Automakers are sharing consumers' driving behavior with insurance companies
41–50 of 333 posts
Re: Automakers are sharing consumers' driving behavior with insurance companies
#42The problem with such issues of data misuse is that people only provide 2 solutions. a) Go off grid. Don't use The tech that these cars make. The problem with this is that it is impractical for people that use see alot of value in using this tech. b) Pass more regulation. I am a Hayekian and I believe that regulation will not help with people that know the ins & outs of the regulation, also it's doesn't stop them. It…
> isn't talked much about is the promotion, and installation of homomorphic computing or homomorphic encryption Sure, the car company will homomorphically encrypt your driving data when it sends it to its own servers. You’re trying to solve a social problem with technology. That doesn’t work.
>Sure, the car company will homomorphically encrypt your driving data when it sends it to its own servers.
You can encrypt the data such that the insurance companies cannot target any particular individual (which is my problem her) but they can use the data to improve their insurance pricing models.
I have no problem with a health insurance company using population data to find out how many are susceptible to say cancer.
But I have a problem when they use this data to over price a particular individuals insurance because their gene say that they are susceptible to cancer.
Re: Automakers are sharing consumers' driving behavior with insurance companies
#43The problem with such issues of data misuse is that people only provide 2 solutions. a) Go off grid. Don't use The tech that these cars make. The problem with this is that it is impractical for people that use see alot of value in using this tech. b) Pass more regulation. I am a Hayekian and I believe that regulation will not help with people that know the ins & outs of the regulation, also it's doesn't stop them. It…
Of the solutions:
a) Impractical because cars are needed for daily life and there’s no incentive for automakers to not sell your data.. so all cars will unless this becomes a compelling enough product difference to move the needle on profits,
b) Legislation/regulation that creates the right incentives isn’t easy, but certainly doable.
c) Impractical because homomorphic encryption is absurdly computationally expensive, is still not a fully unsolved problem, and.. in what universe do automotive companies implement this far fetched and expensive means of privacy without sone.. err.. regulation?
It doesn’t seem to be superior to option b)
Re: Automakers are sharing consumers' driving behavior with insurance companies
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
GDPR for example has done nothing to protect people from this particular case of data misuse. The problem with English law, is that you have to explicitly declare what is wrong a head of time. So we just end up with endless needs for regulation ls. If we had legal systems like Hammurabi Codes, they work work way better.
> GDPR for example has done nothing to protect people from this particular case of data misuse You’re using one badly-written law to discard a category. Why not look at the FDA? When was the last time you were poisoned?
> Why not look at the FDA? When was the last time you were poisoned?
How many deaths happened because of excessive regulation, extreme delays, and overall refusal to acknowledge other medical bodies' acceptance of treatment?
The CATO institute, a Republican think-tank, put a number on FDA drug law alone from 20000-120000 deaths per decade. (I was aiming at another more impartial org, but sigh)
https://www.cato.org/commentary/end-fda-drug-monopoly-let-pa...
Re: Automakers are sharing consumers' driving behavior with insurance companies
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
> GDPR for example has done nothing to protect people from this particular case of data misuse You’re using one badly-written law to discard a category. Why not look at the FDA? When was the last time you were poisoned?
How is GDPR badly written?
> How is GDPR badly written?
Enforcement is fractured. It’s a mandatory-complaint driven model, which is both intensive (every complaint demands manpower on both the regulator and regulated’s sides) and prone to abuse (known tactic for quashing European competition: herding complaints). All that means it’s ambiguously burdensome, which means there is a fixed cost to compliance even if you aren’t doing anything wrong.
Re: Automakers are sharing consumers' driving behavior with insurance companies
#46The US doesn't just need laws about disclosure of these practices. It needs to mandate that this kind of corporate surveillance must be a clearly labeled opt-in and cannot be mandated by any contract.
Yes, but to me there's another important issue, with all the tracking tech in our vehicles, who actually owns them? We need to treat this similar to the "right to repair" issue! I paid my money, so I own the product. [IF] I own the vehicle it should be my right to say what software runs in the background. Of course the company can say, "If you don't like our product, don't buy it." If I want to keep up with the lates…
> Yes, but to me there's another important issue, with all the tracking tech in our vehicles, who actually owns them?
It's even worse. Your car acts as a blackbox against you. A 1990's car? I can do whatever the fuck I want to, I can drive it offroad, I can speed, I can even be near a bank robbery or whatever.
A modern car? Someone robs a bank a few hundred meters from where I am, and now the police will come knock on my door because the IMEI of my car was near the bank when the robbery happened. I speed a little bit to overtake some dumbass driving 20 km/h below the limit, the police makes a dragnet subpoena against my insurance / the data processor from the manufacturer, and issues me a ticket.
Re: Automakers are sharing consumers' driving behavior with insurance companies
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
GDPR for example has done nothing to protect people from this particular case of data misuse. The problem with English law, is that you have to explicitly declare what is wrong a head of time. So we just end up with endless needs for regulation ls. If we had legal systems like Hammurabi Codes, they work work way better.
You'd be surprised what French data authority (CNIL) has to say about this[1]: > Any use of personal data for an objective that is incompatible with the primary purpose of proces- sing is a misuse that is subject to administrative or criminal sanctions. > For example, a mechanic cannot sell the vehicle’s technical data to insurers to enable them to infer the driving profiles of their policyholders. There may be a lac…
With good encryption we wouldn't need to spend alot of time trying to enforce these laws
Re: Automakers are sharing consumers' driving behavior with insurance companies
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
> GDPR for example has done nothing to protect people from this particular case of data misuse You’re using one badly-written law to discard a category. Why not look at the FDA? When was the last time you were poisoned?
Poisoning people is accepted as wrong by most people. Monitoring devices so that you can "make them safer" or "save the children" or whichever other BS reason they give is easy to give them a pass on.
> Poisoning people is accepted as wrong by most people
Sure. It was still prevalent prior to the F&DA of 1906.
Re: Automakers are sharing consumers' driving behavior with insurance companies
#49[deleted]
Re: Automakers are sharing consumers' driving behavior with insurance companies
#50> An employee familiar with G.M.’s Smart Driver said the company’s annual revenue from the program is in the low millions of dollars. It doesn't seem in the car company's interests to take on the reputational risk for this kind of financial reward.
> It doesn't seem in the car company's interests to take on the reputational risk for this kind of financial reward.
Tell that to Boeing, they're on course to tank the entire company out of the financial shenanigans they pulled after 1997.
As soon as a company goes publicly traded, the incentives change - there is no more priority on long term, the only thing that matters is INVESTORS INVESTORS INVESTORS (read that one in your finest Steve Ballmer voice).