Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Automakers are sharing consumers' driving behavior with insurance companies

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 333 posts

Re: Automakers are sharing consumers' driving behavior with insurance companies

#121

Post by nh23423fefe »

beej71 wrote: post #104
mycologos wrote: post #59

I think there are a few reasons to be mad about this, but some are better than others: 1) People don't understand they're being monitored. I think this is a good reason to be mad. People should have some understanding of the agreements they make. It's part of being a functional adult in the world. It's also annoying that the companies keep spinning this as a tool to improve your driving, when it's clearly an attempt…

I've avoided accidents by hard breaking twice in the last two years, once from deer bounding into the road, and once from a deaf old cat walking into the street. I haven't been cited for anything in decades, and have never been in an at-fault accident. I drive the speed limit and have a dashcam. With the deer, I was actually 10 MPH under the limit. So should my rates go up for these incidents where I successfully avo…

Amen. It's their job to calculate risk. Not my job to be "transparent". The ratchet only goes in one direction.

I won't be an Amazon driver in my own car.

Re: Automakers are sharing consumers' driving behavior with insurance companies

#122

Post by PH95VuimJjqBqy »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #116
PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ownership has a legal definition, the concept of ownership exists outside of the law.

> the concept of ownership exists outside of the law Not really. The common definitions either fall back to control or invoke the term property, another legalistic word. What ownership means is incredibly fluid and context dependent; consider how ambiguous it is when it comes to its classic form, real estate.

we should label this movement you're describing.

how about "legal absolutism"? If it's not codified in law it doesn't exist and therefore cannot be a part of people's vernacular.

Once this takes over we can update all our dictionaries to stop marking specific definitions as being legal definitions as they'll all, by definition (heh) be the legal definition.

Or, to put it another way, this is the internet, where you're free to say whatever you want but that doesn't mean you'll be taken seriously.

Re: Automakers are sharing consumers' driving behavior with insurance companies

#123

Post by HankB99 »

Kon-Peki wrote: post #84
batch12 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Toyota. I still had the sticker- I peeled it off and put it in the manual. The exact text is: VEHICLE DATA TRANSMISSION IS ON! Your vehicle wirelessly transmits location, driving and vehicle health data to deliver your services and for internal research and data analysis. See www.toyota[.]com/privacyvts. To disable, press vehicle's SOS button.

Prepare to be creeped out: https://www.toyota.com/privacyvts/

Yeah, right at the top

> We may modify this Privacy Notice by posting a new version at this website effective on the date of publication.

No actual notification needed. Are they screaming to be regulated?

Re: Automakers are sharing consumers' driving behavior with insurance companies

#124

Post by andrei_says_ »

nh23423fefe wrote: post #121
beej71 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've avoided accidents by hard breaking twice in the last two years, once from deer bounding into the road, and once from a deaf old cat walking into the street. I haven't been cited for anything in decades, and have never been in an at-fault accident. I drive the speed limit and have a dashcam. With the deer, I was actually 10 MPH under the limit. So should my rates go up for these incidents where I successfully avo…

Amen. It's their job to calculate risk. Not my job to be "transparent". The ratchet only goes in one direction. I won't be an Amazon driver in my own car.

But they have the tech to collect the data and make extra cash by selling it and making you an Amazon driver in your own car. So if they can, they will. Unless there’s something to stop them. Which in the absence of their goodwill would be legislation.

Unfortunately legislation representing anything other than big money interests is difficult and rare to pass.

Re: Automakers are sharing consumers' driving behavior with insurance companies

#125

Post by JumpCrisscross »

PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote: post #122
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the concept of ownership exists outside of the law Not really. The common definitions either fall back to control or invoke the term property, another legalistic word. What ownership means is incredibly fluid and context dependent; consider how ambiguous it is when it comes to its classic form, real estate.

we should label this movement you're describing. how about "legal absolutism"? If it's not codified in law it doesn't exist and therefore cannot be a part of people's vernacular. Once this takes over we can update all our dictionaries to stop marking specific definitions as being legal definitions as they'll all, by definition (heh) be the legal definition. Or, to put it another way, this is the internet, where you'r…

> if it's not codified in law it doesn't exist and therefore cannot be a part of people's vernacular

Within the context of lawmaking, for social constructs like ownership, absolutely. It’s sort of like starting with legality when writing drug regulations; outside the lawmaking context, that makes sense, within it, it’s nonsense.

I’m not saying never use the word ownership in common parlance. But when discussing a new law, yes, it pays to be precise. Because starting from ownership will result in a law that is ineffective or misdirected.

Re: Automakers are sharing consumers' driving behavior with insurance companies

#126

Post by JumpCrisscross »

PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote: post #78
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> who actually owns them? We need to treat this similar to the "right to repair" issue Ownership is a bad framework for this issue—it’s too ambiguous. You can “own” a vehicle all you want, that doesn’t give you the right to fuck with its odometer or catalytic converter.

> You can “own” a vehicle all you want, that doesn’t give you the right to fuck with its odometer or catalytic converter. Sure it does. This entire attitude is what's scary about software, actually. See, back in the ye olden days, no one disputed your right to remove the catalytic converter on a vehicle you purchased. It was no longer legal to drive and if you were caught you could get fined. But you absolutely had t…

> there's enough control that 3rd party entities are dictating with 100% success what an owner can do with the vehicle

Your key term here is control. When discussing a new rule, that is what you focus on. Use the word ownership when selling the rule, sure. My point is rules drafted starting from ownership tend to be trivial to circumvent. Because they presume ownership is a natural state when it is a social construct.

Re: Automakers are sharing consumers' driving behavior with insurance companies

#127

Post by andrei_says_ »

moooo99 wrote: post #66

I‘m a huge fan of s telemetry insurance. I have I personally and it saves me around 300€/year on my cars insurance because I am a very defensive driver. However, this being integrated into the vehicle in an absolutely intransparent way is a huge step up and a really unsettling privacy violation. For this to be ethically viable imho, there need to be a few prerequisites - it’s transparent what has been transmitted - y…

From the other side, it’s essentially a fine for people who respect their privacy. Insurance prices will adjust to the adoption of this discount, will rise to the current normal and only people who don’t opt in will be hit with the extortion fee forcing them to opt in.

Re: Automakers are sharing consumers' driving behavior with insurance companies

#129

Post by arkadiyt »

batch12 wrote: post #13

When I got my last car, it had a sticker instructing me to press the SOS button to opt out of data collection. The gentleman that answered acted confused when I made the request, taking the stance that he wasn't aware of data collection from the car and maybe I should contact the manufacturer. It was only after I read him the sticker text verbatim that he went into a scripted response and confirmed the opt out. Shady…

If I get a new car I'm just taking the modem out.

Re: Automakers are sharing consumers' driving behavior with insurance companies

#130

Post by leotravis10 »

Gift Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/11/technology/carmakers-driv...

US lawmakers can put a stop to this and every other privacy scandal over the years at any time you know by passing a strong privacy law but nahhhhhh we can't do that!

It's yet another reason why people should buy older cars (preferably 2012 or older) since the automotive, insurance, and data broker industries don't give a total jack about your privacy and sadly the US aren't going to do jack about this either until we can elect more people in office that does care and pass a strong privacy law in the process.

Post reply on HN