Open link in next tab
https://archive.ph/uHWRq#selection-481.0-481.139
Romeo Chicco’s auto insurance rate doubled because of information about his speeding, braking and acceleration, according to his complaint.
For once it's not a crazy headline. It feels like the Florida men are always doing weird stuff
Because they have open records for police activity. The same crazy stuff probably happens in your area, it's just not required to be public information.
•
It's pretty impressive that lack of privacy in a single state can create an entire stereotype about it.
Just goes to show how releasing information selectively (in this case, just 1 state) can influence public sentiment and stereotypes.
No no no, that's just "Florida Man", that's the one dude you keep hearing about. Florida Georg is a statistical outlier and should not be counted.
Don't worry, we've seen this before. Case dismissed because of lack of standing, due to the fact that there were no damages.
Yeah a case similar to this just got shot down in Washington state for that exact reason.
https://consumer.risk.lexisnexis.com/consumer
You can go here to get a copy of your report.
If you're in California you can limit their collection and dissemination in the future and have your data deleted.
If you dig into your car's infotainment system to opt out of everything you can find, don't forget any app you might have installed.
•
GM owns Chevy and Cadillac. There's literally no difference between the two except exterior branding.
I just think that details matter. All Cadillacs are GM, all Chevys are GM, not all GMs are either of those. But yeah, fundamentally, GM does this.
That's the world we live in. Too many data merchants, which makes it hard to maintain privacy. It's up to each of us to help those that don't know better by providing them with the information when requested, and for those of us that want privacy, to do our homework and ask in the pertinent places and ways, to achieve as much privacy as humanly possible. For too many people the trade off of convenience for more privacy is not worth it (my wife is unfortunately part of that group), and pushing them only makes them look at us like fanatics (which I am to a certain level). Help where we can, leave people that don't want to hear about it alone, and respect every perspective, regardless of if we agree or not. This will make for better interactions when discussing any subject in a constructive manner.
https://www.lexisnexis.com/privacy/directmarketingopt-out.aspx
Putting here for anyone who wants it
To my knowledge, this opts you out of having your data sold for marketing purposes, under whichever nebulous definition they choose for marketing. LN will still have your data and collect it, but they would be unable to sell it for marketing purposes. I am just beginning my journey to opt out of everything I can, especially in light of recent news about automakers selling your driving habits to insurance companies.
I've been radicalized, it seems.
I see this post is old enough that my comment is less likely to be seen but i feel this is a somewhat relevant anecdote regarding the sale of automotive data.
last april i bought a used car. i had not owned or driven a vehicle in well over a decade. i had never operated a vehicle with a computer, not like the kind this car had at least with its 'infotainment' console and numerous digital featrures. one such 'feature' was the navigation system. a map on the little tv in the console would show me directions after i entered an address into it. how useful!
i was taking a trip to visit my grandparents not long after buying the car and to test out the navigation system, i entered their address into it. it failed to give me correct directions however, since the nav system was ran off an SD card inserted into a port inside the storage space between the driver and passenger seats. the car was made in 2013 and the sole previous owner had never used the nav system. the SD card was in its original packaging, unopened and in the glove box.
i ended up visiting the grandparents by finding their home by memory, the way i normally navigate, and went on with my life. after that weekend, i learned the car had a recall. i could take it to a authorized dealership and have the faulty system replaced at no cost to me. so i did just that. the recalled part was supposedly fixed and all seemed well.
a week or two passes and i get a call from my grandfather. he recieved mail addressed to me, asking if i wanted to sell my vehicle. my name, his address. i have never searched for his address on the internet, i know it by memory. the only place i have ever entered the location was in that car navigation system. i have never even spoken the address out loud nor heard it spoken in several decades, so those who believe phone are always recording with their microphones.
i believe the only way that mail could have been sent in my name to their address, was through the navigation system data being downloaded from the car and sold to third parties. my grandparents have recieved several pieces of mail addressed to me since then. always, it is referencing my vehicle, with the correct make, model and year showing.
i will never trust ford or purchase their products ever again. i should have known better than to have purchased this car, but it was a very good price with only one previous owner and a great carfax report.
i will never trust ford
Every car company does it now. You cannot buy a car that isn't selling your data.
I don't think that's true. For one thing, it's easy to buy a car from a random person, without granting any permission to any car company to download stuff from your car and sell it. If a car company were to access your car without permission, you could sue for damages (see OP).
I bought my Toyota from a dealer, not the manufacturer, yet they track everywhere I drive.
It should be a law that all cell antennas come with a physical switch.
your comment is innacurate and does not add to this discussion in my opinion.
i do not trust ford for many reasons beyond the invasion of privacy outlined here. while i never stated it explicitly as the reason for my mistrust of ford, i'm well aware that all car companies do data trading/selling and that details of the extent are largely unknown outside the shady data brokerage world. at no point did i state that they did not or that there are companies that do not.
this example is an example of what i feel is a company that went too far, by extracting data from the vehicle without informing me they were doing it. a vehicle which was brought to their authorized dealer, to repair their faulty parts, which they were deemed responsible for after numerous complaints and fatal accidents, some involving children falling out of the vehicle after the doorsprings malfunctioned, even when the doors appeared to be locked, while the car was moving in excess of 60mph. this was not the first recall for the issue either. it was the second for all doors except for the back/trunk door, where it was the third.
that is still irrelevant information though. the car was no longer under their warranty, it was purchased used. i gave no permission for them to do anything beyond the necessary and required repairs which came about due to their negligence. i signed no contract with them. i was supplied with no terms or conditions.
if i went to the doctor to get my appendix removed, i would not expect to wake up and learn the doctor decided to do a colonoscopy just for shits and giggles, even if it did detect something critical. if i mentioned my grandparents address while going under with aenesthesia, i would not expect the doctor to send them an offer addressed to me, to purchase my tonsils.
at no point did i make the claim that anyone could buy a car without it selling data of the purchaser. until now, where i will state that yes, you absolutely can buy a car that is not selling data. any car being sold that isn't younger than me will not be selling any data, unless major customization was performed because they would be far too old. the technology didn't exist 40+ years ago.
what motivation was behind your assumptive and half false comment?
You could get a pelvic exam while unconscious without knowing it happened. Some states have put limits on it, but then they can bury it in the T and Cs you sign and do it "technically" with your consent and not tell you. So unfortunately the privacy and dignity you think you have from the medical system isn't as good as you think.
what motivation was behind
No need to be hostile. I bought a Toyota and discovered it tracks my location without consent.
So far this is the best automated account deletion and opt-out request software I’ve found: https://www.permissionslipcr.com/
For some companies it’s push-button. For others it can only initiate the requests. But so far it works as advertised.
I was speaking to a mechanic once and he said they offered a service where they'd go into the car and and physically disable the communications chip on the vehicle. So everything would function normally, but the car would be unable to transmit data. It sounds like a technically feasible solution.
I've since spent many hours online looking for tutorials, information, or stories and found almost nothing. Has anyone else hears about anything like this or have any experience?
I'd love to be able to start some kind of wiki for how to disable those chips for different make and models of cars.
•
This is a tough one for me. I'm pro-privacy, but I'm also pro-sane driving habits.
EDIT: Thanks for the replies and some constructive DMs. You brought up a lot of things I needed to consider that my lighthearted comment and thoughts behind it ignored. Privacy is and should be a fundamental right. This comes before the right to drive aggressively or defensively. Privacy should be non-negotiable.
I'm going to leave this comment up because I believe it is a teachable moment. I have reevaluated my position, and I am wrong. Thanks for the thoughtful replies.
I’d like to see this guys report vs mine before deciding.
Edit: uh oh, shitty drivers detected.
Nah just people that understand that the insurance companies will do everything to optimise profits over everything, using any excuse they can.
Heuristics like this will squeeze pennies out of middle earners and be gentle to the more "competitive" customers, that can afford not driving or going to a competitor.
Yep, I/my car was involved in 3 accidents over the course of 2 years almost a decade ago. First I was rear-ended, second someone turned into me cause they were in the wrong lane, and the final one I wasn't even in the car, it was parked in the city I lived in and was one of 7 cars that were hit during a police pursuit.
That last accident, I had the same insurance company as the guy who was evading police. When I called to file a claim, the woman told me, "Well... We're not sure we'll be able to offer compensation, as your vehicle is one of seven involved, and the driver's insurance only covers XYZ amount, so we may need to put it under your policy." I told them absolutely not, it was not my problem that they willfully insured a criminal, and that I had been a customer for 5+ years, never missed a payment, and did absolutely nothing wrong in this situation. She still pushed, and I told her if that was the route they wanted to go, she could cancel my policy that minute, and suddenly it turned into "Well, let's see what we can do."
Fuck insurance companies, all of them, literally all of them. They also initially refused to give me my check for that last accident, as the guy at the counter told me, "Well, you have a lien on the vehicle, so we should really be sending this to your bank so they can tell you when/where they want the repairs made." I responded, "Well, that sounds like a conversation I need to have with my bank, and since the loan is between myself and them, I don't really understand what business it is of yours, now I'll take my check please."
They recently upped my rates because I moved 1.7 miles away from my old address, which was in a different zip code, and just thinking about all this makes me want to look into leaving them for another company.
God I hate insurance companies.
Yeah you are a "flight risk" customer or you have other data points that make them think you are worth offering a lower premium.
No? There's a minimum base price that you would be charged.
Remember, this is a profitability equation, not a risk assessment. Wearing a Pope hat doesn't make you the Pope.
I know my credit score has something to do with it, for some reason. I've talked to an insurance actuarial and they use that in their premium formula.
e. as my credit score went +100 pts my insurance went down, co-incidentally? Liability only, so it isn't depreciation of the asset. If anything, on average, an older car would be more dangerous, more liable to have the wheel fall off and collide with a Bentley or something.
I'm a pretty shitty driver, and I pay almost nothing on insurance. But I do live in a third world country, so we get to just cut connections on new data glutton cars, and nobody cares. Plus, any small car damage, we go to a friend's body shop, and fix it for a couple of hundred dollars, the insurance companies have no way of finding out.
Am I too European to understand this?
Out of all the things and ways "driving could be more sane", you think the sale of your data to for-profit, private, third parties... will somehow be for the common good?
I think they are saying that this person apparently drives poorly enough to warrant a huge increase in insurance and that they want people who are bad drivers to be found out, but that they don't like the way this person was found to be a bad driver. Kind of a "while this is the result we want this is horrible, and not the way to get it."
They are conflicted, perhaps even made conceptually(?) uncomfortable, because they see value in that persons insurance reflecting their driving history, by the fact that they see a positive outcome in this case of invasion of privacy.
That's how i read it, not then condoning it just sharing some internal dilemma here. If my take is accurate, we should have compassion and help them through this with support not jumping to conclussions.
They very much did not suggest that they approve at all of the sale of their data only that they see a connection.
They cant ignore that people will use this as justification to continue down this path into the complete solvency of privacy...and that it may just work
I'm making a lot of assumptions to explain my take in their eyes and expanding out a bit. Admittedly i am exploring this and cannot prove anything I've just said
It's complete speculation but I would think that paying more for insurance would be more likely to make you a worse driver than a better one. Having a crash is probably the only way you'll actually get anything back out of the insurer!
It would be better to just ban people outright or do what they do in France which is to allow people to only to drive a 'sans-permis', which is a tiny car, limited to 30 mph.
City cars like that are illegal all over america. Because they are too hard to tax and hurt the automotive industry
Skinner.meme: "Should we build sensible, small cars that are cheap to buy and drive, dont support speeding, need little parking space and prevent horrific high speed crashes? - No, it would hurt the economy and my penis would fall of driving something with less than 400HP that dosn't make vroom-vroom noises!"
Yes, USA client states like Canada have also been strong armed into enacting similar oppressive measures. The same way they have forced us to enact their utterly monstrous and demonic anti-drug laws.
Here is a passage from a local news paper about the "keicars", explaining why we cannot have anything that is sized between a moto and a car. They are using bullshit "for safety" justifications of course. Whatever works as usual.
" Ils ne sont pas conformes aux normes de sécurité des véhicules automobiles du Canada (NSVAC) applicables. «La Loi sur la sécurité automobile et le Règlement sur la sécurité des véhicules automobiles exigent qu'à la date d'importation, tout véhicule importé au Canada soit conforme aux NSVAC applicables en vigueur à la date de sa fabrication. Les véhicules fabriqués pour la vente dans des pays autres que le Canada et les États-Unis ne sont pas conformes aux exigences de la Loi sur la sécurité automobile du Canada, ne peuvent pas être modifiés pour les rendre conformes et ne peuvent pas être importés au Canada», explique Maryse Durette, porte-parole de Transports Canada."
Here it is translated in english
"They are not in compliance with the applicable Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (CMVSS). "The Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations require that, at the date of importation, any vehicle imported into Canada must comply with the applicable CMVSS in force at the date of its manufacture. Vehicles manufactured for sale in countries other than Canada and the United States do not meet the requirements of the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Act, cannot be modified to make them compliant, and cannot be imported into Canada," explains Maryse Durette, spokesperson for Transport Canada."
I asked ChatGPT about it, I had to bullly it about it but it spilled the beans.
If we strip away the more complex layers of context and focus solely on the more critical viewpoints regarding the absence or restriction of smaller vehicles like kei cars in the US and Canada, a more direct analysis might suggest a few key motives:
Protectionism: The automotive industries in countries like the US and Canada are major economic sectors, providing a significant number of jobs and contributing heavily to GDP. Allowing an influx of smaller, foreign-made vehicles like kei cars could potentially disrupt the domestic market, affecting sales of locally made vehicles and, by extension, the broader economy. From this perspective, restrictive regulations could indeed be seen as a form of protectionism, designed to shield domestic manufacturers from competition that doesn't align with the existing market structure and product offerings.
Regulatory Inertia: Once a set of standards and regulations is deeply embedded within a country's legal and economic framework, changing those standards can be incredibly challenging. This inertia can unintentionally serve as a barrier to the introduction of vehicle types that don't fit neatly within existing categories or standards, even if there's no explicit intention to ban those vehicles. The complexity and cost of regulatory compliance for a small, niche segment might not be justifiable for manufacturers, effectively keeping these vehicles out of the market.
Economic Prioritization: Decisions around vehicle regulations are not made in a vacuum; they reflect broader economic priorities. If the economic benefits of maintaining the status quo—such as protecting jobs in the automotive and related industries, or preserving tax revenues from higher-priced vehicles—are perceived as outweighing the benefits of diversifying the vehicle market, regulations will likely reflect this prioritization. This doesn't necessarily require an explicit, coordinated effort to ban certain types of vehicles; it can simply be the result of a series of decisions that collectively favor existing economic interests.
Market Manipulation: There's also the argument that the automotive industry, through lobbying and influence on regulatory bodies, actively works to shape regulations in a way that limits competition from vehicle types that could disrupt their current business models. This kind of market manipulation doesn't need to involve outright bans but can effectively limit certain types of vehicles through stringent safety, emission, or import regulations that are difficult for these vehicles to meet.
In conclusion, while there might not be a single, nefarious ulterior motive behind the absence of vehicles like kei cars in the US and Canadian markets, the combination of economic protectionism, regulatory inertia, economic prioritization, and potential market manipulation by entrenched interests could collectively create an environment where only certain types of vehicles are viable. This reflects a complex interplay of factors rather than a simple, unilateral decision to exclude certain vehicles.
they'll probably mandate the thing the insurance companies want to put into the car. I'd save money as a good driver, but it doesn't taste right.
If you drive safe then you have nothing to hide.... wait, this sounds familiar, right?
do the police have this system for each car, link it to when the siren is off. I see a lot of shenanigans goings on
If it is an actual emergency go ahead and speed mr policeman, but you trying to get home early doesn't mean you can drive 95. - The Public.
•
After investigating the vehicle calls every event that you use the brakes over 5 miles an hour a heartbreaking event. If you have the region turned off or set to low it still does it.
And just because I think people that are brave enough to reevaluate their stand points are awesome, I'm following you (not stalking🤣) on Lemmy moving forward.
I genuinely hope there were more people like you.
Edit: I had no idea I could not follow people here. That goes to show how ignorant I am 🤣🤣🤣.