12 ms·

Paxton is a crook, but in this case he's fighting the good fight. Texas collected a $1.4B settlement from Meta for its facial-recognition scanning, and in this

by fmajid 2y ago

Paxton is a crook, but in this case he's fighting the good fight. Texas collected a $1.4B settlement from Meta for its facial-recognition scanning, and in this case the monetary damages to the victims are far worse in terms of higher insurance premiums. https://boingboing.net/2024/07/31/meta-to-pay-1-4bn-for-unauthorized-facial-scans-of-texas-facebook-users.html https://boingboing.net/2024/07/31/meta-to-pay-1-4bn-for-unau... He should then go after the insurance companies who used this data next, and force them to disgorge the excess profits they made from the illegal use of data, preferably with triple penalties.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
warkdarrior 2y ago
Why is the insurance companies' use of this data illegal? Unless you can show discrimination against protected groups, not sure how this is illegal.
- lithos 2y ago
  Why would you be allowed to use illegal data? Especially if you have the means to know if it's illegal or not. Not even Ebay/Craigslist has managed to keep itself immune from liability of vendors selling stolen items.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - kube-system 2y ago
    Do insurance regulations prohibit it? Stolen property is a little bit different, there are laws that explicitly prohibit possession or dealing in property known to be stolen.
  - shitlord 2y ago
    Insurance is regulated so maybe it's different, but plenty of companies rely on illegally obtained data. Websites like haveibeenpwned.com and identity theft protection services couldn't exist without hacked/stolen information. I guess the distinction is that they didn't commission it.
    - kube-system 2y ago
      Also, newspapers regularly publish information that was obtained illegally. e.g. someone breaking an NDA.
- Craighead 2y ago
  [dead]
- pc86 2y ago
  It's illegal because GM sending this data to insurance companies without explicitly user consent violates Texas law. Protected class has nothing to do with it.
kardianos 2y ago
When you say "Paxton is a crook", do you mean you believe he steals, or do you mean he was convicted, or that he should be convicted? Was Paxton convicted of a crime? Was Paxton accused of a crime you believe he is guilty of?
- mikeyouse 2y ago
  He's a well known crook.. he's been repeatedly indicted for serious financial crimes but due to his position in government, the charges either were dropped for nonsense reasons or just never prosecuted for over 9 years... https://apnews.com/article/paxton-indictment-texas-d5e57fc6cd062c995ced91e9d2542199 https://apnews.com/article/paxton-indictment-texas-d5e57fc6c... Then afterwards nearly a dozen of his staffers whistleblew to the FBI about his relationship with an Austin-based real estate developer who was committing serious crimes with Paxton's blessing and likely with kickbacks -- https://www.texastribune.org/2023/09/07/ken-paxton-impeachment-trial-ryan-bangert/ https://www.texastribune.org/2023/09/07/ken-paxton-impeachme... That developer was indicted on a number of serious Federal charges where it came out that he renovated Paxton's home for free and covered up Paxton's affair with one of his other staffers: https://www.texastribune.org/2023/11/08/nate-paul-indictment-ken-paxton/ https://www.texastribune.org/2023/11/08/nate-paul-indictment... Which ultimately resulted in an impeachment trial where the Texas GOP compeletly beclowned itself to acquit an obvious crook because they agree with him politically. https://www.texastribune.org/2023/09/16/ken-paxton-acquitted-impeachment-texas-attorney-general/ https://www.texastribune.org/2023/09/16/ken-paxton-acquitted...
  - muaytimbo 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - mikeyouse 2y ago
      Cool - which is why I expanded the post to include all sorts of other evidence of crimes. And indictments don't mean "literally nothing" -- they mean that a prosecutor convinced a grand jury that they had enough evidence to bring charges against you, no matter how catchy the slogan from some judge from 40 years ago happens to be. As I'm sure you can appreciate, the rules of evidence and general criminal case law has changed pretty dramatically since the 1980s.
AbrahamParangi 2y ago
In an efficient market insurance premiums are essentially zero sum. The more that one person pays to offset their own risk, the less everyone else pays. Safe drivers subsidize unsafe drivers and this subsidy can and should be reduced when possible with better predictive information.
- saagarjha 2y ago
  Perhaps the market should not strive for optimal efficiency then.
  - IncreasePosts 2y ago
    Why? You'd probably have better outcomes for everyone with more information. Unsafe drivers might start reigning in their bad habits because it is costing them money every month, and safe drivers will save money. Seems like a win-win. I'd love it if my dash cam could do ALPR and send a video to the registered insurance agency when I see some absolutely ludicrous driving.
    - klyrs 2y ago
      In this model, what incentivizes safe drivers to have insurance? And then when a "safe driver" wipes out in a freak snow storm and racks up a million dollars in damages that they can't afford to pay, where's the win-win?
      - lotsofpulp 2y ago
        The same thing that incentivizes them right now, legal requirements to maintain a certain minimum amount of auto liability insurance in order to be able to legally drive. Which, by the way, is currently far less than a million dollars in every jurisdiction I know. https://www.autoinsurance.org/car-insurance-requirements/ https://www.autoinsurance.org/car-insurance-requirements/
        simcup 2y ago
sidewndr46 2y ago
I can't really see how enriching the state of Texas to the tune of 1.4 billion US dollars is "the good fight". Meta does something that negatively effects individuals & the outcome is the state collects a paycheck? No thanks.
- dylan604 2y ago
  Banning books and squashing rights doesn't pay for itself! /s said as a Texan that vehemently disagrees with the gov't in charge
  - stctw 2y ago
    > Banning books I don't see how comments saying that are accepted here. Everyone knows that no books are being banned anywhere in the country. You can go to a bookstore or web site and buy whatever books you want. They can be bought in public or delivered to your home. Publishers can publish whatever they want. The First Amendment protects authors, publishers, and readers. Meanwhile, in the UK, if you share a message consisting entirely of a couple of emojis on Facebook, you can be sentenced to 2 months in jail, being convicted and sentenced in merely 3 days. Yet people here continue to make accusations of "banning books." I hope that the Internet enables humanity to eventually "graduate" out of this state in which we have infinite access to information yet consume enormous amounts of propaganda.
    - digging 2y ago
      Forcibly removing books (about very specific topics related to oppressed cultural minorities) from public school libraries is not the same thing as enacting a national ban on printing or trading those books, no. But it's a lot closer to a total ban than it is to not banning books. (And I stand by "forcibly," if you've seen any of the adults screaming at school board hearings or issuing threats over these books)
      - gottorf 2y ago
        > oppressed cultural minorities What oppressed cultural minorities? Nearly the entirety of the media landscape outright celebrates LGBTQ, if that's what you're talking about. I'd be hard-pressed to think of a more exaggerated use of the word "oppression". Does the fact that you view this group as oppressed make a difference on whether such a ban is more or less valid?
akira2501 2y ago
> Paxton is a crook, but in this case he's fighting the good fight. The Texas Attorney General is an entire office of people. It's always nice to know that while you want to judge the book by it's cover you're willing to put that aside. It is always odd to me that people feel the need to announce this.
- pc86 2y ago
  The common belief is that Texas === Republican (it doesn't), and folks here need to virtue signal that they're definitely not one to be or support any Republican in any way ever under any circumstances. This is clearly one of the single-digit number of aberrations where a Republican has done something that isn't objectively evil, right? I don't know why we can't just say a good thing is a good thing and leave it at that. Every politician has done good things. Every politician has done bad things. Every politician (or very close) has probably done something you'd consider downright evil.
- digging 2y ago
  Paxton is a crook though, abuses the power of his office, and generally would prefer to act in ways that hurt his political opponents rather than ways that server the public. He works against the public interest and should be called out for it. So, it's genuinely shocking for the TAG under his direction to be protecting consumers from these kinds of abuses.
  - akira2501 2y ago
    > He works against the public interest and should be called out for it It's an elected position in Texas. I understand that most of the people who frequent Hacker News wouldn't share his politics, but it's pretty undemocratic to "call him out" incessantly, even when it adds nothing to the situation being discussed, and in particular when he's been elected by a vote. It's mindless preaching to the choir to show that, yes, you are on the "proper" side of the false political divide. It's tiring. So, _I_ call _this_ out. The attitude, to me, boils down to, "I refuse to acknowledge anything good without reminding myself of everything bad." What value does this have? Maybe I just don't "get it."
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

by fmajid 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

warkdarrior 2y ago

Why is the insurance companies' use of this data illegal? Unless you can show discrimination against protected groups, not sure how this is illegal.

lithos 2y ago
Why would you be allowed to use illegal data? Especially if you have the means to know if it's illegal or not. Not even Ebay/Craigslist has managed to keep itself immune from liability of vendors selling stolen items.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- kube-system 2y ago
  Do insurance regulations prohibit it? Stolen property is a little bit different, there are laws that explicitly prohibit possession or dealing in property known to be stolen.
- shitlord 2y ago
  Insurance is regulated so maybe it's different, but plenty of companies rely on illegally obtained data. Websites like haveibeenpwned.com and identity theft protection services couldn't exist without hacked/stolen information. I guess the distinction is that they didn't commission it.
  - kube-system 2y ago
    Also, newspapers regularly publish information that was obtained illegally. e.g. someone breaking an NDA.
Craighead 2y ago
[dead]
pc86 2y ago
It's illegal because GM sending this data to insurance companies without explicitly user consent violates Texas law. Protected class has nothing to do with it.

kardianos 2y ago

When you say "Paxton is a crook", do you mean you believe he steals, or do you mean he was convicted, or that he should be convicted? Was Paxton convicted of a crime? Was Paxton accused of a crime you believe he is guilty of?

mikeyouse 2y ago
He's a well known crook.. he's been repeatedly indicted for serious financial crimes but due to his position in government, the charges either were dropped for nonsense reasons or just never prosecuted for over 9 years... https://apnews.com/article/paxton-indictment-texas-d5e57fc6cd062c995ced91e9d2542199 https://apnews.com/article/paxton-indictment-texas-d5e57fc6c... Then afterwards nearly a dozen of his staffers whistleblew to the FBI about his relationship with an Austin-based real estate developer who was committing serious crimes with Paxton's blessing and likely with kickbacks -- https://www.texastribune.org/2023/09/07/ken-paxton-impeachment-trial-ryan-bangert/ https://www.texastribune.org/2023/09/07/ken-paxton-impeachme... That developer was indicted on a number of serious Federal charges where it came out that he renovated Paxton's home for free and covered up Paxton's affair with one of his other staffers: https://www.texastribune.org/2023/11/08/nate-paul-indictment-ken-paxton/ https://www.texastribune.org/2023/11/08/nate-paul-indictment... Which ultimately resulted in an impeachment trial where the Texas GOP compeletly beclowned itself to acquit an obvious crook because they agree with him politically. https://www.texastribune.org/2023/09/16/ken-paxton-acquitted-impeachment-texas-attorney-general/ https://www.texastribune.org/2023/09/16/ken-paxton-acquitted...
- muaytimbo 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - mikeyouse 2y ago
    Cool - which is why I expanded the post to include all sorts of other evidence of crimes. And indictments don't mean "literally nothing" -- they mean that a prosecutor convinced a grand jury that they had enough evidence to bring charges against you, no matter how catchy the slogan from some judge from 40 years ago happens to be. As I'm sure you can appreciate, the rules of evidence and general criminal case law has changed pretty dramatically since the 1980s.

AbrahamParangi 2y ago

In an efficient market insurance premiums are essentially zero sum. The more that one person pays to offset their own risk, the less everyone else pays. Safe drivers subsidize unsafe drivers and this subsidy can and should be reduced when possible with better predictive information.

saagarjha 2y ago
Perhaps the market should not strive for optimal efficiency then.
- IncreasePosts 2y ago
  Why? You'd probably have better outcomes for everyone with more information. Unsafe drivers might start reigning in their bad habits because it is costing them money every month, and safe drivers will save money. Seems like a win-win. I'd love it if my dash cam could do ALPR and send a video to the registered insurance agency when I see some absolutely ludicrous driving.
  - klyrs 2y ago
    In this model, what incentivizes safe drivers to have insurance? And then when a "safe driver" wipes out in a freak snow storm and racks up a million dollars in damages that they can't afford to pay, where's the win-win?
    - lotsofpulp 2y ago
      The same thing that incentivizes them right now, legal requirements to maintain a certain minimum amount of auto liability insurance in order to be able to legally drive. Which, by the way, is currently far less than a million dollars in every jurisdiction I know. https://www.autoinsurance.org/car-insurance-requirements/ https://www.autoinsurance.org/car-insurance-requirements/
      - simcup 2y ago

sidewndr46 2y ago

I can't really see how enriching the state of Texas to the tune of 1.4 billion US dollars is "the good fight". Meta does something that negatively effects individuals & the outcome is the state collects a paycheck? No thanks.

dylan604 2y ago
Banning books and squashing rights doesn't pay for itself! /s said as a Texan that vehemently disagrees with the gov't in charge
- stctw 2y ago
  > Banning books I don't see how comments saying that are accepted here. Everyone knows that no books are being banned anywhere in the country. You can go to a bookstore or web site and buy whatever books you want. They can be bought in public or delivered to your home. Publishers can publish whatever they want. The First Amendment protects authors, publishers, and readers. Meanwhile, in the UK, if you share a message consisting entirely of a couple of emojis on Facebook, you can be sentenced to 2 months in jail, being convicted and sentenced in merely 3 days. Yet people here continue to make accusations of "banning books." I hope that the Internet enables humanity to eventually "graduate" out of this state in which we have infinite access to information yet consume enormous amounts of propaganda.
  - digging 2y ago
    Forcibly removing books (about very specific topics related to oppressed cultural minorities) from public school libraries is not the same thing as enacting a national ban on printing or trading those books, no. But it's a lot closer to a total ban than it is to not banning books. (And I stand by "forcibly," if you've seen any of the adults screaming at school board hearings or issuing threats over these books)
    - gottorf 2y ago
      > oppressed cultural minorities What oppressed cultural minorities? Nearly the entirety of the media landscape outright celebrates LGBTQ, if that's what you're talking about. I'd be hard-pressed to think of a more exaggerated use of the word "oppression". Does the fact that you view this group as oppressed make a difference on whether such a ban is more or less valid?

akira2501 2y ago

> Paxton is a crook, but in this case he's fighting the good fight. The Texas Attorney General is an entire office of people. It's always nice to know that while you want to judge the book by it's cover you're willing to put that aside. It is always odd to me that people feel the need to announce this.

pc86 2y ago
The common belief is that Texas === Republican (it doesn't), and folks here need to virtue signal that they're definitely not one to be or support any Republican in any way ever under any circumstances. This is clearly one of the single-digit number of aberrations where a Republican has done something that isn't objectively evil, right? I don't know why we can't just say a good thing is a good thing and leave it at that. Every politician has done good things. Every politician has done bad things. Every politician (or very close) has probably done something you'd consider downright evil.
digging 2y ago
Paxton is a crook though, abuses the power of his office, and generally would prefer to act in ways that hurt his political opponents rather than ways that server the public. He works against the public interest and should be called out for it. So, it's genuinely shocking for the TAG under his direction to be protecting consumers from these kinds of abuses.
- akira2501 2y ago
  > He works against the public interest and should be called out for it It's an elected position in Texas. I understand that most of the people who frequent Hacker News wouldn't share his politics, but it's pretty undemocratic to "call him out" incessantly, even when it adds nothing to the situation being discussed, and in particular when he's been elected by a vote. It's mindless preaching to the choir to show that, yes, you are on the "proper" side of the false political divide. It's tiring. So, _I_ call _this_ out. The attitude, to me, boils down to, "I refuse to acknowledge anything good without reminding myself of everything bad." What value does this have? Maybe I just don't "get it."

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]