Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Transportation Businesses Privacy

Allstate Patents Physiological Data Collection 142

TigerPlish writes: Allstate has been granted patent no. US 20140080100 A1 for a "driving-behavior database that it said might be useful for health insurers, lenders, credit-rating agencies, marketers and potential employers." The program is just in the patent stage for now, but the company says: "the invention has the potential to evaluate drivers' physiological data, including heart rate, blood pressure and electrocardiogram signals, which could be recorded from steering wheel sensors." Imagine a world where you are denied employment or credit based on the information obtained from your car and sold by your insurer. What could possibly go wrong?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Allstate Patents Physiological Data Collection

Comments Filter:
  • by turkeydance ( 1266624 ) on Monday June 22, 2015 @02:17PM (#49964247)
    what could go wronger?
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Continuing with the slashdot redesign. Seriously, reading the articles is now an annoying chore. My eyes have to dart left-right to look at the comment count. The original design worked great. Change for the sake of change is bad, and undoubtedly will cost Slashdot in pageviews. The search for alternatives to slashdot is now commencing for me.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Bring Back Beta!

      • "The original design worked great. Change for the sake of change is bad, and undoubtedly will cost Slashdot in pageviews. The search for alternatives to slashdot is now commencing for me."

        Hear! hear! Another turn-off is the full-page-width for comment lines. There's a good reason for paper publications using colums.

      • I agree! I like to increase the text size so my elderly eyes can actually read the print....and as a result the last word or two of each of the headlines is now obstructed by the comments and (what is it?...the share button?)....Whoever is in charge of the UI could you please put things back to the way they were?!

        Thank you from a long time member of the Slashdot community.

    • I don't see anything wrong. It's already illegal to discriminate based on this, so I can't see why an employer would dare touch that information to begin with.

      It would be a time saver for me, because I have to manually take my own blood pressure and journal it twice a day.

      Besides, I openly told my employer that I need a kidney transplant and they still hired me anyways.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by MrKrillls ( 3858631 )
        You are a sample of just one. Employers are not always trustworthy or law abiding. Sometimes simply do not know the law. Lots of employers skirt laws with behaviour just barely inside the line, and in essense, discriminate all the time, etc.
      • we're all happy for you that your employer took you on. this time.

        oh wait, that one data point is - what - ONE DATA POINT.

        idiot.

        yeah, this is all going to work out just fine. no one gets sick and all employers are eager to hire those who might miss a day of work here and there. and of course, they'll tell you why they are not letting you continue on that project. perhaps you'll eventually get the 'not a cultural fit anymore' once they realize you costed them money and they could get a young 'healthy' gu

    • by zlives ( 2009072 )

      autonomous cars?

    • they're all snakes.

  • first??? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Cutting_Crew ( 708624 ) on Monday June 22, 2015 @02:18PM (#49964251)
    and who in the right mind would buy a car with wheel sensors?
    and would privacy advocates prevail to keep this from ever entering the market?
    what would keep someone from just putting gloves on so it cant read the pulse on your hand?
    • Re:first??? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bondsbw ( 888959 ) on Monday June 22, 2015 @02:26PM (#49964341)

      who in the right mind would buy a car with wheel sensors?

      Someone who could save a few bucks by joining the "Safe Habits Driving Bonus" program.

      • by Falos ( 2905315 )
        > who could counter the price jack
      • The same people who willingly install devices into their OBDII port that lets insurance companies monitor their driving habits.
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • by kmoser ( 1469707 )

          "I'm sorry James, but your dynamic insurance rate went up 20% last month from aggressive driving. Here are some friendly tips on how to reduce that bill next month..."

          You assume they would even give you the option to reduce your bill.

    • by Falos ( 2905315 )
      I was thinking I'd ask Johnny McHealthy to drive me around for a bit, "The [eye?] doctor says I shouldn't drive today, mind helping me out? I'll buy ya lunch!"

      Proles aren't quite cattle, if only because we're slightly more clever about resisting.
    • What will you do when all cars come with wheel sensors?
      What will you do when privacy advocates can't do a thing to prevent such a thing from happening?
      What will you do when laws are passed so that cars won't work if the sensors can't read your hands?
      Etc.

      Maybe we'll get mandatory self-driving cars before that other thing happens.

      • Re:first??? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by TWX ( 665546 ) on Monday June 22, 2015 @02:38PM (#49964441)
        I will continue to drive older, low-mileage cars. Right now my two vehicles are both of the 1995 model year and neither is OBD-II.
        • And how much longer before the EPA rules that cars without OBD-II are illegal?

          All in the name of the environment, air quality etc.

          • by Anonymous Coward

            Never.
            Just like they haven't banned pre-emissions regulation vehicles.

          • I believe that would fall under the takings clause thus the government would have to provide compensation to all individuals who could no longer own their vehicles. The real bitch would be all of those old collector vehicles that instead of being worth a few thousand dollars are worth 10s or 100s of thousands of dollars. Having just been to one of the largest car shows in the US [msrabacktothe50s.com] this past weekend you would be talking a non trivial amount of money even for the US government. Granted the value of these cars v
            • by matfud ( 464184 )

              New regulations grandfather in older vehicles as there tend to be few of them. Like most machines cars do tend to get old and die. Very few are given the attention and upkeep and welding and expensive parts replacement past a certain age. (not that the parts are expensive, the replacement of them is). Cars get old and most people do not care

              • But grandfathering in old vehicles wasn't being discussed, the exact opposite was. Depending on the vehicle there are few if any regulations that are applicable to them depending on their age since they get grandfathered in. I have a vehicle where the only applicable emissions requirements deal with crank case emissions of hydrocarbons, and there are vehicles olde enough that they don't have to comply with seat belt requirements. In this case it seems it would clearly be a taking and would be an absolute m
                • by matfud ( 464184 )

                  I believe that since 1996, in the US, new cars have to have OBDII. It has not stopped people owning older cars. The government has not taken them or required upgrades (what could OBDII tell you in a car from 1910? So no problem.

                  Apart from possibly, in the future, at some time, or in my imagination, mandating privacy invading policies.

          • by mlts ( 1038732 )

            Unlikely to happen, in today's climate, though nothing is impossible.

            If this keeps up, I would not be surprised if a Cuban-like restoration industry emerges, taking junked cars, just the chassis, adding the interior and a reasonable engine, and putting cars on the road with that, sans the Big Brother features. The chassis might be an older car, but essentially the vehicle would be completely rebuilt.

          • by matfud ( 464184 )

            1996? that was when they were mandatory in the US I believe.

        • Certain models got OBD II as early as 1994, (my 1995 Corvette is one of them)

          "1994 vehicles equipped with the early OBD II systems include Buick Regal 3800 V6, Corvette, Lexus ES3000, Toyota Camry (1MZ-FE 3.0L V6) and T100 pickup (3RZ-FE 2.7L four), Ford Thunderbird & Cougar 4.6L V8, and Mustang 3.8L V6. 1995 vehicles with OBDII include Chevy/GMC S, T-Series pickups, Blazer and Jimmy 4.3L V6, Ford Contour & Mercury Mystique 2.0L four & 2.6L V6, Chrysler Neon, Cirrus and Dodge Stratus, Eagle Talo
          • by TWX ( 665546 )
            True. My '95 Impala is a bastard, it's got the GM OBD-I connector, but it doesn't work with conventional OBD-I code readers. I own an OBD-I/II reader, but it doesn't work with that either. Unfortunately I'll have to find an old Tech1 if I want to read my car's computer codes, an those are very, very pricey.
      • What will the poor old insurance company do with it's patent when it's obviated by self-driving cars?
      • What will you do when all cars come with wheel sensors?
        What will you do when privacy advocates can't do a thing to prevent such a thing from happening?
        What will you do when laws are passed so that cars won't work if the sensors can't read your hands?
        Etc.

        Maybe we'll get mandatory self-driving cars before that other thing happens.

        Gloves?

        Aftermarket steering wheels?

        Steering Wheel covers?

    • Why? nobody complains when the TSA requires you to give fingerprints that are kept with the FBI for 75 years [washingtonpost.com] just to go through lines faster. Why should this matter?

    • by SeaFox ( 739806 )

      and who in the right mind would buy a car with wheel sensors?

      Anyone who is interested in a safety feature called "traction control"?

    • who in the right mind would buy a car with wheel sensors?

      Everyone, after the government mandates it be in place in all new automobiles.

    • It will be state mandated or company mandated to obtain legal insurance.
    • by atheos ( 192468 )

      and who in the right mind would buy a car with wheel sensors?

      Any of your peers who subscribe to the "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" mantra.

  • Patent 9,053,591 (Score:5, Informative)

    by sillivalley ( 411349 ) <sillivalley@nospaM.comcast.net> on Monday June 22, 2015 @02:34PM (#49964403)
    the linked document is the publication copy, not the issued patent. the issued patent is as cited above, which issued on June 9.

    on first blush the claims seem pretty limited to speed/acceleration and location/speed.

    I'd bet there's a continuation in the works on this one, going for broader claims.
    • Out with the honor system and in with factual data. This is what has happened to our society. We are ok with this because we don't trust anybody and it will only get worst.

      I personally hate where this is all going but too many people aren't honorable anymore.

      No accountability = no honor = nobody is trust worthy. That simple!

    • The number cited in the Slashdot summary is a US Patent Application and not an issued patent.

      An issued Patent is one which would be written as the number in the Subject line of the above post.

  • Shaking my head (Score:4, Interesting)

    by DaMattster ( 977781 ) on Monday June 22, 2015 @02:38PM (#49964443)
    Insurance companies SHOULD NOT be in the business of patenting anything. All they really are is a subsidiary of the financial industry. They make and contribute nothing while taking exorbitant amounts of our money.
    • Re:Shaking my head (Score:5, Informative)

      by neilo_1701D ( 2765337 ) on Monday June 22, 2015 @03:10PM (#49964661)

      Insurance companies ... contribute nothing while taking exorbitant amounts of our money.

      Whilst I've no great love of insurance companies, I do disagree with "contribute nothing". They contribute to your life by wearing the risk that you are unable or unwilling to wear yourself.

      Example: I have a 2001 Infiniti QX4 which I paid $4500 for. At this point in my financial life, I simply cannot afford to risk the loss of that car; therefore I am paying Geico an agreed monthly sum for them to lay awake at night and worry, whereas I can get a good night's sleep. They have contributed to my life in the loss of stress.

      Another example: public liability. If you own a house, are you willing to risk some nutjob walking down your driveway, "tripping" over a crack and suing you for every cent you have or will ever have? Me, I'd prefer to hand that risk off to some insurance company; preferably one who retains a cadre of lawyers thatnreally, really don't like the concept of giving that nutjob anything (except the legal bill). How about the total loss of everything you own in a fire? Do you want to have that risk yourself, or would you prefer to pay someone else to have that risk for you?

      Yes, insurance companies can be a pain in the neck. Yes, you deal with an insurance company knowing full well you better bring your own KY. But I'd much rather deal with their crap than face financial ruin.

      • by mlts ( 1038732 )

        Insurance companies shoulder risk as well. One could be a perfect driver, but all it takes is one bad driver backing up at a light (a rear ender is 100% the person behind's fault, even if they back up in most states), and you now are responsible for their neck injuries and vehicle damage. In most cases, the aftermath means just letting the insco handle the paperwork, getting the car fixed up, and maybe sitting in a driver's ed class.

        Without insurance... it might be a financial disaster. Perhaps a bankrup

  • Imagine a world where you are denied employment or credit based on the information obtained from your car and sold by your insurer. What could possibly go wrong?

    Why? you can already be denied employment for any reason in right to work states and importantly fired for any reason or not, If you believe that companies can fuck with you anytime or in anyway they want, this is a logical next step. Pretty soon they'll stick a probe up your ass to make sure your seat temperature coefficient is within spec otherwise you'll be unable to use their services, buy their product and will be labelled forever a high risk individual.

    • by judoguy ( 534886 )

      Why? you can already be denied employment for any reason in right to work states and importantly fired for any reason or not...

      You say that like it's bad thing.

      My entire working life (44 years and counting) has been in either a right to work state or in a non-union field. I have never had sympathy for the "I'm owed a job, whether the employer want's me or not!" whine.

      I've worked for a number of employers who didn't have the sense to see my value. In some cases, I was let go for no discernible reason or I walked away and looked for a better job. I wouldn't have it any other way. I don't want to work for someone who doesn't want me

      • just making a point. If enough people start saying "enough" already to these kinds of intrusions into your personal information, now presumably to include physiological data, then others will follow suit. A background check of your driving record and accident history should be the only things necessary to ascertain your risk factors in operating a car. If you have a serious medical condition there are laws that prohibit you from operating a vehicle. Insofar as right to work I have no problem being "at wi

        • by KGIII ( 973947 )

          This is health data. They can not sell it. (Stop laughing now.) It is protected... You know, HIPAA is meant to sto... (Seriously, stop laughing.)

          Let's try this again. Allstate can not release or sell... They need release forms and...

          You know what? Screw it.

  • Well, the good news is that by the time they get this working, we'll all have self-driving cars. The bad news is that we'll all have self-driving cars.
  • Do we need an extra constitutional right to the control of, and knowledge about, personally-identified data collected about us?

    Good luck with that I know, given that we're all face-taggable by facebook, google, and the local police department already, not to mention the feds.

    • That would be an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States for Personal Privacy, but such a thing is less realistic than childhood imaginary friends (especially the ones you knew were imaginary from the get go).

      I have no secrets because I can't have any...

  • Like I needed another.

  • The insurance industry already has a clearinghouse of information on people similar to the credit bureaus. Rates, especially for car insurance, are increasingly determined by a subset of your credit score (the "insurance score.") They already know your history with other insurance companies, which can make it very hard to find another carrier at reasonable rates if you are dropped. Also, every state's DMV has records on every reported accident and theft. So, you're tracked an awful lot when you buy insuranc

  • Why is no-one challenging the de facto theft of personal information? I don't care by who or how the data is recorded, it belongs to me and anyone who wants to use it needs my permission.

    In some cases, such as a doctor ordering lab tests, I will give that permission gratis. In other cases, such as any of the Web page leeches, I will require payment.

    It might be fun if a few tens of thousands of us start blasting out DMCA takedown notices whenever we see a tracking cookie on a Web page.

    • No it doesn't you signed up explicitly with this long TOS that said we could collect data about you and use it in anyway we see fit with or without your permission. We can also retain it indefinitely for future mining experiments. Sucks how that works out for you.

  • The good news is that if Allstate patents this "invention", then All State will be the only ones who can do it. I don't nor do I have to do business with Allstate. The other bad news is if they decide to license this...
  • by budgenator ( 254554 ) on Monday June 22, 2015 @03:48PM (#49964921) Journal

    Allstate's patent also said the invention has the potential to evaluate drivers' physiological data, including heart rate, blood pressure and electrocardiogram signals, which could be recorded from steering wheel sensors. ... The recorded data may also provide an objective behavioral data collection system for third parties, e.g., health insurance companies, lending institutions, credit-rating companies, product and service marketing companies, potential employers, to evaluate an individual's behavioral characteristics in a real-life and commonly experienced situation, i.e., driving a motor vehicle, Insurer monitoring your heart rate? [sun-sentinel.com]

    That's a lot of big words, but all I can hear is HIPAA violation [hhs.gov]!

    Protected Health Information.
      The Privacy Rule protects all "individually identifiable health information" held or transmitted by a covered entity or its business associate, in any form or media, whether electronic, paper, or oral. The Privacy Rule calls this information "protected health information (PHI)."12

    “Individually identifiable health information” is information, including demographic data, that relates to:

            the individual’s past, present or future physical or mental health or condition,
            the provision of health care to the individual, or
            the past, present, or future payment for the provision of health care to the individual,

    and that identifies the individual or for which there is a reasonable basis to believe it can be used to identify the individual.13 Individually identifiable health information includes many common identifiers (e.g., name, address, birth date, Social Security Number).
    Summary of the HIPAA Privacy Rule [hhs.gov]

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Makes sense but are insurance companies a "covered entity or its business associate"?

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Why would your car insurance company be subject to HIPAA?

      • Depends whether the act defines "Health Information" logically i.e. "Information about your health" or whether it defines it in some silly overspecific way such as "information held about people by the following kinds of agencies and companies".

        I haven't read the act, but my guess is it's not defined in the first way alone.

        • I would assume that a car insurance company would be a Covered Entity as most States require the insurance to cover the cost of health care necessary as the result of an accident.

  • Detected a possible crash in the next 6 seconds - your insurance has been cancelled. Have a great day.
  • My faith in human drivers is low enough that I'm eagerly awaiting autonomous cars.

    The most dangerous part of traveling by car these days is the inattentive pile of rage controlling it.

    I know I'd rather give up driving than have my medical data go up for sale.

    • by KGIII ( 973947 )

      I will try to keep this short.

      The only self-driving vehicle I would want would be my RV. It is huge and I have to tow a car behind it because it really sucks to drive an RV in the city. Do not get me wrong, your tax dollars taught me to drive quite well. I can back up a deuce and a half with two water bowls towed behind it. I can even slalom it between the cones.

      However, in a city, you have to use reverse once in a while. This is most easily accomplished by pulling into something with a large enough space a

  • "Shoppers could be facing huge amounts of junk mail which specifically targets their internet browsing habits, under plans being trialled by Royal Mail.

    The firm is to deliver personalised letters to potential customers, advertising products that they have previously viewed online." ref [independent.co.uk]
  • The new glorious world of big data and data analytics has one small problem. Just because you have a ton of data doesn't mean that there is any useful information in it. Really, what are companies going to be able to glean from such a database? That some peoples heart rate goes up when they drive? Which means what?

    Insurance companies are the original big data users. Actuarial science is all based on the premise that it is possible to predict the likely outcome for an individual through the statistical

  • I'm sick of all the fees, insurances, registrations, etc. needed just to drive a fucking car. I also don't want to take it even further and have a car that's monitoring my fucking body. Jesus, let's get rid of the human factor that's creating nothing but a financial burden on those who commute.

    Can we just come up with a method of transportation that relies on a (very, very, very well tested) network of systems that direct traffic and control vehicles? I don't care if it's a self driving car, a rail/conveyer

  • Not suprising....

    Allstate hasn't been the same since they hired McKinsey and Co to optimize profits ahead of customer value. When Allstate was a part of Sears, they actually offered good value for the money. Now they are big into information asymettry and cherry picking as that can get them the customers who will pay list+ where there is little to no risk. I haven't done business with them for years.

  • Just in time for the self-driving car revolution!
  • They aren't going to be collecting any data from me... ... except in an emergency. So their baseline data for me will be huge levels of adrenaline and a heart rate close to 200. Hmm... that's probably not ideal either.

  • Don't VOTE GOP or your health insurers will just look for ways to blacklist you or even wait for you to get sick and use BS like this to say it's a pre existing condition

  • Never thought I'd say this, but looks like Public Transportation might be the better choice.

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Working...