4 ms·

Does anyone find it odd that insurance companies can demand this kind of information? I pay them a fee (not willingly either - it's required by state law) to p

Does anyone find it odd that insurance companies can demand this kind of information? I pay them a fee (not willingly either - it's required by state law) to provide coverage for me in case of an accident. I tell them how much coverage I want and pay the amount required for that. Seems to me that should be the end of it, as with any service.

smileysteve 12y ago
I don't find it very surprising. Sure you pay them a fee for them to provide coverage for risk, but they will offer you a discount if you allow the risk to be calculated more accurately. It's not unlike health insurance or long term care insurance requiring you to get a physical before you can get a policy.
mikeash 12y ago
There are plenty of insurance options that operate the way you want. If you don't want to be monitored, don't sign up for insurance that uses monitoring.
- FeeTinesAMady 12y ago
  That's a foolish attitude to have about this. The more people use this type of system, the more pressure there will be on those of us who don't want to be spied on, or have our cars hacked. Eventually, it might not be possible to get insurance without a spy system like this, and that's a perfectly valid reason to want to push back against it now. Banning this practice completely would be ideal.
  - mikeash 12y ago
    That's your standard slippery slope argument. Which isn't automatically invalid, but you need to show that the slope will be slipped down, and that action needs to be taken now to stop it, rather than simply reversing it if and when you slip down. If a significant number of people dislike these systems, some insurance company will find a competitive advantage by catering to them. If the number isn't significant... is it right to legislate just for them?
    - FeeTinesAMady 12y ago
      There's nothing invalid about a slippery slope argument when a cursory examination of history will show that the slope will be slipped down. The slippery slope argument is only a fallacy because it's not a tautology: ie, it's theoretically possible for a government to not misuse laws and draw more power to themselves over time, and it's theoretically possible for insurance companies to not discriminate against their customers. Mind you, that's never happened once in all of recorded history, but it's theoretically possible. If you account for human behavior, any argument that you'd call a slippery slope fallacy isn't invalidated by that. Besides, consider what insurance companies are doing these days. Imagine if insurance companies had perfect information on who was going to crash their car and who wasn't. What would they do then? Why, they'd sell insurance to those who they knew would never crash, and refuse to cover anyone who would. Now, what would be the point of their existence, from society's standpoint? None at all, save enriching themselves. They would be pure parasites, of no value to society whatsoever. Why is that relevant? Because with everything they do to more accurately predict who is more of a risk, they inch themselves closer and closer to becoming useless parasites on society. The entire point of having insurance companies is that a group of people can pay into a pool that actually protects them when they need it. The insurance companies are trying to make it so they never have to pay out to anyone. Why should we as a society let them do this? They need to be limited in their ability to discriminate against people, and drawing a line at spying on their customers is a minimally decent line to stop them at. Much better would be if they were forced by law to insure anyone who wanted insurance, and they could only charge the highest risk class twice as much as the lowest risk class for insurance, but ending spying would be better than nothing.
DanBC 12y ago
Young men are over represented in road traffic accidents and deaths, so they pay much more for insurance. If you're a young man and a careful driver your current choice is either pay a lot or get one of these devices and pay less.
uptown 12y ago
It's currently an opt-in choice by drivers. I fear the day all cars are connected, and it's no longer a choice, but a mandate by insurance companies. Cars are already being required to include "black boxes" to record data for use in accidents. I absolutely anticipate more insurance companies to push for access this type of data as part of the terms of covering drivers.
- vaadu 12y ago
  My port is already being used for my own stats gathering. So they need to supply a hub or splitter.
bradleyland 12y ago
Insurance is basically a game of profiling. The entire concept of insurance starts from a basis of a large, single class of people who cooperate to distribute the costs of improbable incidents over the group. Insurance companies don't treat everyone as one large, single class though. They break people down by age, gender, miles driven on average, geographic region, and tons of other metrics that are used to assess your risk level. Higher risk level? Hire risk class. Higher premium. Also, you're not really insuring yourself. At least not in the way you think. In most cases, you're insuring yourself against liability, which means you're really insuring the other guy. If you get in to an accident, your insurance pays the other guy's medical bills, not yours. You can usually get some small amount of coverage for yourself, but it's a fraction of the liability coverage.

smileysteve 12y ago

I don't find it very surprising. Sure you pay them a fee for them to provide coverage for risk, but they will offer you a discount if you allow the risk to be calculated more accurately. It's not unlike health insurance or long term care insurance requiring you to get a physical before you can get a policy.

mikeash 12y ago

There are plenty of insurance options that operate the way you want. If you don't want to be monitored, don't sign up for insurance that uses monitoring.

FeeTinesAMady 12y ago
That's a foolish attitude to have about this. The more people use this type of system, the more pressure there will be on those of us who don't want to be spied on, or have our cars hacked. Eventually, it might not be possible to get insurance without a spy system like this, and that's a perfectly valid reason to want to push back against it now. Banning this practice completely would be ideal.
- mikeash 12y ago
  That's your standard slippery slope argument. Which isn't automatically invalid, but you need to show that the slope will be slipped down, and that action needs to be taken now to stop it, rather than simply reversing it if and when you slip down. If a significant number of people dislike these systems, some insurance company will find a competitive advantage by catering to them. If the number isn't significant... is it right to legislate just for them?
  - FeeTinesAMady 12y ago
    There's nothing invalid about a slippery slope argument when a cursory examination of history will show that the slope will be slipped down. The slippery slope argument is only a fallacy because it's not a tautology: ie, it's theoretically possible for a government to not misuse laws and draw more power to themselves over time, and it's theoretically possible for insurance companies to not discriminate against their customers. Mind you, that's never happened once in all of recorded history, but it's theoretically possible. If you account for human behavior, any argument that you'd call a slippery slope fallacy isn't invalidated by that. Besides, consider what insurance companies are doing these days. Imagine if insurance companies had perfect information on who was going to crash their car and who wasn't. What would they do then? Why, they'd sell insurance to those who they knew would never crash, and refuse to cover anyone who would. Now, what would be the point of their existence, from society's standpoint? None at all, save enriching themselves. They would be pure parasites, of no value to society whatsoever. Why is that relevant? Because with everything they do to more accurately predict who is more of a risk, they inch themselves closer and closer to becoming useless parasites on society. The entire point of having insurance companies is that a group of people can pay into a pool that actually protects them when they need it. The insurance companies are trying to make it so they never have to pay out to anyone. Why should we as a society let them do this? They need to be limited in their ability to discriminate against people, and drawing a line at spying on their customers is a minimally decent line to stop them at. Much better would be if they were forced by law to insure anyone who wanted insurance, and they could only charge the highest risk class twice as much as the lowest risk class for insurance, but ending spying would be better than nothing.

DanBC 12y ago

Young men are over represented in road traffic accidents and deaths, so they pay much more for insurance. If you're a young man and a careful driver your current choice is either pay a lot or get one of these devices and pay less.

uptown 12y ago

It's currently an opt-in choice by drivers. I fear the day all cars are connected, and it's no longer a choice, but a mandate by insurance companies. Cars are already being required to include "black boxes" to record data for use in accidents. I absolutely anticipate more insurance companies to push for access this type of data as part of the terms of covering drivers.

vaadu 12y ago
My port is already being used for my own stats gathering. So they need to supply a hub or splitter.

bradleyland 12y ago

Insurance is basically a game of profiling. The entire concept of insurance starts from a basis of a large, single class of people who cooperate to distribute the costs of improbable incidents over the group. Insurance companies don't treat everyone as one large, single class though. They break people down by age, gender, miles driven on average, geographic region, and tons of other metrics that are used to assess your risk level. Higher risk level? Hire risk class. Higher premium. Also, you're not really insuring yourself. At least not in the way you think. In most cases, you're insuring yourself against liability, which means you're really insuring the other guy. If you get in to an accident, your insurance pays the other guy's medical bills, not yours. You can usually get some small amount of coverage for yourself, but it's a fraction of the liability coverage.