Welcome to the PMBug forums - a watering hole for folks interested in gold, silver, precious metals, sound money, investing, market and economic news, central bank monetary policies, politics and more. You can visit the forum page to see the list of forum nodes (categories/rooms) for topics.
Why not register an account and join the discussions? When you register an account and log in, you may enjoy additional benefits including no Google ads, market data/charts, access to trade/barter with the community and much more. Registering an account is free - you have nothing to lose!
Cars today collect a lot more data than they used to, often leaving drivers' privacy unprotected. Car insurance is mainly regulated at the state level—there’s no federal privacy law for car data—but unsurprisingly there is an active government and private market for vehicle data, including location data, which is difficult if not impossible to deidentify. Advertisers, investment companies, and insurance companies are among those who want to actively collect or use this data to deliver and enhance their products.
While we can’t anticipate all the issues that will emerge, vehicle data should not be used in ways that people do not understand or know about. And even when consumers agree to share their vehicle data, such as in exchange for better prices, we need proper guardrails in place to ensure data may only be used for purposes and by entities that people have agreed to.
Two components of mobility data have the highest value in the marketplace. The first is location data, which is incredibly sensitive. Where we go can easily point to who we are. A widely cited 2013 study from Nature found that four spatio-temporal points from an “anonymous” dataset can reidentify 95 percent of people. Just two could uniquely recognize 50 percent of people. Currently, much of that data is gathered from smartphones, but vehicle data is another common source.
The second is data used to derive risk, often referred to as telematics data. Some telematics data is intuitively familiar—how hard you brake, how sharp you take turns, whether your behavior indicates you're looking at your phone while you're driving. But we don’t know what, of all of the kinds of personal data that cars already collect—including, for example footage from in-vehicle cameras—companies might find useful for risk assessment. Today, all the top ten insurance companies have opt-in, voluntary programs that allow consumers to contribute their own telematics data used primarily for pricing auto insurance. Insurance companies should only collect what they need to get a clear, fair assessment of driving risk. To do so, they may not need to collect information such as location data—which, as we have outlined, raises serious and possibly insoluble privacy concerns.
...
Given the sensitivity of this data and what it can reveal about individuals, companies should clearly spell out which data they collect and how that data is directly relevant to determining a driver’s safety.
Any consideration of telematics data must be accompanied by strong, strict data collection, use, and privacy principles to ensure consumer protection, safety, and equity. The telematics industry should reject the approach of so many other companies —collecting broad amounts of data and trying to justify that collection later. Instead, companies should only hold on to this data for as short a time as is practicable, to avoid data breach or other unanticipated sharing. They should also ensure that information collected to protect driver safety does not end up being sold, shared, or accessed by others who wish to use it for other purposes. And any telematics scheme must be introduced on an opt-in only basis that does not penalize those who wish to protect their privacy and must have strong consumer protections in place.
We call on regulators and insurance companies to consider the following principles at a minimum.
- Data Minimization and Informed Consent. Insurance companies may not collect, process, or use any data before a policyholder accepts the terms and conditions of a telematics program directly from an insurer. Insurance companies also cannot do these things after a policyholder revokes their consent.
- Transparency about Data Use. To use telematics data, insurers must tell their customers, either before or at the time they enroll in a telematics program, that the insurer will abide by data use and collection rules. These should include an explanation of how companies capture data; a full description of what data companies collect and use; what data will be used to determine rates; and how people can request access to their information. People must also be told how to dispute any information they think is inaccurate. Companies should also explain which outside parties can access data and when, and give people clear instructions on how to inquire about a program, how to file complaints about it, and how to end their participation.
- Purpose Limitation and Opt-in Consent. A company that operates a telematics program must obtain consent from a consumer before sharing, selling, or disclosing their data. They must also get consent if they want to use a person's information for marketing or for any other purpose.
- Notice and Transparency about Data Sharing. Insurers that use telematics must give policyholders notice when they share information. This notice must include the name of the company that received the information.
- Non-Discrimination. All insurers that offer a telematics rating program must also offer an option to be rated without telematics.
- Location Data Retention and Use. If insurers collect precise geo-locational data, they can only retain it and any information from which precise location may be derived for 18 months after a policy expires, unless required for a claim, litigation hold, or for compliance with a Department of Insurance audit.
We propose these principles because, without appropriate limits and privacy practices regarding the collection and use of personal data, even innovative uses of data can pose enormous harm to consumers and perpetuate structural discrimination and inequity.
People should know what information is being collected about them and have meaningful choices about how and whether that information is shared. Insurers should recognize this; not only because it is right but also because it creates trust with their customers. Privacy is as important behind the wheel as it is for the phone in your pocket—and regulators should give drivers control over how companies collect and use this data.
Having wiped out my truck (head-on-collision; Vaccident) I bought something new.
New to me.
If model-year 2000 is new.'
Electronic NUFFIN. Manual gearbox. Manual-crank windows.
It was (another) old geezer's truck, and his estate sold it off. Based on what it looks like, with low mileage, surface rust...it may be part of MY estate.
If I don't have another head-on Vaccident.
Court rules automakers can record and intercept owner text messages
A federal judge on Tuesday refused to bring back a class action lawsuit alleging four auto manufacturers had violated Washington state’s privacy laws by using vehicles’ on-board infotainment systems to record and intercept customers’ private text messages and mobile phone call logs.
The Seattle-based appellate judge ruled that the practice does not meet the threshold for an illegal privacy violation under state law, handing a big win to automakers Honda, Toyota, Volkswagen and General Motors, which are defendants in five related class action suits focused on the issue. One of those cases, against Ford, had been dismissed on appeal previously.
More:
Court rules automakers can record and intercept owner text messages
A Seattle-based appellate judge ruled that the practice does not meet the threshold for an illegal privacy violation under state law, handing a big win to automakers Honda, Toyota, Volkswagen and General Motors.therecord.media
So now your car could be testifing against you. Something new to keep in mind and your driving habit.
U.S. Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts has sent a much-needed letter to car manufacturers asking them to clarify a surprisingly hard question to answer: what data cars collect? Who has the ability to access that data? ...
KpH, not mph.
Here's the tell: Speedometer needle is at 200
(a reading you never saw in American cars, even in the fantasy 1960s...the Corvette Stingray speedo only went up to 160)
and your tach is only at 4k. NO street car is geared that high. What many people don't realize is, with extreme performance engines, what limits speed is not power, but gearing.
It would cost much more money to put higher gears in a transmission coupled to an 800hp Hemi...and they'd basically be useless. Where can you travel 90-150 mph? I don't mean, legally. Where CAN you do it, without risking your life, and in the blink of an eye?
About three times, when I was younger, I had a motorcycle up above 100 mph. Frankly, it's a frightening feeling...especially on a public highway. Things happen FAST at that speed. Add to it, one of those times I was distracted (a tornado chasing me)...perfect recipe for a messy quick death.
Sorry to get off-topic. I share your sentiments...while you're reveling in a fast, electronically "dumb" car, I'm in my even-dumber slow little truck. And I like it.
It's good to be old. That 2000 truck, and me...we should run out of miles just about at the same time. I won't have to worry about what kind of golf cart Davos Man will let me lease.
1992 Corvette, about the fastest I could go was 167.Every Corvette after 1997 has a 200 mph speedometer. It's silk screened onto the plastic bevel and does not change. My car has a magazine-rated top speed of 180 due to it being a ragtop. Never had it that fast though, due to a lack of straightaways long enough. All my speed runs are on I-66 between the Haymarket exit and The Plains (northern Virginia).
Fastest I've been on a bike was between 135 and 140. Didn't feel that bad. I was in a group of squids and we were on 66.
Every Corvette made after 2006 or so is capable of 200 mph as far as I know. Probably has to be a hardtop and you might have to fold the mirrors in, but they'll get there.
1992 Corvette, about the fastest I could go was 167.
Just the speedometerThat sounds about right. 300 hp LT1. Didn't that have a digital dash?
Had a TJ.
Had a TJ.
For a modern translation of the old warhorse Willys/AM General M38A1, it was a good car. Perfect for college coeds who wanted to advertise grrl power as they did their mall-crawling.
Also good for upgrades for serious off-roading. Chrysler really did it right...but to my Philistine tastes, they lost the essence.
I had one. With the AMC 2.5 four, which made it economical and also a great road car, not nose-heavy. It was literally a mid-engine chassis, with the four entirely behind the front axle.
But with its obligatory power steering, power brakes, airbags, huge, intrusive dash with knee bolster...electronic car instrument cluster...short-throw five-speed that could have come out of any modern car...it wasn't, to my mind, a Jeep.
To me, a jeep has a painted metal floor; a long-throw truck four-speed; power nothing. And, that circular instrument cluster that dated back to AT LEAST 1955.
What can I say...I'm a Luddite; I'll own it.
If she had one with the Buick V6, it did. The old Odd-Fire engine. That engine's history alone is worth a multipage write-up. But in its first generation, it shook like a paint mixer.When I was a kid, my Mom drove a Jeep like that, It rattled everywhere we went. I think it rattled when it was just sitting still.
If she had one with the Buick V6, it did. The old Odd-Fire engine. That engine's history alone is worth a multipage write-up. But in its first generation, it shook like a paint mixer.
My old man had a stripper 1968 Kaiser Wagoneer...before the model was redefined as a luxury SUV. Later, being broke, I owned at various times, two mail jeeps - a 1970 Kaiser DJ-5 and a 1973 AM General DJ-5c. Same vehicle; corporate reorganization, as AMC bought Kaiser and created a separate subsidy for government contracts.
Same vehicle, vastly-different engines - a Chevy II 4 and then an AMC 6, later to be refined as the Jeep Six, decades later.
But, yeah. Rattly floor, noisy - I glued old carpet remnants to the metal roof to quiet things - but I loved how I could park anywhere, how with nothing complex, little could break. I could fix it with a Kmart tool kit. And I always got to work. Sometimes wet, in snow or rain, but it happened. Started at twenty below.
I'm sure at my age I wouldn't enjoy it now, but I remember it as being fun, for a young man.
.. According to a report published by the Mozilla Foundation on Wednesday, cars are “the official worst category of products for privacy” that it’s ever reviewed. The global nonprofit found that 92 percent of the reviewed automakers provide drivers with little (if any) control over their personal data, with 84 percent sharing user data with outside parties.
...
All 25 of the car brands that were researched for the report — including Ford, Toyota, Volkswagen, BMW, and Tesla — failed to meet the nonprofit organization’s minimum privacy standards and were found to collect more personal data from customers than necessary. The kind of information collected varies from personal information like medical data to how drivers are using the vehicle itself — such as how fast they drive, where they drive, and even the music they listen to. Both Nissan and Kia are noted to allow the collection of information regarding a user’s sex life. By contrast, Mozilla claims that 37 percent of mental health apps (which also have a poor reputation for data privacy) had better practices for collecting and using personal data.
Eighty-four percent of the reviewed car brands share personal user data with service providers, data brokers, and potentially sketchy businesses, according to the report, with 76 percent claiming the right to sell that personal data. Fifty-six percent are willing to share user information with the government and / or law enforcement if requested.
...
What we want doesn't matter
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?