulk of places people live and work given how spread out everything is.

How things are today can be changed…

But you’re also missing the forest for the trees. There are easy wins in public transit that can reduce car usage but we refuse to fund them. Bike lanes and street cars in urban areas for example can reduce car usage (and reduce congestion for drivers) and allow us to do more with less. I’d prefer riding a bike a mile down the road to grab groceries (or just walking) but our infrastructure makes that impossible and so I have to drive a car, taking up a limited parking spot and slowing your driving down too.

Most Americans actually live in urban environments as well. We aren’t that spread out actually.

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

#346

Post by ben_w » Fri, Aug 16, 2024, 12:24 PM UTC

bruce511 wrote: post #226

Tempest1981 wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Damage: I'm shopping for a new EV, and will now avoid the Hyundai Ioniq 5 and Chevy Bolt. Or find some hack to kill cellular.

Firstly, with respect, one purchase is not damage. Hacking the cellular is not damage to them (you bought the car.) But mostly, given that you have principles (which I applaud), tell me which brands you would consider. (I'm pretty sure I can Google a bad-news-day for them too.)

> Firstly, with respect, one purchase is not damage.

In so far as the sense that anecdotes are not data. To the extent that Tempest1981 is a representative sample, it is an observation of damage to the brand's reputation.

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

#347

Post by 01HNNWZ0MV43FF » Fri, Aug 16, 2024, 1:34 PM UTC

quantified wrote: post #197

01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Eric Schmidt can eat poop

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

#348

Post by tekknik » Fri, Aug 16, 2024, 2:26 PM UTC

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #240

shagie wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But the computer doesn't know if you accelerate and brake hard because you're an aggressive driver, or if your circumstances require it. Maybe you have to commute to your job in heavy stop-and-go traffic with difficult merges. I would contend that this doesn't matter in terms of risk. It doesn't matter if the risk is caused by the person being a bad driver or if the risk is caused by the commute route that you take…

> In either case, there's risk that is shown by the data Somebody this there is risk in the data. Big difference. In any case, you can buy insurance that does this, they install telematics box and sends them data -it’s available, and not popular. So the market has spoken

Did you read the article?

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

#349

Post by digging » Fri, Aug 16, 2024, 2:55 PM UTC

lp0_on_fire wrote: post #336

digging wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Regardless of what you think that's exactly how democracy works. As I said, I can't continue this conversation. Our understandings are too far apart.

Your understanding seems to be "the rubes are too stupid to know what's for their own good" so it's probably good we don't continue the conversation - it makes you dangerous.

Not the case

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

#350

Post by anticensor » Fri, Aug 16, 2024, 5:08 PM UTC

dchftcs wrote: post #200

beart wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is abstention even allowed in corporate board of directors?