People Are Slowly Realizing Their Auto Insurance Rates Are Skyrocketing Because Their Car Is Covertly Spying On Them
from the everything-you-own-is-spying-on-you dept
Last month the New York Times’ Kashmir Hill published a major story on how GM collects driver behavior data then sells access (through LexisNexis) to insurance companies, which will then jack up your rates.
The absolute bare minimum you could could expect from the auto industry here is that they’re doing this in a way that’s clear to car owners. But of course they aren’t; they’re burying “consent” deep in the mire of some hundred-page end user agreement nobody reads, usually not related to the car purchase — but the apps consumers use to manage roadside assistance and other features.
Since Kashmir’s story was published, she says she’s been inundated with complaints by consumers about similar behavior. She’s even discovered that she’s one of the folks GM spied on and tattled to insurers about. In a follow up story, she recounts how she and her husband bought a Chevy Bolt, were auto-enrolled in a driver assistance program, then had their data (which they couldn’t access) sold to insurers.
GM’s now facing 10 different federal lawsuits from customers pissed off that they were surreptitiously tracked and then forced to pay significantly more for insurance:
“In 10 federal lawsuits filed in the last month, drivers from across the country say they did not knowingly sign up for Smart Driver but recently learned that G.M. had provided their driving data to LexisNexis. According to one of the complaints, a Florida owner of a 2019 Cadillac CTS-V who drove it around a racetrack for events saw his insurance premium nearly double, an increase of more than $5,000 per year.”
GM (and some apologists) will of course proclaim that this is only fair that reckless drivers pay more, but that’s generally not how it works. Pressured for unlimited quarterly returns, insurance companies will use absolutely anything they find in the data to justify rising rates.
And as the sector is getting automated by sloppy AI, those determinations aren’t going to go in your favor (see: AI’s rushed implementation in healthcare). That’s before the fact that consumers aren’t being told about the surveillance, and aren’t given a clear option to stop it. Or that the data is also being sold to a litany of dodgy data brokers who, in turn, see minimal oversight.
If this follows historical precedent, GM will pay out a relative pittance in legal fees and fines, claim they’ve changed their behavior, then simply rename these programs into something else after heavy consultation with their legal department. Something more carefully crafted, with bare-bones consumer alerts, to exploit the fact that the U.S. remains too corrupt to pass even a baseline modern privacy law.
Automakers — which have long had some of the worst privacy reputations in all of tech — are one of countless industries that lobbied relentlessly for decades to ensure Congress never passed a federal privacy law or regulated dodgy data brokers. And that the FTC — the over-burdened regulator tasked with privacy oversight — lacks the staff, resources, or legal authority to police the problem at any real scale.
The end result is just a parade of scandals. And if Hill were so inclined, she could write a similar story about every tech sector in America, given everything from your smart TV and electricity meter to refrigerator and kids’ toys now monitor your behavior and sell access to those insights to a wide range of dodgy data broker middlemen, all with nothing remotely close to ethics or competent oversight.
And despite the fact that this free for all environment is resulting in no limit of dangerous real-world harms, our Congress has been lobbied into gridlock by a cross-industry coalition of companies with near-unlimited budgets, all desperately hoping that their performative concerns about TikTok will distract everyone from the fact we live in a country too corrupt to pass a real privacy law.
Filed Under: auto, auto insurance, auto insurance rates, car, data brokers, privacy, surveillance
Companies: gm
Comments on “People Are Slowly Realizing Their Auto Insurance Rates Are Skyrocketing Because Their Car Is Covertly Spying On Them”
It is fair they pay more. However, this does not absolve GM’s actions.
Re:
Reckless drivers should not be driving.
Re: Re:
That’s the fun part. We’re all “reckless drivers” if it’s profitable enough to label us such.
Re: Re:
Give me ten minutes of driving records from the world’s safest driver, and I’ll build an airtight case that person is reckless.
Re: Re: Re: Why?
The apps and stuch are so bad right now that AVH = hard breaking, GPS tracking is not up to date on roads, so your driving through a field.
The app data is so awful its not worth it.
Re: Re: Re:2
It doesn’t have to be accurate. All it has to do is give them an excuse to raise rates.
Re: Re: Re:
Monsieur Richelieu! So nice to hear from you!
It would appears the reports of your death were somewhat exaggerated.
Re: Re: Re:
Stalin’s secret police chief Beria famously said, “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.”
Re:
What about the insurance companies? It seems to me that they should be sued for buying customer data without permission.
Yeah, because driving a car around a racetrack where high speeds are expected and the risks from such are mitigated as much as possible is totally driving recklessly and without due regard for other road users. 🤦♂️
idiotics
and you still want self driving cars…
Re:
Would the owner of said self driving car be responsible for the actions of said self driving car?
Re: Re:
would the greedy mafi-nsurance companies care either way?
Re: Re: Re:
Sure, because they’ll have to under-write this risk either for the owner of the self-driving car, or for its manufacturer, but not both. If government puts the responsibility on the manufacturers—which I think is the only reasonable way to handle it—car-owner policies should get a lot cheaper.
Re: Re: Re:2
nope…
1. if the manufacturer now has to pay to insure the car, the price of the car will go up – and who pays for that higher car price? (in a Biden-esque wisper) the consumer
2. The gov-mint makes $ thru taxes.
If the manufacturer now has to insure the car – this fee will be added to the car buyer.
The customer is also paying for insurance for the same car.
-The insurance company will gain: extra $ because now 2 different entities are paying to insure the SAME car
-The government will gain: continued tax $$ from the car owner, the car manufacturer, & the car insurer
-The consumer will gain: an overpriced (because the manufacturer has to recoup that $) self-driving car with higher insurance rates (because insurance rates always increase)
Re: Re: Re:3
Sure, but how does that mean “nope”?
For a long time, personal insurance rates will need to cover damaged from non-self-driving cars, just as they cover damage from un-insured drivers today. But if self-driving cars can actually execute on their promise—driving more safely than humans—and become common, the overall insurance expenses will go down.
And, yeah, it’s paid by the consumer whether directly or not (just as consumers are paying for car-factory insurance, worker insurance, and the like), but the insurance companies will still care about the distinction. Dealing with a few huge companies is very different from dealing with millions of individuals.
You’re being too pessimistic about insurance always going up, and much of that increase is probably inflation. But don’t you remember how insurance companies refunded premiums during COVID? Even in regulation-averse America, some insurers were ordered to do so, on the grounds that the rates had become excessive.
It is a continuous demonstration that intelligence has nothing to do with politics.
If it's fair to charge more, is there a reciprocal "charge less"? Naaah.
I drive very little compared to most, and if the assertion that an individual can be priced on behavior holds, I’d pay a fraction of the usual rate. What would that do to the base rate? I expect you’d pay more under such a system. However, all the efforts to reward insurance companies to charge by miles driven have failed. The base price is all the discount anyone gets. Further, the industry already has a mechanism to charge more for high risk: ask any teenager or someone who has cost their insurance company money. The notion that high risk drivers pay more is already baked into the policy rates. Insurance pools run on a statistic, and until we are all tracked, charging individuals (vs statistical classes) is just gouging I think.
Popular Demand
No wonder automakers fear right to repair laws. Eventually, there’s going to be a car mod that disables the data exfiltration system, and then they won’t be able to sell it anymore.
Re:
Right to Repair doesn’t allow for circumvention of TPM protected under the DMCA, and given how much that tool’s been abused, just as it was designed to be (like assault rifles owned by ordinary citizens).
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
The does not apply to the end user
That is why “the commercial or private financial gain” is in there
That part of the law is why personal use is not a felony
Personal use is not for “commercial or pruvRe financial gsin” and is therefore not covered by the felony statutes
That is why when I went to North korea years ago to cover a sports event on my online radio station I did not break the law by circumventing the lock on my us phone to use their SIM cards as foreigners there are required
That was not for “commercial or private financial gain” and was not a felony
I am USA/Australia dual national are travelled there on my Australian passport since I lived in Australia at the time, so the dmca did not apply to that since I traveled there on my Aussie passport
That is why I could go to cubs a couple of times and broadcast sports events from there
Using my Aussie passport to enter and depart Cuba and to transit through Tahiti made me not subject to the travel ban on Cuba
As long as I used my Aussie passport and did not go through any is connecting city the travel restrictions did not apply, nor did the dmca as far as unlocking my US phone to use a Cuba sim card
Abd my station did have a policy of wiping all station owned devices before travel.
So the next time did travel to the USA all evudence that I unlocked the phone in Cuba or North Korea was gune and coujd never be found.
We broke no.laws with our policy. Neitherc the station or it’s staff wax subject to prodecutijn anywhere in the world
Our policy was legal everywhere in the world
Re: Re: Re:
No personal use carve out in the DMCA since its signing into law by Clinton, dipshit crime inducer.
Re: Re: Re:2
The “commerciakl or privatw financial gain” is the carve out
Personal use does not meet that requirement
So personal use is not a felony
Re: Re: Re:3
Once again, there is no exception for personal non-commercial use in the DMCA Section 12.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201
Re: Re: Re:4
When I plugged a tape recorder into my computer over 20 years ago to record drm protected tracks to cassettes for use in the car I was not committing a felony.
It was not for “commercial or private financial gain” do it was not a felony.
Recording to cassettes for use in the car did not meet that requirement, so no felony committed
Re:
As the other commenter points out, right to repair laws don’t legalise carte blanche to mess with the software.
But more importantly, I would argue that a mod that disables the data gathering would be more popular, not less.
Re: Re:
I think the “it” there referred to the data, not the car or mod.
Re: Re: Re:
Fallacious argument. Have a flag.
Right to Repair doesn’t allow for circumvention of TPM protected under the DMCA, and given how much that tool’s been abused, just as it was designed to be (like assault rifles owned by ordinary citizens).
Re:
Another solution is to use a banner to keep the data from beinng sent out
If I were going to play the stock market in China I would buy stock in companies that make these jamners as their sales are going to go way up
The fact that some states might enforce abortion babs by making pregnant women wear gps ankle bracelets could result in more sakes of jammers
There is no law in California that makes it illegal to use such a jammer
These companies that make themay soon see a big surgein sales when pregnant women find out they can but a jammer that defeats ankle bracelets
Even if they are not going to get an abortion they will not like the idea of becoming g tracked so that will mean even more sales
That fact that some clinics around here are using jammers I plan my routes to avoid the clinics and avoid their jamming so my cellular Internet does not quit on me
That is the only thing I can do because abortion clinics are not breaking any laws in California using jammers
Re: Re:
Hey, dipshit crime inducer, check this out: “The use of a phone jammer, GPS blocker, or other signal jamming device designed to intentionally block, jam, or interfere with authorized radio communications is a violation of federal law. There are no exemptions for use within a business, classroom, residence, or vehicle. Local law enforcement agencies do not have independent authority to use jamming equipment; in certain limited exceptions use by Federal law enforcement agencies is authorized in accordance with applicable statutes.”
Basically, the use of jammers is so illegal even the cops can’t use them without violating federal law.
Re: Re: Re:
The FCC is claiming things beyond their lawful authority on that page. The constitutional basis for their authority is that radio transmissions affect inter-state commerce. If someone mounts a jammer in their car, they’re gonna be fucking up the radio communications of other people, and the courts will be right to fine them. The correct thing to do would be to remove, shield, or disconnect the relevant antennas in the vehicle they own; or remove the fuse (which may have side effects; search online for details and instructions).
But in the hypothetical situation where jamming or interference only affects people who consent to it, it’s unlikely the FCC could win a case or would even try to pursue one. And, in fact, companies do have RF-blocking rooms or boxes in which to test equipment, probably including jammers (e.g., for military use, or to test how their devices react to interference).
Re: Re: Re:
10 years ago when I had to have my car towed the tow truck driver was using radar and lidar jamming
In California anything with a total of 3 axles or more can only do 55
This tue truck driver was using radar and lidar jamming so he coujd do 65 in the freeway with all.the cars
While he was breaking California state laws against jamming police radar and lidar he was not breaking any federal laws doing so.
Re: Re: Re:2
I’m not sure whether the FCC claims any authority over light, so maybe lidar jamming’s OK, but they definitely claim authority over radar. (That’s why wi-fi router manufacturers have to make certain 5 GHz channels shitty—”DFS”—if your router thinks it’s in America.) It’s a bit dubious to say that jamming short-range traffic radar would impede inter-state commerce, but SCOTUS have already accepted much worse arguments than that.
If it comes up, don’t count on winning your court case. Better to do this in a way that avoids being noticed, or can’t be proven (don’t talk to police, and never voluntarily agree to searches). Or do a full “stealth aircraft” car mod.
Re: Re: Re:2
“not breaking any federal laws doing so.”
Is this legal advice?
Are you a licensed attorney?
Re: Re:
Another way that wouid work is to wrap the ankle bracelet in aluminum foil making a homebrew Faraday cage
A pregnant woman could do that if any of the states should require pregnant women to wear ankle bracelets.
Since you are not jamming you woujd not be breaking any laws wrapping the bracelet in foil
If the go the option of requiring a phone app to track you could that in a faraday bag.
Faraday bags are legal to own so you cannot be charged with a crime fur putting your phone in a Faraday bag to avoid any state laws that require you to let them track you on your phone
Your phone wouid just go off the grid abd they wouid never figure out what happened
While I am as pro life as they come I am against states banning abortion travel
I do not believe in extraterrestrial laws and have no problem giving out information on how to do it and not get cauy
Information is first amendment protected speech, so my giving out information does not break any law
I dont care what one Cubab exikw said 16 years ago when I gave advice for Australia/USA nationals on what fights to take from Australia to avoid a USA connecting city
Contrary to what this clown in Usenet newsgroups said, 16 years ago,information is 1st amendment protected speech in the United states.
Re: Re: Re:
Tampering with an ankle bracelet means you are breaking the law. As an added bonus when you wrap it in tinfoil they will call you up asking what’s going on since it went offline, since you jammed the signal. Any kind of blocking or interference of a signal is jamming.
How about you take your hacker fever-dreams that has no bearing on reality and the law and just stuff it, because you sound like someone who is largely divorced from factual reality.
Re: Re: Re:2
One method abortion clinics can use is faraday paint that blocks all signs in or out
I heard of such oaunt years ago when I ran my online radio station
One listerber told me they their office started using that paint to enforce the company internet policy by blocking cellular internet with such paint so employees had to use the company network
I was told the boss had painting contractors over the weekevs to do that and had it all done by Monday morning
They broke no laws psintu the walls with signal blocking paint
Their legal experts told them that signal blocking paint in the building did not break any laws
They put the signal blocking paint on them painted a coat of normal pain
Companies using such paint are not breaking any laws
The driving data is a threadbare excuse
The insurance company cannot show
Actuarial tables are a thing. The insurance company wanted an excuse to raise rates, they found one. Previously, all they had as an excuse to raise rates was the driver’s age, and perhaps their health record and accident history.
Today, it is driver data stolen (with cooperation from the manufacturer) from select cars. Tomorrow, it’ll be something else.
Which insurance companies?
Everyone’s focused on the car companies selling the data, but I haven’t seen anyone call out the insurance companies who are buying and using it. Lawmakers can target either end of these transactions.
(Although both my car (2013) and motorcycle (1979) are too old for any of this to apply.)
“Smart” is the new “woke”, it would seem. Nothing ever changes much.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
I could see jammer sales going up
Jsm the communications of the “tattle tale” device and no data is sent back
And jamming will become commonplace is the states who now ban travel for abortion subjects pregnant women to gos tracking either on the cell phones or with a ankle bracelet
I could see state laws criminalizing jamming beimg passed in those states
There is currently no federal law that makes jamming the data link on a GPS ankle bracelet a crime
Re:
18 U.S.C. § 1362 says otherwise, dipshit crime inducer.
Oh, I see! That’s why my own insurance rate has gone down so much, lately…
Oh wait; it hasn’t gone down at all — it’s gone up, despite not having an accident in twenty-some years (and the accident before that, the other driver admitted being 100% at fault).
What "metrics" are really (not) worth.
Also, let’s put the awkward fact out there, instead of letting the insurers get away with the self-serving lie uncontested — generally, the abstract metrics compiled by the vehicles electronics can’t actually determine whether you’ve been driving “recklessly” anyways.
This is as statistically useful as red cars getting more speeding tickets.
It’s a transparent excuse for the insurance companies to gouge their customers.
A problem too could be...
I see some problems with the map data in my Tesla. It indicates some stetches are much below what the actual speed limit is. Many residential streets indicate a speed limit of 40kph when the actual city default limit for unsigned streets is 50kph. There’s a 100-yard stretch on a 100kph (60mph) freeway that for some reason is also 50kph on the map. School zones are only 7-5 M-F but Tesla thinks it applies 24-7.
Obviously Tesla buys this data from someone, and presumably so do the other auto makers. So not only is a car company selling your driving habits, they are also possibly selling incorrect data indicating you are recklessly speeding if you do the proper speed.
Bad (aggressive) drivers should pay more.
An alternative to jamming
Find a radio wiz with a Software Defined Radio, start cloning the validations of any car in radio range and then start spewing bad data. That’s not jamming, but it would render the “valid data” indistinguishable from the invalid. It’d be the basis of “reasonable doubt”.
insurance
so explain how my rates on an older car… 2013, are up 30%. further i drive maybe 2500 miles a year now. i am retired and old enough to collect social security. so what risk do i pose that’s 30% higher than the year before. i have not had a ticket or moving violation in 20 years.
Ya know, I’ll betcha folks around the world are pretty confused about all of this. The United States was supposed to be a place where the public had a say in stuff and was kept aware of matters through the Free Press. I’ll bet they’re mostly wondering why on earth Americans are not DEMANDING a functional and effective privacy law, rather than just bitching about not having one. I’m thinking this is really gonna tarnish the USA’s ‘we’re the best’ claim, since it’s being done to Americans by Americans.
Auto Insurance
Auto insurance rates are rising because judges and juries are awarding larger sums to plaintiffs. The higher the court awards, the higher the insurance premiums.
Re:
Right. Which case was the most influential in this outcome? How many cases were there and what was the total dollar amount?
You can’t blame rhevtiw truck driver fur doing that
They get paid the mile so only doing 55 means they make less money a day
That law takes money out of their hands and I support them doing what it takes to motivate that
That is why.apps like trapster and Waze have been popular with truck drivers
Be alerted to where speed traps are so you can slow down
Waze alerts you to wherevsoeed cameras are.
It also alerts you one type of small town speed trap where there are 2 or 3 speed limit changes on like a few hundred feet. I wouid get alerted about a mile away
When I have gone to favorite campground in Nevada I have almost always seen someone pulled over
Being alerted probably saved me from getting a trumped up ticket