Hacker News

So, aside from nothing to hide domestic/family violence and stalking, the fact that they can and will build an inference about you to attempt to influence your choices is fundamentally menacing to every person.

Corporate stalking has become so normalised (and provides so many livings) that we are through the other side.

Half a millennium ago they tried to control us by restricting our access to information to control what we think, now they bombard us with it to control what we think.

Criminal prosecution isn't even an issue because it does not extend to the executives. PG&E somehow keeps paying fines to resolve murder charges.

https://liberationnews.org/pges-rap-sheet-the-criminal-histo...

Yes. Paying the money the data is worth isn’t coercive, linking some other transaction to selling your location data is.

This includes having a discount larger than what your location data is worth. IE: I’ll sell you this car for 50k, o you want it without location tracking that will be 150k.

So, they are collecting geolocation data to avoid selling geolocation data.

BRILLIANT

They may be looking at a correlation between speed and claims rather than whether or not the speed is legal. Accidents at 80 mph will tend to be more severe, and possibly also more frequent.

Note that they are also looking at night driving, which as far as I know is legal everywhere, but someone who spends a higher percentage of their time driving at night probably is a bigger risk for the insurance company than a similar person who doesn't drive as much at night.

I'd surmise it's because several states (CA comes to the top of mind) set speeds in excess of 80 as a potential felony enhancement.

iirc in CA it's 20mph over the speed limit, or speeds over 80.

The insurance companies probably want to know who to raise rates on.

It's not arbitrary. In Virginia that's a guaranteed reckless driving charge.

It’s important to understand that in the USA, data is owned by the collector (eg. The app or SaaS who generated it), not the person who is described by it.

Until this legal regime changes, we will constantly be playing whack-a-mole with laws like this.

The economy is not 0 sum. Someone else profiting doesn't hurt you.

Default opt in by most new cars with cellular connections

Companies who want to use this data should gather it themselves, and transparently. Insurance companies do this, my dad had a little tracking unit in his car that I assume allowed him to pay a lower rate.

It is not gathering or using the data that is a problem, it is gathering or sharing it without awareness and consent. To be fair, even sharing/selling it would be fine assuming it happens with awareness and consent. Not buried in some ToS, but active consent.

Unless they're disclosing exactly how the location data is being used to measure driver risk, my assumption is that it's a form of redlining. Filing my racial discrimination lawsuit nnnnnnow.

Laws typically define terms like this, and this law is no exception.

> "Precise geolocation data" means information derived from technology, including but not limited to global positioning system level latitude and longitude coordinates or other mechanisms, that directly identifies the specific location of a natural person with precision and accuracy within a radius of 1,750 feet. "Precise geolocation data" does not include the content of communications or any data generated by or connected to advanced utility metering infrastructure systems or equipment for use by a utility.

https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title59.1/chapter53/sect...

In fact, most states have a large number of elected officials in them, especially those elected officials who hold the legislative power of that state.

But if you meant the 500ish elected federal officials, most of whom are not Virginians or Marylanders, and so have neither any influence as voters nor as legislators, then... well I'm still not sure what you mean. Privacy laws are good. I don't see a reason to be cynical.

There was a situation like this in DC for cannabis. There was a ballot measure passed that legalized recreational use and gifting but selling weed was still illegal. So there were lots of “gifting” shops where they would sell things like stickers or t-shirts and then offer you a “free gift” of cannabis. It was sort of tolerated for a little while but the authorities started cracking down and required them to get licensed for medical maraijuana sales. [1]

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Washington,_D.C.,_Initiat...

1: https://mjbizdaily.com/news/district-of-columbia-dc-gifting-...

I used to regularly go to a comedy show on the site of an old brewery in Wandsworth. The comedy cost £20 but the beer was free. Apparently the site was the oldest continuous used brewery in Europe and the head brewer decided to keep the record going after the site was sold to a property development company. However, there was a prohibition against competition and licensing issues meaning they couldn't charge for beer.

Raines Law in that late 1800s put restrictions on the sale of alcohol in NY on Sundays. Bartenders used a loophole of the drinks being served with a meal to get around it.

They would make a single sandwich, "serve" it to the patron along with their drink, then immediately take back the sandwich to "serve" it to the next person wanting a drink

https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/raines-sandwich

I've been to bars that required you to buy a bowl of popcorn or some such in order to abide by their restrictive liquor license which only allowed sale with food.

I for one am glad to hear they have some standards over there and refuse to profit from exploiting peoples private information.