Allstate Drivewise?

[tech4pdx]

Is this paranoia too?:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...nsadatacenter/

[The359]

Oh shit, the NSA has a center to monitor communications?

Oh, wait, that's been the NSA's entire purpose for the past 60 years.

What does this have to do with car insurance?

[tech4pdx]

Nice response.

The point is that what little privacy we have left to cherish is slowly being taken away.

If you are OK with that, good day to you sir.

[Zgrinch]

Originally Posted by The359

Woah, did not expect to see this crazy amount of paranoia in this thread. Some of you have an odd definition of privacy.

I have no problem with these devices for certain people in certain situations. I would not recommend it for an 86, of course, but for someone older with a minivan or something sedate that is doing a nice normal daily routine, why not save a few bucks?

Because as more people use it, it opens the door to make it manditory for those who don't want it. I don't think you will be singing the same tune when you go to renew your policy and they tell you that without this device installed, they will not insure your car.

Care to explain to me how having the right not to have my every movement tracked while I'm in my car is an odd definition of privacy?

[Wes B.]

My Two Cents: This program is a complete invasion of privacy, and it's just giving the insurance companies extra reasons to charge you more. What happens when various police departments decide to purchase all of this documented information -- tickets for every single time you strayed ever so slightly above the speed limit?

Sorry, but I will never ever relinquish my privacy to the grubby hands of "The Man".

[The359]

Originally Posted by Wes B.

My Two Cents: This program is a complete invasion of privacy, and it's just giving the insurance companies extra reasons to charge you more. What happens when various police departments decide to purchase all of this documented information -- tickets for every single time you strayed ever so slightly above the speed limit?

Sorry, but I will never ever relinquish my privacy to the grubby hands of "The Man".

Well, let's see...

* That insurance company would be out of business. Their customers would leave en masse. It would be corporate suicide.
* Statue of limitations. The companies, if they were to even hand over such information, would not do so without several years of backlog, which would make the information irrelevant to issuing tickets.
* No police force is ever going to issue tickets to everyone straying ever so slightly over the speed limit. Not only would it overwork the police force, but it would also overwork the court system as well. Every police force has radar and laser detectors to detect when you might be straying ever so slightly over the speed limit, and every police force has the ability to issue tickets for such an infraction. But they don't, because that'd be stupid, counterproductive of them, and would likely net them a loss in terms of money intake due to court costs from more people fighting such tickets.

[The359]

Originally Posted by Zgrinch

Because as more people use it, it opens the door to make it manditory for those who don't want it. I don't think you will be singing the same tune when you go to renew your policy and they tell you that without this device installed, they will not insure your car.

Care to explain to me how having the right not to have my every movement tracked while I'm in my car is an odd definition of privacy?

How is your movement in a public space on a public roadway private? For that matter, how is your speed on a public roadway private?

And I'm sure insurance companies want nothing more than more government regulation! Mandatory tracking devices brings with it more government regulation of the companies. Which sort of gets in the way of their greedy little fingers.

Granted, an insurance company that requires anything before they grant a policy is, again, committing suicide. Any insurance company will be happy to have your business, so long as you can pay. They are, after all, after money as you so eloquently state. Requiring people to install something is counterproductive.

As for your report from Towers Watson, of course insurance companies want these devices! The entire point of insurance is prediction, and you get better predictions if you have more and more real world data. And with better data, they can adjust their views on all of the public's vehicles. And if a company can get data and realize they can charge less while still turning a profit, then that company has hit a goldmine because they will win out amongst their competitors.

So your claim that they will all make the prices shoot up to screw everyone over is completely baseless. There is no secret meeting amongst car insurance CEOs all planning some rate hike at the exact same time. If a company wanted to raise prices, they'd have to do it themselves, and that would likely shoot themselves in the foot because, as I said before, that'd be corporate suicide.

Nothing in the Towers Watson report states anything to do with mandatory use. It simply states that the companies want the technology for themselves, as they should in a competitive market.

[The359]

Now, finally, as stated on Allstate's website, Drivewise cannot increase your rates. Certainly if the insurance companies were trying to sucker the gullible people, they would allow it to increase rates from the start, right? Why wait?

Drivewise and Progressive's Snapshot system do not have GPS. They track your speed simply to tell you when you are exceeding a speed that would be illegal on every public road. The devices are also not sending data in real time.

For an apt comparison, your Nav system knows more about your location and speed than Drivewise.

[Zgrinch]

Originally Posted by The359

How is your movement in a public space on a public roadway private? For that matter, how is your speed on a public roadway private?

And I'm sure insurance companies want nothing more than more government regulation! Mandatory tracking devices brings with it more government regulation of the companies. Which sort of gets in the way of their greedy little fingers.

Granted, an insurance company that requires anything before they grant a policy is, again, committing suicide. Any insurance company will be happy to have your business, so long as you can pay. They are, after all, after money as you so eloquently state. Requiring people to install something is counterproductive.

As for your report from Towers Watson, of course insurance companies want these devices! The entire point of insurance is prediction, and you get better predictions if you have more and more real world data. And with better data, they can adjust their views on all of the public's vehicles. And if a company can get data and realize they can charge less while still turning a profit, then that company has hit a goldmine because they will win out amongst their competitors.

So your claim that they will all make the prices shoot up to screw everyone over is completely baseless. There is no secret meeting amongst car insurance CEOs all planning some rate hike at the exact same time. If a company wanted to raise prices, they'd have to do it themselves, and that would likely shoot themselves in the foot because, as I said before, that'd be corporate suicide.

Nothing in the Towers Watson report states anything to do with mandatory use. It simply states that the companies want the technology for themselves, as they should in a competitive market.

The Supreme Court has made some rulings on GPS tracking technology, but they have not fully addressed the entire issue, so neither one of us can claim to own the "law" on what privacy really means when it comes to GPS tracking in public places.

Many argue that GPS technology used without the person's consent goes against your 4th Amendment Right to undue search and seizure. To be clear, if someone wants to sign up for this service and be tracked, that is certainly thier choice and they have forfeited any right to privacy. I, however, am concerned that at some point this will become a requirement inorder to get insured or at a minimum, you will pay a premium not to be tracked.

You seem to believe that it will never become mandatory, and on this point, we will have to agree to disagree. If it ever does become mandatory, my personal belief is that if I have not consented to be tracked by GPS, then any use of that technology to do just that, is an infringement on my right of undue search and seizure, regardless if I am on public roads.

In the end, neither one of us will decide this issue, it will have to be resolved in the courts.

I may be misreading your other comments, but you seem to suggest that the sole purpose for insurance companies to invest in this technology is to gather data so they can determine if they can lower the rates to "safe" consumers in order to gain market share, because to raise rates for "non-safe" consumers, based on the data, would be corporate suicide.

My question to you is this:
What happens to the rates of consumers who are being tracked that do not meet the criteria for lower rates, but rather have tracking data that suggests they are actually prone to fast accelerations, abrupt braking, and driving during hours that are more prone to accidents. Do you believe they will keep thier rates unchanged?

I think common sense says that if they present a higher risk to insure based on tracking data, then they will be subject to higher rates than drivers who are considered average, or safe. Many here will not voluntarly sign up for this service based on this very belief, so I would be interested in your opinion as to why these types of drivers would not experience a rate increase.

There is a big part of me that hopes that you are correct that this will never become mandatory, or a requirement for reasonable rates, but if I was a betting man, I would say the odds are very slim that this technology will be used to just lower rates.

Thanks for your input.

[The359]

The average rate for all consumers can go up or it can go down, the entire point is that more data means more accurate predictions. If it goes up, it is because of an adjustment based on data, not because the company is simply being greedy.

Further, you already have your rates set by the risk involved in your vehicle and driving history. If you are more prone to risky behaviours, why shouldn't you have to pay more for the greater risk? Insurance companies already do this even without these tracking devices. These devices will simply allow for a better indication of *current* driving habits instead of based solely on your past driving history.

Certainly many of those who do not want these trackers believe that they are saving money by driving risky without having to pay for their added risk. I'm not advocating clamping down on these people, but I don't think the justification of "it's my privacy" is correct when many of those are simply concerned with saving some money.

Now, granted, the fact that some have a belief that it will raise their rates does not negate the fact that insurance companies currently do not raise the rates based on the data from the tracker. You have a set base rate and data from the tracking may lower your rate, or not change it at all, but it wont go above your base rate. If your rate could go up then it'd be a different ballgame, but that currently does not exist.

[Zgrinch]

Originally Posted by The359

The average rate for all consumers can go up or it can go down, the entire point is that more data means more accurate predictions. If it goes up, it is because of an adjustment based on data, not because the company is simply being greedy.

Further, you already have your rates set by the risk involved in your vehicle and driving history. If you are more prone to risky behaviours, why shouldn't you have to pay more for the greater risk? Insurance companies already do this even without these tracking devices. These devices will simply allow for a better indication of *current* driving habits instead of based solely on your past driving history.

Certainly many of those who do not want these trackers believe that they are saving money by driving risky without having to pay for their added risk. I'm not advocating clamping down on these people, but I don't think the justification of "it's my privacy" is correct when many of those are simply concerned with saving some money.

Now, granted, the fact that some have a belief that it will raise their rates does not negate the fact that insurance companies currently do not raise the rates based on the data from the tracker. You have a set base rate and data from the tracking may lower your rate, or not change it at all, but it wont go above your base rate. If your rate could go up then it'd be a different ballgame, but that currently does not exist.

Ok I get what you are saying, but my personal opinion is what you said in the last sentence.
I think it will ultimately will lead to higher rates, once it is the "norm" for most people and most carriers...
.

[rice_classic]

Originally Posted by Zgrinch

Ok I get what you are saying, but my personal opinion is what you said in the last sentence.
I think it will ultimately will lead to higher rates, once it is the "norm" for most people and most carriers...
.

Bazinga!

All we need to do is put ourselves in the shoes of a "profit at all costs" type of mindset (aka: every publicly traded company) and then think creatively. You know what the result is 9 out 10 times when we practice that thought experiment? The consumer loses...something. (money, freedom, privacy, choice, health, security, etc etc etc).

Big publicly traded corporations DO NOT have your best interests in mind. A free market is only the decoy because the big game is limit your choices, leverage the market against you and control your behavior. Consider some folks are comfortable with "privacy-stripping-behavior-monitoring" by big corporate or big brother proves that their strategies are working.

But don't listen to me, this is coming from someone who thinks people who use Facebook have already sold their soul so after that what does it matter.

<---runs out to start a business in which we tattoo barcodes on people for the next cool "social networked thingy"... Oh wait, is that going too far?

[The359]

Why would mandatory tracking lead to higher rates? If the companies wanted to raise the rates, they could do so right now. If everyone has the tracking technology, why would the competition change the rates? No one has a monopoly on the car insurance business so any company that raised rates is going to suffer while the others prey on the move.

[Zgrinch]

Originally Posted by The359

Why would mandatory tracking lead to higher rates? If the companies wanted to raise the rates, they could do so right now. If everyone has the tracking technology, why would the competition change the rates? No one has a monopoly on the car insurance business so any company that raised rates is going to suffer while the others prey on the move.

When the cell phone companies transitioned from a fairly flat rate for everybody, i.e. not really tracking usage (driving behavior), to a pricing model based on usage (driving behavior) what happened to most everyone's cell phone bill ?

It used to be that you could fly under the radar and get good rates based on years of no accidents...
Now someone with that same no accident record will have tracking data that shows they like to occasionally rev their 86 and occasionally take corners quickly...so...