GM stops sharing driver data with brokers amid backlash

Customers, wittingly or not, had their driving data shared with insurers.

See full article...

 

[Trondal]

Why do you think it is okay for Sprint to likely go bankrupt but not Spirit?

When was Sprint going to go bankrupt?

I mean maybe eventually after many years of not being able to compete?

Not saying they were a vibrant competitor (too much debt and some bad bets on where network technology was going IIRC) but they were the “other” cheap competitor and they were surviving.

I do think the merger was better for 5G deployment but I think the benefits of 5G to vast majority of consumers are overblown.

Though I will admit that FWB (enabled by 5G) has turned out to be fantastic for some consumers that had only 1 or 2 options for broadband at home (making my own point against myself: these situations are complicated).

 

[real mikeb_60]

Oh yes, one more thing. GM,I don’t believe you

This. In theory, the data collection and sharing was only happening if you had a OnStar subscription (as I read the articles). So, in theory, I should be safe, because when my free 3-month subscription expired (a couple of years ago), I did not renew (2017 Bolt bought used, for almost entirely local and regional driving where I know where I'm going, or if I don't Google Maps in Android Auto does the job fine). But, the physical bits needed for the connection are still there, and if you press the OnStar button a sales clown will respond. So are they tracking me anyway, and selling my data (possibly anonymized in some ineffective way) to data brokers with or without my consent? If I somehow gave my consent to sign up for or during that trial period (they did NOT get my credit card number at that time!), I fully expect that they have done so, and since I'm no longer a subscriber I have no ability to withdraw that consent. So I have to just hope that GM is more or less telling the truth here. That and $5 might buy you a small latte at Starbucks. That and $2.50 will get you a ride on the local transit bus, where you can still pay cash (though a card is needed for most discount fares).

 

[Carnuntum]

Time to break out the ole horse and buggy.

 

[user12121]

I'm betting the good drivers didn't get a discount.

 

[real mikeb_60]

When was Sprint going to go bankrupt?

I mean maybe eventually after many years of not being able to compete?

Not saying they were a vibrant competitor (too much debt and some bad bets on where network technology was going IIRC) but they were the “other” cheap competitor and they were surviving.

I do think the merger was better for 5G deployment but I think the benefits of 5G to vast majority of consumers are overblown.

Though I will admit that FWB (enabled by 5G) has turned out to be fantastic for some consumers that had only 1 or 2 options for broadband at home (making my own point against myself: these situations are complicated).

As with Metro PCS, T-M bought Sprint for the spectrum (some juicy mid-freq 5G channels in the Sprint case) and coverage. The customers came with the deal, and were (as with Metro) forcibly converted to T-M customers including having in many cases (all cases with Metro when T-M shut down CDMA) to buy new phones. Presumably, T-M paid mostly for the spectrum, not the rest of the hassles (customers are a cost center unless they're buying new stuff and post-paid plans all the time).

 

[ctnnr]

Marry Barra, this happened on your watch.

 

[xJIMBOx]

I don’t trust them, we need instructions on how to disable this hardware.

Kneecap the OnStar's communication antenna connection: https://www.cadillacvnet.com/forums...t-driver-and-privacy-concerns.4829/post-95588

 

[Publius Enigma]

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?

Unfortunately, protecting customers doesn’t help the line go up. The line not going up is the antithesis of capitalism. Capitalism is bigger than God.

 

[Hemlocke]

Denials aside, I doubt GM stopped sharing that info with their very own insurer, OnStar. That's right, the call is coming from inside the house. GM's data policies, and how scummy basically everything after the sale is, are the major reason why I keep pushing my wife to get rid of our Blackwing. It's a fantastic car, but everything about the ownership experience is garbage outside the driving. Say what you want about BMW, but they treated us so much better over a car that cost almost half as much.

 

[skome]

If that was true, they wouldn't have done this in the first place.

A priority. A really low one.

 

[jdale]

I recently bought a new GM vehicle and got alerted to this data sharing from an enthusiast forum. The consensus was if you had GM's Smart Driver turned off, then your data wasn't being shared. I verified in their smartphone app that Smart Driver was turned off and requested my Lexis Nexus report to verify (side frustration with LN, you request the report via the web then wait for a PIN to come via snail mail...come on). Needless to say I was surprised to find pages of OnStar telematic data in my LN report.

I still have no idea why all my data was shared. Looking on the GM owner web site account, my settings for Smart Driver on the web has a slider button that's greyed out but looks enabled and has some bogus message saying "your changed are being processed. it may take 24 hours". Been like that for months. My chats with OnStar reps went nowhere as they just regurgitate level 1 help desk scripts like "do this to turn off Smart Driver in the app".

Companies know that since there are no serious penalties for violating a customer's opt out request, then there's no incentive to make opting out easy for the end user. They just play the game of frustrating the end user until they give up and let the companies continue collecting and selling the data.

If they sell the data but it's disclosed, it's slimy but probably legal. If they continue selling the data when you have opted out, that's the sort of thing that the FTC could successfully sue about, and get a much more sweeping consent decree as a result.

 

[kaibelf]

Meanwhile the DOJ is trying to claim Apple is abusing their position by offering CarPlay. Christ.

 

[omarsidd]

GM, essentially: Oops, we didn't expect to get caught. Much less called out. We're..umm... "SO SORRY!"

 

[jdale]

Meanwhile the DOJ is trying to claim Apple is abusing their position by offering CarPlay. Christ.

The DOJ can't do anything about this. It's not a crime to sell user data. If any government branch can do anything here, it is the FTC. And even that is questionable.

Anyway, this only just blew up. That means if it is going to become a case for any government branch it won't be until 2025 at least. Completely irrelevant to compare it to anything the DOJ is doing now.

 

[Resolute]

I am telling you donkeys are running these companies.

I see so much hatred for Musk (some justifiable) but at least you know what you are getting with that guy.. Do you think Marry Bara will say anything about it. Nope, she will hide behind layers of more donkeys

Whatever GM has done, you are still white knighting for a transphobic Nazi sympathizer. You might want to consider what you are saying about yourself here.

 

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

"As of March 20th, OnStar Smart Driver customer data is no longer being shared with LexisNexis or Verisk."

I do love a good suspiciously specific denial. I wonder what intermediary is now laundering 'Smart Driver customer data' for LexisNexis and Verisk?

 

[evighed]

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.

What makes you think they didn't do that too?

 

[x14]

There's been a few GM cars I have been interested in, but after vetting OnStar, and reading a few horror stories like this, I always keep walking. The OnStar privacy policy is an abomination, essentially they have written themselves a blank check.
GM promises to not sell to these data predators, but what about the rest?

 

[mouseKnuckles]

Wanted to buy: Any functional car from 1983.

I'd take either of my mid '70s Ford Fiestas. A mostly empty fuel tank, just me driving, it was a blast...
Except for the rust. Hell to live in snow land.

 

[RoninX]

For anyone interested, you can opt-out from LexisNexis sharing any of your information (with various legalese exceptions) here:

https://optout.lexisnexis.com/

 

[Elessedil]

Wanted to buy: Any functional car from 1983.

A car from the early 2000’s through the early 20-teens (exact year depends on the manufacturer) is pre-telemetry, and gives you the benefit of antilock brakes, stability control, fuel injection and closed-loop engine control, better structural integrity than older vehicles, and airbags. Without some of the potential downsides of newer vehicles like telemetry/data collection, arbitrary OTA’s, absurd nonadjustable headrest angles if you don’t have a permanently downflexed neck, aggressive beeping if you move to one side of the lane to clear a traffic hazard, or the like.

Even OnStar cars from analog-cell days are no longer connected, and you could even disable the comm module if you so choose without disabling nav or bricking the vehicle, if you felt it necessary. (I doubt an owner could disable telemetry on a 2024 car without disabling some normal functions, or even bricking the car’s OS in some cases.)

 

[Laramar]

It seems Toyota collects data, as well. See this reddit post:
reddit.com/r/COROLLA/comments/1biygxl/psa_turn_off_insure_connect_before_your_insurance/

 

[Sharp Weiner]

Baby, your happiness is what matters to me the most. Honest.

 

[AdrianS]

Wanted to buy: Any functional car from 1983.

My 1986 MR2 is functional - and no, you can't have it.

 

[AdrianS]

Do those even exist? Given the rust issues from thinner gauge body panels with inadequate paint, hurry-up make-do adjustments to carburators from the oil crisis, spark ignition systems that left you chronically re-gapping spark plugs and replacing points, and the prevalence of 3-speed transmissions - why would you possibly want a refugee from that era?

It doesn't have to be a US built car...

 

[Ishkabibbel]

Cool, but the specific wording is sus. Who have they not stopped sharing data with?

Google. Haven't you seen all the hoopla about them going full in with Android Automotive?

 

[valkyriebiker]

Customer trust is a priority for us, and we are actively evaluating our privacy processes and policies," GM told us in a statement.

Being a spokesperson or PR rep for any major company these days has got to be a demoralizing, soul-crushing position for any sentient individual.

 

[cwaynerl]

This is just as sneaky as the insurance companies handing out those ODB trackers to 'lower' your rates for good driving. At this point I'd rather drive an old 70's-80's gas guzzler with a three in the tree shifter without a cpu that police can recover data from instead of all this intrusive data mining and tracking.

 

[Steve austin]

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?

But I wouldn’t put it past European carmakers doing it outside Europe, especially in the US. Volkswagen at least has certainly pulled crap (Diesel-gate) in the past.

 

[Peflitydap]

I believe in capitalism because the alternatives are so demonstrably terrible

Co-ops are demonstrably terrible?

, but when companies or people abuse information asymmetries for profit, capitalism suffers.

Only in particular instances such as this where the product is a capital expenditure for certain of the buyers (specifically those that use them for ride-sharing and other automotive-driven means of production). Otherwise any profit is good for capitalism, it's just bad for a free market.

I often feel that additional regulations should be a last resort, but when it comes to the endless appetite for private consumers’ information and all the myriad ways it can be used and abused without any practical way that a consumer can understand, I now think the US needs to go full GPDR or something beyond.

Laws can only do so much. Sure, a right to privacy (beyond FERPA and HIPAA) would be great. But as long as technology enables data gathering, it will be exploited at some point, even if it isn't legal.

 

[Trondal]

Co-ops are demonstrably terrible?

Only in particular instances such as this where the product is a capital expenditure for certain of the buyers (specifically those that use them for ride-sharing and other automotive-driven means of production). Otherwise any profit is good for capitalism, it's just bad for a free market.

Laws can only do so much. Sure, a right to privacy (beyond FERPA and HIPAA) would be great. But as long as technology enables data gathering, it will be exploited at some point, even if it isn't legal.

Co-ops can be fine, but I'm not aware of an entire economy that exists as a series of co-ops. If you can point one out I'm genuinely interested.

I'm also not aware of any co-ops that have brought about the same level of progress as for-profit corporations in general (it pains me to say this because many co-ops are very cool organizations). What's progress? Depends on who you ask, but I'll pick pharmaceutical companies as a convenient example (their practices often make me cringe but let's remember who created COVID vaccines, can make HIV undetectable, and cured some forms of pancreatic cancer and hepatitis-C).

Capitalism thrives when there is good allocation of capital. Utilizing asymmetric information to exploit profits works against good capital allocation. Some argue that privacy-invading business practices is a victimless practice, and indeed there are many who are happy to give up privacy in exchange for a service rendered. I'm not opposed to this in principal but again, asymmetric information means the customer has no idea how their data would be used and if they did, they might object to it. It could also cost them actual money, as in this particularly egregious and extreme case.

I unfortunately tend to agree with your last point, but I do think that major corporations with a lot to lose can largely be brought to heel on this, so long as laws have teeth.

edit: minor edits for flow, etc.

 

[robert.walter]

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

Probably share it through a wholly owned subsidiary DHMF LLC so to maximize profit and tax opportunities.

 

[robert.walter]

Co-ops are demonstrably terrible?

Only in particular instances such as this where the product is a capital expenditure for certain of the buyers (specifically those that use them for ride-sharing and other automotive-driven means of production). Otherwise any profit is good for capitalism, it's just bad for a free market.

Laws can only do so much. Sure, a right to privacy (beyond FERPA and HIPAA) would be great. But as long as technology enables data gathering, it will be exploited at some point, even if it isn't legal.

Your last point isn’t a good argument against tightening it down.

Sure there will be violations that’s what enforcement fines prison are for. Then it gets adjusted. Traditional PDCA cycle.

 

[robert.walter]

Co-ops can be fine, but I'm not aware of an entire economy that exists as a series of co-ops. If you can point one out I'm genuinely interested.

I'm also not aware of any co-ops that have brought about the same level of progress as for-profit corporations in general (it pains me to say this because many co-ops are very cool organizations). What's progress? Depends on who you ask, but I'll pick pharmaceutical companies as a convenient example (their practices often make me cringe but let's remember who created COVID vaccines, can make HIV undetectable, and cured some forms of pancreatic cancer and hepatitis-C).

Capitalism thrives when there is good allocation of capital. Utilizing asymmetric information to exploit profits works against good capital allocation. Some argue that privacy-invading business practices is a victimless practice, and indeed there are many who are happy to give up privacy in exchange for a service rendered. I'm not opposed to this in principal but again, asymmetric information means the customer has no idea how their data would be used and if they did, they might object to it. It could also cost them actual money, as in this particularly egregious and extreme case.

I unfortunately tend to agree with your last point, but I do think that major corporations with a lot to lose can largely be brought to heel on this, so long as laws have teeth.

edit: minor edits for flow, etc.

Pharma is subsidized by university research and government grants.

Obscene profits are not what most scientists or clinicians are after.

 

[bettaboy123]

I don’t think I’ve ever been happier to skip car ownership. We all know GM isn’t the only one doing this, and we all know that they’re going to continue as soon as this all blows over. My e-bike is incapable of accessing the internet, and the bus and light rail are anonymous. I get plenty of exercise, save my money, have more time to enjoy my commute, and I get to save my privacy.

 

[M Doiron]

Headline: "GM stops sharing driver data with brokers amid backlash"

That should read:

"GM stops selling driver data to brokers amid backlash"​

 

[Maoltuile]

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.

There was speculation that CarPlay was booted by GM precisely because they want to gobble up all that user data (Apple may be many things, but the commitment to not sharing user data with others - whatever the motivation - appears to be real).

 

[fyo]

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?

The exact scenario with GM shouldn't happen in the EU, but it's not as simple as one might wish. There is a movement across the EU to create legislation targeted specifically at connected cars, but right now the only rules are those under the GDPR.

Without getting too into the nitty gritty, the GDPR mostly provides robust protections, but also makes it relatively easy for users to sign away (consent) most of those protections. And that is basically what vehicle manufacturers are currently relying on. The main protection here, and I'm tempted to put it in scare quotes, is that the purpose of data collection and sharing must be specified (and the data collection minimized to meet that purpose) and consent must be "freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous" ¹.

The EU Data Act (targeted mainly at IoT) will help somewhat when it comes into effect in late 2025 by increasing user access to collected data and restricting "unfair" contracts.

For a more detailed analysis of the current state of affairs, the following article covers it well:

https://trustcassie.com/resources/blog/connected-vehicles-and-the-gdpr/

 

[Miles J]

but very often it doesn't because the car can't know stuff like how well trained you are or how attentive you are

I've been looking at new cars, one of the things listed as equipment for some models is "Attentiveness Assistant" or similar (mainly related to lane keeping/advanced cruise control) - they also have cameras to make things matrix headlights/collision detection work, so should easily be able to workout whether your sudden braking was due to other idiots (but I doubt they will).

It is impressive how technology has changed but scary how it can be abused against us.

 

[jock2nerd]

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.

For the manufacturer to have this information isn't too creepy.

It really becomes creepy when Facebook suddenly starts showing adverts for oil changes.