General Motors Quits Sharing Driving Behavior With Data Brokers (nytimes.com) 34
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the New York Times: General Motors said Friday that it had stopped sharing details about how people drove its cars with two data brokers that created risk profiles for the insurance industry. The decision followed a New York Times report this month that G.M. had, for years, been sharing data about drivers' mileage, braking, acceleration and speed with the insurance industry. The drivers were enrolled -- some unknowingly, they said -- in OnStar Smart Driver, a feature in G.M.'s internet-connected cars that collected data about how the car had been driven and promised feedback and digital badges for good driving. Some drivers said their insurance rates had increased as a result of the captured data, which G.M. shared with two brokers, LexisNexis Risk Solutions and Verisk. The firms then sold the data to insurance companies. Since Wednesday, "OnStar Smart Driver customer data is no longer being shared with LexisNexis or Verisk," a G.M. spokeswoman, Malorie Lucich, said in an emailed statement. "Customer trust is a priority for us, and we are actively evaluating our privacy processes and policies."
In further news... (Score:4, Funny)
Representatives also announced that they planned to stop beating their spouses!
byte for a byte (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Auction their IP and use the proceeds to compensate the drivers.
Doesn't one of the big automakers own a huge block of IPv4 addresses from the early days of the internet? The heck with their Intellectual Property - auction off their IP addresses to compensate the drivers!
Re: (Score:2)
We should really be encouraging IP4 to be deprecated at this point. Take those addresses and make them unrouteable!
Re: (Score:3)
if they collect and sell their customer's data by unfair means, then their data should be sold as a punishment. Auction their IP and use the proceeds to compensate the drivers.
Does GM have useful IP?
Re: byte for a byte (Score:2)
Yes, they have the most comprehensive manual around on how not the build a car.
Data Ownership (Score:3)
Unless we get rid of permanent corporations and implement marketable torts it seems like we have to say people own their own data.
Neutrality would be ideal but the reality is these corporations will screw over their customers in ways they never could have imagined for a cheap buck and long after the purchase agreement is signed.
If all the car companies do this are we really going to say "stay home if you don't want to be tracked"? Many American liberties require travel to exercise so this cannot be the solution (should we choose to continue natural rights).
ow are they... (Score:5, Insightful)
How will GM proves this ? Until GM fully opens their firmware, I will not believe this. In fact even if the do I will not believe this. Look at how many times M/S said Windows 11 has no spyware but has been proven that is a lie.
With all the spyware being added to Cars, the expense of new cars and the complexity of maintenance, most people will keep their old beaters instead of buying new.
Re: (Score:3)
Yep, I've been tempted to unplug the Onstar module in my truck for a while and this sealed the deal on it for me. Pain in the ass, but just getting rid of the occasional audio ad bullshit will be worth it.
Re: (Score:3)
most people will keep their old beaters instead of buying new
In the EU that will only be possible until the next component fails, such as a water pump or brake cylinder. I expect the idea will spread throughout the West, not least because European brands like BMW, VW and Fiat (and/or their sources) will stop supplying such parts as spares. Wheels Alive [wheels-alive.co.uk]
Sure it is (Score:5, Insightful)
"Customer trust is a priority for us, and we are actively evaluating our privacy processes and policies."
Only because you were called out. If nothing had ever been mentioned you'd still be doing it.
In Further News... (Score:5, Funny)
General Motors announced today that it is now selling this data directly to insurers. After all why should LexisNexis and Verisk get a cut?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Now lets do mercedes (Score:5, Informative)
Bull (Score:2)
shit.
.gov? (Score:2)
What about governments?
Disallow selling or sharing of data (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
"Customer trust is a priority for us... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh no, they place high value on their customers trusting them. That's why they hire the best liars marketing has to offer. Being trustWORTHY on the other hand is near the bottom of the list.
Has anyone asked about other data brokers? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
OK Marge, I promise. No deer for a month!"
Just PR and damage control (Score:3)
This is nothing more than closing the barn door after the horses have escaped. Pay attention to what they AREN'T saying: "We'll stop selling your data."
'Nuff said.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah and also, are we going to have to find out and get outraged at each and every bit of privacy invasion piecemeal to fight them one at a time?
If it sounds like we desperately need some broad rules and regulations of the data industry, and some heavy-handed justice for those who break the rules, it's because we do. And we've been needing them for at least two decades.
But here's the thing: our elected officials work for whomever has the deepest pockets, and it's not we-the-people: it's the very sumbitch me
Bad press is REAL priority (Score:1)
Wouldn't you think if that were true they'd do that BEFORE selling data? No thank you, I prefer non Ford or GM cars. I've never owned anything from those two brands that weren't constantly in the shop. Reliability, saftey, and privacy polices should be number one. They have failed at all 3.
Prove it GM! (Score:2)