4 ms·

Independent of the data privacy question, I think it is good to make unsafe drivers pay more for insurance. Safe drivers should not have to subsidise their insu

Independent of the data privacy question, I think it is good to make unsafe drivers pay more for insurance. Safe drivers should not have to subsidise their insurance.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> it is good to make unsafe drivers pay more for insurance. Safe drivers should not have to subsidise their insurance And you know what, that’s a fair deal. If I had strong privacy protections, e.g. open-source code that homomorphically encrypts my driving data and guarantees it’s being used to update a model and then deleted, I’d sign up. But the offer has to be clear and opt in. And I don’t want to be in a situation where someone borrows my car and I start getting letters about why they visited an abortion clinic in such and such state.
- Tabular-Iceberg 3y ago
  > I start getting letters about why they visited an abortion clinic in such and such state. Sounds fair enough to me if premiums are going to be tied to driver behavior. Either opt out or don’t lend your car to those procuring abortions.
- itsoktocry 3y ago
  >And I don’t want to be in a situation where someone borrows my car and I start getting letters about why they visited an abortion clinic in such and such state. How is it any different than someone standing outside the abortion clinic and observing who is parked and who goes in and out of the clinic?
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > How is it any different than someone standing outside the abortion clinic and observing who is parked and who goes in and out of the clinic? Because that person, presumably a law-enforcement officer, is visible and physically in one place. Also, I am describing a hypothetical where a woman in a state where abortion is banned travels out of state to get the procedure. That’s simply not something one can police with traditional tools.
  - Tabular-Iceberg 3y ago
    It doesn’t scale well. The insurance company would have to hire an entire army of PIs to snoop around that and every other venue that suggests risk-seeking behavior. It probably wouldn’t pay off.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
jonathanlydall 3y ago
You're assuming these monitoring devices are actually capable of observing the quality of your driving while being cognisant of the particular conditions of the road at the time you made a decision to do something it algorithmically deemed "unsafe". For a while I used an insurance company in South Africa which rewarded "good" driving, you'd need an app installed on your phone which would use Bluetooth to communicate with a little device you'd put on your windscreen. They were very clear that the monitored results would never be used to affect your premiums or used in the event of an accident, however, if you drove "badly" then you'd get less rewards. One of the rewards options was cashback on money you spent on fuel (from particular partners), the percentage being more or less depending on how "well" you drove. Something it used to rate your driving was accelerometer readings which would be used to identify possible "harsh" cornering, acceleration or deceleration. However, the thresholds chosen were clearly not very scientific as often I would get penalized for "harsh" breaking at amber lights where my only other option would have been to go through an intersection just after the light changed to red. Worrying about how much cashback you'll lose for stopping at a red light is not something that encourages "safer" driving. Aside from harsh breaking, I managed to avoid all other penalizing behaviours, namely: speeding, "harsh" cornering (as I would have to take corners quite slowly, this was likely somewhat annoying to other drivers), not using my phone while driving and generally not driving at late hours. I landed up changing my insurance company for other reasons, but I don't miss having to factor in "rewards" penalties in my driving decisions on top of trying to be as safe as possible.

Independent of the data privacy question, I think it is good to make unsafe drivers pay more for insurance. Safe drivers should not have to subsidise their insurance.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> it is good to make unsafe drivers pay more for insurance. Safe drivers should not have to subsidise their insurance And you know what, that’s a fair deal. If I had strong privacy protections, e.g. open-source code that homomorphically encrypts my driving data and guarantees it’s being used to update a model and then deleted, I’d sign up. But the offer has to be clear and opt in. And I don’t want to be in a situation where someone borrows my car and I start getting letters about why they visited an abortion clinic in such and such state.

Tabular-Iceberg 3y ago
> I start getting letters about why they visited an abortion clinic in such and such state. Sounds fair enough to me if premiums are going to be tied to driver behavior. Either opt out or don’t lend your car to those procuring abortions.
itsoktocry 3y ago
>And I don’t want to be in a situation where someone borrows my car and I start getting letters about why they visited an abortion clinic in such and such state. How is it any different than someone standing outside the abortion clinic and observing who is parked and who goes in and out of the clinic?
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > How is it any different than someone standing outside the abortion clinic and observing who is parked and who goes in and out of the clinic? Because that person, presumably a law-enforcement officer, is visible and physically in one place. Also, I am describing a hypothetical where a woman in a state where abortion is banned travels out of state to get the procedure. That’s simply not something one can police with traditional tools.
- Tabular-Iceberg 3y ago
  It doesn’t scale well. The insurance company would have to hire an entire army of PIs to snoop around that and every other venue that suggests risk-seeking behavior. It probably wouldn’t pay off.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

jonathanlydall 3y ago

You're assuming these monitoring devices are actually capable of observing the quality of your driving while being cognisant of the particular conditions of the road at the time you made a decision to do something it algorithmically deemed "unsafe". For a while I used an insurance company in South Africa which rewarded "good" driving, you'd need an app installed on your phone which would use Bluetooth to communicate with a little device you'd put on your windscreen. They were very clear that the monitored results would never be used to affect your premiums or used in the event of an accident, however, if you drove "badly" then you'd get less rewards. One of the rewards options was cashback on money you spent on fuel (from particular partners), the percentage being more or less depending on how "well" you drove. Something it used to rate your driving was accelerometer readings which would be used to identify possible "harsh" cornering, acceleration or deceleration. However, the thresholds chosen were clearly not very scientific as often I would get penalized for "harsh" breaking at amber lights where my only other option would have been to go through an intersection just after the light changed to red. Worrying about how much cashback you'll lose for stopping at a red light is not something that encourages "safer" driving. Aside from harsh breaking, I managed to avoid all other penalizing behaviours, namely: speeding, "harsh" cornering (as I would have to take corners quite slowly, this was likely somewhat annoying to other drivers), not using my phone while driving and generally not driving at late hours. I landed up changing my insurance company for other reasons, but I don't miss having to factor in "rewards" penalties in my driving decisions on top of trying to be as safe as possible.