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]

#301

Post by troyvit » Thu, Aug 15, 2024, 3:47 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.

> Hurting those owners, who didn't have any say in the bad decisions, is probably not what we want.

It's definitely not what we want in the short term, but thinking longer term, it's index funds and such that need to remove these actors from their portfolios if we really want to start reshaping the economy.

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

#302

Post by jonpurdy » Thu, Aug 15, 2024, 4:04 PM UTC

bluesquared wrote: post #290

client4 wrote: post #16

I've been frustrated by the ability to easily disable vehicle cellular systems. In older vehicles you could simply unplug the right cable and have it disabled. In newer vehicles I've found the cellular system to be integrated with other components -- making it impossible to disable without also getting a permanent check engine light. Ideally I'd like some sort of CAM module that plugs in between the antenna system an…

I haven't bothered to get to it yet on my Bolt, but I've heard that pulling the fuse for this also disables the microphone for hands-free calling which is a bit more of a deal-breaker than a check engine light. Probably need to disconnect the antenna and put a dummy load on it or something. Really should get on it due to the LexisNexis shenanigans...

First thing I did when picking up my 2022 Spark was pull the fuse. Mic is disabled, but I am fine with that as I don't use make calls while driving.

If I'd not known about this data collection before I bought the car, or if there was no way to disable it, I'd be pretty annoyed.

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

#303

Post by Spivak » Thu, Aug 15, 2024, 4:15 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #253

Spivak wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then don't commit crimes? I'm usually pretty sympathetic to executives being used as sacrificial lambs by constantly being put in the position of having to bet their jobs on a coin flip they're calling in the air. But this really isn't defensible. Jailing people with only knowledge isn't the right move compared to having a fully anonymous whistleblower program, with fine sharing. It sucks that there has to be zero tr…

> Then don't commit crimes? But that's the problem. Crimes are profitable. Suppose there are two insurance companies. One is following the law, the other one is bribing a mid-level employee of a car company to give them driver info and then using it to set rates and solicit policies. The CEO of the car company doesn't even know it's happening and the CEO of the insurance company does, but isn't telling anyone about i…

I think this line of argumentation follows and is logically consistent but if this is really how it worked then you're saying in the long run with probability 1 every executive will be a criminal. Nothing about what you're saying about the incentives is unique to white-collar financial crimes. For crimes that have a low chance of being caught the SOP is make the punishment disproportionately severe and weaponize the people likely to observe or carry out the crime. If all goes well you can't cycle through executives because none of them are willing to risk years of prison, fines, and being barred from leadership roles for life.

I don't see how your example resolves as anything other than the mid-level employee is guilty of bribery, and CEO of the insurance company is guilty of 2nd degree $yet-to-be-derermined-crime-name. I don't expect a CEO to somehow know of literally any crime that occurs by any of their employees, just crime by policy.

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

#304

Post by JadeNB » Thu, Aug 15, 2024, 4:18 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #253

Spivak wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then don't commit crimes? I'm usually pretty sympathetic to executives being used as sacrificial lambs by constantly being put in the position of having to bet their jobs on a coin flip they're calling in the air. But this really isn't defensible. Jailing people with only knowledge isn't the right move compared to having a fully anonymous whistleblower program, with fine sharing. It sucks that there has to be zero tr…

> Then don't commit crimes? But that's the problem. Crimes are profitable. Suppose there are two insurance companies. One is following the law, the other one is bribing a mid-level employee of a car company to give them driver info and then using it to set rates and solicit policies. The CEO of the car company doesn't even know it's happening and the CEO of the insurance company does, but isn't telling anyone about i…

> But that's the problem. Crimes are profitable.

Which is why we need the law to make crimes not profitable, or at least to attach enough personal risk to dissuade decision makers. It's how we got US corporations to stop dispensing bribes in foreign countries, to which exactly the same logic applies.

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

#305

Post by oremolten » Thu, Aug 15, 2024, 4:30 PM UTC

This reminds me of the scene from Mr.Robot.

GM / onstar likely set aside a few million in a "Rainyday" fund from the additional profit they made from this and that money sat in the market/bonds and they probably made 100x off that money what they will be fined/judgment-ed.

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

#306

Post by oremolten » Thu, Aug 15, 2024, 4:41 PM UTC

vel0city wrote: post #206

bobthepanda wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you basically just have a roving class of jobless people stuck at home. We’re not talking about the currently uninsured. We’re talking about a “hot-take” proposal to significantly increase the amount of uninsured people today, people who today can get insurance.

Or we get a stronger political will to no longer force car dependency on everyone when people actually start to understand the real costs of car-centric design. When the stores and restaurants where rich people shop can't get anyone to work there anymore without paying people the full costs of actually driving far away maybe there will be a will to change things. Lots of people around the world can go to work without…

How do we un-car centric design the ~60million people who live in rural USA? Should we move everyone to urban environments for public transit?

How do you figure someone like me traverse the 40 miles from my 800 population rural town to my work place?

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

#307

Post by throwaway48476 » Thu, Aug 15, 2024, 4:52 PM UTC

pests wrote: post #186

throwaway48476 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies need to have to name someone who is criminally responsible for the companies actions.

How much would you need to be paid to assume this role for Google or other big tech companies?

If you're being payed enough that you know you'll be imprisoned isn't that quite the indictment of their business.

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

#308

Post by cooper_ganglia » Thu, Aug 15, 2024, 5:04 PM UTC

AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #80

kstrauser wrote: post #11

I say this rarely, but way to go, Texas! Every state should be pursuing this against every manufacturer who does this.

As they say, even a stopped clock is still right twice a day.

Texas has had win after win, I've not seen too much policy out of there that I haven't liked recently.

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

#309

Post by 0xbadcafebee » Thu, Aug 15, 2024, 5:34 PM UTC

ReK_ wrote: post #220

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #213

Ford tracks me and I'm happy about it. I even got a developer API key so I can write scripts that remotely lock and unlock my car doors, download my vehicle telemetry, etc. The "find-my-car" feature alone is worth it. As long as they don't sell my data (they don't) I'm all about it.

You sure about that? > They also say they can share your personal information with dealers (there are lots of those around for sure), social media platforms, advertising companies, joint marketing partners, SIRIUS XM radio service, law enforcement, regulatory agencies, and other government agencies. https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/privacynotincluded/ford/

Hmm.... so, I dug into the Ford privacy notices, and they do have a very thorough explanation of everything they collect and what it's used for. It does look like the Connected Vehicle information is sold to advertisers by default, but there is an opt-out. Disappointing :/

The YOUR STATE-SPECIFIC PRIVACY RIGHTS part of the Policy links to a form to exercise Consumer Rights, but of all the form options available, Opt Out isn't on the form :( I'm calling Ford now to try to open a ticket with their marketing/data privacy department to fix that.

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

#310

Post by vel0city » Thu, Aug 15, 2024, 6:06 PM UTC

oremolten wrote: post #306

vel0city wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or we get a stronger political will to no longer force car dependency on everyone when people actually start to understand the real costs of car-centric design. When the stores and restaurants where rich people shop can't get anyone to work there anymore without paying people the full costs of actually driving far away maybe there will be a will to change things. Lots of people around the world can go to work without…

How do we un-car centric design the ~60million people who live in rural USA? Should we move everyone to urban environments for public transit? How do you figure someone like me traverse the 40 miles from my 800 population rural town to my work place?

Being frank, you shouldn't be making the 40+mile commute in a car if you can't afford all the ramifications of it. It's a failure of societal design to force people to drive 40 miles on a vehicle they can't responsibly afford to operate just to survive.

In the end, they shouldn't live 40mi from where they work. It's not a good thing to force such a lifestyle.

Honestly it's depressing you're suggesting we should continue to force people to spend so much of their productive lives commuting to dead-end jobs that will never lift them out of the poverty of their situation. It's sad you're continuing to argue people should live an hour+ away from where they work, and that should just be the norm and the basis for our designs.

If you want to live 40+mi from your work and can afford all that involves and are willing to live with the tradeoffs, sure go ahead. Pay the tolls for the highways. Pay the congestion fees. Choose to spend more time with the insides of your car than you do spending time with your family on an average weekday. Pay the higher insurance compared to those who live close or take the train. Just quit asking for handouts and subsidies to pave over other people's homes, force bullshit parking minimums which lead to seas of empty pavement, demand other people pay for the roads you drive, etc.