Like, I get that everything could somehow be the road to hell and all that but... This just reads to me like the kid getting caught with his hand in the cookie jar scrambling to put it behind his...
Like, I get that everything could somehow be the road to hell and all that but...
This just reads to me like the kid getting caught with his hand in the cookie jar scrambling to put it behind his back.
"Oh, I cut ties with them! I didn't know what they were doing!" Okay, maybe you accidentally programmed your cars to beam all that data home to you and accidentally then sold it to third parties. You must've just now realized what you accidentally did was so wrong when you found out that the people you sell that data to do what they please with it.
Did they think that LexusNexus was just curious? Did LN pinky swear they wouldn't do anything untoward with it? Somehow, with all the mandated C-suite "compliance" officers, not one said "Hey, this might be shady territory we're in?" or is it just buried in the 20 page loan document that the sales person clicks "scroll to bottom" for you?
If I'm understanding the suit correctly, even customers who never touched the OnStar button have had their data sold. There is no opt-out mechanism other than "don't buy GM." Other makes have...
Wouldn't most GM customers be aware that, by signing up for OnStar, their data would be shared?
If I'm understanding the suit correctly, even customers who never touched the OnStar button have had their data sold. There is no opt-out mechanism other than "don't buy GM." Other makes have similar features too, though it's unclear if they're providing data to external parties.
Really I just want this nonsense outlawed. Stop selling my data, period. But in a world where data's being sold anyways, I think there's a pretty big gap between selling it to people for advertising and selling it to the people who price your insurance - the latter will have a direct financial impact on you without your explicit consent.
Some didn't sign up for that service. Also, data being shared with OnStar doesn't mean it's necessarily shared with anyone else. And what customers assume probably doesn't matter legally - it's...
Some didn't sign up for that service. Also, data being shared with OnStar doesn't mean it's necessarily shared with anyone else. And what customers assume probably doesn't matter legally - it's what they agreed to.
They aren't saying anything, probably under advice from their lawyers. Halting the data sharing seems like a way to limit legal exposure.
Preface: i have not looked into the claims/language/really anything on this yet: There needs to be specific language to track the user, even if the stated goal of the product is to drive you into...
Preface: i have not looked into the claims/language/really anything on this yet:
There needs to be specific language to track the user, even if the stated goal of the product is to drive you into a 1984 style constant state of surveillance, if it's not in the contract they're signing, that's a problem. Further, it's pretty reasonable to believe that onstar is "off" until you push the button. The idea of a system that sends a signal on press saying "hey i'm here" is something that's more than doable. It would seem onstar is not doing that and just tracking you constantly, and I suspect it would not have gotten this far if the TOS disclosed that. That said it's seldom so simple, so I also wouldn't be surprised if this is just bad reporting on a weird technicality.
They arguably could not know. I think people really miss how these large companies work. GM has 163,000 employees around the world according to bare minimum googling, and of course some of them are going to make requests. If you're some marketing/insurance exec and you see you have this data, well of course you're going to find ways to use it, but the question of HOW you have that data is in theory up to legal or someone else. When/where the decision was made to "pull everything" is going to be key. I'd say there's just as good odds that 20 extremely sick of everyone's shit technical guys kept asking for specifics on what data would be shared/pulled and some random exec said "uh everything" without running it by legal.
That sort of stuff happens ALL THE TIME (and relates to the other topic on the front page of what execs are SUPPOSED to be doing). Still, I also wouldn't be surprised if this was passively from on high. Some top level says "make X go down" and then a few people under them dream up some dumb scheme that isn't vetted or discussed properly. Hell they might have straight said "make sure we can track them in every conceivable way" and it was just fucked up by a legal team somewhere not getting the TOS right for that request.
You are? https://www.wired.com/story/automakers-sharing-driver-data-security-roundup/#:~:text=Data%20brokers%20like%20LexisNexus%20are,providers%20use%20to%20set%20premiums.
I am relatively confident that it's not being on-sold to insurers
In a lawsuit filed March 13, Romeo Chicco of Florida claims GM, its connected-services subsidiary OnStar and data and analytics company LexisNexis Risk Solutions violated privacy and consumer protection laws.
...
The lawsuit could be the first of many, legal experts said.
"Sharing data without consent is bad," said David Vladeck, former director of the Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Consumer Protection during President Barack Obama's first term and a law professor at Georgetown University. "There will be cases coming down the pike. This is a serious breach by the car companies. It’s a breach of confidentiality and there are financial consequences.”
...
On Friday, GM spokesman Kevin Kelly declined to comment on the lawsuit, but he sent the Detroit Free Press the following statement, "As of March 20th, OnStar Smart Driver customer data is no longer being shared with LexisNexis or Verisk. Customer trust is a priority for us, and we are actively evaluating our privacy processes and policies."
Kelly declined to provide any further information as to how long GM has done business with LexisNexis and Verisk, which is also a data analytics firm that collects and shares data to help businesses manage risk, or why GM severed ties at this time.
...
In December, Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass., asked the Federal Trade Commission to investigate the data privacy practices of 14 automakers. "Automakers are collecting large amounts of data on drivers, passengers, and even people outside the vehicle, with little to no oversight," Markey said.
Like, I get that everything could somehow be the road to hell and all that but...
This just reads to me like the kid getting caught with his hand in the cookie jar scrambling to put it behind his back.
"Oh, I cut ties with them! I didn't know what they were doing!" Okay, maybe you accidentally programmed your cars to beam all that data home to you and accidentally then sold it to third parties. You must've just now realized what you accidentally did was so wrong when you found out that the people you sell that data to do what they please with it.
Did they think that LexusNexus was just curious? Did LN pinky swear they wouldn't do anything untoward with it? Somehow, with all the mandated C-suite "compliance" officers, not one said "Hey, this might be shady territory we're in?" or is it just buried in the 20 page loan document that the sales person clicks "scroll to bottom" for you?
If I'm understanding the suit correctly, even customers who never touched the OnStar button have had their data sold. There is no opt-out mechanism other than "don't buy GM." Other makes have similar features too, though it's unclear if they're providing data to external parties.
Really I just want this nonsense outlawed. Stop selling my data, period. But in a world where data's being sold anyways, I think there's a pretty big gap between selling it to people for advertising and selling it to the people who price your insurance - the latter will have a direct financial impact on you without your explicit consent.
Some didn't sign up for that service. Also, data being shared with OnStar doesn't mean it's necessarily shared with anyone else. And what customers assume probably doesn't matter legally - it's what they agreed to.
They aren't saying anything, probably under advice from their lawyers. Halting the data sharing seems like a way to limit legal exposure.
Preface: i have not looked into the claims/language/really anything on this yet:
There needs to be specific language to track the user, even if the stated goal of the product is to drive you into a 1984 style constant state of surveillance, if it's not in the contract they're signing, that's a problem. Further, it's pretty reasonable to believe that onstar is "off" until you push the button. The idea of a system that sends a signal on press saying "hey i'm here" is something that's more than doable. It would seem onstar is not doing that and just tracking you constantly, and I suspect it would not have gotten this far if the TOS disclosed that. That said it's seldom so simple, so I also wouldn't be surprised if this is just bad reporting on a weird technicality.
They arguably could not know. I think people really miss how these large companies work. GM has 163,000 employees around the world according to bare minimum googling, and of course some of them are going to make requests. If you're some marketing/insurance exec and you see you have this data, well of course you're going to find ways to use it, but the question of HOW you have that data is in theory up to legal or someone else. When/where the decision was made to "pull everything" is going to be key. I'd say there's just as good odds that 20 extremely sick of everyone's shit technical guys kept asking for specifics on what data would be shared/pulled and some random exec said "uh everything" without running it by legal.
That sort of stuff happens ALL THE TIME (and relates to the other topic on the front page of what execs are SUPPOSED to be doing). Still, I also wouldn't be surprised if this was passively from on high. Some top level says "make X go down" and then a few people under them dream up some dumb scheme that isn't vetted or discussed properly. Hell they might have straight said "make sure we can track them in every conceivable way" and it was just fucked up by a legal team somewhere not getting the TOS right for that request.
You are?
https://www.wired.com/story/automakers-sharing-driver-data-security-roundup/#:~:text=Data%20brokers%20like%20LexisNexus%20are,providers%20use%20to%20set%20premiums.
From the article:
...
...
...