211–220 of 333 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I knew a guy who worked in Finance. Whenever he would buy alcohol, or cannabis (legal where I lived) he would only pay cash. His concern was that, if his credit card usage data were sold, it could increase his premiums.
That's why I buy my liquor at the gas station, on the same tx as the gas.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The whole point of an insurance business is to insure against unknown and unlikely risks. If it is insuring known or likely risks, then it becomes a subsidy or wealth transfer (which should be the domain of governments).
It’s still unknown if someone engaging in risk will end up in costly collisions, or other events. Just because you engage in risk doesn’t mean it will bite you, only that it is more likely to bite you. Besides why should less risky drivers subsidize riskier drivers?
Here is a car that sells your driving data. Here is one that won't
If you knew they were selling your data you could objectively demand a discount from one of the 2 .
There's a lot of jerk drivers who go way too fast and drive very dangerously. They should have to pay significantly more for it. For people that drive correctly, they should be charged less as well. I don't see why this is an issue.
The problem with allowing this kind of data usage is you will also have other moral authoritarians that wish to use the data as well.
I have been convinced for several years now that insurance companies are likely buying up personal data from many different sources. They seem to be ideal consumers because it'll lead to better outcomes when they can increase rates on those that identify as risky.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The whole point of an insurance business is to insure against unknown and unlikely risks. If it is insuring known or likely risks, then it becomes a subsidy or wealth transfer (which should be the domain of governments).
It’s still unknown if someone engaging in risk will end up in costly collisions, or other events. Just because you engage in risk doesn’t mean it will bite you, only that it is more likely to bite you. Besides why should less risky drivers subsidize riskier drivers?
They essentially do. If the safe drivers are never at fault, those premiums went somewhere. If the risky, repeat accident drivers aren't paying thr full price replacement vehicles, that money came from somewhere.
The easiest way to disable this in a Chevrolet with OnStar is to pull the fuse (Fuse 38 under the dash for the Chevrolet Malibu 2024). Other options disconnecting the antenna (can still connect if strong signal), or pulling out the box/microphone (disassembly required). At least for the 2024 model CarPlay features seems to keep working, but I haven't tested Bluetooth yet. There's somebody on YouTube describing the pa…
> (can still connect if strong signal) Wonder if that would still work if you additionally shunted the antenna with some kind of impedance matched load.
The worst thing about this is that all of their conclusions about what data constitutes "bad driving" or "risky driving" is dead wrong. The signs they consider to be "bad driving" are high-g braking and turning. Yet these are EXACTLY the same signs created by highly-skilled driver or racer operating at the limit, as they would to avoid an accident (thus costing the insurer $0), where the same situation would catch 90…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Nobody? There are countries other than the USA. I've never heard of signing away rights in respect of blood as a condition of getting a licence. Is this a real thing in the USA?
There's a lot of jerk drivers who go way too fast and drive very dangerously. They should have to pay significantly more for it. For people that drive correctly, they should be charged less as well. I don't see why this is an issue.
The cars are not capable of measuring how dangerous the driving is.