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

231–240 of 333 posts

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

#231

Post by ethbr1 »

cmpxchg8b wrote: post #201
dml2135 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn’t this violate HIPAA?

If you agree to the data being shared when signing up for insurance it wouldn’t be a violation.

Do you have any details on this?

I'm sure there are legal HIPAA data escape pathways (given the financial incentives for companies to find them), but I'm curious on the details.

Afaik, there's no way to make HIPAA-covered data non-HIPAA-covered, and absent that everyone in the custody chain is responsible for anywhere it eventually ends up.

That said, I expect the way this works in practice is more likely data that originates with non-HIPAA-covered entities, but can be massaged/combined into a similar product.

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

#232

Post by bobim »

toss1 wrote: post #210

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…

Well, if one is stupid enough to get a race car with telemetry then the spying is deserved. The skill level is irrelevant insurance-wise, as it doesn't last, varies within the day, and is of no use on open, shared streets.

Now the dream car will soon be an electrified lada niva, no electronics, speeding impossible.

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

#234

Post by bruckie »

schreiaj wrote: post #114
everforward wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, the usual garbage in garbage out issue. Iirc, though, I think I read something about this and they were more interested in average speed (regardless of posted speed), and the rate/frequency of acceleration/deceleration (especially deceleration). The idea being that speed increases accident severity, regardless of posted speeds. Rapid deceleration is indicative of reacting late to something you should have see…

Maybe if the only thing you're reacting to is other vehicles or the road. The number of times I have to slam on my brakes on that particular road because of animals running into the road is way too high. And no, not always deer. I've come around curves and just had someone's dog sitting in the middle of the road on multiple occasions because for some reason people think it's totally safe to just let their dogs roam.

That indicates real increased risk, though, compared to someone who drives in places where animals are less likely to be in the road.

Insurers aren't trying to determine how good of a driver you are (conditional probability of you being in a collision given conditions). They're trying to determine how likely it is that you're going to be involved in a collision that results in a claim (unconditional probability of you being in a collision). If you frequently drive through deer infested forests, it seems reasonable that your insurer is going to expect more claims compared to someone who doesn't do that.

It's similar to how driving late at night results in higher premiums. You can be the same good driver at night and during the day, but if you're frequently driving at 3 a.m., you're a higher risk.

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

#235

Post by thfuran »

nemo44x wrote: post #228
thfuran wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should the fine be the same regardless of whether it's five minutes after school let out out or 3AM on Christmas day?

It would be up to the insurer and how their models reflect and manage risk. The point being, individual insurers would be able to better price insurance based on discrete customer behavior.

Should cell providers sell customer data/metadata to car insurance providers? It, after all, in the best interest of the insurers.

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

#236

Post by ytx »

thfuran wrote: post #222
ytx wrote: post #170

> "More specifically, automakers are selling access to the data to Lexis Nexis, which is then crafting “risk scores” insurance companies then use to adjust rates. Usually upward" In an ideal world, such data-harvesting might lead to cheaper prices / a more efficient insurance market - which would make the privacy loss worth considering from a trade-off standpoint, at least in theory. Unfortunately it's instead likely…

In an ideal world, such data harvesting would be illegal, with liability adhering to the executives pushing for and approving the initiative as well as any legal counsel involved. Acquiring the data should require explicit, truly informed, and revocable consent not buried in a bunch of BS and not required for the purchase of a vehicle or insurance.

I wholeheartedly agree that the dark patterns around consent are atrocious. But I also think hn is probably biased in its valuation of an individual's data.

If companies offered say a $50/month discount on car insurance premiums in exchange for gathering data, I imagine a large proportion of people would indeed opt in to that (setting aside issues of selection bias or trust in this ideal world)

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

#238

Post by JTyQZSnP3cQGa8B »

g9yuayon wrote: post #237

Can someone educate me why insurer should not know one's driving habits? I'd imagine that the risks calculated from one's driving habit will be more accurate than that derived from only past accidents, car color, user profile and etc.

For me it’s because of this dirty concept called "privacy" and it’s the reason why insurers don’t have access to the list of items that I buy at the grocery store (also health records, name of sex partners, what I do all day long, whether I walk enough every day, etc.)

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

#239

Post by thfuran »

ytx wrote: post #236
thfuran wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In an ideal world, such data harvesting would be illegal, with liability adhering to the executives pushing for and approving the initiative as well as any legal counsel involved. Acquiring the data should require explicit, truly informed, and revocable consent not buried in a bunch of BS and not required for the purchase of a vehicle or insurance.

I wholeheartedly agree that the dark patterns around consent are atrocious. But I also think hn is probably biased in its valuation of an individual's data. If companies offered say a $50/month discount on car insurance premiums in exchange for gathering data, I imagine a large proportion of people would indeed opt in to that (setting aside issues of selection bias or trust in this ideal world)

People should be free to do that. My objection is to the fact that currently just existing in modern society (in the US) means you're being spied on by everyone from the manufacturer of your tv to the grocery store, and huge amounts of your personal data is sold to anyone who wants it.

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

#240

Post by AngryData »

tengwar2 wrote: post #205
jeffbee wrote: post #182

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?

Yes. If a US cops demands a blood or breath test you basically have no choice if you were driving or you are presumed guilty of a crime and then they pull a warrant for a blood test anyways. The right not to be tested is essencially given up when you sign for your drivers license.
Post reply on HN