GM Banned From Selling Your Driving Data For Five Years (theverge.com) 60
The FTC announced Thursday that it's banned General Motors and its subsidiary OnStar from selling customer geolocation and driving behavior data for five years. The Verge reports: The settlement comes after a New York Times investigation found that GM had been collecting micro-details about its customers' driving habits, including acceleration, braking, and trip length -- and then selling it to insurance companies and third-party data brokers like LexisNexis and Verisk. Clueless vehicle owners were then left wondering why their insurance premiums were going up.
FTC accused GM of using a "misleading enrollment process" to get vehicle owners to sign up for its OnStar connected vehicle service and Smart Driver feature. The automaker failed to disclose to customers that it was collecting their data, nor did GM seek out their consent to sell it to third parties. After the Times exposed the practice, GM said it was discontinuing its OnStar Smart Driver program. The settlement also requires GM to obtain consent from customers before collecting their driving behavior data, and allow them to request and delete their data if they choose.
FTC accused GM of using a "misleading enrollment process" to get vehicle owners to sign up for its OnStar connected vehicle service and Smart Driver feature. The automaker failed to disclose to customers that it was collecting their data, nor did GM seek out their consent to sell it to third parties. After the Times exposed the practice, GM said it was discontinuing its OnStar Smart Driver program. The settlement also requires GM to obtain consent from customers before collecting their driving behavior data, and allow them to request and delete their data if they choose.
However.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: However.. (Score:2)
Re:However.. (Score:5, Insightful)
However, they are free to collect it for five years and sell it then.
And just for 5 years... Over here I'd think that such a ban would be forever.
But your government is now available to the highest bidder... Even the lowest bidders are also in with a chance. They'll whore themselves out to anyone it seems.
Re: (Score:2)
However, they are free to collect it for five years and sell it then.
It won't be five years. I would suspect a month or two from now this will quietly fade away.
FTC should have gone after the INSURANCE guys (Score:5, Insightful)
The original Verge article begs the question (yes I know what that means) of why when YOU purchase insurance coverage for YOUR vehicle, then the INSURER can just capriciously raise your rates based on HOW YOU DRIVE. Whether you use the brake (had to avoid the child in the street) or the accelerator (had to merge onto the freeway) or take a short trip (the store is a mile away and we need eggs and bread and milk) or a long trip (hey, it's time to go to Vegas, baby) NONE of that should change your insurance rates.
Imagine buying a toaster oven at WalMart and they say "Would you like the extended warranty... two years for $9.99" and you say yes, but later they bill your credit car $200 because you use the air-fryer too much... or your average baking temp is 400F instead of 350F? ABSURD.
This isn't a GM problem and (uh thanks FTC) but an INSURANCE problem and the FTC should enjoin them from doing this shit, AND make them give back all their ill-gotten gains.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Insurance rates going up due to dangerous and bad drivers that are caught being dangerous bad drivers? Good!
This is not what happens. What does happen is insurance designing criteria that result is vast majority of drivers designated as dangerous and using that as an excuse to raise rates. This is done to bypass regulation that limits auto insurance ability to raise rates. To put it plainly, auto insurance is mandatory but regulated, collecting data to "justify" premium increases is a run-around regulation.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's a hell of a conspiracy theory. Do you have any evidence to support it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The text you quoted has almost nothing to do with your conspiracy theory. You just fill in the gaps with speculation, ignorance and word salad like "ways to exceed profitability".
You probably haven't heard of cases where telematics were used to reduce premiums [insurancebusinessmag.com] because those stories are not red meat for you. You know the line: "if it bleeds, it leads". There is no blood in a story about safer drivers saving money.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
So the only evidence you have is that you find your speculation to be credible, which is no evidence at all. I don't think asking for something more than "there are regulations, and at least some premiums went up", especially when people are not required to use this kind of auto insurance -- there's no captive audience that can be forced to pay higher premiums, which is a prerequisite for your theory.
I think you mischaracterized the story I linked to. It cited an insurance broker/middle-man, not a new ins
Re: (Score:2)
There is enough circumstantial evidence, such as: a) insurance premiums went up in excess to the level of inflation; b) car safety keep improving yet no saving for insurance materialized. How many safety systems a modern car has, do you tell me they do not reduce accidents? Lets count: automatic braking and collision avoidance, lane assis
Re: (Score:3)
What do you mean there is no captive audience?
I mean what I said: Nobody is forced to buy this (telematics-based) kind of auto insurance. People can still buy the traditional kind. My state even allows people to effectively self-insure as an alternative.
Someone answered you about premiun increases earlier: cars cost more to fix with all their fancy gadgets. That's the relevant price driver, not generic inflation.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone answered you about premiun increases earlier: cars cost more to fix with all their fancy gadgets. That's the relevant price driver, not generic inflation.
You have to acknowledge what is that cost more to fix - active and passive safety systems. So for the argument "cars cost more to fix" be a plausible explanation, all these safety systems must be highly ineffective at preventing accidents and injury. Is that the explanation you want to go with?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, modern cars have a lot of non-safety extra fancy gadgets: display screens, multiple zones of climate control, accent lighting, LED headlights, hybrid or electric power trains. Those also contribute to repair costs -- especially the last.
A lot of those safety gadgets have been imposed by federal mandate. They might not be cost-effective, which is (contrary to your assertion about "highly ineffective") the threshold for repair costs to drive premiums up more than a reduced accident rate drivers rates
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
using that as an excuse to raise rates.
Capitalism doesn't work that way. Companies don't need an excuse to raise prices. If they think they can make money at a higher price point, they just raise the price.
However, believing that "higher prices" automatically mean higher profits is naive. Lower prices often mean a higher market share, allowing a company to benefit from economies of scale and spread overhead costs over a larger customer base.
Re:FTC should have gone after the INSURANCE guys (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
You are missing the fact that there are many competitors in the auto insurance market in most places.
Everyone has to eat so eating is "required". Yet grocery stores don't raise their prices to "80% of what people can afford" because a competitor would take their business by charging less. Walmart, for example, completes in many, many markets and they compete almost entirely on price rather than selection or quality with chains like Albertsons and Kroger. Auto insurance is little different - in fact it such
Re:FTC should have gone after the INSURANCE guys (Score:5, Informative)
Eh, fatal accident rates have been relatively flat for around the past 10 years, fluctuating +/- 10%. Injury rate has also been either declining or flat. So cost due to injury/fatality is volatile but within a bounded range - not increasing. See for example NHTSA data [dot.gov]
The insurance increases are due to a) the massive increases in repair cost due to vehicle complexity, part cost, increase in totaling a car because repair is expensive (labor and parts), and because of the liability/injury portion of the insurance due to increases in medical cost and litigation.
The vehicles themselves are much better at avoiding harm, but with expensive tech. Drivers are countering some of that tech through behavior like poor driving skills, mostly due to distractions *cough - phones - cough* or just plain lack of diligence.
Short version: even if insurance companies kept their profit per policy a fixed amount (instead of a fixed percentage) the costs would have gone up significantly.
Re: (Score:2)
But if you don't do that on the Atlanta interstates, the damn state police will merge, at 70, into a gap that isn't big enough, according to the rules. So yes, you are on and off of the brakes just to keep dumbass state police from driving badly.
Re: FTC should have gone after the INSURANCE guys (Score:4, Interesting)
We had a conspiracy in this country to kill rail. The corporations involved were actually convicted. Then they fined them five dollars a piece and let them continue...
Driving should be a right in this country as a consequence until they fix the problem with adequate public transportation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(*) You don't need to know how to read, you can have someone help you on the written test or even do it for you, you can pass the test in your own car, the driving test is a fucking joke (just drive around the block), etc... I hear what you say about other options not being available, but it should be the other way around: bad drivers not being allowed to drive and begging for alternatives.
Re: FTC should have gone after the INSURANCE guys (Score:2)
Having people who have to beg for alternatives means you've already failed. Of course, we already know that we already have, some of us anyway...
Re:FTC should have gone after the INSURANCE guys (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Then make the insurances "non profit".
Problem solved.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.canadianunderwrite... [canadianunderwriter.ca] points out that the report you posted is an apples to oranges comparison. Not to mention the previous government squeezing money out of ICBC to balance the budget.
Here's a site comparing all the Provinces, https://www.stingypig.ca/car-i... [stingypig.ca] note that the other Provinces with public insurance, Sask. Quebec, Manitoba which for some reason was left off the list but is known for low insurance are generally cheap.
Re: (Score:1)
That is not a standard car insurance.
It insures your own car as well, against damage and theft.
And it does not really look like a non profit either.
Just because it is owned by the crown does not make it non profit.
Re: (Score:3)
Whether you use the brake (had to avoid the child in the street)
If you do that once, it will not affect your rates.
If you slam on the brakes three times a day, every day, then you're a bad driver.
Re: (Score:2)
For example, my very early morning commute is free of traffic and does not involve highway, I only have to stop for infrequent red light, where I can see it coming in advance and don't have to worry about drivers behind me. I can drive smoothly and save fuel doing so. My aft
Re: FTC should have gone after the INSURANCE guys (Score:2)
Try saying that after you've been to Los Angeles where random derps will just run across the intersection. Or rsilvergun, who will stand between lanes holding up signs saying he needs money for his grandma's funeral, too stupid to realize that people might change lanes while he's obscured from vision by another car. Or other cars that aggressively pull into traffic, or suddenly stop in the middle of the road because they see a parking space, making you and everybody behind you have to suddenly stop as well.
Re: FTC should have gone after the INSURANCE guys (Score:3)
Insurance companies complied with the laws on the books. In California, they are not allowed to consider data from this GM program or similar to set rates, or many other non driving factors like credit history.
My 2 GM vehicles, a 2015 Volt and 2017 Bolt, were never enrolled into the Onstar smart driver program. Other Onstar features were enabled during the initial setup at the dealership.
Re: (Score:2)
"Micro-details", huh? (Score:3)
It appears that they have been selling actual details about driving habits. I have no idea what a "micro detail" would be but, perhaps it refers to painting miniatures. Was this article written by a human?
Well... (Score:2)
I get the argument but perhaps if you're driving like a wanker and cause danger to others then perhaps you should be paying more for your insurance.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but this is supposed to be monitored by tickets issued and accidents had, not having Big Brother watching you 24x7.
Re: Well... (Score:2)
It's a classic observational experiment fallacy. Observed objects change behaviour. People slow down for speed cameras, don't commit crimes when someone's watching. The only way to catch them when they think they're along and show their true self.
Re: (Score:2)
I couldn't tell you the last time I saw the cops write anyone a ticket.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Well... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you let them spy on you for any excuse at all, you don't deserve your freedom.
Nice to know I'm not crazy (Score:3)
I have a GM. As soon as I took possession, I opened up the wheel well and ripped out the OnStar device.
Re: (Score:2)
Did it void your warranty though?
Why only GM and why only 5 years? (Score:4, Insightful)
Won't buy a car spying on me and selling my data (Score:1)
Effing dystopia we're getting into.
driving data (Score:2)
Another reason (Score:2)
Another reason I drive older cars.
Of course, I have an EZ Pass stuck to the windshield. If insurance companies aren't already hoovering up all that data, someday they will.
Wont hold up in court (Score:2)
FTC has a lifespan of less than a week, I reckon. (Score:2)
Our owners will get rid of the FTC very quickly.
too cynical to believe it (Score:2)
Nobody adheres to the law anymore, it's a catch me if you can scenario. Facebook anyone?
Microsoft? We're going to snapshot your screen every 5 seconds, but don't worry nobody will ever see it. REALLY?
Does anyone actually believe that??
Except TheGarbz... he's on the record already "explaining" how it's OK. Hi G
GM Banned from Selling Data Until Things Cool Off (Score:2)