NYTimes article a few years ago on how car insurance companies were using such data. Tracking sudden stoos, driving at night, driving faster than 80 mph, etc.

▲

codazoda 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

As an aside…

I wonder why “80 mph” was picked as an arbitrary value. In rural areas of Utah we have 80 mph posted limits and prima facie speed laws. A lot of Utah drivers regularly exceed 80 MPH and I’d argue they do so legally. It’s just a weird number for them to pick.

▲

tzs 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

They may be looking at a correlation between speed and claims rather than whether or not the speed is legal. Accidents at 80 mph will tend to be more severe, and possibly also more frequent.

Note that they are also looking at night driving, which as far as I know is legal everywhere, but someone who spends a higher percentage of their time driving at night probably is a bigger risk for the insurance company than a similar person who doesn't drive as much at night.

▲

smalltorch an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's not arbitrary, there are limits of physics to how fast you can slow down on rubber wheels no matter how good your brakes are. The stopping distance starts to grow dramatically around these speeds.

▲

SoftTalker 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Even it it's legal, it's probably less safe. Insurance companies care about your likelihood of being in an accident that they will have to pay for, not strictly whether your driving is legal.

▲

ang_cire 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'd surmise it's because several states (CA comes to the top of mind) set speeds in excess of 80 as a potential felony enhancement.

iirc in CA it's 20mph over the speed limit, or speeds over 80.

The insurance companies probably want to know who to raise rates on.

	▲	dexterdog 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Which is crazy because when I do 80 in Mostly PA and NJ I am getting passed constantly.

▲

8note an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

people that drive on those high speed roads are more likely to be involved in more dangerous/harmful collisions?

legally and unlikely-to-make-expensive-consequences are separate items that insurance exists to differentiate

why shouldnt people driving on such dangerous roads have to pay higher insurance rates?

▲

moron4hire an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

In jurisdictions where 65MPH is the highway speed limit, 80MPH is usually the "reckless driving" threshold. And in Virginia, reckless driving is a felony misdemeanor.

▲

polski-g 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's not arbitrary. In Virginia that's a guaranteed reckless driving charge.

▲

stackskipton 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Not anymore. It got moved to 85 because speed limit on interstates moved to 70.

	▲	rirze an hour ago \| parent [-]
		How do one know this? I don't know where to get this information and whether to trust it.

▲

pixl97 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Texas: we set the speed limit at 85.

▲

baranul 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Exactly. Exchanging private and personal user data without consent and without users being aware of it, for their profits.

▲

thephyber 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It’s important to understand that in the USA, data is owned by the collector (eg. The app or SaaS who generated it), not the person who is described by it.

Until this legal regime changes, we will constantly be playing whack-a-mole with laws like this.

	▲	Hikikomori 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That sounds like something Europeans would do, so it's anti american.

▲

charcircuit 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The economy is not 0 sum. Someone else profiting doesn't hurt you.

▲

jsrozner 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You’re right and wrong: today’s economy is often negative sum from total utility perspective. It hurts society and the person but it helps Mark Suckerberg and Scam Altman and the private equity firms.

It’s positive sum from a wealth-weighted utility calculation though. And that’s why it happens.

▲

markdown 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Seems you missed that part that DOES hurt us:

> Exchanging private and personal user data without consent and without users being aware of it

▲

charcircuit 4 hours ago | parent [-]

This information allows other companies to make more informed decisions. Other companies making better decisions doesn't "hurt us".

▲

topgrain2 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Companies’ executives and top investors should let us see their location data then. And open up every part of their internal comms that don’t directly disclose trade secrets. At least the metadata!

It doesn’t hurt them, just lets us make better decisions, after all. There does not exist a good reason they’d object!

	▲	charcircuit 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You can buy it from a data broker. They aren't obligated to give you this data for free.

▲

blitzar 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

We collect your data, sell it to the highest bidder and sun ourselves on a yacht we bought with the proceeds ... "to help you".

▲

steve_j_choi 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

More informed decision to raise revenue. Is that necessarily helping us? When you say its not affecting us, us as who? Just sounds like a karma farmer.

▲

Avicebron 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

And when those "informed decisions" are denying healthcare/insurance/loans/what have you?

▲

charcircuit 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I personally see it as similar to fraud if you are deliberately hiding a piece of information that makes you riskier to insure or loan money to. In order to accurately assess risk you need personalized data. So I see this as being a more fair deal.

It's like when the internet made it possible to look up the price of good easily how it made it less likely for buyers to be able to lowball people. These price guides may be bad for these buyers, but it provides a more fair deal for these seller.

	▲	iamnothere 5 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I agree. If someone is found to be employed by a data broker, for example, they should be uninsurable and should not receive loans.

▲

gruez 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Aren't those collected consensually (and pretty explicitly) as part of insurance programs?

▲

malfist 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Default opt in by most new cars with cellular connections

	▲	Avicebron 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I wonder what default opt in would be called in other consent contexts..
	▲	askvictor 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		So, opt out?