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

Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 712 posts

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#311

Post by medion »

killingtime74 wrote: post #304
medion wrote: post #289

This aerial stuff now enhanced by AI is a privacy rights nightmare - in Australia, local councils are utilizing high res images shot by plane, which are AI analysed for infractions - ie. Illegal outbuildings, cut trees, earth works greater than a metre in depth, solar panels placed without auth etc. This kind of tech is going to be abused by both the private and public sector to no end. The images have a resolution t…

(Am Australian lawyer) there's no privacy recognised in any of those things you're talking about. Simple solution is don't lie to insurers or the government. Of course we can elect politicians that change the law. Might be a hard sell if the motivation is to stop detection of illegal things. Sources: (no general right to privacy) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Park_Racing_%26_Rec... The Privacy Act ( https:…

Haha, by your reckoning why not monitor all comms for any lies? This is why we can’t have nice things. We are walking into a new Robodebt scenario run by AI - it’s all too much living in a constant state of surveillance and it’s not a world I want to live in.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#312

Post by zdragnar »

Terr_ wrote: post #275
kristjansson wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Real question: is something like aerial photography of your roof really subject to privacy laws?

IANAL, but in the US, it depends on whether could have reasonably expected that their stuff was hidden. If your roof is sloped so that a person on the street could get the same information by walking around the block, then aerial surveillance is just a faster way to get that public observation. In contrast, if you set up a high fence around your pool in order to sunbathe naked, aerial photography would probably be an…

Privacy in the US is defined as property rights, and your private property does not extend infinitely upwards into space. Anything over a certain high is public and regulated, and so if it is visible from above, it is not protected.

Otherwise, it would be illegal to fly a plane or even a hot air balloon pretty much anywhere, and even things like google maps satellite view couldn't exist.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#313

Post by medion »

Nifty3929 wrote: post #306
medion wrote: post #289

This aerial stuff now enhanced by AI is a privacy rights nightmare - in Australia, local councils are utilizing high res images shot by plane, which are AI analysed for infractions - ie. Illegal outbuildings, cut trees, earth works greater than a metre in depth, solar panels placed without auth etc. This kind of tech is going to be abused by both the private and public sector to no end. The images have a resolution t…

This is not a technology or privacy problem - it's a legislative one. If it's illegal to do X, then it seems reasonable for the gov't to enforce that - the more efficiently the better. And if enforcing it seems wrong, then maybe it shouldn't be a law. For another toy example, what if speed laws in the US were fully enforced 100% of the time - they would be yanked immediately, because they are dumb and mostly just use…

The technology is an enabler and it creeps into everything and before you know it we are where we are today.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#314

Post by cldellow »

toast0 wrote: post #219
j45 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair, but there are lots of places, like Canada which require some types of insurance by law.

I'm unfamiliar with Canadian law, can you provide an example jurisdiction and required coverage?

In Ontario, the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act [1] requires that all owners/lessees of vehicles take out insurance policies. The Insurance Act [2] sets out that the minimum amount should be $200,000.

$200,000 is a much better floor than, for example, Ohio's $25,000. An Ohioan friend was injured by a motorist who had the minimum coverage. Her care cost more than that. The motorist who caused the injuries didn't have a lot of assets and she was unable to recover the excess from the motorist.

Still, there are some perhaps unintended downsides. Canadian rental car companies, as the owners of the vehicles, are obliged to provide $200,000 insurance as part of every contract. As a result, it seems there's not much market for them to sell excess liability insurance, and none do that I'm aware of. I, as someone who has plenty of assets to lose if I injured someone, would happily buy a higher liability insurance. Doubly so when I rent a car to travel to the US, since the terms of the contract are often "the rental car company will provide the minimum insurance required in the jurisdiction where the claim is incurred".

[1]: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c25 [2]: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90i08

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#315

Post by RomanAlexander »

tptacek wrote: post #310
worik wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is the culling Insurance companies are very keen to get as much risk as possible off their books before the climate gets even more extreme in its volatility Good goes with bad, so long as the bad goes, some good going too is undesirable but OK because they are aware if the catastrophic climate events looming The insurance companies are behaving logically, probably legally IANAL, but for people who are sim…

You (say) have a trampoline. I do not. We share an insurer. Our insurer asked, when you applied, if you had a trampoline. Your trampoline materially increases the risk that insurance is going to have to pay to cover a lawsuit on your property. You lied, and said you didn't. I am now paying to subsidize your trampoline. Why shouldn't I want them to be running drones over our houses? Worrying times... for pirate trampo…

Wouldn't said trampoline simply not be covered by the policy since you lied about it? The agents are checking a box and the underwriter is sticking in a boilerplate "Customer said no trampoline therefore trampolines are excluded from this policy" text

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#316

Post by killingtime74 »

medion wrote: post #311
killingtime74 wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Am Australian lawyer) there's no privacy recognised in any of those things you're talking about. Simple solution is don't lie to insurers or the government. Of course we can elect politicians that change the law. Might be a hard sell if the motivation is to stop detection of illegal things. Sources: (no general right to privacy) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Park_Racing_%26_Rec... The Privacy Act ( https:…

Haha, by your reckoning why not monitor all comms for any lies? This is why we can’t have nice things. We are walking into a new Robodebt scenario run by AI - it’s all too much living in a constant state of surveillance and it’s not a world I want to live in.

I don't represent any view point on the law just telling you how it is. There's always multiple competing priorities. Ultimately not a politician so it doesn't really matter what I think.

If we're talking morality I don't see how it's moral to ask the law to protect you from being found out doing the wrong thing. If these people don't pay their fair share the rest of us have to pay more.

What if a law change prevents the government from enforcing environmental legislation from illegal land clearing or dumping? What if a farmer illegally diverts more water than they are allowed to from a river or with a well? It's not just about you and me but the whole country.

On robodebt: that has nothing to do with privacy, tax records aren't private from the government? That's just bad tax enforcement.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#317

Post by tptacek »

RomanAlexander wrote: post #315
tptacek wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You (say) have a trampoline. I do not. We share an insurer. Our insurer asked, when you applied, if you had a trampoline. Your trampoline materially increases the risk that insurance is going to have to pay to cover a lawsuit on your property. You lied, and said you didn't. I am now paying to subsidize your trampoline. Why shouldn't I want them to be running drones over our houses? Worrying times... for pirate trampo…

Wouldn't said trampoline simply not be covered by the policy since you lied about it? The agents are checking a box and the underwriter is sticking in a boilerplate "Customer said no trampoline therefore trampolines are excluded from this policy" text

It depends on the policy, but either way, this is the kind of risk we're talking about managing with culls: trampolines, and bad roofs. I pay to keep my house up. You (say) don't. Why should I be OK with subsidizing your resulting claims with higher rates?

I think there's a sort of weird subtext in the "risk pooling" discussions on this thread that "risk pooling" is a way for people who don't replace their old roofs to get protection from the people who do. But that's not at all the concept! You refusing you repair your roof isn't an act of god; it's just recklessness.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#318

Post by sarchertech »

tptacek wrote: post #294

I don't really understand the privacy concern here. To wit: insurers can demand actual inspection of your home when making underwriting decisions. The condition of your house is very much their business. Why is an aerial photograph of your roof, which everybody in the world already has on Google Maps, such a big deal?

It’s an issue of scale. Similar to police tracking phones. Police have always been able to assign an officer to follow a suspect, but it’s expensive and therefore rarely done.

If insurance companies can cheaply inspect everyone’s house from space, the end result will be to lower prices for people with homes in perfect condition and raise them for everyone else.

This is potentially problematic because the people with houses in poor condition are the least able to afford added costs in general.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#319

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

overstay8930 wrote: post #299
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But independent inspectors usually generate a report that explains at least some of their rationale. Even if it is biased, it can at least be scrutinized. That is in sharp contrast to the insurance company that is supposedly making their determination based on drone photos that they won't even let their clients see .

If multiple insurance companies say you need a new roof, you need a new roof. Full stop. There’s no justification necessary.

Quite literally, what are you talking about? There were no "multiple insurance companies", there was a single insurance company that dropped the policy holder quoted in the article.

Besides, the article quotes from insurance company agents that directly refutes what you are saying: "Brink, who worked for Farmers in Michigan, said some customers were dropped based on aerial images that were two or three years old. One person wasn’t renewed because of a roof, despite its being brand new."

Full stop. (I just like how people think that adding "full stop" to their comments somehow makes their position unassailable or something...)

Post reply on HN