4 ms·

They don’t give a shit about privacy directly but GM was egregious in collecting this data - confusing consumers - sneakily signing up consumers to “smart dri

by xyst 2y ago

They don’t give a shit about privacy directly but GM was egregious in collecting this data - confusing consumers - sneakily signing up consumers to “smart driver” as part of onstar - data brokers subsequently building profiles on users and selling this data to _insurance companies_ - consumers later finding out their insurance doesn’t get renewed because of this secret driver profile that was built without their explicit consent If GM followed the rules by disclosing this directly, allowing consumers to opt out. They probably wouldn’t be in this embarrassing position. It’s in the FTC release: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/01/ftc-takes-action-against-general-motors-sharing-drivers-precise-location-driving-behavior-data https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/01/...

ycombinatrix 2y ago
Lmao. They were too cartoonish in their villainous behavior.
- mrguyorama 2y ago
  It's surprising since usually nowadays that gets you a cabinet position or a seat in the House.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
soco 2y ago
Please allow me to be cynical and see here no embarrassment whatsoever. They cashed on this for years and will surely find other ways (and have some already) to further cash on people. It's only one of the schemes which got foiled, and only for a while. Yes, I have zero trust and the presumption is of guilt.
- infecto 2y ago
  Did they really "cash" in on it? When I saw the prior articles on GM it sounded like a very minor revenue stream that did not scratch their overall revenue from vehicle sales.
  - soco 2y ago
    So they did it for the fun of it? Because "minor" is still not zero.
    - infecto 2y ago
      Why respond in such a clown tone? Of course they did not do it for the fun of it but your narrative is highly suggestive that it was a huge cash cow. It was not, from what was reported on regarding GM is sounded like the effort was more hassle than its worth. Not sure if that will continue to be true but perhaps its too much bad PR for not really any gain.
diggan 2y ago
> They don’t give a shit about privacy directly But then this submission is explicitly about them giving a shit, and your own example shows that they do give a shit. Since GM didn't allow people a choice regarding their privacy, FTC looked into it? I really don't understand how someone can see this story about FTC giving a shit, and then proclaim "They don't give a shit". If they didn't give a shit, why do something?
- FollowingTheDao 2y ago
  If they gave a shit they would ban it from all cars and not let the automakers hide it with dark patterns.
  - diggan 2y ago
    They would ban illegal data collection? Seems it's already banned, and this case proves they don't let automakers hide it with dark patterns, then you get banned from dealing with data at all. Or you're arguing against data collection as a whole? I'm not sure FTC is the right tree to bark up to if that's the case, wouldn't you need to involve lawmakers for that? It seems to me FTC would only be able to legislate against "unfair or deceptive practices", so that's why they can address people collecting data in the wrong way, but not address data collection as a whole, would be my guess.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    They have instituted broader regulations. (I wish I knew where a systematic evaluation is.)

by xyst 2y ago

ycombinatrix 2y ago

Lmao. They were too cartoonish in their villainous behavior.

mrguyorama 2y ago
It's surprising since usually nowadays that gets you a cabinet position or a seat in the House.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

soco 2y ago

Please allow me to be cynical and see here no embarrassment whatsoever. They cashed on this for years and will surely find other ways (and have some already) to further cash on people. It's only one of the schemes which got foiled, and only for a while. Yes, I have zero trust and the presumption is of guilt.

infecto 2y ago
Did they really "cash" in on it? When I saw the prior articles on GM it sounded like a very minor revenue stream that did not scratch their overall revenue from vehicle sales.
- soco 2y ago
  So they did it for the fun of it? Because "minor" is still not zero.
  - infecto 2y ago
    Why respond in such a clown tone? Of course they did not do it for the fun of it but your narrative is highly suggestive that it was a huge cash cow. It was not, from what was reported on regarding GM is sounded like the effort was more hassle than its worth. Not sure if that will continue to be true but perhaps its too much bad PR for not really any gain.

diggan 2y ago

> They don’t give a shit about privacy directly But then this submission is explicitly about them giving a shit, and your own example shows that they do give a shit. Since GM didn't allow people a choice regarding their privacy, FTC looked into it? I really don't understand how someone can see this story about FTC giving a shit, and then proclaim "They don't give a shit". If they didn't give a shit, why do something?

FollowingTheDao 2y ago
If they gave a shit they would ban it from all cars and not let the automakers hide it with dark patterns.
- diggan 2y ago
  They would ban illegal data collection? Seems it's already banned, and this case proves they don't let automakers hide it with dark patterns, then you get banned from dealing with data at all. Or you're arguing against data collection as a whole? I'm not sure FTC is the right tree to bark up to if that's the case, wouldn't you need to involve lawmakers for that? It seems to me FTC would only be able to legislate against "unfair or deceptive practices", so that's why they can address people collecting data in the wrong way, but not address data collection as a whole, would be my guess.
- mmooss 2y ago
  They have instituted broader regulations. (I wish I knew where a systematic evaluation is.)