3 ms·

> Firstly, surveilling every person in the world at all times to ensure safety is a gross misapplicaiton of tech that flies in the face of personal freedom and

> Firstly, surveilling every person in the world at all times to ensure safety is a gross misapplicaiton of tech that flies in the face of personal freedom and privacy. Are you referring to the opt-in system of surveillance which insurance companies use to monitor driving (install our app/plug our device into your OBD port)? Or are they, these days, buying data on your driving from stuff like traffic cams (wouldn't be surprising, sorry if I'm giving them the idea now)?

ToucanLoucan 2y ago
In the thread I saw yesterday, can't spend the time to find it atm, the topic was specifically about an insurance company using drones and AI to ascertain that someone's roof had moss growing on it. The homeowner fully acknowledged that this was a lapse in his upkeep, but also, I am incredibly opposed to the notion that a company can surveil people as such simply because they buy insurance from them.
kelnos 2y ago
> Are you referring to the opt-in system of surveillance which insurance companies use to monitor driving (install our app/plug our device into your OBD port)? Not the person you're replying to, but yes, absolutely stuff like that. (I think GP was talking about drone surveillance and stuff like that, but sure, we can talk about this too.) The problem is that people are being coerced into giving up their privacy and autonomy. In this particular case, the coercion is (as usual) money: you presumably get a discount for letting your insurance company spy on you. I expect, though, that ultimately the insurance companies use these things as justification to charge more on average. Let's face it: most people are not particularly good drivers. That's a problem, certainly, but not one that should or will be solved by a company with a profit motive. Some people will drive within whatever arbitrary, poorly-understood parameters that makes the insurance company's algorithms happy, but most probably will not, and will likely see their premiums go up, but not realize why. And even if this did actually result in lower premiums on average (for the people who opt into this dystopia), it's still a problem, because the implication is that only rich people are allowed to have privacy.
- shadowgovt 2y ago
  > only rich people are allowed to have privacy. We already live in a world where being wealthy can buy you more privacy. The question is only where we put the comfort slider on that fact, not whether it is a fact.
ndriscoll 2y ago
Actually these days new cars have GPS tracking built in, and the manufacturers sell your location data, so it's much more fine-grained than traffic cams, and they didn't need your help getting the idea.
markovs_gun 2y ago
Does it really matter if it's opt-in when insurance companies are going to make the price without the "discounts" you get for opting in completely unaffordable for most people? When I shopped around for auto insurance most recently, I discovered that Liberty Mutual is already using this model. The quoted price is way higher than most, but convenient discounts are offered if you download an app that lets them spy on your driving habits. What happens when every insurer starts doing stuff like this because it becomes socially acceptable for them to do so? The issue, as usual, isn't from one or two firms offering a discount in exchange for data collection, it's when this data collection happens at scale and is practically unavoidable, especially for people who don't realize what they're really opting into.
- tekknik 2y ago
  > Does it really matter if it's opt-in when insurance companies are going to make the price without the "discounts" you get for opting in completely unaffordable for most people? let’s be accurate with statements yes? i was offered one of these devices, refused it, and my rates did not increase. you’re claiming the rates people have been paying are lower than after they refuse the device. This is incorrect.
  - markovs_gun 2y ago
    That's not the mechanism by which this happens. It's likely illegal (or at the very least, a bad look PR wise) for them to increase your rates based on your refusal to be spied on, but the base price will likely increase as the adoption of technologies like this becomes more widespread, and the discounts will become a more important part of how people afford car insurance. It's not that your specific policy will go from $200/mo to $300/mo for not opting in, it's that over time the same policy for new customers will be $300/mo but with a $100/mo discount for letting them spy on you.
    - tekknik 2y ago
      Inflation will also do that. So are you mad at the current administration for increasing the prices of all policies? in reality so long as there still competition and the gov keeps their regulatory noses out of it, then competition alone will take care of it. Besides, the devices are embedded into cars now so this is entirely a nonissue going forward. Everybody already has one and your driving data is being sent to insurance companies without you even knowing.

ToucanLoucan 2y ago

In the thread I saw yesterday, can't spend the time to find it atm, the topic was specifically about an insurance company using drones and AI to ascertain that someone's roof had moss growing on it. The homeowner fully acknowledged that this was a lapse in his upkeep, but also, I am incredibly opposed to the notion that a company can surveil people as such simply because they buy insurance from them.

kelnos 2y ago

> Are you referring to the opt-in system of surveillance which insurance companies use to monitor driving (install our app/plug our device into your OBD port)? Not the person you're replying to, but yes, absolutely stuff like that. (I think GP was talking about drone surveillance and stuff like that, but sure, we can talk about this too.) The problem is that people are being coerced into giving up their privacy and autonomy. In this particular case, the coercion is (as usual) money: you presumably get a discount for letting your insurance company spy on you. I expect, though, that ultimately the insurance companies use these things as justification to charge more on average. Let's face it: most people are not particularly good drivers. That's a problem, certainly, but not one that should or will be solved by a company with a profit motive. Some people will drive within whatever arbitrary, poorly-understood parameters that makes the insurance company's algorithms happy, but most probably will not, and will likely see their premiums go up, but not realize why. And even if this did actually result in lower premiums on average (for the people who opt into this dystopia), it's still a problem, because the implication is that only rich people are allowed to have privacy.

shadowgovt 2y ago
> only rich people are allowed to have privacy. We already live in a world where being wealthy can buy you more privacy. The question is only where we put the comfort slider on that fact, not whether it is a fact.

ndriscoll 2y ago

Actually these days new cars have GPS tracking built in, and the manufacturers sell your location data, so it's much more fine-grained than traffic cams, and they didn't need your help getting the idea.

markovs_gun 2y ago

Does it really matter if it's opt-in when insurance companies are going to make the price without the "discounts" you get for opting in completely unaffordable for most people? When I shopped around for auto insurance most recently, I discovered that Liberty Mutual is already using this model. The quoted price is way higher than most, but convenient discounts are offered if you download an app that lets them spy on your driving habits. What happens when every insurer starts doing stuff like this because it becomes socially acceptable for them to do so? The issue, as usual, isn't from one or two firms offering a discount in exchange for data collection, it's when this data collection happens at scale and is practically unavoidable, especially for people who don't realize what they're really opting into.

tekknik 2y ago
> Does it really matter if it's opt-in when insurance companies are going to make the price without the "discounts" you get for opting in completely unaffordable for most people? let’s be accurate with statements yes? i was offered one of these devices, refused it, and my rates did not increase. you’re claiming the rates people have been paying are lower than after they refuse the device. This is incorrect.
- markovs_gun 2y ago
  That's not the mechanism by which this happens. It's likely illegal (or at the very least, a bad look PR wise) for them to increase your rates based on your refusal to be spied on, but the base price will likely increase as the adoption of technologies like this becomes more widespread, and the discounts will become a more important part of how people afford car insurance. It's not that your specific policy will go from $200/mo to $300/mo for not opting in, it's that over time the same policy for new customers will be $300/mo but with a $100/mo discount for letting them spy on you.
  - tekknik 2y ago
    Inflation will also do that. So are you mad at the current administration for increasing the prices of all policies? in reality so long as there still competition and the gov keeps their regulatory noses out of it, then competition alone will take care of it. Besides, the devices are embedded into cars now so this is entirely a nonissue going forward. Everybody already has one and your driving data is being sent to insurance companies without you even knowing.