101–110 of 148 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>"Precise geolocation data" does not include the content of communications or any data generated by or connected to advanced utility metering infrastructure systems or equipment for use by a utility. What exactly does this mean?
Smart meters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_meter
I didn’t know this, but I am glad my State already had this! We do some things right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd surmise it's because several states (CA comes to the top of mind) set speeds in excess of 80 as a potential felony enhancement. iirc in CA it's 20mph over the speed limit, or speeds over 80. The insurance companies probably want to know who to raise rates on.
Which is crazy because when I do 80 in Mostly PA and NJ I am getting passed constantly.
Interesting to me. I wonder what are they doing right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If thats the standard, then I suggest people find a less polarizing word with a clearer definition. Putting the semantics aside, Who decides what it is worth and to whom? Why wouldn't a company sell a car without geodata for what it is worth? Maybe it is worth 150k to them because that is what some people will pay the maximum return price point for that package?
One of the major things courts do is price stuff, ie how much is a lost leg worth. The question isn’t what’s the value of not being tracked, the question is what’s tracking data itself is worth. Here what the company actually makes selling the data puts an actual price on what that data is worth. If you can make 50$/year selling the data and want to pay someone 40$ to be tracked that’s a reasonable transaction, if yo…
However, If Elon wants your leg as a sex toy, a court won't set a price and force you to sell it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the major things courts do is price stuff, ie how much is a lost leg worth. The question isn’t what’s the value of not being tracked, the question is what’s tracking data itself is worth. Here what the company actually makes selling the data puts an actual price on what that data is worth. If you can make 50$/year selling the data and want to pay someone 40$ to be tracked that’s a reasonable transaction, if yo…
A court will decide the cost of a leg someone lost in an accident. However, If Elon wants your leg as a sex toy, a court won't set a price and force you to sell it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the major things courts do is price stuff, ie how much is a lost leg worth. The question isn’t what’s the value of not being tracked, the question is what’s tracking data itself is worth. Here what the company actually makes selling the data puts an actual price on what that data is worth. If you can make 50$/year selling the data and want to pay someone 40$ to be tracked that’s a reasonable transaction, if yo…
A court will decide the cost of a leg someone lost in an accident. However, If Elon wants your leg as a sex toy, a court won't set a price and force you to sell it.
The point is Elon can’t price Starlink at 1 billion dollars a month then give a 999,999,900 discount if you give up your privacy. At that point the bundle is coercive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As an aside… I wonder why “80 mph” was picked as an arbitrary value. In rural areas of Utah we have 80 mph posted limits and prima facie speed laws. A lot of Utah drivers regularly exceed 80 MPH and I’d argue they do so legally. It’s just a weird number for them to pick.
people that drive on those high speed roads are more likely to be involved in more dangerous/harmful collisions? legally and unlikely-to-make-expensive-consequences are separate items that insurance exists to differentiate why shouldnt people driving on such dangerous roads have to pay higher insurance rates?
Given the actual informed and uncoerced choice, people say no to this kind of collection and especially its sale or use for any purpose other than the explicit service they thought they were allowing it for (navigation, setting the time, etc etc). This is true for basically all information collected. I'm glad to see there is some minor protection language being included but it needs to have real teeth and get to the…
Completely agreed. Even for people who are like "I have nothing to hide", the only people who think this way are simply unaware of just how much harm can come to them without the protection of privacy (and laws that ensure this)... or they just have no self-preservation instinct, I guess?