GM stops sharing driver data with brokers amid backlash
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Clearly it is not. This is not only a foreseeable outcome, it was the most likely outcome of doing what they did.
Upvote
621
(621
/
0)
It just says they aren't sharing with those two directly anymore. They could still share with, say, Dickhead McFuckdrip Enterprises, who then share with Lexis-nexis and verisk
Upvote
548
(551
/
-3)
Upvote
518
(518
/
0)
That's the sort of overly-specific denial that should give you no comfort whatsoever. Are they now selling the data directly to insurance companies? Are they being sold to some other data brokers? The statement doesn't address those questions at all.
I would love to see a promise that the data will not be shared or sold with any company whatsoever, but ultimately it needs to be a law and not just a corporate promise.
Upvote
533
(533
/
0)
"Dang it, you caught us. We will have to find a sneakier way to sell your data." FTFY
Upvote
355
(355
/
0)
It's like when a publicly traded company says that safety is their top priority. That has never not been an outrageous lie.
Upvote
202
(205
/
-3)
Cool, but the specific wording is sus. Who have they not stopped sharing data with?
Upvote
260
(260
/
0)
I couldn't believe it when I found out my Telluride has been tracking me. My odometer hit 50,000 miles and I got an email an hour later telling me I had scheduled maintence due that referenced the number of miles I have driven. Super creepy.
Upvote
257
(261
/
-4)
“I promise won’t cheat on you again… with your sister… Carole… this year… at a Hilton Honors affiliated hotel… in the greater Cleveland metropolitan area.”
Upvote
434
(434
/
0)
"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,"
But GM Intelligent Pilot will.
But GM Intelligent Pilot will.
Upvote
177
(178
/
-1)
I saw an article about this a week or so ago about a guy who was hit with a dramatically higher insurance premium who tracked it down to this data being sold without his knowledge or consent. In response I logged into my OnStar account and lo and behold I was enrolled in this "Smart Driver" program. Which I absolutely did not and would not sign up for. I immediately turned it off. I imagine a class action lawsuit is forthcoming. And GM deserves it. This is almost as boneheaded a move as no longer supporting CarPlay in their EV's.
Last edited:
Upvote
335
(336
/
-1)
A statement like this from most any big corporation should trigger, immediately, a paraphrase of those immortal words from Mandy Rice-Davies: "Well, they would, wouldn't they?"
Upvote
67
(67
/
0)
Cyber/<ender
Smack-Fu Master, in training
That's nice, GM. Now, what about all of your competitors?
Time to get Congress critters who will vote for modern, strong data privacy laws...
Time to get Congress critters who will vote for modern, strong data privacy laws...
Upvote
115
(115
/
0)
Good news, GM! I’ve stopped selling insider info about your company. I made this decision because your trade secrets are a top priority of mine, and I was caught last week.
By reading this admission you have waived all right to sue or press charges. You’re so welcome.
By reading this admission you have waived all right to sue or press charges. You’re so welcome.
Upvote
209
(209
/
0)
This is actually a pretty quick turn about for the auto industry. Some VP is likely getting their career derailed because they were looking more at their portfolio's income from the broker and didn't pay attention to the risk to GM's main revenue stream (selling cars).
Upvote
52
(60
/
-8)
This is really a fallout from weak or absent consumer privacy protection regulations.
I can't fathom this happening in Europe without major consequences for the company that shares driver information without consent.
Anyone from Europe or elsewhere have any insight here?
I can't fathom this happening in Europe without major consequences for the company that shares driver information without consent.
Anyone from Europe or elsewhere have any insight here?
Upvote
107
(109
/
-2)
my preferred form of "decided to stop sharing driving data" would have also included a fine of 4% of their preceding-year global turnover (google that phrase if you need to), but the fact that public exposure of this led to them making at least this change to their practices is a small concession at least.
(yes, i'm aware of which jurisdiction this is)
for funsies:
$171.8B * 4% = 6.87B
(yes, i'm aware of which jurisdiction this is)
for funsies:
(source: investor.gm.com)
$171.8B * 4% = 6.87B
Upvote
76
(77
/
-1)
At least that is a notice from the manufacturer about maintenance of the vehicle instead of sending your data to third party data brokers like this.
Upvote
76
(80
/
-4)
“Now, in what feels like an all-too-rare win for privacy in the 21st century, that data-sharing deal is no more.”
This is only a win for people who haven’t already had their data shared. People who have are fucked. I would hope there’s a class-action lawsuit targeting GM and the insurers.
This is only a win for people who haven’t already had their data shared. People who have are fucked. I would hope there’s a class-action lawsuit targeting GM and the insurers.
Upvote
133
(133
/
0)
I just recently traded in my 2003 for a new "smart car". I can't say I'm impressed with the "connectivity" that is part of today's driving experience.
Upvote
54
(54
/
0)
That will only happen when campaign finance laws are greatly enhanced in this country, and lobbying is heavily restricted.
And since we all know who is responsible for passing such laws…
Upvote
47
(56
/
-9)
People who sign contracts for other people without telling them need to be prosecuted for fraud.
Upvote
172
(172
/
0)
I love the adjusted header image from the last article, and the fact that the kiddie scissors are only going to pretend to cut anything, definitely not do it.
Great job, Aurich !
Great job, Aurich !
Upvote
71
(71
/
0)
You could have just said "this is legal in the US, but not in the EU." Obviously that makes it more likely to happen here. And while its new to have confirmation that the data was going to insurance companies, it's not new that car companies in the US are terrible about privacy.
Upvote
-16
(6
/
-22)
Came to say the same thing. The fact that they only say they aren't sharing with those two agencies implies that they are still sharing it with unknown other entities.
The only acceptable response is "we have shut down this program entirely and are no longer collecting this information at all."
Upvote
97
(97
/
0)
and as additional punishment, the person who they signed/accepted for should get to deliver one free punch or kick to the fraudster's grundleplex
Upvote
20
(22
/
-2)
Well they can sell it to "Random Company Name" they are not in insurance. The only buy customer data from manufacturers. They themselves sell it to insurance companies. GM saved the day.
Upvote
22
(23
/
-1)
Well the good news is this article reminded me why I was not looking at GM for my next car anyways.
https://meincmagazine.com/cars/2023/0...apple-carplay-and-android-auto-from-2024-evs/
https://meincmagazine.com/cars/2023/0...apple-carplay-and-android-auto-from-2024-evs/
Upvote
58
(59
/
-1)
Bad products from a bad company.
They could just acknowledge what their customers want, but nope, gotta be dickheads about it and make the product worse.
Last edited:
Upvote
39
(43
/
-4)
The odds that only GM was selling the data to these two companies are vanishingly small. All the car companies are selling you out.
Upvote
107
(107
/
0)
"...Customer trust is a priority for us, and we are actively evaluating our privacy processes and policies," GM told us in a statement.
Not to belabor the obvious, but if 'customer trust' were such a priority with GM, why'd they do it in the first pace?
I am SO TIRED of not only the cyborg-lawyer horseshit which accompanies every article such as this, but the tacit complicity of venues such as yours, Ars Technica, in NOT CALLING IT OUT FOR WHAT IT IS, and thereby treating us, your readers, as a bunch of mindless cabbages.
Hope you have a better day tomorrow. MUCH better. Seriously.
Not to belabor the obvious, but if 'customer trust' were such a priority with GM, why'd they do it in the first pace?
I am SO TIRED of not only the cyborg-lawyer horseshit which accompanies every article such as this, but the tacit complicity of venues such as yours, Ars Technica, in NOT CALLING IT OUT FOR WHAT IT IS, and thereby treating us, your readers, as a bunch of mindless cabbages.
Hope you have a better day tomorrow. MUCH better. Seriously.
Upvote
61
(75
/
-14)
It’s past time for a US GDPR, with three rows of jagged teeth and a nuc for enforcement.
Upvote
81
(82
/
-1)
Just hoping to stretch out a few more years on my 2010 Honda, which doesn’t have anything more high-tech than Sirius-XM radio, which I’m pretty sure is receive-only.
After that, I’ll be looking to see if the powers that be in Washington have enacted any meaningful privacy legislation. Very preferably, a constitutional amendment. (Yeah, and the check’s in the mail…)
Barring that legal protection, my next car will be undergoing an immediate, and radical, transmitterectomy!
After that, I’ll be looking to see if the powers that be in Washington have enacted any meaningful privacy legislation. Very preferably, a constitutional amendment. (Yeah, and the check’s in the mail…)
Barring that legal protection, my next car will be undergoing an immediate, and radical, transmitterectomy!
Upvote
40
(40
/
0)
GM: we'll sell you cars that can hit 60 mph in less than 3 seconds and do over 130 mph in a 1/4 mile.
Why would GM possibly think sharing telematics with a data broker who resells to insurance companies would be of concern to their customers?
Why would GM possibly think sharing telematics with a data broker who resells to insurance companies would be of concern to their customers?
Upvote
60
(61
/
-1)
Upvote
55
(55
/
0)
I look forward to the $1 check I will eventually get from a class action lawsuit.
Upvote
69
(69
/
0)
There are states like California that have privacy laws similar to GDPR. I wonder if this runs afoul of their law.
I think the political reality is that it’ll take multiple larger states passing their own privacy laws before there’s a push by enough companies to just get a single federal law in place so they stop having to track 20 different privacy rules (the fun ones are when laws conflicts between the states, so that one way you do things is legal in one state but illegal in another). But it’s still probably a ways off before “too annoying to deal with all the separate laws” overrides “but we make so much money violating people’s privacy!”
Upvote
55
(55
/
0)