GM stops sharing driver data with brokers amid backlash

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

See full article...

 

[User5910]

MalwareBytes’ Lock and Code podcast had an excellent episode on this: What does a car need to know about your sex life?

Among other blanket allowances by many manufacturers, “Nissan says it can collect ‘sexual activity’ information about consumers.”

 

[Lord Grey]

I own a 2010 Camaro SS and I admit to driving it as if I stole it most of the time. I love that car.

Several months ago, GM notified me that the cellular band my car used for OnStar was going away. I was never so happy to hear that they could no longer track me in any way.

Obsolescence FTW!

 

[JBinFla]

"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," GM told us in a statement.

I added the underlining to prove a point. Am I the only one that reads this sentence as implying they didn't stop sharing data, they just stopped sharing with LexisNexis and Verisk?

 

[meisanerd]

Not worth the privacy violation.

Better would be, now that we have good GPS and maps, would be to simply limit cars to the speed limit. Nobody ever needs to speed, people just like to, and as you say, it's dangerous and harmful to society.

And involves no shady privacy violations or slimy data brokers.

Given how often Google maps will flip me onto a sidestreet or otherwise wrong road when I drive downtown between a bunch of concrete buildings, Im not sure how accurate gps-based speed enforcement would be...

And speeding itself isnt dangerous unless it is excessive and well outside the capabilities of the road, vehicle, and driver. There are numerous studies showing that the issue is the difference in speed between multiple vehicles that is the safety issue. If everyone on a freeway is doing 20 over the limit, it is no more dangerous than everybody doing the limit. The danger can actually be caused by the 1 guy doing 20 under the speed that everyone else is doing.

 

[randomforest]

I just had a discussion with my cousin about this yesterday. He pulled his Lexus Nexus report and was shocked to see a large amount of braking and driving characteristic data. He did not remember signing up for any specific service in his GM vehicle. Its pretty violating to see that this information can be secretly collected and used to increase your insurance prices. (or for other means)

 

[foto69man]

Your driving data is worth big money, I highly doubt GM is alone in doing this.

 

[maclifer]

People who sign contracts for other people without telling them need to be prosecuted for fraud.

Agreed. They need to get to the bottom of WHY this was happening (I mean, yeah we all know $$$ but let's find out how it ended up like this)... were the salespeople getting a small bump for each customer that (they) signed up? This onion can be peeled to many layers.

 

[velofellow]

Given how often Google maps will flip me onto a sidestreet or otherwise wrong road when I drive downtown between a bunch of concrete buildings, Im not sure how accurate gps-based speed enforcement would be...

And speeding itself isnt dangerous unless it is excessive and well outside the capabilities of the road, vehicle, and driver. There are numerous studies showing that the issue is the difference in speed between multiple vehicles that is the safety issue. If everyone on a freeway is doing 20 over the limit, it is no more dangerous than everybody doing the limit. The danger can actually be caused by the 1 guy doing 20 under the speed that everyone else is doing.

It's always telling that people's first reaction is to think of the freeway. A collision with a pedestrian or cyclist at 20 mph is almost always survivable, while a collision at 40mph is almost always fatal, period. In any crash (vehicle vs vehicle, vehicle vs ped, vehicle vs. stationary object, vehicle vs. terrain), speed will increase stopping time, regardless of the differential with other users of the road; and a high differential further reduces the time available to react to danger. Likewise, many drivers are poor at judging what you describe - the capabilities of the road, their vehicle, and themselves. People regularly speed and then "lose control" on hills, at curves, or in inclement weather. Technology can't fully fix this problem, but it can absolutely ameliorate it - why should you be put in danger because a driver with less ability to measure the situation (whether due to overconfidence, impatience, or temporarily degraded skill) is able to put their vehicle in an energy configuration where they are likely to lose control and perhaps hit you?

I agree that GPS-based enforcement is probably insufficient in and of itself because of the low accuracy - but it would probably be technologically possible to build a system of "smart" speed governors with adequate infrastructural support.

 

[gregorerlich]

And speeding itself isnt dangerous unless it is excessive and well outside the capabilities of the road, vehicle, and driver.

Found the dangerous driver that has no understanding of physics lol

Apparently they're not aware that impact force increases by the square of the velocity. Speed kills, as numerous studies, safety campaigns, physics, and common sense all say.

 

[velofellow]

The "pan" in panopticon doesn't mean "some".

The issue isn't that you can't be tracked - you definitely can - it's that tracking may involve some effort (even if only a few minutes of an employee's time). As people who are riding a bus or taking a tram are usually not able to cause fatal crashes, you are less likely to have serious scrutiny put on your movements. That isn't a defense of the surveillance state, and it's definitely possible for a regime with a higher error tolerance to automate the system further - but such a regime will probably also use smartphones and other near-essentials to track you alongside transportation.

 

[Cyber/<ender]

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

At this point, the only way to do that is to disable the car's cellular antenna. The instructions are on a per-model basis. I'm figuring I will do this to mine as soon as the warranty is up...

 

[Peflitydap]

A more apropos and civilized punishment would be for the car salesperson who fraudulently agreed to the terms being personally responsible for paying the extra cost of all affected parties' car insurance rates. For life. And if they can't afford this the insurance companies can't cancel the policies but have to figure out how to get the missing money from the fraudster on their own.

Would this financially destroy them? Yes, but that's what they get for agreeing to terms without permission that may financially destroy the person they agreed to them for. I guarantee you it would quickly put a major dent in the number of salespeople who continue doing it. They're in it for the money, they aren't going to risk losing all of theirs.

Don't pin this on the salesperson who basically has to show all options to a potential customer in order to truthfully show them the vehicle.

No, what should happen is what should have been the case from the beginning. The salesperson can turn on anything and everything to demo the car in "sales mode", then after showing the car everything is turned off, the car is sold, and then the owner, at their leisure, can turn on everything they want to after reading the fine print. The same thing should happen whenever the vehicle transfers ownership.

 

[Peflitydap]

You would think, if the cars are calling home even without subscriptions, that they would have more accurate information about my mileage. Demanding a 7500-miles service when (for reasons unrelated to the car itself) it's been driven maybe 2000 is kind of ridiculous.

https://community.cartalk.com/t/doe...e-with-little-mileage-or-engine-hours/66042/2From VDCDriver:

It’s not a question of the oil breaking down in 3,500 miles/1 year.
Instead it is a matter of the oil likely being diluted by water vapor (a normal byproduct of combustion), as well as the potential for oil sludging to take place.
The problem with a vehicle that logs only 3,500 miles in 1 year is that–in most cases–those miles are accumulated mostly with short-distance local driving. That type of driving does not allow the engine and the oil to become hot enough to evaporate the water vapor, and the oil becomes diluted over time.
The process of dilution of the oil, coupled with an engine running on a richer than normal mixture when it is not fully warmed-up, can create the perfect storm for the formation of sludge, internal corrosion, and resulting engine damage.
Normally, I don’t trust the automated oil life monitors on cars to tell me when to change the oil, but in this case, I would suggest that you take its notification very seriously. Even if you are skeptical of an oil change being necessary at this point, the reality that you will void the warranty on your engine by failing to change the oil on the recommended schedule should prod you into action.

TL;DR: There's a reason oil change intervals recommend so many miles or so many months.

 

[Deleted member 764661]

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

...for a few months until the media coverage dies down, people forget about this incident, and we can go right back to business as usual."

 

[Peflitydap]

Better would be, now that we have good GPS and maps, would be to simply limit cars to the speed limit. Nobody ever needs to speed, people just like to, and as you say, it's dangerous and harmful to society.

I generally agree with the concept, but rarely people do need to speed. Any governor needs to have an off switch. I would be fine if switching it off sends a signal somewhere, or minimally records it in a black box.

For safety reasons you should speed a little when passing on a two lane road.

For medical reasons you speed like mad (but not too crazy) for certain injuries or events.

 

[alpe]

Wanted to buy: Any functional car from 1983.

Until insurance companies start refusing to insure drivers who don't consent to be tracked. They already offer tracking apps, it's only a matter of time before they become mandatory.

 

[spazalaz]

I just bought a corvette z06 and opted out of that smart driver data sharing the moment I got home. They still will be spying on me I'm positive.

 

[velofellow]

I generally agree with the concept, but rarely people do need to speed. Any governor needs to have an off switch. I would be fine if switching it off sends a signal somewhere, or minimally records it in a black box.

For safety reasons you should speed a little when passing on a two lane road.

For medical reasons you speed like mad (but not too crazy) for certain injuries or events.

A governor with an off switch isn't a governor at all, unless it requires physically opening up the car - at which point the time savings probably don't exist. I think it is highly likely that if we added up all the fatalities having a mandatory governor prevented in one column, and the fatalities that having a governor caused by making people who don't want to call an ambulance wait too long to go to the hospital in a separate column, the speed governor would be the clear hands-down winner. Seriously, motor vehicle crashes kill thirty-five thousand people annually in the USA alone, and maim far more.

This whole line of argument feels very wish-fulfillmenty, to me, like those fantasies lots of us (including me) have about stopping a mass shooter or terrorist and being a hero. Professional ambulance drivers speed, but even they don't "speed like mad", and they may be able to call upon a police escort to make their higher speed much safer than a random person.

You are not as good a driver as an ambulance driver (even if you are a pro: you are either in an emergency or driving someone you're emotionally close to, and thus not making sound decisions), and if the situation is severe enough, an ambulance may be the best thing to call. The fact that our ambulances cost too much is not a problem we should just foist on random people who happen to own cars or happen to be near a person who has decided their or their passenger's medical needs are serious enough that they are entitled to violate the laws but not not serious enough that an actual emergency vehicle is the appropriate response. Also, depending on where you are, that speeding, despite feeling cathartic, might not actually do very much: if you are in an urbanized area, unless you are blowing through red lights and stop signs you probably aren't saving much time. In a rural area, the time savings is greater - but so are the risks of a moose or other large animal appearing while you're frantically driving and potentially making your already endangered passenger's life much, much worse.

I won't even address the passing issue, except to say that on the speed-governed vehicle I personally own, if the vehicle in front of me is going too fast for me to accelerate past it, I don't attempt a pass. This can be mildly frustrating, both for myself and for those truckers whose speed-governed semis are on the highway all the time, but is not actually unsafe.

 

[velofellow]

Until insurance companies start refusing to insure drivers who don't consent to be tracked. They already offer tracking apps, it's only a matter of time before they become mandatory.

How do you feel about the prospect of insurance companies taking climate change into account when setting policies for homeowners insurance and other property related insurance?

 

[bradley13]

People who sign contracts for other people without telling them need to be prosecuted for fraud.

We bought an EV last year. Signed a one-page sales contract, very short and clear.

Every few months, we get a popup on the dash saying "terms and conditions gave changed". No opt out, just a chance to read the new T&C.

Two points:

1. We never accepted any such terms and conditions. Nowhere mentioned in our contract.

2. Even if we had, it is not legal for one contract partner to unilaterally change them.

I wish someone like the EFF would get involved here, and put a stop to this kind of nonsense.

 

[velofellow]

We bought an EV last year. Signed a one-page sales contract, very short and clear.

Every few months, we get a popup on the dash saying "terms and conditions gave changed". No opt out, just a chance to read the new T&C.

Two points:

1. We never accepted any such terms and conditions. Nowhere mentioned in our contract.

2. Even if we had, it is not legal for one contract partner to unilaterally change them.

I wish someone like the EFF would get involved here, and put a stop to this kind of nonsense.

A part of me is genuinely convinced that the EV revolution has been going so much slower than expected precisely because EVs, being new, modern cars, have all the shittiness of new and modern cars. Terms of Service, all-glass cockpits (what's wrong with a button!), subscription features...it's awful.

 

[gregorerlich]

For safety reasons you should speed a little when passing on a two lane road.

Technically, you're not supposed to do that, as you should only be passing someone going so far below the speed limit you can safely pass them at the speed limit. I know everyone does, because that's the "road culture", but we'd all be safer if nobody did it ever.

And speeding in an emergency, great idea! You can splatter your wife in labour and your child all over the windscreen when you wrap the car around a pole! And I'm sure a high-speed head-on collision will be just the thing to help with your brother's table-saw injury.

 

[OAW]

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).

That and because they want their customers to pay them $25+ per month for a data plan the most people have already paid for on the device in their pocket.

 

[real mikeb_60]

https://community.cartalk.com/t/doe...e-with-little-mileage-or-engine-hours/66042/2From VDCDriver:

TL;DR: There's a reason oil change intervals recommend so many miles or so many months.

Mea Culpa: I forgot to mention that it was a EV.

Yes, I did that with other cars that had motor oil. The Rabbit Diesel and a succession of Toyotas got serviced twice a year regardless of low miles, as does our old Prius now that we do a lot of our running around town with the Bolt. With the EV, where service consists of inspection, occasional warranty service, rotating tires (which gets done for free at the tire shop, so why should I pay a dealer $50 to do it?), and trying to sell a cabin air filter change for $85 at every service (which can be replaced for $25 with a part from the dealer's parts counter, retail, and 15 minutes in the car, every year or 2 - 2 years per the book), it's not needed very often. Yes, I did get time-based fluid changes done at 5 years that otherwise were scheduled for 100-150K miles. But EVs are not like ICE cars that way.

The dealer last time tried to hard-sell a transmission filter and fluid change at 50K miles/5 years. I have barely 50K miles, at about 7 years, on the EV. But: it has no transmission (just a reduction gear), no transmission filter, and fluid change is "lifetime" or 150K according to the book. It's a sealed system. Book for newer models does ask for it at 97K, which is reasonable and consistent with when I had the "lifetime" transmission fill replaced in our old Prius (it was pretty dirty). If I still have the car at 9-10 years old, I might get it done then. I suggested said dealer look at the actual maintenance schedule for the car, not what their service-sales computer says; mumblemumble OK looks like you're right.

Bottom line: EVs suck from the standpoint of dealer (or even regular mechanic shop) service revenue. Except (for GM) for warranty and recall work, which these days is more often a software patch than hardware work.

 

[real mikeb_60]

A governor with an off switch isn't a governor at all, unless it requires physically opening up the car - at which point the time savings probably don't exist. I think it is highly likely that if we added up all the fatalities having a mandatory governor prevented in one column, and the fatalities that having a governor caused by making people who don't want to call an ambulance wait too long to go to the hospital in a separate column, the speed governor would be the clear hands-down winner. Seriously, motor vehicle crashes kill thirty-five thousand people annually in the USA alone, and maim far more.

This whole line of argument feels very wish-fulfillmenty, to me, like those fantasies lots of us (including me) have about stopping a mass shooter or terrorist and being a hero. Professional ambulance drivers speed, but even they don't "speed like mad", and they may be able to call upon a police escort to make their higher speed much safer than a random person.

You are not as good a driver as an ambulance driver (even if you are a pro: you are either in an emergency or driving someone you're emotionally close to, and thus not making sound decisions), and if the situation is severe enough, an ambulance may be the best thing to call. The fact that our ambulances cost too much is not a problem we should just foist on random people who happen to own cars or happen to be near a person who has decided their or their passenger's medical needs are serious enough that they are entitled to violate the laws but not not serious enough that an actual emergency vehicle is the appropriate response. Also, depending on where you are, that speeding, despite feeling cathartic, might not actually do very much: if you are in an urbanized area, unless you are blowing through red lights and stop signs you probably aren't saving much time. In a rural area, the time savings is greater - but so are the risks of a moose or other large animal appearing while you're frantically driving and potentially making your already endangered passenger's life much, much worse.

I won't even address the passing issue, except to say that on the speed-governed vehicle I personally own, if the vehicle in front of me is going too fast for me to accelerate past it, I don't attempt a pass. This can be mildly frustrating, both for myself and for those truckers whose speed-governed semis are on the highway all the time, but is not actually unsafe.

Bottom line, really, is that no matter how good a driver you are, you probably aren't as good as you think you are.

Corollary: there are old pilots, and there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots.

And another old saw: it's more fun (exciting (terrifying)) to drive a slow car fast than a fast car slow, given that both are being driven at the same speed.

Side note: there's a proposal running around the California legislature to require speed governors on all new cars. Various numbers thrown around, all moderately high (around 90-100 mph). Predictable response, and almost certainly the bill is DOA.

There are governors on most cars already. Diesels and cars with electronic fuel injection (nearly universal since the late 1990s) have a fuel cutoff at some maximum engine speed. Most EVs also have a governor at a safe maximum rotor speed. Depending on gearing and other factors (like aero drag), those may also serve as speed governors. My Bolt is governed at 92 mph based on safe maximum rotor speed.

No idea what my Rabbit Diesel governed top speed would have been; it hit the aero-drag wall at about 75 mph. I practically never passed anybody with the Rabbit. But I got where I was going in a reasonable amount of time, often at nearly the same time as those passing me then getting blocked by other traffic as I slowly caught up. Even on I-5. Our Prius now is faster, but also seems to be drag-limited, and we spend most of our time in the slower lanes on the freeway.

 

[velofellow]

And another old saw: it's more fun (exciting (terrifying)) to drive a slow car fast than a fast car slow, given that both are being driven at the same speed.

Yeah, the thrill I got out of getting my class 2 governed e-bike up to 30MPH by pedal power and gravity is significantly greater than the thrill of just about every car I've ever driven, even if it was also so terrifying I've only attempted it twice and remain perplexed at the class 3 ebike even existing.

 

[dtremit]

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)

As it turns out, your comment is now the top Google result for that phrase (at least in quotes).

Right now there are protests in Cuba over shortages of food and electricity. Cuba is one of the poster children for why capitalism of some sort is vastly superior to socialism.

It's true; had they not chosen the path of socialism they might be enjoying the booming economy and resource abundance of capitalist neighbors like Haiti. I'm sure their current position doesn't have anything to do with being a former puppet state of a failed superpower and having a trade embargo with the other superpower 300 miles away. /s

Seriously, though, Cuba's per-capita GDP is roughly equivalent to Mexico's, and is higher than several of its decidedly non-communist neighbors like Jamaica. A poor island nation that half the world doesn't talk to is probably not a very good example for your point.

 

[darwiniandude]

Now all they need to do is to implement CarPlay again and I will consider their vehicles.

 

[Peflitydap]

A governor with an off switch isn't a governor at all, unless it requires physically opening up the car - at which point the time savings probably don't exist. I think it is highly likely that if we added up all the fatalities having a mandatory governor prevented in one column, and the fatalities that having a governor caused by making people who don't want to call an ambulance wait too long to go to the hospital in a separate column,

All in all very good points, but it strikes me as an urban / suburban stance and less relevant to small town and rural communities. There are entire counties without a hospital, and even without ambulances: https://www.ems1.com/rural-ems/arti...ut-ems-hospitals-or-doctors-fdTtFng3dOq7RKUq/

 

[dtremit]

A governor with an off switch isn't a governor at all, unless it requires physically opening up the car - at which point the time savings probably don't exist. I think it is highly likely that if we added up all the fatalities having a mandatory governor prevented in one column, and the fatalities that having a governor caused by making people who don't want to call an ambulance wait too long to go to the hospital in a separate column, the speed governor would be the clear hands-down winner. Seriously, motor vehicle crashes kill thirty-five thousand people annually in the USA alone, and maim far more.

I'm not entirely convinced that scenario — of a private car speeding to the hospital — really exists at a significant rate, outside of movies. And when it does, it's probably be a car going 50 in a 25, not 100 in a 65. If it were the latter, we'd probably see a lot more stories of when it went horribly wrong; someone with an ill passenger is probably among the most distracted drivers you could imagine.

 

[velofellow]

All in all very good points, but it strikes me as an urban / suburban stance and less relevant to small town and rural communities. There are entire counties without a hospital, and even without ambulances: https://www.ems1.com/rural-ems/arti...ut-ems-hospitals-or-doctors-fdTtFng3dOq7RKUq/

A fair point, but that strikes me as a policy issue of rural neglect, and again, speeding isn't just dangerous to people outside the vehicle: I would not want to be blasting at 70-80mph down some of the rural Maine roads I've been on with an injured passenger, for example. Hills and curves are already dangerous, and if you hit a moose at that speed, forget it. At the end of the day, rural communities are poorly served by medicine, but I don't think we should sacrifice the overall safety of the entire public to preserve an inadequate coping strategy to that poor service.

 

[velofellow]

I'm not entirely convinced that scenario — of a private car speeding to the hospital — really exists at a significant rate, outside of movies. And when it does, it's probably be a car going 50 in a 25, not 100 in a 65. If it were the latter, we'd probably see a lot more stories of when it went horribly wrong; someone with an ill passenger is probably among the most distracted drivers you could imagine.

Tbh, I worry more about the 50 in a 25 than the 100 in a 65. 65 is almost certainly a limited access space, but 50 in a 25 means racing from block to block near residences and sidewalks, at a speed where a collision with any unarmored person is almost certain death.

RE: the Cuba discussion above: I saw a funny series of videos where this conservative media person went to Cuba and took photos in grocery stores meant to highlight the lack of competition or diversity in their foodstuffs, only to get dunked on by people pointing out all the American foods he pointed to (esp. the processed ones) were made by like a literal handful of companies.

 

[dtremit]

Tbh, I worry more about the 50 in a 25 than the 100 in a 65. 65 is almost certainly a limited access space, but 50 in a 25 means racing from block to block near residences and sidewalks, at a speed where a collision with any unarmored person is almost certain death.

Oh, true enough — but most speed governors wouldn't do anything about those.

Honestly, given the US has highways with legal speed limits of 85mph, I doubt you could have a speed governor set at much less than 100mph, which probably makes it sort of useless anyway. (Unless it was somehow GPS regulated, but I'm skeptical that those would be reliable enough to pass muster.)

 

[velofellow]

Oh, true enough — but most speed governors wouldn't do anything about those.

Honestly, given the US has highways with legal speed limits of 85mph, I doubt you could have a speed governor set at much less than 100mph, which probably makes it sort of useless anyway. (Unless it was somehow GPS regulated, but I'm skeptical that those would be reliable enough to pass muster.)

I think the conversation thread earlier had discussed a hypothetical technological "smart governor" that could have multiple speed profiles based on location as a safety and automation technology. I also agree that GPS would be unreliable - it'd need to be tied into a whole host of systems. Just another way in which self-driving cars are actually a huge technological challenge!

 

[Karede]

I worked for OnStar in a call centre and ended up quitting after being told I wasn't pushing the product hard enough to a crying woman who's husband just died. The whole system is pointless 99% of the time. It doesn't work well in country and offroad areas. If you get in a crash on a highway or in town someones going to call the cops so that feature is useless. Lastly, I was told by a car salesman that they get kickbacks for everyone that signs up for OnStar so they use your personal information to sign you up for a free year. That's why if you've ever bought a vehicle with OnStar they call you asking you to renew your free trial even if you requested no OnStar at the dealership.

I doubt this will last long considering how scummy they are in general.

 

[Tagbert]

That and because they want their customers to pay them $25+ per month for a data plan the most people have already paid for on the device in their pocket.

Then they need to block that device's access so you are forced to use the maker's services and subscriptions.

 

[velofellow]

Then they need to block that device's access so you are forced to use the maker's services and subscriptions.

Who do they think they are, a hotel chain?

 

[bettaboy123]

And who says they've stopped? They have just paused the program with those particular companies, as I read the very narrowly-written statement. It'll be back.

As for transit being anonymous, that's only if you pay cash. Most transit agencies push passes heavily, and it's difficult to use regional "connect" cards that allow transfers between separate systems with cash. Once you start paying with cards or passes of some kind, especially if you manage and refill them online, you should have no expectation of data privacy.

Even with your bicycle, if you're a serious rider, do you use Strava? Bingo! And with any transportation mode, even shank's mare, if you're carrying your phone and it's turned on, you're being tracked (Google and Apple long ago started doing that so they could offer better traffic information in their maps).

I do pay cash for my transit passes. I find it to work just fine. I don’t allow Google to use my location unless I’m actively using their maps, which is something I don’t usually need to do. I’ve live directly adjacent to the main cycling route in my city, and I know most of the other trails, and can read the signage posted everywhere. Sometimes, if I’m going somewhere completely new and the streets aren’t numbered, I’ll use their maps to find the safest way to get somewhere and might spot check my directions when I get closer to my destination. Apple Maps also doesn’t get much usage other than a quick check before my trip to find out when my bus/train is supposed to show up, and while their cycling directions are fine, their cycling maps are much worse than Google Maps. I find their transit directions easier, but I don’t usually need them to know where to go, as I’ve made most of the trips plenty of times and don’t need directions.

I know it isn’t possible to completely avoid the tracking anymore, but even if I don’t, it’s not going to raise my insurance rates for insurance I don’t have/need, or raise any of my other bills.

 

[Peflitydap]

I know it isn’t possible to completely avoid the tracking anymore, but even if I don’t, it’s not going to raise my insurance rates for insurance I don’t have/need, or raise any of my other bills.

You can always leave your phone at home and use an offline GPS. Masking and sunglasses to avoid facial detection algorithms (you'd want to change this up a bit to avoid the algorithms latching onto these features).

Too much trouble for all but the paranoid, but not impossible.

 

[Trondal]

As it turns out, your comment is now the top Google result for that phrase (at least in quotes).



It's true; had they not chosen the path of socialism they might be enjoying the booming economy and resource abundance of capitalist neighbors like Haiti. I'm sure their current position doesn't have anything to do with being a former puppet state of a failed superpower and having a trade embargo with the other superpower 300 miles away. /s

Seriously, though, Cuba's per-capita GDP is roughly equivalent to Mexico's, and is higher than several of its decidedly non-communist neighbors like Jamaica. A poor island nation that half the world doesn't talk to is probably not a very good example for your point.

What country is a better example?

I don’t believe many would say that capitalism is a guaranteed pathway to a successful economy. I certainly wouldn’t.

For capitalism (or any system that depends on property rights), there mustn’t be substantial corruption, but there must be rule of law. Otherwise no one wants to risk their capital to do anything productive, given the risk that someone will just steal their investment.

Regarding Cuba’s GDP, I have two thoughts.

Since they have shortages of food and energy and Mexico/Jamaica do not, I posit that either:
1) They are lying about their official statistics, and their GDP is actually much worse than reported or
2) Those in power are syphoning off wealth for their own benefit, which ironically is typical of communism/socialism given that authoritarianism is also typical of those systems, which do nothing about the base human tendencies toward greed. This latter point is, IMO, why we’ve never seen these systems actually work in a way that anyone would be happy with. You can see my other posts in this thread for more details.

I’m open to what I’m missing on Cuba. The general lack of trade with the US matters but they are free to trade with much of the rest of the world.

Haiti is, unfortunately, a basket case of corruption and extremely weak institutions. Basically a failed state at this point. No economic system can functionally survive in that kind of environment. More accurately, no economy can survive on that kind of environment.