Texas sues GM for unlawfully collecting and selling drivers' private data [pdf] • Hacker News Board

Re: Texas sues GM for unlawfully collecting and selling drivers' private data [pdf]

#271

Post by natpalmer1776 » Thu, Aug 15, 2024, 12:56 PM UTC

dredmorbius wrote: post #193

EvanAnderson wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You want to hurt the company and it's owners... The owners of big companies include lots of pension plans, index funds, etc. Hurting those owners, who didn't have any say in the bad decisions, is probably not what we want. Jail for executives who approve or have knowledge of illegal activities sounds good to me.

Institutional shareholders actually play a strong role in governance over companies, both in choosing where to invest, and in directing companies (and their boards) as to how they should operate. Pension and hedge funds finding that their assets are at risk due to changes in perceptions around privacy are actually among the most effective market mechanisms for changing corporate behaviour. Far more so, it seems than…

Except institutional investors ARE restricted based on what kind of investment they need to fill out the specific portfolio they're administering.

Oftentimes these restrictions limit them to a subset of companies in a certain market to fill a specific niche in the name of diversification. Are they artificial limitations? Sure, but only in the sense that there is no regulation saying they cannot find a different company to invest in.

All that to say that things are not nearly as cut-and-dry as it may seem.

Re: Texas sues GM for unlawfully collecting and selling drivers' private data [pdf]

#272

Post by PROMISE_237 » Thu, Aug 15, 2024, 1:00 PM UTC

0xEF wrote: post #236

tacocataco wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If corporations are people, why doesn't their corporate charter get revoked while they "serve their time"?

Because laws exist to protect the wealthy, sadly.

[dead]

Re: Texas sues GM for unlawfully collecting and selling drivers' private data [pdf]

#273

Post by tempfile » Thu, Aug 15, 2024, 1:22 PM UTC

EvanAnderson wrote: post #140

akira2501 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why aren't companies treated the same? It's more of a hostage negotiation. You want to hurt the company and it's owners, but if you sue too hard, you're likely to just hurt it's workers and it's customers. It's why preventing companies from reaching _anything near_ monopoly size is so important for corporate jurisprudence. "Too big to fail" is just the tip of this insane iceberg we've allowed to grow into our econo…

> You want to hurt the company and it's owners... The owners of big companies include lots of pension plans, index funds, etc. Hurting those owners, who didn't have any say in the bad decisions, is probably not what we want. Jail for executives who approve or have knowledge of illegal activities sounds good to me.

> Hurting those owners, who didn't have any say in the bad decisions

Why do you think this? Executives have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders, so if these actions are more profitable, they are legally required to perform them. Moreover, the primary beneficiaries are the owners.

Indeed, if you harm the shareholders by reducing the price of shares, you are harming them in the most fair way possible: In proportion with their share of the responsibility.

Re: Texas sues GM for unlawfully collecting and selling drivers' private data [pdf]

#274

Post by tempfile » Thu, Aug 15, 2024, 1:25 PM UTC

beart wrote: post #170

candiddevmike wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The owners of big companies include lots of pension plans, index funds, etc. Hurting those owners, who didn't have any say in the bad decisions, is probably not what we want. I mean... Shareholders are ultimately responsible for the company, they elect the board etc. If shareholders were impacted by this, maybe it would make more folks think twice about "passive investing"?

I don't see this doing much unless everyone stops at about the same time. The largest shareholders have a disproportionate amount of power to influence the direction of most companies.

If you properly punish the shareholders, then it doesn't matter if they stop or don't. If they stop, the bad behaviour stops; if they continue, the onerous penalties continue. Anybody who wants to sponsor bad behaviour with their AUM can pay the appropriate fee.

Re: Texas sues GM for unlawfully collecting and selling drivers' private data [pdf]

#275

Post by resource_waste » Thu, Aug 15, 2024, 1:32 PM UTC

Zombie company at it again!

They are like Boeing. There isnt really anything worth saving here. Do we need another fake-luxury SUV/Truck company? Not that I think Ford is better. Chrysler is more yikes than anyone.

Maybe a total replacement of management? There is so much Rot.

Re: Texas sues GM for unlawfully collecting and selling drivers' private data [pdf]

#276

Post by FMecha » Thu, Aug 15, 2024, 1:34 PM UTC

ensignavenger wrote: post #119

stainablesteel wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

its not just that i don't want electronics built into cars i don't want data coming from my car i don't need a phone to be built into my car i don't need navigation to be built into my car they need to stay in their lane we need anti-enshittification laws

I absolutely want electronics built into car! Requirements for antilock brakes, electronic fuel injection, and other electronics in vehicles has made them safer and more efficient. The other items on your list I can agree with, though.

>I absolutely want electronics built into car! Requirements for antilock brakes, electronic fuel injection, and other electronics in vehicles has made them safer and more efficient.

There are car people out there who would rather drive a fully analog car without any electronics such as ABS - though that typically means a hardcore sports car such as a Caterham.

Re: Texas sues GM for unlawfully collecting and selling drivers' private data [pdf]

#277

Post by ericmay » Thu, Aug 15, 2024, 1:35 PM UTC

0xEF wrote: post #241

ericmay wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best way to combat this is walking and bike lanes. With no alternative to cars for most people you will see this kind of behavior continue. Trying to pit automakers against each other on this topic and others is the misdirection. They want to distract you from wanting alternatives so that you don’t even need to have a spying car in the first place.

I am with you, but the power that Big Auto and Big Oil wield in this realm makes it impossible to foster change unless consumers start collectively organizing. Good luck with that. I hate to say it, but that war feels already lost in the US. There is hope elsewhere, perhaps, but sadly, the US is shackled to their cars and trucks by the civil engineering that resulted in suburbia.

I think it's still hopeful. Even in places like Columbus we have regional leaders and mayors who recognize we can't just do "cars forever". Younger people I speak with want to be able to walk to places too. It'll be a battle but I think we can make things better for everyone, including drivers.

Re: Texas sues GM for unlawfully collecting and selling drivers' private data [pdf]

#278

Post by consteval » Thu, Aug 15, 2024, 1:47 PM UTC

EvanAnderson wrote: post #140

akira2501 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why aren't companies treated the same? It's more of a hostage negotiation. You want to hurt the company and it's owners, but if you sue too hard, you're likely to just hurt it's workers and it's customers. It's why preventing companies from reaching _anything near_ monopoly size is so important for corporate jurisprudence. "Too big to fail" is just the tip of this insane iceberg we've allowed to grow into our econo…

> You want to hurt the company and it's owners... The owners of big companies include lots of pension plans, index funds, etc. Hurting those owners, who didn't have any say in the bad decisions, is probably not what we want. Jail for executives who approve or have knowledge of illegal activities sounds good to me.

> Jail for executives who approve or have knowledge of illegal activities sounds good to me.

Life hack: make your activities so complex and distributed that it's impossible to tell who, exactly, is responsible for what. And then also just delete communications when you can.

Re: Texas sues GM for unlawfully collecting and selling drivers' private data [pdf]

#279

Post by ensignavenger » Thu, Aug 15, 2024, 1:51 PM UTC

kaibee wrote: post #130

brendoelfrendo wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And ECUs make it so easy to manage all of these things! I love 80s/90s Japanese sports cars, but I don't think we need to go back to the era of using a gazillion vacuum lines to control all kinds of esoteric valves and sensors. But I agree with everything else; I don't want my car to connect to the internet, I don't want my car to track my travel and driving habits, and I definitely don't want that data sent to the m…

> It really just smacks of greed and nothing else... selling cars has a long history of being a profitable business on its own. You don't need to steal your customers' data to turn it into another revenue stream, but it sure looks good on a financial report. Its not only greed, its also a race to the bottom. If you're GM, you might prefer not doing that, but if your competition starts doing that, then you're at a com…

Or GM could not do it, and loudly advertise the fact that their cars are more private than their competitors, who snitch on you to insurance companies. The marketing alone would be worth far more than they gain from selling the data.

Re: Texas sues GM for unlawfully collecting and selling drivers' private data [pdf]

#280

Post by consteval » Thu, Aug 15, 2024, 1:57 PM UTC

akira2501 wrote: post #153

digging wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paxton is a crook though, abuses the power of his office, and generally would prefer to act in ways that hurt his political opponents rather than ways that server the public. He works against the public interest and should be called out for it. So, it's genuinely shocking for the TAG under his direction to be protecting consumers from these kinds of abuses.

> He works against the public interest and should be called out for it It's an elected position in Texas. I understand that most of the people who frequent Hacker News wouldn't share his politics, but it's pretty undemocratic to "call him out" incessantly, even when it adds nothing to the situation being discussed, and in particular when he's been elected by a vote. It's mindless preaching to the choir to show that,…

> it's pretty undemocratic to "call him out" incessantly

I don't understand this sentiment. Using your freedom of speech to criticize a politician doesn't feel undemocratic to me. If anything, the implication that critic should be reserved feels undemocratic. You can vote and speak, and without critic we don't have a true democracy because voters aren't educated. Democracy requires not just voting, but informed voting.