To save money on insurance, drivers agree to intrusive monitoring technology
1–10 of 414 posts
Re: To save money on insurance, drivers agree to intrusive monitoring technology
#2It feels to me more and more like you need to be rich to afford living without bartering away your personal information.
I'm getting to be middle aged now, and have noticed a fatalistic attitude towards this by gen Z; kind of "it's impossible to maintain privacy, so I might as well milk my loss of privacy for all it's worth."
And I'm wondering now if that's not completely correct.
Re: To save money on insurance, drivers agree to intrusive monitoring technology
#3"Among other things..." Like speeding? Like traffic-light cameras, this will result in unintended consequences at scale. But hey, more data!
Re: To save money on insurance, drivers agree to intrusive monitoring technology
#4To make money, people agree to sit at a desk nine hours a day.
Water wet.
Re: To save money on insurance, drivers agree to intrusive monitoring technology
#5Recently were shopping insurance providers for our brick and mortar business that has a few delivery vehicles, and MANY of the commercial insurers are requiring that their apps be used to monitor employee driving behavior. I hadn't shopped for insurance in quite awhile and was shocked at how prevalent this requirement seemed to be.
Re: To save money on insurance, drivers agree to intrusive monitoring technology
#6Utah views EV drivers as tax evaders because they don't buy gas. So they have a "deal" for EV drivers: pay an exorbitant registration fee (hundreds more than other vehicles) or install an OBD device in your car and carry a surveillance app to be charged for how much your vehicle is driven [0]. The measurement route requires 2 separate accounts with 3rd parties, one of which has your payment information on file.
Given that states can't even get voting right [1], this is not the future I wanted. (Plus, we should be incentivizing EV purchases at this stage, not punishing them.)
(Heck, they put my marriage license on a blockchain for some dumb reason. I didn't even want it on a blockchain!)
[0]: https://roadusagecharge.utah.gov/
[1]: Basically anything by https://twitter.com/jhalderm
Re: To save money on insurance, drivers agree to intrusive monitoring technology
#7Old news tbh
Re: To save money on insurance, drivers agree to intrusive monitoring technology
#8It feels to me more and more like you need to be rich to afford living without bartering away your personal information. I'm getting to be middle aged now, and have noticed a fatalistic attitude towards this by gen Z; kind of "it's impossible to maintain privacy, so I might as well milk my loss of privacy for all it's worth." And I'm wondering now if that's not completely correct.
Frankly, it's exhausting to try keep your life private. The sheer number of different ways your privacy can be violated via modern cars, phones, computers, social media, surveillance/facial recognition, IoT devices (including 'smart' TVs), etc. is quite staggering.
Definitely seems like a losing battle. My retirement plan is a remote cabin in the woods.
Re: To save money on insurance, drivers agree to intrusive monitoring technology
#9Utah views EV drivers as tax evaders because they don't buy gas. So they have a "deal" for EV drivers: pay an exorbitant registration fee (hundreds more than other vehicles) or install an OBD device in your car and carry a surveillance app to be charged for how much your vehicle is driven [0]. The measurement route requires 2 separate accounts with 3rd parties, one of which has your payment information on file. Given…
That actually kinda makes sense. EVs should pay their share to use the roads too.
Re: To save money on insurance, drivers agree to intrusive monitoring technology
#10It feels to me more and more like you need to be rich to afford living without bartering away your personal information. I'm getting to be middle aged now, and have noticed a fatalistic attitude towards this by gen Z; kind of "it's impossible to maintain privacy, so I might as well milk my loss of privacy for all it's worth." And I'm wondering now if that's not completely correct.
[deleted]