The decision followed a New York Times report this month that G.M. had, for years, been sharing data about drivers’ mileage, braking, acceleration and speed with the insurance industry. The drivers were enrolled — some unknowingly, they said — in OnStar Smart Driver, a feature in G.M.’s internet-connected cars that collected data about how the car had been driven and promised feedback and digital badges for good driving.
If the article link contains a paywall, you can consider reading this alternative article instead: ‘GM Stops Sharing Driver Data With Brokers Amid Backlash’ on Ars Technica.
Stopped sharing… until they can manage the pr? No way they’re letting go of that revenue stream.
The class action lawsuit will wipe out that piddly revenue stream a hundred times over.
We can only hope.
Oh sorry, Supreme Court has been working overtime the last decade to limit those. Probably thrown out.
I just bought a dryer and it had a piece of paper taped to it that said “By using this appliance you agree to have all disputes handled by third-party arbitration by the party of our choice.”
For a fucking dryer.
Didn’t forget refrigerator. LG has been doubling down on that bullshit
1, you may be able to opt out within certain purchase time depending on product, company, etc.
- There is a suit in CA or somewhere currently challenging the ability of appliance company to prove the notice was provided or accepted. Insane fucking companies.
They’re legally obligated to maximize revenue for their shareholders. You betcha they’ll find a way to exploit it.EDIT: Comment rescinded for false information.
That’s not true.
It’s not? I’m open to learning if what I’ve been told is wrong.
There’s a fiduciary duty to the shareholders, but a fiduciary duty doesn’t mean that you’re obligated to maximize profit at all costs. It just means that you’re obligated to act in the interest of your shareholders.
If the board or officers use their position to push for a contract that benefits some other interest they hold at the expense of the company, that’s a breach of fiduciary duty. Simply preserving the value of the company over short term gains, having a different approach to risk, or other good faith behavior don’t violate fiduciary duty.
Thank you! I didn’t realize it was more nuanced than that. I thought simply they were charged with maximizing profit. It doesn’t seem to be an actual requirement to do so.
Fiduciary duty as a search term should get you a lot more information.
The “short term profit” argument is one certain types of investors like to push, but it’s not really supported by anything and it’s very often not actually in the interest of the majority of shareholders.
For the vast majority of the shareholders, profit maximization is the end goal. Nothing else matters.
Fiduciary duty does not require you do what they want. If the majority of stock holders don’t like your management, they can replace you. Fiduciary duty basically just means that you have to act in good faith.
But your assertion also isn’t true. Most shareholders are long term shareholders who want stable growth, not the short term spikes followed by hard crashes that are the result of forcibly extracting profit without paying appropriate attention to long term sustainability.
Apologies if my tone came off jarring. Shareholder value creation being the default position has left me a bit bitter towards the ideas of there being any actual effective corporate governance that doesn’t just favor those at the very top.
And NOT getting sued, or tanking sales due to dumbass business deals is a good thing for share value.
Not sharing the driving behavior… for now. Any faucet that can be turned off can be turned on again.
They’re only stopping because they got caught. Once the masses move on to the next Pitch Fork event, they’ll start it back up again.
Yup. I’ll trust them when they let us turn it off and on.
They’re just saying this because they got caught. They might not even actually stop doing it. And even if they do, they’ll just wait until the majority has forgotten about this and quietly start doing it again…
Oh they’ll stop… Til everyone forgets.
Yes. The headline definitely needs a “for now” to be accurate.
And you know the cars aren’t going to stop generating the data either for when they decide they want it.
Would be way cooler if they just stopped collecting it.
I think fixing this problem will require making the collection illegal, with meaningful enforcement.
Our legislators don’t want that though. In fact they’re currently trying to force the sale of US TikTok to a US company likely so they can collect even more data on us.
Yep, we just gotta vote in people who will legislate it. Which means normal people who don’t take
bribesdonations from corporations will need to run for office and beat those who do.So basically we’re doomed. We either need a modern day Teddy Roosevelt or we need to start building guillotines.
Would be way cooler if they couldn’t collect it.
Cars shouldn’t have Internet connectivity and telemetry collection at all. I don’t care what “quality of life” improvements they bring, if they use it to spy on and profit off their customers after paying for the vehicle then it should be banned. I know most people don’t give a shit about their privacy but when it starts affecting their wallet, they will.
I don’t care what “quality of life” improvements they bring,
None.
There’s plenty; they’re just not for the end user.
What, don’t you enjoy the incredible feature of your car being a rolling computer that constantly gets over the air software updates? Don’t you want to experience the joy of being stuck waiting for a forced Windows update, but instead of your computer it’s your car? Why would anybody not want this incredible and so clearly beneficial experience?!?
Cut the power to the OnStar module and cut the wire to the cell antenna. Cars do not need to connect to the Internet… Ever
IDK, the ability to remote activate climate control, start/stop charging and control charge power to match my solar power are all quite good reasons for me to have my car connected.
We should be able to have nice things without surveillance. We shouldn’t refrain from these things, we should legislate so they’re not allowed to collect data and share it without explicit consent.
That stuff should be operable on a published and standardized protocol that third-party units can easily talk to. Put in your own little control box with cellular transceiver.
Honestly I disagree. That kind of features should absolutely be included and standard. I shouldn’t have to buy 3rd party hardware to modify my car and pay for extra cellular service for it.
Customers would probably like if manufacturers include a unit that uses the standardized protocol, yes.
Are you not paying the manufacturer for the cellular service to run the climate control? That’s nice but doesn’t sound typical to me. I’d like to choose my own, or decline the cell service and have it only available from my wifi.
Are you not paying the manufacturer for the cellular service to run the climate control?
No, I’m not.
I obviously would prefer open protocols and/or APIs for these things, but it should be possible without modding the car with additional hardware.
Of course you are, either it’s baked into the cost of the car, or you are paying for it in personal data. So it may be hidden, but you’re absolutely paying for it.
Yeah, that kind of goes without saying…
deleted by creator
Agreed. Also it reduces costs significantly if issues can be remotely inspected and fixed. Software updates regularly get sent to new vehicles that would have cost a lot of time and money to do at a dealership.
Yes, they shouldn’t be sharing your data. Yes you should be getting compensated if you opt into data sharing.
How far away do you need to start your car? Wouldn’t a regular remote start on a key fob work for most situations? Unless you’re taking the bus to your car.
I start the AC from my office which is probably 2-300m from my car with a large building between. That’s far outside the range of a key FOB, but it’s nice and cold in the summer (or warm on the winter) when I get to it.
You probably bitch and complain about climate change while walking to your car that has been running for 20 minutes too.
In what world does walking 2-300m take 20min? What a ridiculous hyperbole…
Suure they do. Maybe temporarily, but that won’t last even if it is true.
oh they pinky promised so it must be true
“GM decides to become a data broker”
FTFYI’m going to be driving my cars from 2016 and 2014 forever, aren’t I?
I’d like a resource that lists each model of car and the last year they were made without data connections, or ones that depended on subscriptions that you can just decline or easily disable. I have a car from 2013 but am wondering if I should upgrade it to a latest good model before people start preferring those and the used price goes up even more.
Nah, there’s also cars like mine from 2005. Plenty of em to go around.
To be fair I love my 2014 GTI and will probably drive it forever even if I get another car because it’s just so damn fun.
we’re removing car play for privacy reasons!
It doesn’t quit collecting and storing it
This might be a stupid question, but this wouldn’t have anything to do with a lot of onstar units not being able to connect to 4g now that 3g is being phased out, now would it?
There is nothing holding them back to change their decision tomorrow or next week. there are no consumer rights or even citizen rights to their own data like the EU developed in the last 10 years. There is no leash on companies to pause or continue this behavior anytime the feel like it.
In a free market the leash is consumer choice. Now show me the dumb appliance/no network of things options.
“for now”
