4 ms·

I think it's time to be clear about what the concern is here, because it's become a bit of a cottage industry to call out provocative headlines, wave your arms

I think it's time to be clear about what the concern is here, because it's become a bit of a cottage industry to call out provocative headlines, wave your arms around a bit, and then claim the readers are being manipulated. Kind of "Nothing to see here, folks. Please move along." What we've learned through repeated experience is that data collection always leads to some future configuration that we are not happy with. Maybe it's advertisers tracking our every move on the web. Maybe it's the police getting all of our cell phone records simply by filling out a form. Perhaps it's the government tracking all international calls. Maybe it's the cops taking COTS GPS devices and using them to track cars without a warrant. Whatever. The pattern is clear: one day we start collecting data. Somewhere down the road somebody starts using that data in a way we do not like. Big Data is simply too attractive to too many entities to leave alone. While the cops angle is the one that's most emotional, my money says the real players behind the scenes here are the insurance companies. Initially, the spin will be for accident litigation, but within a few years they'll have "collecting any relevant data" clauses in all their new car insurance policies. And then they'll be able to see exactly how you drive. Insurance companies are already trying to do this voluntarily. I think Progressive has some kind of Orwellian name for it like "Safe Driver Program" or something. Don't know. All I know is that whenever I see their commercials it reminds me of how stupid they think their customers are. It's a fair cop to say that many of these stories are overblown, emotional, and manipulative. But that's a far cry from saying they are useless. The problem here is trying to guess a future world in which this goes south. For every ten guesses, maybe one is close. So looking at it from that angle, what a terrible track record! But looking at it from the proper (in my opinion) angle, the problem is simply one of style. Nobody wants to read a long-winded discussion of the problems here, but everybody will click on "The police are checking your underwear every night using your iPad!" stories. Simply because that's the nature of the business doesn't mean there aren't also serious concerns.

DanielBMarkham 15y ago
For those who still like the cops angle, I'll do a bit of wild speculation. Once you sign your driving record over to your insurance company, you no longer own it, do you? So they could just repackage your detailed driving record and sell it to any interested third parties through a shell company. This is close to the same model the cell phone companies are using. You end up with warrant-free observation of citizens at a very detailed level without the government directly have any kind of discussion at all about your rights. I imagine if this trend continues we'll see "packagers", intermediary companies that assemble packages of just about everything there is to know about you and formatting it in a nice timelime -- public posts, blogs, travel records, phone call records, etc -- perhaps with an ongoing subscription service for those folks you want to keep close tabs on. It's a very interesting product idea. "Joe got up, tweeted about the football game last night, then posted this comment on HN. After driving to the gym at 10 mph over the speed limit, he called his mistress for 15 minutes...."
- JM212 15y ago
  Your repacking and selling of the data is hugely interesting. This would give fantastic insight in to consumer behavior, not just for the obvious marketing potential but also for companies like UBS to get market info on retailers like walmart (http://classic.cnbc.com/id/38722872/ http://classic.cnbc.com/id/38722872/). I'm surprised this isn't being done already by cell phone providers.
  - DanielBMarkham 15y ago
    As a startup idea, it's probably worth mocking up. There have been several meta apps like this in the past. Spockeo comes to mind (http://www.spokeo.com/ http://www.spokeo.com/) These guys are focused on data retrieval from mostly online sources. What gets interesting is mashing it all up and putting it in a narrative, tracking format. Going for a job interview tomorrow? Take some time today and read a narrative of how this guy spent his days for the last month and gain a bit of an advantage. Welcome to the 21st century.
tptacek 15y ago
The "cops" have very little to do with this. You're right: this is mostly about insurers, and to a lesser extent based on recommendations from a long, elaborate study by the NTSB about the utility of EDR devices. So it would be helpful if, while recognizing the implications of EDRs to law enforcement and the 4th Amendment, we made sure we kept the right framing.
simonsarris 15y ago
If anyone is wondering about the Progressive device I can give some information. My girlfriend actually asked for one. They gave her this thing that she plugs into her car's diagnostic port. The incentive is that if an insured driver agrees to use the thing and wants to "prove" they are a good driver they can. In return the user gets an insurance discount if their driving stats are good. The little object does something very basic: It counts the number of "hard stops" in every trip and uses cellphone networks to report the data. People can then go look up the stats online. 2 hard stops for this trip, 7 for this trip, etc. It's neat to see your stats. Eventually it turns into a sort of game to eliminate the hard stops from your driving routine. You pay more attention to driving because of it and therefore become a more attentive driver. At the end of 6 months you send the device back and your insurance is adjusted (or not). This is a huge win-win for software making people behave better: 1. Girlfriend gets a lower insurance rate 2. Progressive has evidence she is not an insane driver 3. Most interestingly, the device has forced her to be (seemingly) permanently more conscious about her driving and has made her a better driver. Not only does the device find bad drivers, but it can convince many to become better drivers, possibly without them realizing it! Literally software has consciously and unconsciously made her into a better driver and literally every party involved (her, progressive, people near her on the road) are better off for her having used this device. ~~~ All of that is good, as far as I can tell. But all of it was optional, too, and I understand that the topic at hand involves what happens when it becomes less-than-optional. It is not hard to envision a future where it will be impossible to get affordable insurance if you opt out.
- thebigshane 15y ago
  I can see this sentiment being easily twisted around to... This is a huge win-win for surveillance software making people behave better: 1. Well-behaved citizens carry on in their lives relatively freely 2. Gov't has evidence of your innocence (notice the implication here) 3. The constant surveillance has forced society to be permanently more conscious about their behavior and made them better citizens. Not only does it identify "bad people", but it can convince them to become better people, possibly without them realizing it! I realize I am putting words in your mouth and I apologize. You probably don't believe my "translation" but I want to point out that it doesn't take too much work to go from your words to mine.
thebigshane 15y ago
I'm looking for a line to draw between acceptable sharing/collection of data and non-acceptable sharing/collection of data. I think there is a line somewhere around "personally identifiable". Looking at the data elements currently recorded (or, I guess, officially recorded), it looks very dry and non-identifiable. Not necessarily fully-anonymized, though. I think I would be okay with this information being aggregated, analyzed, and even sold to insurance companies (perhaps even marketers, why not?). But as soon as the data is being shuffled around with personally identifiable information attached to it, I agree with you. Is there a better line between acceptable and non-acceptable?
bunderbunder 15y ago
I think Progressive has some kind of Orwellian name for it like "Safe Driver Program" or something. It's called Snapshot, and that program's the main reason I chose Progressive. I very much appreciate that there's an insurance company that agrees that I should be able to get a lower rate if I can prove that I'm a more prudent driver. Sure, they gotta collect some data on my driving habits first. But how the heck else am I supposed to demonstrate to them that I have safer driving habits? Personally, I think I'd have to be stupid to not take them up on the offer.
- dfxm12 15y ago
  Why can't you prove this by not having any moving violations in a given time period? "Safe driving" is not a cut and dry thing, you may have to do things that, in a vacuum, appear unsafe in order to avoid an even less safe situation...
  - bunderbunder 15y ago
    Nothing they're watching for is technically illegal. Nor should it be. One of the biggest things they're looking for is simply how much time you spend on the road, for example. No, safe driving is not cut-and dry. Nor are the terms of their program. The discount you can get can fall anywhere within a very wide range, and depends on multiple non-binary factors.
paulgb 15y ago
> All I know is that whenever I see their commercials it reminds me of how stupid they think their customers are I haven't looked into Progressive's program in particular, but car insurance is a huge information asymmetry problem. If I think I'm a better-than-average driver (thanks to Dunning-Kruger, most people do), then I'd benefit from my insurance company knowing more about my driving habits. Just because you value your privacy above the potential savings doesn't mean everybody who would prefer the savings is stupid.

DanielBMarkham 15y ago

For those who still like the cops angle, I'll do a bit of wild speculation. Once you sign your driving record over to your insurance company, you no longer own it, do you? So they could just repackage your detailed driving record and sell it to any interested third parties through a shell company. This is close to the same model the cell phone companies are using. You end up with warrant-free observation of citizens at a very detailed level without the government directly have any kind of discussion at all about your rights. I imagine if this trend continues we'll see "packagers", intermediary companies that assemble packages of just about everything there is to know about you and formatting it in a nice timelime -- public posts, blogs, travel records, phone call records, etc -- perhaps with an ongoing subscription service for those folks you want to keep close tabs on. It's a very interesting product idea. "Joe got up, tweeted about the football game last night, then posted this comment on HN. After driving to the gym at 10 mph over the speed limit, he called his mistress for 15 minutes...."

JM212 15y ago
Your repacking and selling of the data is hugely interesting. This would give fantastic insight in to consumer behavior, not just for the obvious marketing potential but also for companies like UBS to get market info on retailers like walmart (http://classic.cnbc.com/id/38722872/ http://classic.cnbc.com/id/38722872/). I'm surprised this isn't being done already by cell phone providers.
- DanielBMarkham 15y ago
  As a startup idea, it's probably worth mocking up. There have been several meta apps like this in the past. Spockeo comes to mind (http://www.spokeo.com/ http://www.spokeo.com/) These guys are focused on data retrieval from mostly online sources. What gets interesting is mashing it all up and putting it in a narrative, tracking format. Going for a job interview tomorrow? Take some time today and read a narrative of how this guy spent his days for the last month and gain a bit of an advantage. Welcome to the 21st century.

tptacek 15y ago

The "cops" have very little to do with this. You're right: this is mostly about insurers, and to a lesser extent based on recommendations from a long, elaborate study by the NTSB about the utility of EDR devices. So it would be helpful if, while recognizing the implications of EDRs to law enforcement and the 4th Amendment, we made sure we kept the right framing.

simonsarris 15y ago

If anyone is wondering about the Progressive device I can give some information. My girlfriend actually asked for one. They gave her this thing that she plugs into her car's diagnostic port. The incentive is that if an insured driver agrees to use the thing and wants to "prove" they are a good driver they can. In return the user gets an insurance discount if their driving stats are good. The little object does something very basic: It counts the number of "hard stops" in every trip and uses cellphone networks to report the data. People can then go look up the stats online. 2 hard stops for this trip, 7 for this trip, etc. It's neat to see your stats. Eventually it turns into a sort of game to eliminate the hard stops from your driving routine. You pay more attention to driving because of it and therefore become a more attentive driver. At the end of 6 months you send the device back and your insurance is adjusted (or not). This is a huge win-win for software making people behave better: 1. Girlfriend gets a lower insurance rate 2. Progressive has evidence she is not an insane driver 3. Most interestingly, the device has forced her to be (seemingly) permanently more conscious about her driving and has made her a better driver. Not only does the device find bad drivers, but it can convince many to become better drivers, possibly without them realizing it! Literally software has consciously and unconsciously made her into a better driver and literally every party involved (her, progressive, people near her on the road) are better off for her having used this device. ~~~ All of that is good, as far as I can tell. But all of it was optional, too, and I understand that the topic at hand involves what happens when it becomes less-than-optional. It is not hard to envision a future where it will be impossible to get affordable insurance if you opt out.

thebigshane 15y ago
I can see this sentiment being easily twisted around to... This is a huge win-win for surveillance software making people behave better: 1. Well-behaved citizens carry on in their lives relatively freely 2. Gov't has evidence of your innocence (notice the implication here) 3. The constant surveillance has forced society to be permanently more conscious about their behavior and made them better citizens. Not only does it identify "bad people", but it can convince them to become better people, possibly without them realizing it! I realize I am putting words in your mouth and I apologize. You probably don't believe my "translation" but I want to point out that it doesn't take too much work to go from your words to mine.

thebigshane 15y ago

I'm looking for a line to draw between acceptable sharing/collection of data and non-acceptable sharing/collection of data. I think there is a line somewhere around "personally identifiable". Looking at the data elements currently recorded (or, I guess, officially recorded), it looks very dry and non-identifiable. Not necessarily fully-anonymized, though. I think I would be okay with this information being aggregated, analyzed, and even sold to insurance companies (perhaps even marketers, why not?). But as soon as the data is being shuffled around with personally identifiable information attached to it, I agree with you. Is there a better line between acceptable and non-acceptable?

bunderbunder 15y ago

I think Progressive has some kind of Orwellian name for it like "Safe Driver Program" or something. It's called Snapshot, and that program's the main reason I chose Progressive. I very much appreciate that there's an insurance company that agrees that I should be able to get a lower rate if I can prove that I'm a more prudent driver. Sure, they gotta collect some data on my driving habits first. But how the heck else am I supposed to demonstrate to them that I have safer driving habits? Personally, I think I'd have to be stupid to not take them up on the offer.

dfxm12 15y ago
Why can't you prove this by not having any moving violations in a given time period? "Safe driving" is not a cut and dry thing, you may have to do things that, in a vacuum, appear unsafe in order to avoid an even less safe situation...
- bunderbunder 15y ago
  Nothing they're watching for is technically illegal. Nor should it be. One of the biggest things they're looking for is simply how much time you spend on the road, for example. No, safe driving is not cut-and dry. Nor are the terms of their program. The discount you can get can fall anywhere within a very wide range, and depends on multiple non-binary factors.

paulgb 15y ago

> All I know is that whenever I see their commercials it reminds me of how stupid they think their customers are I haven't looked into Progressive's program in particular, but car insurance is a huge information asymmetry problem. If I think I'm a better-than-average driver (thanks to Dunning-Kruger, most people do), then I'd benefit from my insurance company knowing more about my driving habits. Just because you value your privacy above the potential savings doesn't mean everybody who would prefer the savings is stupid.