Romeo Chicco’s auto insurance rate doubled because of information about his speeding, braking and acceleration, according to his complaint.

  • lattrommi@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    中文
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    I see this post is old enough that my comment is less likely to be seen but i feel this is a somewhat relevant anecdote regarding the sale of automotive data.

    last april i bought a used car. i had not owned or driven a vehicle in well over a decade. i had never operated a vehicle with a computer, not like the kind this car had at least with its ‘infotainment’ console and numerous digital featrures. one such ‘feature’ was the navigation system. a map on the little tv in the console would show me directions after i entered an address into it. how useful!

    i was taking a trip to visit my grandparents not long after buying the car and to test out the navigation system, i entered their address into it. it failed to give me correct directions however, since the nav system was ran off an SD card inserted into a port inside the storage space between the driver and passenger seats. the car was made in 2013 and the sole previous owner had never used the nav system. the SD card was in its original packaging, unopened and in the glove box.

    i ended up visiting the grandparents by finding their home by memory, the way i normally navigate, and went on with my life. after that weekend, i learned the car had a recall. i could take it to a authorized dealership and have the faulty system replaced at no cost to me. so i did just that. the recalled part was supposedly fixed and all seemed well.

    a week or two passes and i get a call from my grandfather. he recieved mail addressed to me, asking if i wanted to sell my vehicle. my name, his address. i have never searched for his address on the internet, i know it by memory. the only place i have ever entered the location was in that car navigation system. i have never even spoken the address out loud nor heard it spoken in several decades, so those who believe phone are always recording with their microphones.

    i believe the only way that mail could have been sent in my name to their address, was through the navigation system data being downloaded from the car and sold to third parties. my grandparents have recieved several pieces of mail addressed to me since then. always, it is referencing my vehicle, with the correct make, model and year showing.

    i will never trust ford or purchase their products ever again. i should have known better than to have purchased this car, but it was a very good price with only one previous owner and a great carfax report.

    • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      i will never trust ford

      Every car company does it now. You cannot buy a car that isn’t selling your data.

      • lattrommi@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        中文
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        your comment is innacurate and does not add to this discussion in my opinion.

        i do not trust ford for many reasons beyond the invasion of privacy outlined here. while i never stated it explicitly as the reason for my mistrust of ford, i’m well aware that all car companies do data trading/selling and that details of the extent are largely unknown outside the shady data brokerage world. at no point did i state that they did not or that there are companies that do not.

        this example is an example of what i feel is a company that went too far, by extracting data from the vehicle without informing me they were doing it. a vehicle which was brought to their authorized dealer, to repair their faulty parts, which they were deemed responsible for after numerous complaints and fatal accidents, some involving children falling out of the vehicle after the doorsprings malfunctioned, even when the doors appeared to be locked, while the car was moving in excess of 60mph. this was not the first recall for the issue either. it was the second for all doors except for the back/trunk door, where it was the third.

        that is still irrelevant information though. the car was no longer under their warranty, it was purchased used. i gave no permission for them to do anything beyond the necessary and required repairs which came about due to their negligence. i signed no contract with them. i was supplied with no terms or conditions.

        if i went to the doctor to get my appendix removed, i would not expect to wake up and learn the doctor decided to do a colonoscopy just for shits and giggles, even if it did detect something critical. if i mentioned my grandparents address while going under with aenesthesia, i would not expect the doctor to send them an offer addressed to me, to purchase my tonsils.

        at no point did i make the claim that anyone could buy a car without it selling data of the purchaser. until now, where i will state that yes, you absolutely can buy a car that is not selling data. any car being sold that isn’t younger than me will not be selling any data, unless major customization was performed because they would be far too old. the technology didn’t exist 40+ years ago.

        what motivation was behind your assumptive and half false comment?

        • LockheedTheDragon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          You could get a pelvic exam while unconscious without knowing it happened. Some states have put limits on it, but then they can bury it in the T and Cs you sign and do it “technically” with your consent and not tell you. So unfortunately the privacy and dignity you think you have from the medical system isn’t as good as you think.

        • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          what motivation was behind

          No need to be hostile. I bought a Toyota and discovered it tracks my location without consent.

      • beebarfbadger@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        No no no, that’s just “Florida Man”, that’s the one dude you keep hearing about. Florida Georg is a statistical outlier and should not be counted.

  • roscoe@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    https://consumer.risk.lexisnexis.com/consumer

    You can go here to get a copy of your report.

    If you’re in California you can limit their collection and dissemination in the future and have your data deleted.

    If you dig into your car’s infotainment system to opt out of everything you can find, don’t forget any app you might have installed.

    • Mac@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      and then dont forget to go through this process every time something updates.

  • init@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    This is a tough one for me. I’m pro-privacy, but I’m also pro-sane driving habits.

    EDIT: Thanks for the replies and some constructive DMs. You brought up a lot of things I needed to consider that my lighthearted comment and thoughts behind it ignored. Privacy is and should be a fundamental right. This comes before the right to drive aggressively or defensively. Privacy should be non-negotiable.

    I’m going to leave this comment up because I believe it is a teachable moment. I have reevaluated my position, and I am wrong. Thanks for the thoughtful replies.

    • dsemy@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Corporations shouldn’t get to decide if you’re a sane driver.

      • capital@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        I’d like to see this guys report vs mine before deciding.

        Edit: uh oh, shitty drivers detected.

        • bane_killgrind@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Nah just people that understand that the insurance companies will do everything to optimise profits over everything, using any excuse they can.

          Heuristics like this will squeeze pennies out of middle earners and be gentle to the more “competitive” customers, that can afford not driving or going to a competitor.

    • okamiueru@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Am I too European to understand this?

      Out of all the things and ways “driving could be more sane”, you think the sale of your data to for-profit, private, third parties… will somehow be for the common good?

      • Jarix@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        I think they are saying that this person apparently drives poorly enough to warrant a huge increase in insurance and that they want people who are bad drivers to be found out, but that they don’t like the way this person was found to be a bad driver. Kind of a “while this is the result we want this is horrible, and not the way to get it.”

        They are conflicted, perhaps even made conceptually(?) uncomfortable, because they see value in that persons insurance reflecting their driving history, by the fact that they see a positive outcome in this case of invasion of privacy.

        That’s how i read it, not then condoning it just sharing some internal dilemma here. If my take is accurate, we should have compassion and help them through this with support not jumping to conclussions.

        They very much did not suggest that they approve at all of the sale of their data only that they see a connection.

        They cant ignore that people will use this as justification to continue down this path into the complete solvency of privacy…and that it may just work

        I’m making a lot of assumptions to explain my take in their eyes and expanding out a bit. Admittedly i am exploring this and cannot prove anything I’ve just said

        • Churbleyimyam@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          It’s complete speculation but I would think that paying more for insurance would be more likely to make you a worse driver than a better one. Having a crash is probably the only way you’ll actually get anything back out of the insurer!

          It would be better to just ban people outright or do what they do in France which is to allow people to only to drive a ‘sans-permis’, which is a tiny car, limited to 30 mph.

            • AnAngryAlpaca@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              Skinner.meme: “Should we build sensible, small cars that are cheap to buy and drive, dont support speeding, need little parking space and prevent horrific high speed crashes? - No, it would hurt the economy and my penis would fall of driving something with less than 400HP that dosn’t make vroom-vroom noises!”