5 ms·

>The California DMV told Motherboard "the DMV does not sell information, but recovers the cost of providing information as allowed by law." This comment seems

>The California DMV told Motherboard "the DMV does not sell information, but recovers the cost of providing information as allowed by law." This comment seems like a lie, or at the least sly misdirection. According to this article the DMV is making 50M a year and openly admits that they redirect profits to other initiatives, they're not just "recovering the cost". It's like saying, "I'm a software engineer, I sit at home and recoup the cost of sitting at my computer all day."

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
chishaku 6y ago
> seems like a lie Also known as doublespeak.
- rmrfstar 6y ago
  If we allow lies to be spoken in our presence, we are complicit. https://www.c-span.org/video/?10449-1/doublespeak https://www.c-span.org/video/?10449-1/doublespeak
  - chexx 6y ago
    false dichotomy
dehrmann 6y ago
> According to this article the DMV is making 50M That was $50M in revenue, not profit. I blame the Vice headline; it said "makes," but in the article clarified that it's revenue.
- AtHeartEngineer 6y ago
  That's a lot of revenue
  - GauntletWizard 6y ago
    It's really not. Think about what this information is used for: It's probably pulled by your insurance whenever you take out a new policy. There's 40 million people in California. If 5% of them change insurance each year (2 million), and that report costs $25 (A reasonable filing fee for a sensitive government document), there's your $50 million right there.
    - toomuchtodo 6y ago
      For comparison, it costs $50 for a tax return from the IRS with a Form 4506-T (usually used when getting a mortgage or for other income tax verification purposes).
lazzlazzlazz 6y ago
Really? This seems like a pretty clear explanation to me. They are required by law to provide information. That's not selling... that's just complying with their obligation to provide certain data. And they charge a fee for it. In other words, if you want to prevent them from providing information, you need to change the laws requiring they share information.
- derimagia 6y ago
  Doesn't make complete sense to me. If they are complying with their obligation but they can charge a fee why wouldn't they be able to increase the fee enough to get out of actually providing the information? EDIT: I think I got it - I am hearing the fee is equal to the amount it costs them to provide it.
- jjeaff 6y ago
  Sort of? Is Amazon not "selling" retail products because they aren't really making a profit on it? In fact, they aren't always even recouping their full cost of selling products, those losses are offset by other revenue streams like aws.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

chishaku 6y ago

> seems like a lie Also known as doublespeak.

rmrfstar 6y ago
If we allow lies to be spoken in our presence, we are complicit. https://www.c-span.org/video/?10449-1/doublespeak https://www.c-span.org/video/?10449-1/doublespeak
- chexx 6y ago
  false dichotomy

dehrmann 6y ago

> According to this article the DMV is making 50M That was $50M in revenue, not profit. I blame the Vice headline; it said "makes," but in the article clarified that it's revenue.

AtHeartEngineer 6y ago
That's a lot of revenue
- GauntletWizard 6y ago
  It's really not. Think about what this information is used for: It's probably pulled by your insurance whenever you take out a new policy. There's 40 million people in California. If 5% of them change insurance each year (2 million), and that report costs $25 (A reasonable filing fee for a sensitive government document), there's your $50 million right there.
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    For comparison, it costs $50 for a tax return from the IRS with a Form 4506-T (usually used when getting a mortgage or for other income tax verification purposes).

lazzlazzlazz 6y ago

Really? This seems like a pretty clear explanation to me. They are required by law to provide information. That's not selling... that's just complying with their obligation to provide certain data. And they charge a fee for it. In other words, if you want to prevent them from providing information, you need to change the laws requiring they share information.

derimagia 6y ago
Doesn't make complete sense to me. If they are complying with their obligation but they can charge a fee why wouldn't they be able to increase the fee enough to get out of actually providing the information? EDIT: I think I got it - I am hearing the fee is equal to the amount it costs them to provide it.
jjeaff 6y ago
Sort of? Is Amazon not "selling" retail products because they aren't really making a profit on it? In fact, they aren't always even recouping their full cost of selling products, those losses are offset by other revenue streams like aws.