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

To save money on insurance, drivers agree to intrusive monitoring technology

money.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 414 posts

Re: To save money on insurance, drivers agree to intrusive monitoring technology

#21

Post by aidenn0 »

renewiltord wrote: post #16
aidenn0 wrote: post #2

It feels to me more and more like you need to be rich to afford living without bartering away your personal information. I'm getting to be middle aged now, and have noticed a fatalistic attitude towards this by gen Z; kind of "it's impossible to maintain privacy, so I might as well milk my loss of privacy for all it's worth." And I'm wondering now if that's not completely correct.

No you can just get a cheaper car. You can get one for like $5k and the insurance won't be a lot. Just get minimums.

Do cheaper cars really lead to lower liability premiums?

Re: To save money on insurance, drivers agree to intrusive monitoring technology

#22

Post by samtho »

This reads like an article from /r/ABoringDystopia that showcases, among other things, technology that was suppose to improve people’s lives is actively weaponized against them.

What worries about this from a consumer level is that the insurance companies are not required to disregard old data. If you got a speeding ticket or other minor infraction, it will eventually drop off of your driving record as far as your insurance is concerned. Which makes sense and seems more fair because you are not necessarily the same driver you were two years ago. My concern is that they will keep this data in the aggregate and indefinitely penalize drivers with insurance rates that don’t actually reflect their present risk during a policy term.

Re: To save money on insurance, drivers agree to intrusive monitoring technology

#24

Post by mholt »

loeg wrote: post #11
mholt wrote: post #6

Utah views EV drivers as tax evaders because they don't buy gas. So they have a "deal" for EV drivers: pay an exorbitant registration fee (hundreds more than other vehicles) or install an OBD device in your car and carry a surveillance app to be charged for how much your vehicle is driven [0]. The measurement route requires 2 separate accounts with 3rd parties, one of which has your payment information on file. Given…

> pay an exorbitant registration fee (hundreds more than other vehicles) By which you mean $130 (equating to ~13,000 miles driven under the 1 cent-per-mile pricing)? https://roadusagecharge.utah.gov/faq.php#fees I agree it should be easier and more privacy-preserving to measure real usage (e.g., an odometer read once a year or something like that).

No, mine was over $340. The fee for my Civic was ~$100.

Re: To save money on insurance, drivers agree to intrusive monitoring technology

#25

Post by don-code »

How do these apps work, in practice? The article states:

> If you’re at the wheel focused on the road, but someone in the passenger seat is changing the music on your phone, the app may think it’s observing distracted driving and count it against you.

Is the app running on the car, or on the user's phone, which somehow detects that the user is driving a car? Is there some way that a paired phone (Bluetooth - or maybe this is a feature of CarPlay / Android Auto) can tell a car that it's being used?

Re: To save money on insurance, drivers agree to intrusive monitoring technology

#26

Post by sramam »

I'm a holdout on this tech for privacy reasons.

Wonder how self-incriminating that is - at some tipping point of adoption, not opting in becomes THE negative signal.

Outside regulation to limit retention and prevent misuse of data is there even a longer term option here?

Perhaps I should capitulate early and save more money.

Re: To save money on insurance, drivers agree to intrusive monitoring technology

#27

Post by rkagerer »

aidenn0 wrote: post #2

It feels to me more and more like you need to be rich to afford living without bartering away your personal information. I'm getting to be middle aged now, and have noticed a fatalistic attitude towards this by gen Z; kind of "it's impossible to maintain privacy, so I might as well milk my loss of privacy for all it's worth." And I'm wondering now if that's not completely correct.

Even if you're rich it's difficult.

Re: To save money on insurance, drivers agree to intrusive monitoring technology

#28

Post by eptcyka »

Casteil wrote: post #8
aidenn0 wrote: post #2

It feels to me more and more like you need to be rich to afford living without bartering away your personal information. I'm getting to be middle aged now, and have noticed a fatalistic attitude towards this by gen Z; kind of "it's impossible to maintain privacy, so I might as well milk my loss of privacy for all it's worth." And I'm wondering now if that's not completely correct.

Frankly, it's exhausting to try keep your life private. The sheer number of different ways your privacy can be violated via modern cars, phones, computers, social media, surveillance/facial recognition, IoT devices (including 'smart' TVs), etc. is quite staggering. Definitely seems like a losing battle. My retirement plan is a remote cabin in the woods.

Not only exhausting, it's also damaging one's social life, since preserving privacy is often making one the odd one out.

Re: To save money on insurance, drivers agree to intrusive monitoring technology

#29

Post by oatmeal1 »

imgabe wrote: post #20
oatmeal1 wrote: post #14

This is one of the least bad invasions of privacy I've seen. It shifts the burden of insurance premiums more towards those likely to cause accidents, and incentivizes people to minimize dangerous behavior behind the wheel. There are actual benefits to responsible people, and to society at large, which is not something you frequently see with invasion of privacy.

Assuming the data is only ever used for its stated purpose and not anything else…

The data collected here is just as likely to be misused as data that's collected that doesn't lead to any societal benefits.

Re: To save money on insurance, drivers agree to intrusive monitoring technology

#30

Post by greesil »

mholt wrote: post #24
loeg wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> pay an exorbitant registration fee (hundreds more than other vehicles) By which you mean $130 (equating to ~13,000 miles driven under the 1 cent-per-mile pricing)? https://roadusagecharge.utah.gov/faq.php#fees I agree it should be easier and more privacy-preserving to measure real usage (e.g., an odometer read once a year or something like that).

No, mine was over $340. The fee for my Civic was ~$100.

Try living in California. My $42K EV was closer to $600 for the registration.
Post reply on HN