General Motors Quits Sharing Driving Behavior With Data Brokers
www.nytimes.com
G.M. had provided information about braking, acceleration and speed to LexisNexis Risk Solution and Verisk, firms that generated driver risk profiles for insurers.

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.

If the article link contains a paywall, you can consider reading this alternative article instead: ‘GM Stops Sharing Driver Data With Brokers Amid Backlash’ on Ars Technica.

  • bigkahuna1986@lemmy.mlEnglish
    2·
    8 months ago

    Stopped sharing… until they can manage the pr? No way they’re letting go of that revenue stream.

    • henfredemars@infosec.pubEnglish
      1·
      8 months ago

      They’re legally obligated to maximize revenue for their shareholders. You betcha they’ll find a way to exploit it.

      EDIT: Comment rescinded for false information.

          • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            0·
            8 months ago

            There’s a fiduciary duty to the shareholders, but a fiduciary duty doesn’t mean that you’re obligated to maximize profit at all costs. It just means that you’re obligated to act in the interest of your shareholders.

            If the board or officers use their position to push for a contract that benefits some other interest they hold at the expense of the company, that’s a breach of fiduciary duty. Simply preserving the value of the company over short term gains, having a different approach to risk, or other good faith behavior don’t violate fiduciary duty.

            • henfredemars@infosec.pubEnglish
              1·
              8 months ago

              Thank you! I didn’t realize it was more nuanced than that. I thought simply they were charged with maximizing profit. It doesn’t seem to be an actual requirement to do so.

    • deegeese@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      0·
      8 months ago

      The class action lawsuit will wipe out that piddly revenue stream a hundred times over.

  • dynamojoe@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    8 months ago

    Not sharing the driving behavior… for now. Any faucet that can be turned off can be turned on again.

  • Takios@feddit.deEnglish
    1·
    8 months ago

    They’re just saying this because they got caught. They might not even actually stop doing it. And even if they do, they’ll just wait until the majority has forgotten about this and quietly start doing it again…

  • LordCrom@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    8 months ago

    Cut the power to the OnStar module and cut the wire to the cell antenna. Cars do not need to connect to the Internet… Ever

    • DreadPotato@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      1·
      8 months ago

      IDK, the ability to remote activate climate control, start/stop charging and control charge power to match my solar power are all quite good reasons for me to have my car connected.

      We should be able to have nice things without surveillance. We shouldn’t refrain from these things, we should legislate so they’re not allowed to collect data and share it without explicit consent.

      • Lag@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        8 months ago

        How far away do you need to start your car? Wouldn’t a regular remote start on a key fob work for most situations? Unless you’re taking the bus to your car.

        • DreadPotato@sopuli.xyzEnglish
          1·
          8 months ago

          I start the AC from my office which is probably 2-300m from my car with a large building between. That’s far outside the range of a key FOB, but it’s nice and cold in the summer (or warm on the winter) when I get to it.

          • Texas_Hangover@lemm.eeEnglish
            02·
            8 months ago

            You probably bitch and complain about climate change while walking to your car that has been running for 20 minutes too.

      • Brkdncr@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        8 months ago

        Agreed. Also it reduces costs significantly if issues can be remotely inspected and fixed. Software updates regularly get sent to new vehicles that would have cost a lot of time and money to do at a dealership.

        Yes, they shouldn’t be sharing your data. Yes you should be getting compensated if you opt into data sharing.

          • Brkdncr@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            8 months ago

            You can’t have things like airbags, stability control, efficient use of fuel/energy without software.

            We haven’t had software-less cars for decades. As someone that works on older vehicles you don’t want to go back to that era.