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

141–150 of 333 posts

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

#141

Post by JumpCrisscross »

PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote: post #138
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

or, and this is a crazy thought, when someone pays for something they expect to have the right to do what they want with it. When a 3rd party is able to exert absolute control in hampering that ability, it becomes a problem. you purchase a video game from your religious friend and they decide you shouldn't be allowed to play the game between 8pm and 8am and they have the ability to ensure you can't. their ability to…

> when someone pays for something they expect to have the right to do what they want with it

Where? When?

Say you own private property and a car. Does that mean you are allowed to leak diesel all over it? Most jurisdictions say no, in part because that affects your neighbours’ property values.

Ownership is not, and has never meant, absolute sovereignty. It’s a package of rights defined in terms of control. When we’re discussing amending what ownership means, giving the owner more control, it’s circular to start with ownership: you can do it. But it’s much more meaningful (and powerful) to talk about control.

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

#142

Post by colpabar »

HankB99 wrote: post #123
Kon-Peki wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Isn't this how all ToS work though? They all contain some clause that says "actually we reserve the right to do whatever we want whenever we want and everything you read here is meaningless"

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

#143

Post by JumpCrisscross »

PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote: post #136
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

the comment that started this > You should own your car and be able to do as you wish. no "new law" was being discussed, you yourself tried to limit the scope to the legal definition and now you're trying to argue that no one should be discussing anything but the legal definition (well, for the second time, just with different words).

> no "new law" was being discussed, you yourself tried to limit the scope to the legal definition

It's a normative statement. And I'm not solely talking legal definitions. But when we're debating the proper boundaries of ownership, it is tautological to invoke ownership in the definition.

The original phrase is stronger as "you should be able to do [with your car] as you wish." Which is not a commonly-held view even if we restrict ourselves to vehicles solely driven on private property--to the point of absurdity, you can't mow down pedestrians just because it's your car and land.

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

#145

Post by randerson »

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…

The flow of traffic on the highways where I live is consistently 15-20 mph above the posted limit. I wish everyone would slow down, but that doesn't change the fact that the safest way to merge is to accelerate hard and match their speed. The last thing I need is a financial incentive to be oblivious to my surroundings.

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

#146

Post by neuralRiot »

everforward wrote: post #79
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…

Location can be relevant. There is both a quarter mile drag strip by me and a circuit lap by me that both allow you to drive your own car on them. Both styles of driving would be... Alarming from a telemetry perspective. Afaik neither is covered by regular auto insurance anyways so it really shouldn't factor into rates. There's specific racing insurance, but it's quite pricey. Not that I want them sharing location da…

Just like any other data collection and “tailored” to it service the only purpose is to justify a charge not to actually work. Targeted ads work better than traditional ones? Who knows but how can you say that your service is better if it has nothing innovative. Just like “feature-rich” devices is just a sales pitch.

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

#147

Post by cebert »

ljosa wrote: post #128

Is there a good source for which makes, models, and model years “phone home”? I would absolutely take it into account when shopping for a new or used car, but I’ve had no luck with Googling.

I’d imagine any car since 2019 can likely share such data.

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

#148

Post by toomuchtodo »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #110
elevenones wrote: post #101

(From the Toyota Connected Services Disclaimer) Your Responsibilities Your responsibilities include: (1) informing passengers and drivers of your vehicle that data is collected and used by us, and (2) notifying us of a sale or transfer of your vehicle. If you do not notify us of a sale or transfer, we may continue to send data about the vehicle to the subscriber's Account Information currently on file, and we are not…

This needs to be illegal.

Senator Wyden has been a champion of data privacy. If you are an Oregon resident, please reach out to his office.

https://www.wyden.senate.gov/

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

#149

Post by _visgean »

troyvit wrote: post #139
_visgean wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am a Hayekian and I believe that regulation will not help with people that know the ins & outs of the regulation, also it's doesn't stop them. that is such a funny thing to say. Car industry is heavily regulated and car companies do work with the regulation. They are already regulated on safety, fuel standards, dimensions... Adding data protection into the mix makes sense.

The auto industry has fought tooth and nail against safety requirements[1] and still fights today against more stringent fuel standards[2][3]. Not only would they fight regulations like data safety that would open them to potential litigation when lose the data or sell it to the wrong player, but they would win. Privacy isn't the political football that the environment is, and you can't point to death statistics like…

The fact that they will fight it does not mean we should not try it. At least in EU the GDPR gives quite a bit of power to regulate this.

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

#150

Post by gvurrdon »

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…

I never saw one of those when buying my most recent car (Toyota). But, after creating an account on their website I was able to find this section:

  Consent Centre
  E-privacy: Your car data

  Help us improve our products by sharing car data and diagnostic info.

  We don’t currently have your consent to use this data. This may be for the following reasons:

    Your car doesn’t have Connected Services. Contact your dealer to check if they can be added.

    No (connected) car has been added to your account. Go to My Vehicle, add a car if needed, then connect your car via the Connected Services card.

    You have a connected car but have yet to consent. Go to My Vehicle, and open the chosen car. You will be requested to give your consent.

 
  Toyota thanks you for helping us to improve our products.
FWIW, their smartphone app contains a "consent" section with various toggles for the usual reasons (e.g. "sharing data to improve products") and these are all turned off.
Post reply on HN