3 ms·
At it's face, yea, it sounds fair, and the more data you feed to the actuarial tables, the more accurately they can identify the specific cost of insuring that
by jasonjayr 3y ago
At it's face, yea, it sounds fair, and the more data you feed to the actuarial tables, the more accurately they can identify the specific cost of insuring that driver.
My concern is that it's a tragedy of the commons type situation: this normalizes data surveillance. We have no idea exactly what data the device is transmitting, and what the insurance company will do with that data. Regulations protecting this data are weak-to-non existent.
With everyone's budget being stressed, people are quick to trade a few dollars to sacrifice privacy, and then this technology is being mandated everywhere.
- mikepurvis 3y agoFair, though given that manufacturers are already doing this stuff anyway, it feels like a problem to be solved with broader privacy legislation than by making good drivers pay for the cost of bad drivers. On the other hand, I suppose I'm a bad person to make this argument since I actually dislike personal automobiles for a whole host of reasons, so I'd just as soon get back my privacy by walking, cycling, and using mass transit.