5 ms·

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

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.
- DanielBMarkham 15y ago
  This thread is diverging from what the GP meant, which was just to describe how fun and good for you collecting data can be. After all, how can you get better at certain things if you're not willing to collect data on your performance? But the problem is that you can spin just about any kind of data collection in just the same way. In the 1960s, this exact scenario would have been part of a futuristic horror story. Robots and computers monitoring your every move, with your permission and encouragement, in an effort for you to become "better." In fact, I seem to remember several old sci-fi shows with just this kind of plot. It's interesting to note that such a scenario doesn't seem so horrific any more, and those warning about it are more and more seen as alarmists. I'm not sure where this is all heading, but the trajectory in public opinion is not very heartening. Modern marketing is turning its attention to popularizing your life "assisted" by machines which then take lots of observations about your behavior and report on them back to some third party.
dfxm12 15y ago
I think OP's point is more than just "what if it is less than optional". Scarier than "a future where it will be impossible to get affordable insurance if you opt out" is one where we get arrested/fined/penalized for making "too many hard stops" (whatever "too many" is, whatever a "hard stop" is and regardless of whether or not having "too many hard stops" makes you an unsafe driver). We should be wary of Big Data because it is all too easy for people in control to report data that supports whatever theory they are trying to prove.
excuse-me 15y ago
>It counts the number of "hard stops" in every trip So stopping on amber lights or for idiot pedestrians or cyclists penalises her? Of course a side effect of this is that rates for BMW drivers will plummet. I don't know how bad the brakes on a BMW are - but I've yet to see one stop for anybody.
- hammock 15y ago
  Lesson learned: if you accidentally hit a pedestrian don't slam on the brakes, just keep going...?

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.

DanielBMarkham 15y ago
This thread is diverging from what the GP meant, which was just to describe how fun and good for you collecting data can be. After all, how can you get better at certain things if you're not willing to collect data on your performance? But the problem is that you can spin just about any kind of data collection in just the same way. In the 1960s, this exact scenario would have been part of a futuristic horror story. Robots and computers monitoring your every move, with your permission and encouragement, in an effort for you to become "better." In fact, I seem to remember several old sci-fi shows with just this kind of plot. It's interesting to note that such a scenario doesn't seem so horrific any more, and those warning about it are more and more seen as alarmists. I'm not sure where this is all heading, but the trajectory in public opinion is not very heartening. Modern marketing is turning its attention to popularizing your life "assisted" by machines which then take lots of observations about your behavior and report on them back to some third party.

dfxm12 15y ago

I think OP's point is more than just "what if it is less than optional". Scarier than "a future where it will be impossible to get affordable insurance if you opt out" is one where we get arrested/fined/penalized for making "too many hard stops" (whatever "too many" is, whatever a "hard stop" is and regardless of whether or not having "too many hard stops" makes you an unsafe driver). We should be wary of Big Data because it is all too easy for people in control to report data that supports whatever theory they are trying to prove.

excuse-me 15y ago

>It counts the number of "hard stops" in every trip So stopping on amber lights or for idiot pedestrians or cyclists penalises her? Of course a side effect of this is that rates for BMW drivers will plummet. I don't know how bad the brakes on a BMW are - but I've yet to see one stop for anybody.

hammock 15y ago
Lesson learned: if you accidentally hit a pedestrian don't slam on the brakes, just keep going...?