Allstate Drivewise?

[tech4pdx]

This thread is becoming quite entertaining. Excellent debate lads.. Keep it up. I'm going to go drive my FR-S briskly now..

[The359]

Cell phone data usage changed simply because of the evolution of phones. Data was unlimited because it was rarely used. Now it is tiered because of the prevalence of data usage. Increased cost is because of increased demand and the need of companies to keep up with it. The entire change to 3G and then 4G required infrastructure changes, and that infrastructure was solely to handle data. Increased cost is a bit obvious. Again, not greed. Same reason texting shifted from free, to limited, and now after so long has gone back to unlimited because it is has effectively paid for itself.

Car insurance is based on data and predictions, and the data still comes in the exact same way. Driving a car is driving a car. Statistics on accidents will not be changed, and continue to come in the same way. And the cost of repairing or replacing cars will also not change. Requiring drivers to have tracking devices would not change the cost of anything, as there is no need for an infrastructure shift. Sure, an increase in data servers and storage, but it is not a goliath like cell phone networks.

To put it simply, you're comparing apples and oranges.

And no one has had their insurance increased simply because they haven't had an accident in years and have a logging device (tracking device is a complete misnomer, honestly).

[rice_classic]

Actually we're not. The fear of the privacy intrusion is not the consequence of higher rates. Higher rates are entirely beside the point, higher rates are what the corporations wants to scare the sheep with to get them to hand over their privacy.

The fear is that this is "behavior manipulation for profit" which, in itself, is bad enough but this method also comes at the cost of your privacy, our privacy. The big picture is that if something like this is "sold" to the sheeple as a "good thing" that lowers rates and it becomes ubiquitous then the lobbies have what's called leverage. Then a law gets written to support all insurance companies desire to implement such programs, similar to how their lobby now forces us to all wear seatbelts. At some point tracking your behavior becomes a requirement for drivers to receive coverage. Kind of like how I have to have a data plan at most big carrier if I have a smart phone, or how many ISP's are tracking all our traffic because of pressure from the MPAA.

Our privacy has long been for sale, right under our noses and that's bad enough when companies are sneaky about it like Google and Facebook but what's really a shame, what really makes me pessimistic about the future is that when companies are in our faces about it, blatant about stripping us of our final domain (our personal privacy)... we blindly accept our own demise like lemmings just so we can save a few $$.

It might come in the form of being required to have this "behavior tracking device" or else pay higher rates (which penalizes you for maintaining your privacy) or they may say that to have their service you have to have it period.

Just look at what CVS just implemented to their 200,000 employees... They now are required to submit to health exams and hand over private health information to their employer or else they will have to pay $50 more per month for their insurance. At my company if we participate in "health programs" we can get a discount on our insurance (same type of policy...submit privacy, save $$) but now CVS is flipping it... You will submit privacy or pay more.

Enjoy your dog collar, er I mean "discount tracking device".

[rice_classic]

I wonder how much of discount will get from these?

[The359]

Again, your location or speed is not private. Nor is Allstate's device tracking your location. A lack of a complete answer on specifically GPS is not a definitive statement of privacy, not that one needs GPS to track a vehicle.

I get higher rates for paying my bill every month instead of every six months. Why? Because it costs the company money to handle that every month instead of once every six months. I get higher rates if I get a paper bill. Why? Costs more money to mail the letters than email them. So how exactly are higher rates scare tactics?

How exactly are these companies making a profit from "behaviour manipulation" if these devices tend to lower people's insurance rates? That would be a net loss in my book...

Again, the insurance companies would not want the government to regulate the use of this technology because it puts more obstacles in their way and decreases the chances of "manipulation for profit". What health insurance company is enjoying this government regulation nonsense right now? And wow, really, seat belt laws is a lobby now? Next you'll tell me we didn't land on the moon...

You have to have a data plan with a smart phone because...who would want a smart phone without one? Sort of defeats the purpose, doesn't it? The number of people who would want one is so tiny that to make a plan just for these people would not be very profitable. It's streamlining and simplification of a business product, not privacy invasion.

The internet goes through your ISP, why would you not expect them to keep track of what is going through their network? That's like telling them to just turn on the faucet and ignore what might be going throught he pipe.

Google has been adament about not giving their search data to outside organisations. There is quite a difference between acquiring information and giving it away. Your health insurance provider has all kinds of personal information, but they do not give it away. Tell me how you choosing to use a service that stores information for their own benefit of the service, which in turn benefits you, is any different than you choosing to provide your personal information for your own medical benefit? And demise as lemmings? Jesus, theatrics much? This isn't 1984.

As for CVS, you appear to be slightly incorrect. CVS's health insurance is from an outside party, the same party that would handle the required screenings. CVS would not have access to the screenings, just like they have no access to the health insurance information of their employees. This has been law since 2003 under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. This includes health information and insurance payment history. Thus the only thing that CVS is gaining from this move is having healthier employees because they're actually getting more frequent health checks than the average person gets. In fact, CVS is probably taking a bit of a monetary loss on this as their payment of the company insurance would likely increase to cover the costs of all the screenings.

The point is, "if they become mandatory", "if they track with GPS", "if they whatever" is all useless, because none of these things exist yet, and at the moment I don't see a single person showing a single shred of evidence to indicate that there is movement in this direction. "What could happen" is fine, but a ton of things "can happen". Simply believing there is only one conceivable outcome is foolish.

[rice_classic]

Originally Posted by The359

Again, your location or speed is not private. Nor is Allstate's device tracking your location. A lack of a complete answer on specifically GPS is not a definitive statement of privacy, not that one needs GPS to track a vehicle.

Please stand back from the painting and look again, you're standing so close you can't see the picture displayed on the canvas.

Originally Posted by The359

I get higher rates for paying my bill every month instead of every six months. Why? Because it costs the company money to handle that every month instead of once every six months. I get higher rates if I get a paper bill. Why? Costs more money to mail the letters than email them. So how exactly are higher rates scare tactics?

Irrelevant argument and red herring. Auto-pay, payment interval times, electronic billing have nothing to do with the subject at hand as all can be implemented without a violation of privacy, or eventual forced violation of such.

Originally Posted by The359

How exactly are these companies making a profit from "behaviour manipulation" if these devices tend to lower people's insurance rates? That would be a net loss in my book...

Seriously? Take a psychology course then take a marketing course then get back to me how companies profit on behavior manipulation. Also by the term profit I also mean mitigate losses (which in turn increases profits). Behavior manipulation is the cornerstone of marketing. A good example of this limited data plans, carriers restricting their phones to their service, ISP's monitoring what your downloading and blocking P2P traffic, TV stations that are "black out" in your area so you cannot watch an alternate broadcast of the sporting event... even though you're PAYING for that other channel. etc etc etc. On a government side we try to manipulate behavior all the time, why do you think the tax code is the way it is? Have you ever heard the term "Sin Tax"... that's legislative behavior manipulation.

Originally Posted by The359

Again, the insurance companies would not want the government to regulate the use of this technology because it puts more obstacles in their way and decreases the chances of "manipulation for profit". What health insurance company is enjoying this government regulation nonsense right now? And wow, really, seat belt laws is a lobby now? Next you'll tell me we didn't land on the moon...

You give the people with all the money and the power way too much credit. Companies both LOVE and HATE legislation/regulation. Regulation can dissolve a monopoly or it can entrench it. FORD and GM love the CAFE regulations as it helps decrease their competition from foreign competitors and allows them to keep selling big profitable trucks. In WA State COSTCO penned the law to privatize liquor sales, which in turn will give massive profits to Costco. The bill failed the first time so their lobby resubmitted it and then they spent many millions promoting it and it won by a narrow margin. The MPAA/RIAA almost convinced our congress to pass SOPA!! Or did you forget? And yes, the insurance companies lobbied for the federal requirement of seat belt use because it reduces claims of sizable amounts. That "nanny state" regulation increased profits of the companies but did not result in lower insurance premiums.

Originally Posted by The359

You have to have a data plan with a smart phone because...who would want a smart phone without one? Sort of defeats the purpose, doesn't it? The number of people who would want one is so tiny that to make a plan just for these people would not be very profitable. It's streamlining and simplification of a business product, not privacy invasion.

That's not a privacy invasion, it's a restriction. Once one company started doing it, then they all did. This is a good example of non-collusion collusion. Also, you forget that smart phones have been around longer than mobile internet, in fact before they were phones they were called digital PDA's. I used to use a smartphone without a data plan years ago before 3G and 4G were out why? Because calendar and syncing. It was easier to take notes, use the device as a PDA and other various organizational productivity functions than using a old school "planner/binder". Remember, some people use their devices for productivity, not just twitter and instagram.

Originally Posted by The359

The internet goes through your ISP, why would you not expect them to keep track of what is going through their network? That's like telling them to just turn on the faucet and ignore what might be going throught he pipe.

In fact that's exactly what they should be doing is just selling us a pipeline, that's all they should be doing. They can monitor bandwidth usage and allocation whilst still providing user privacy.

I have a right to privacy, and so do you. I live in house which I finance through bank but the bank doesn't have a right to come inside and sort through my files and sleep in my bed. In fact, if they did do that, they better be bullet proof.

Originally Posted by The359

Google has been adament about not giving their search data to outside organisations. There is quite a difference between acquiring information and giving it away.

This you're completely wrong on. First, their entire business model is to sell our information to advertisers. Google tracks EVERYTHING and records it PERMANENTLY. They also work very closely with the NSA/CIA/FBI. Their records on how much they have shared with our "friendly" government is public, go look it up.

Here's a good article on the Google/Apple big brother conundrum:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/networking...ig-brother/989

Originally Posted by The359

Your health insurance provider has all kinds of personal information, but they do not give it away. Tell me how you choosing to use a service that stores information for their own benefit of the service, which in turn benefits you, is any different than you choosing to provide your personal information for your own medical benefit? And demise as lemmings? Jesus, theatrics much? This isn't 1984.

Once again, you think too highly of those in power. They don't have your interest at heart. Currently the medical field has lots of laws regarding patient confidentiality. If companies were able to openly share patients information that could easily be used against us. Kind of like how insurance companies would exclude pre-existing conditions. Actually this is worse than 1984. In that book it was the government that was doing it and at least theoretically (maybe not in reality) we have some control over that via democracy but instead the world of 1984 is being implemented by private corporations and instead of it being forced on us, we're volunteering for it like children being tempted into the van with a candy bar.

Hey look FREE CANDY!

Originally Posted by The359

As for CVS, you appear to be slightly incorrect. CVS's health insurance is from an outside party, the same party that would handle the required screenings.

But you're sharing your medical situation with someone who IS NOT your doctor. I, of course, understand what CVS is trying to do, mitigate costs and that's exactly right isn't it? At what point is my employer going to dictate what I eat, drink, or smoke (that are legal of course) or how I relax in my free time? The CVS thing is a bigger argument that deserves it's own thread but the point is... personal/private information is being required by the employer (third party or not) in an aggressive manner to manipulate behavior for the sake of mitigating losses or increasing profits. Please learn to recognize a slippery slope when it's sitting your lap and calling you Momma.

Originally Posted by The359

The point is, "if they become mandatory", "if they track with GPS", "if they whatever" is all useless, because none of these things exist yet, and at the moment I don't see a single person showing a single shred of evidence to indicate that there is movement in this direction. "What could happen" is fine, but a ton of things "can happen". Simply believing there is only one conceivable outcome is foolish.

Sitting back and doing nothing is foolish, we are not foolish, we are much worse because we are not sitting back and letting it happen. We are lining up (and logging in) with our wallets open to pay for own cages.

Anyway, I know you're going to have a big long retort to this and that's fine but I quit now. If you don't get it by now, I can't help you. If you have no respect for your own privacy and think all these faux-price-reduction options are noble and selfless by these huge share holder controlled corporations and that that because you're buying a product or service you somehow should be expected to relinquish your right to privacy... Well then, Good luck is all I can say.


I think I need to write a sequel to 1984 called "2024: All your privacy is belong to us, for profit."

[The359]

For the final time, someone show me how your speed or location in public is private. It is not, never has been, and never will be. No special permission is required, no warrants, nothing is required to obtain your location and/or speed on a public roadway. This is a compete and utter false sense of security. What happens within your car may be private, but where you go with your car is not. If you jaywalk, is it a private matter?

Believing that companies will force this technology on us AND raise rates does not negate the arguement that they could easily do both right now, but would not, because it would not be profitable. Raising rates on everyone simply hurts the companies because it leads to more uninsured drivers, which leads to insurance companies having to pay more to cover costs when uninsured drivers are involved in incidents. Where is there any indication from any insurance company that they are attempting to do either of these things in the near future? If these devices were to be expanded and required, there's absolutely no way of knowing if the devices would lower or raise the rates of all customers simply because there is not enough data to make an accurate prediction. And if they lower the rates, then what, they're magically just going to raise the rates anyway? Not going to happen in a competitive market. And speaking of behaviour manipulation in regards to driving, I believe they have those already. They're called tickets and fines. But as pointed out, no police agency is ever going to hand those out for every infraction.

Companies love regulation when it helps them. Mandatory tracking devices would not help one company as it would be a blanket regulation for all companies, therefore they would not welcome the regulations as it would also curb their ability to gain a profit through your presumption of their raising rates. See for instance safety regulations. A government regulation that affects all companies equally and gives them no gain, and requires them to spend more to meet the regulations.

As for comparing an ISP to a bank, your reasoning is off. An ISP is the gateway to a service, and they are offering it to you. They control what goes through them as per an agreement. A bank is offering you a loan, and they have an agreement with you as well. A bank knows how you are transfering money to them, just as an ISP knows how you are browsing the internet through them. A bank would not be allowed to look through your home, just as an ISP would not be able to look through the files on your computer. A bank will however hand over your information if the police have a warrant, just as an ISP would. And banks certainly give out information on their transactions for the purposes of reporting and advertising, not that the information is linked specifically to you. So is a bank invading your privacy if they check some bills you hand them for possible counterfeits? Or offshore accounts in the Caymens?

Google works with the CIA/NSA/FBI, yes. Not on handing over search records though. They codevelop technology for the government, just as many companies do. Google however does not hand over all the information they record. (http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/...oj-motion.html Google v. Department of Justice) Did you know the same company that builds stealth fighters also builds the devices that track your packages through the USPS? Doesn't mean your mailing habits are being transfered to the government. Just because a company does two seperate things does not mean the information from these two things cross over. And advertising? What exactly do you think they are handing to advertisers? Just because you have large sums of data does not mean you cannot parse it when you hand it off.

What I think about companies is that I'm not paranoid about them. If I have reason to worry about them, I worry. If I don't have anything to indicate any sort of sinister voodoo, why by default assume that it must be happening anyway? If all companies are after me, then surely the FT86Club must be deviously trying to milk something from me somehow...

Why would health screenings not be performed by your doctor, let alone a doctor? Regardless of who provides it, the information would still be confidential. CVS would have no hand in the choice of doctor. This is the same as a background check or drug test to get a job. All handled by outside parties who would not share that information with the company I am trying to work for. CVS would not only not know what I eat, but they also would not know if I needed to eat better anyway. In fact the only result from a health screening is that a doctor, either involved with the health screening or your own, would tell you to eat better. And an aggressive manner? Please. If it were aggressive, it'd be $50 to take the exam, not $50 to not take the exam.

If a prediction of a dystopian future written 65 years ago still has not happened yet, why would you believe it's going to happen in the next few years? The dramatics are all just such a horrible waste. You're being paranoid, simple as that. I have respect for my privacy. The point is that I have the freedom to choose to use my privacy as I see fit. Choosing to allow minor information to be handed out is not a submission to servitude, nor is it permission to have any and all privacy handed over, it is a conscious decision made by an intelligent human being. Degrading all who use their freedom of choice as "sheep" makes you a complete ass.

Quote frankly, if you do believe your doom and gloom that all insurance companies will make this mandatory and raise rates, then you should be using this device now anyway. They're just going to track you anyway, and you might as well save a few bucks for when the time comes when you're going to need to spend more!

[zenki_levin]

Originally Posted by bestwheelbase

Aren't these prevalent in the UK and elsewhere abroad? Just curious if some of our members outside USA have experience with this stuff.

No, not yet anyways. It was in the news and all the newspapers last year that they where doing a study about it. The main focus was getting a black box for 'young drivers'. All under the notion of tracking their driving behavior so they could have lower insurance rates if they drove well. But most people shot it down cause it goes against the privacylaw in this country.

But knowing Belgium they will probably find a loophole in the privacylaw and make this mandatory if they ever get the chance.