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

61–70 of 333 posts

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

#61

Post by smallmancontrov »

max_ wrote: post #11

The 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…

> 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 just means corporations are willing to misbehave as long as they can play the legal gymnastics and pay rudimentary fines.

So you try nothing and are out of ideas. Amazing.

> homomorphic encryption

Let me get this straight, you think regulation is too hard because corporations don't want it, but you don't see any problem with homomorphic encryption, which is difficult to implement, poorly understood by consumers, AND provides privacy guarantees that corporations don't want?

Really?

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

#62

Post by Phemist »

max_ wrote: post #20
Eisenstein wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do companies ignore regulations? Sure, some do. But saying 'they will just pay the fines' ignores the fact that we could make the fines existential, or punish board members by kicking them out of the industry. The answer to 'the regulation we haven't even tried won't work if we do it improperly' is 'let's do it, and do it properly'. I have no idea what homomorphic encryption is, but rarely do 'let's add more tech to…

Homomophic encryption simply means that the data is encrypted in a way that the person working with it cannot use it arbitrarily. Here is an example, I would for instance use Google Maps for Navigation but Google or any other third party would have no idea where I am going. I used it in the first company I worked for and it works beautifully. A) and B) work but they are not as effective as homomophic encryption.

The keyword here is "use".

Homomorphic Encryption reduces the breadth of computations that can be ran on the gathered data, by making it inaccessible outside of the specific homomorphic scheme that was chosen. So yes, in that sense it cannot be used arbitrarily.

However, the results, i.e. knowledge derived, from the chosen computations can still be shared arbitrarily, which IMO is a much greater issue, as the need of the result sharing will inform the computations that can be done within the scheme.

Who defines the computations? Surely not the users, and lacking regulations, also surely not regulatory bodies.

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

#63

Post by bluejekyll »

xnx wrote: post #15

As a safe driver, I like the idea of dangerous drivers paying more. There's no good reason the participants should not be aware they are under surveillance though. Sidenote: I wonder if they've considered close follow distance or frequent lane changes as a risk factor.

The thing that’s somewhat ironic here is that the car companies could make cars safe by default. For example, they could make it not possible to accelerate faster than one needs to. They could put in speed limiters that are triggered by the speed limit on the road. They could stop marketing and selling over powered cars.

Instead they market cars as exciting race track like vehicles, things that let you do what you want, when you want. And now they will collect data on the people who actually do that.

Personally I would prefer a car that helps me be a safer driver by following the law. Ensuring there are no pedestrians or cyclists in front of me, etc. But at the end of the day, automated enforcement is a good thing, so maybe this will help some people become safer drivers, though the reality that’s probably more likely is that fewer and fewer people will be able to afford/get insurance, and because our country is so car dependent, they will just drive without.

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

#64

Post by astura »

barrkel wrote: post #9

> 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.

What sort of "reputational risk" do you think they are taking on?

Data sharing with third parties is ubiquitous in almost all industries. Every single company that deals with financial products reports account information to third parties (Experian, Equifax, TransUnion, Early Warning Services, ChexSystems). If you return an item at a retail store it gets reported to fraud alert databases. Most medium to large employers report the contents of the paychecks of their employees to The Work Number. Insurance claims are reported to LexisNexis. Oil change companies report milage to CarFax, which insurance companies use to look up if you're reporting accurate mileage.

Data reporting and sharing is ubiquitous; it's standard operating procedure. Having a few "privacy nerds" complain about it on the Internet is not risking their reputation.

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

#65

Post by mc32 »

Eisenstein wrote: post #57
mc32 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a problem in this area is that if one avenue of data collection is denied, another one will be implemented and it becomes a game of whack-a-mole. For example the USG is forbidden from collecting communications from US citizens, but that does not keep it from buying this information from private domestic sources or from other governments.

We did not freeze the ability to pass legislation or have courts decide on the constitutionality of governmental processes. Have you given up on democracy? Why is everyone so quick to say 'well, they are getting away with it, might as well let them' instead of trying to use our processes for the purposes which they were designed?

Because they tend to build-in exceptions and only the likes of R Paul and 1990s Sanders would object. At the state level you saw Newsom and co. argue for increased minimum wage --except for restaurants serving bread -ala Panera. They are not, by and large, honest.

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

#66

Post by moooo99 »

I‘m a huge fan of s telemetry insurance. I have I personally and it saves me around 300€/year on my cars insurance because I am a very defensive driver.

However, this being integrated into the vehicle in an absolutely intransparent way is a huge step up and a really unsettling privacy violation.

For this to be ethically viable imho, there need to be a few prerequisites

- it’s transparent what has been transmitted

- you can always easily opt out, but you may loose the discount you earned

- your driving can’t make your premium go up beyond the base premium without the discount (sensors will never paint an entirely accurate picture)

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

#67

Post by JumpCrisscross »

pierat wrote: post #44
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #29

Earlier 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?

> 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/co…

Side note: CATO isn’t a particularly credible source. (Like Greenpeace.)

That said, even though I agree with them in this case, that bolsters the case for regulation being effective. If the FDA were ineffective, pharmaceuticals could “play…legal gymnastics and pay rudimentary fines” to get around their power. In other words, the magnitude is undisputed; we’re debating the sign.

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

#68

Post by moooo99 »

Sayrus wrote: post #25
max_ wrote: post #11

The 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…

If I am a corporation and I am willing to break regulations, how will you force me to use homomorphic encryption? Why should I pass on gathering data that I can resell? The average buyer won't understand or care about it so there is no direct pressure from consumers. I think regulations is not optional (and homomorphic encryption may be mandated if viable?). Breaching regulations is often a "cost of doing business",…

> Breaching regulations is often a "cost of doing business", but some recent regulations (such as GDPR) can actually create very large fines in many countries.

This is the issue with so many laws. Stricter fines basically never deter would be offenders from committing the crime. What deters people is a high chance of getting caught.

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

#69

Post by FirmwareBurner »

moooo99 wrote: post #66

I‘m a huge fan of s telemetry insurance. I have I personally and it saves me around 300€/year on my cars insurance because I am a very defensive driver. However, this being integrated into the vehicle in an absolutely intransparent way is a huge step up and a really unsettling privacy violation. For this to be ethically viable imho, there need to be a few prerequisites - it’s transparent what has been transmitted - y…

In which country is that?

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

#70

Post by cg505 »

fn-mote wrote: post #2

> In recent years, automakers [...] have started offering optional features in their connected-car apps that rate people’s driving. At least the programs are (currently) opt-in. This amusing anecdote is buried: > One driver lamented having data collected during a “track day,” while testing out the Corvette’s limits on a professional racetrack. > [...] he was denied auto insurance by seven companies [...]

Your quote is misleading. The "he" is in the next paragraph and refers to someone else who owns a Cadillac, not a Corvette.

The track day thing probably was the funniest thing in the article, though.

Post reply on HN