One of Two Major Data Brokers Shuts Down Product Related To Driver Behavior Patterns (therecord.media) 35
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Record: The revelation earlier this year that General Motors had been selling driver behavior patterns to data brokers -- who in turn packaged and resold it to insurers -- has led at least one of two major data brokers to shut down its related product. That data broker, Verisk, disclosed last month that it has stopped accepting data from car makers and no longer sells the information to insurers, according to the organization Privacy4Cars, which received the response after sending the data broker an inquiry.
"Verisk received driving data from vehicles manufactured by General Motors, Honda, and Hyundai and may have provided a Driving Behavior Data History Report ("Report") to insurers upon request, as a service provider to such insurers, that included certain data provided by these manufacturers," the Verisk response to Privacy4Cars said. "Please note that Verisk no longer receives this data from these automakers to generate Reports and also no longer provides Reports to insurers," the statement added.
While Verisk has stopped selling car company-provided driver behavior patterns to insurers, LexisNexis Risk Solutions continues to prominently promote its driver behavior data product for insurers despite the mounting backlash from state governments, federal officials and consumer groups. LexisNexis Risk Solutions' Telematics OnDemand page remains online, boasting that it is "bringing automakers and insurance carriers together." "By partnering directly with automotive OEMs, LexisNexis is able to turn connected car data into tangible driving behavior insights that can be leveraged within insurance carriers' existing workflows," the page says. Much of LexisNexis Risk Solutions' work remains shrouded in secrecy.
"Verisk received driving data from vehicles manufactured by General Motors, Honda, and Hyundai and may have provided a Driving Behavior Data History Report ("Report") to insurers upon request, as a service provider to such insurers, that included certain data provided by these manufacturers," the Verisk response to Privacy4Cars said. "Please note that Verisk no longer receives this data from these automakers to generate Reports and also no longer provides Reports to insurers," the statement added.
While Verisk has stopped selling car company-provided driver behavior patterns to insurers, LexisNexis Risk Solutions continues to prominently promote its driver behavior data product for insurers despite the mounting backlash from state governments, federal officials and consumer groups. LexisNexis Risk Solutions' Telematics OnDemand page remains online, boasting that it is "bringing automakers and insurance carriers together." "By partnering directly with automotive OEMs, LexisNexis is able to turn connected car data into tangible driving behavior insights that can be leveraged within insurance carriers' existing workflows," the page says. Much of LexisNexis Risk Solutions' work remains shrouded in secrecy.
Data Rapist. (Score:3)
Data Broker = Data Rapist.
Re: (Score:2)
OP is correct. The original meaning of rape was non-sexual. You're welcome to tell the dictionaries they're being insensitive if you like.
rape [ reyp ] noun
an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation:
the rape of the countryside.
Origin of rape1
First recorded in 1250–1300; (for the verb) Middle English rapen, from Anglo-French raper, from Latin rapere “to seize, carry off by force, plunder”; (for the noun) Middle English, from Anglo-French ra(a)p(e), derivative of raper
Origin of rape2
First recorded in 1350–1400; Middle English, from Middle French or directly from Latin rpum (neuter), rpa (feminine) “turnip”; cognate with Greek rhápys
Origin of rape3
First recorded in 1590–1600; from French râpe, Old French, Middle French raspe “grape stalks,” from Germanic; compare Old High German raspn “to scrape,” Medieval Latin raspa “bunch of grapes”
sounds like maybe it is time... (Score:3)
Re: sounds like maybe it is time... (Score:2)
Re: sounds like maybe it is time... (Score:4, Informative)
There's already an option to opt out. With VW -- and I believe GM too, who is the one that was first outed doing this -- you simply turn off the "Drive Score" feature. This is kind of silly in my mind, I should be able to see that score for myself without sharing it with third parties, to improve my driving, but whatever, it was six clicks on the website to opt out. Took me less than two minutes.
The bigger problem is twofold. Number One, it shouldn't be buried under 14,000+ words of legalese that they're doing this (see my other comment [slashdot.org]) and Number Two, it should have been OPT IN rather than OUT. Both of those problems could be solved if our useless legislators would get off their lazy asses and pass a halfway reasonable privacy law.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's already an option to opt out [...] but whatever, it was six clicks on the website to opt out. Took me less than two minutes.
The data cynic in me wonders if you really opted out, or if the UI just lets you think you opted out.
Re: (Score:2)
Without the middle man the manufacturers will be able to sell directly to the insurance companies now. Opt in or out, how will you know they're doing it?
Re: (Score:3)
The US Federal government mandated passenger vehicle black boxes starting with the 2011 model year, at the behest of the insurance companies and others pretending to be safety advocates. I think in at least some states a vehicle cannot pass inspection without it.
Frankly, I'm surprised there were only two companies selling insurers the data they feel entitled to. There will be two again.
Re: (Score:2)
A black box doesn't communicate or do anything on its own. It's inert until an investigator pulls it out of a wreck and recovers the data on it.
If there's something different in your car, it's not a black box.
The companies selling their data to insurers are named GM, Hyundai, and Honda. They haven't gone anywhere.
Re: sounds like maybe it is time... (Score:2)
Yup. And some states outlawed the use of that data by insurers, even if it was transmitted. In the case of our 2 GMs - a 2015 Volt and 2017 Bolt - it was jot transmitted to the data brokers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah. That's why insurance companies are buying your driving data that was collected by your phone.
And no, it's not via apps that the insurance companies make - there are apps like GasBuddy (used to find cheap gas), a weather app, a road conditions app, and many unrelated apps that have been found to be selling your driving habit data to insurance companies.
So no, even if your car isn't reporting your driving habits, your phone apps are, and likely apps you're using while driving at that.
Re: (Score:2)
One more reason my current car is my forever car. (Score:4)
...or at least until the wheels fall off, the gearbox grenades, or I launch the engine through the hood.
I don't want your chunky, butch styling and size and mass for the sake of size and mass.
I don't want your subscription anything.
I don't want your telematics. What use is a car that is a snitch?
Peak Car was mid-2000s. Enshittification hit the car after that.
Re: (Score:2)
"Peak Car was mid-2000s" - Yep! I have a 2001, a 2004, and a 2007 vehicle that I maintain VERY well for this very reason. I don't want a fucking cell phone on wheels.
Re:One more reason my current car is my forever ca (Score:4, Interesting)
You're not wrong about a lot of things you say, but enshittification? My last car, 2012 Honda Civic, averaged 30-35mpg with my driving habits. On a highway trip, driving under the speed limit (60 instead of 65) I could get it over 40mpg. My current car, 2022 VW Jetta, averages 47mpg and exceeds 55mpg on the highway at/slightly above the 65mph speed limit. I can get it very close to 60mpg if I drive under the limit. My vehicles from the oughts averaged closer to 25mpg in the day to day.
Most of the telemetric stuff is bullshit, you'll brook no argument from me on that, but you'd have to work very hard indeed to convince me I should give up the fuel efficiency I've gained to go back to a vehicle from the mid-oughts. And yes, I said "most", because if my vehicle gets stolen I suspect I'll suddenly find the telemetrics very valuable indeed.
The real problem here isn't telemetrics per say but rather the fact that the automakers buried this crap under mountains of legalese. Plug a modern VIN into this site [vehicleprivacyreport.com]; the privacy policy for my vehicle's telemetric service is over fourteen thousand words. That right there -- not the advancement of technology -- is what's wrong with our society. If you need more than triple the word count of the US Constitution to spell out your privacy policy you're fucking doing it wrong but of course that's the whole idea, bury this shit so deep the average consumer will never mind it.
Right, uh huh (Score:2)
And I'm sure the company won't pop up with a new name and continue with the raping. All companies and executives involved with this are assholes. I don't understand why the C-Suite of GM isn't being held accountable.
Re:Right, uh huh (Score:5, Insightful)
And I'm sure the company won't pop up with a new name and continue with the raping. All companies and executives involved with this are assholes. I don't understand why the C-Suite of GM isn't being held accountable.
Because here in America we worship greed. And nobody exemplifies greed like the C-Suites. Those folks seem utterly exempt from all consequences of their actions. They are "decision makers" and "movers and shakers" and "driving innovation" and "creating great improvements" and all the other nonsense that gets thrown around about them. What they aren't is culpable, responsible, or self-aware. They drive every decision, and when it blows up in their face there's always an underling to take the blame, or the corporation to provide a shield while they strap on the golden parachute and head into the next company to rape.
These are who we consider the cream of societies crop. The best of the best. They know everything and are as untouchable to us commoners as gods were back when people still believed in any god other than the almighty dollar. You can't go after them unless they fuck up so egregiously that even our government officials go, "Woah. Now that person is a real shit."
for now on (Score:2)
Data, not behavior (Score:5, Informative)
>"Driving Behavior Data History Report"
No, it might be driving DATA history report, but it is *not* behavior. That calls for jumping to conclusions BASED on the limited data, and then making up judgements about the driver without any relevant supporting evidence.
Someone pulls out in front of you with no warning, you have to slam on your brakes. Data shows "excessive breaking" label "bad driver", but not your fault. In fact, you were PAYING ATTENTION and PREVENTED an accident. You are running out of room for a merge and have to accelerate hard to get into the only remaining spot. Data shows "excessive acceleration" label "bad driver" which is not at all true. I can do this all day long with examples. It is crude and unfair to place such labels on drivers and manipulate their rates without knowing all the facts and circumstances.
There is no way in hell I am allowing such data about my car to be "shared" with anyone, as long as I can help it. I am a good driver, with a perfect record. But I drive like I mean it, too. And I shouldn't be put in some risk category because some bean counter decided I exceeded maximum braking events, or corner "too hard" in a car (that has excellent handling, suspension, and tires), or accelerate quickly (without any loss of control or slipping tires) because I am not some 100 year old grandparent and enjoy driving spiritedly.
Re:Data, not behavior (Score:5, Insightful)
I used to work in the insurance business. I was there when the first generation of these things (e.g., Progressive's Snapshot) were rolled out. They didn't then and I highly doubt now care about ONE OFF events. A single "hard brake" event can be exactly what you say. Someone else fucked up. Or a deer ran out in front of you. A pattern of them, with many hard braking events occurring on each trip you take? That heavily implies you're tailgating and/or not paying attention. That they most definitely care about.
And honestly, even a single event is mildly damning, because if you were driving defensively you'd have both anticipated and avoided without a hard brake. A single event shouldn't impact your auto insurance rating but it SHOULD be a reflective moment for you, to contemplate what you could have done differently to leave yourself a better out from a bad situation. That's all defensive driving is, leaving yourself an out from a bad situation BEFORE it happens, and reflexively executing it IF it does. You say you're a spirited driver, cool story bro, are you a defensive one? Spirited driving is for the track. You're piloting a 2,000+ pound death machine on a public roadway shared with other human beings.
Side note: None of the above should be taken as support for your vehicle ratting you out without consent. That offends me as much as it does you. These programs should be OPT IN.
Re: (Score:2)
>"You say you're a spirited driver, cool story bro, are you a defensive one?"
Extremely so
>"Spirited driving is for the track."
No, that is race driving. Big difference.
>"You're piloting a 2,000+ pound death machine on a public roadway shared with other human beings."
And when I am driving a motorcycle, which is often, I am the one that would suffer way, way more. I know a LOT about defensive driving :)
My points still stand. One-offs are *not* conclusive evidence of poor driving. The best, most a
Re: (Score:3)
I repeat what I said that if you're driving defensively it should be very rare indeed that you have to hard brake even when others fuck up. I've gone through six month rating periods on Progressive, Allstate, and State Farm's programs, without ever having a double digit hard braking count. My average is about one a month. A handful of times I've gotten through the six month window with zero hard brakes. I've done this in the American South, with some of the worst driving I've ever seen in my life (no
Re: (Score:2)
The threshold wouldn't be arbitrary, it would be actuarial. We are talking about an insurance company. They understand probability distributions, at a minimum.
Slow drivers may create hazards, but they don't create costs for the insurance company. The guy swerving around the slow driver without checking does.
Re: (Score:2)
I ignored that bit because my reply was already long enough. When I used to hear that gripe when teaching defensive driving, about "slow drivers," it almost always came back to people who were actually obeying the speed limit . On a divided highway, you can still pass them, but if you're doing so in an inpatient/hurried manner you're the one with the problem not the "slow" driver. There's no reason why a pass has to happen in a rushed manner, match the speed of the "slow" driver, execute a lane change
Re: (Score:2)
Read Weapons of Math Destruction [wikipedia.org]. It's all about how companies use all kinds of proxy data of limited value, whitewash it through a proprietary black box algorithm of questionable provenance, and come up with some score that 1) can profoundly affect your life, and 2) you have no rec
Yeah they stopped that. (Score:2)
Yeah they stopped that.
What they do now is "find a loving forever home" for data from vehicle producers (not car makers), and they don't "sell" anything, they instead "trade fun facts" about the data to "companies who may or may not be in the insurance business". And they don't do it for "money", nooooo, they do it all for good wishes and prayers.
See, th
Insurance (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Your history of traffic infractions and at-fault accidents seem like a good individualized up-to-date data source to me.
Missed opportunity for carmakers (Score:2)
Nice. And how long until we get speeding tickets (Score:2)
by mail?
Dear MR SMITH we are sending you this notice because last MAY 7 your car exceeded the maximum allowable speed limit on BRODWAY near MAIN. For approximately 74 SECONDS averaged a speed of 33.02 MPH, with a maximum of 34.715 MPH.
The penalty for this is a fine of $2,125 plus increased insurance premiums which will be revealed to you when you renew. You have ten days to make payment.