back to article GM parks claims that driver location data was given to insurers, pushing up premiums

General Motors on Thursday said that it has reached a settlement with the FTC "to address privacy concerns about our now-discontinued Smart Driver program." Those concerns, articulated in the US watchdog's formal legal complaint [PDF] against the car maker, are that GM "collected precise geolocation data from millions of Gen10 …

  1. elDog

    And we're supposed to trust the crap that corporate PR spews?

    They'll continue to use our personal data in any fashion that can get more control and to market to us.

    At least for the last four years in the USofA we hoped we would have a government champion against corporate abuses. Now we'll have a con artist in charge who understands under-the-table transactions very well.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    My old chariot is as dumb as a log

    How long until unconnected vehicles are banned?

    1. Phones Sheridan Silver badge
      Alert

      Re: My old chariot is as dumb as a log

      Whilst I fully expect governments at some point to start banning dumb cars, if they have not already started the process or set a deadline, there is the issue of dumb mechanics. Old school mechanics are a dying breed, literally. The newer mechanics seem to be brand and type specific, and only on the latest models. They are coming out of the apprenticeships with a great working knowledge of state of the art hardware, but stick them in front of an 80s, 90s and early noughties engine, and they are lost. Like any industry, there are enthusiasts who keep old tech running, but at some point, your dumb car won't be able to be repaired by the 20-something mechanic down the garage brandishing his laptop and serial cable.

      1. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

        Re: My old chariot is as dumb as a log

        Old school mechanics are a dying breed, literally

        The guy that looks after the Morris Minor has just turned 80 and announced his intention to retire from mechanicing..

        So we've either got to find another one or sell the car. I can handle stuff that goes beep but car mecanics never was my thing - even when I had healthy joints capable of handling the job..

      2. I am David Jones Silver badge

        Re: My old chariot is as dumb as a log

        Didn’t an Indian company have to bring some window winder engineers out of retirement to build some ultra low budget car? No-one else had experience building manually-wound windows!

        1. Headley_Grange Silver badge

          Re: My old chariot is as dumb as a log

          Wouldn't surprise me. I had to repair the window winding mechanism in one of my early cars (Cavalier) and remember it being a nightmare. Just getting the handle off involved a duster and when it worked it was like seeing a magic trick. Mostly, it didn't work.

    2. GNU Enjoyer
      Angel

      Re: My old chariot is as dumb as a log

      They're already de-facto banned in many "Ultra Low Emissions Zones" and in the EU it appears that sale of new cars without location spying is set to be banned.

      Governments don't bother banning old cars, they just make it difficult and expensive to keep using a perfectly good car, or buy a second hand one, as that causes most people to scrap old cars, instead of continuing to drive a freedom ride.

    3. joed

      Re: My old chariot is as dumb as a log

      No need for them use legal steps. All they need to is dump more salt on roads. Now it makes perfect sense.

  3. David 132 Silver badge
    Facepalm

    Lawyers

    "The proposed consent decree [PDF] ... ... forbids the automaker from disclosing geolocation and driver behavior data to consumer reporting agencies for five years."

    If that's an accurate summation of the decree then there are loopholes in there so large one could drive a Canyonero or even a Hummer through them.

    Clearly GM has better lawyers than the FTC.

  4. Pascal Monett Silver badge
    Stop

    "we ended that program due to customer feedback"

    No. You ended that program because some courageous individual sued you and was successful.

    1. seven of five Silver badge

      Re: "we ended that program due to customer feedback"

      A cinderblock through the window is a kind of feedback.

  5. Ball boy Silver badge

    Really?

    "Respecting our customers’ privacy and earning their trust is deeply important to us," the car maker claimed in a statement Thursday.

    A statement massively undermined when you sold customer data to third parties: I'd argue you could reasonably expect said third parties to maximise their return on their purchase.

  6. Neil Barnes Silver badge
    Mushroom

    They have cameras, microphones, GPS tracking, ... connected to the internet

    Mine doesn't. And won't have.

    1. Randy Hudson

      Re: They have cameras, microphones, GPS tracking, ... connected to the internet

      A reverse camera is required by federal law. Do you plan on removing yours after purchase?

      1. Roopee Silver badge
        Facepalm

        Re: They have cameras, microphones, GPS tracking, ... connected to the internet

        I'm pretty sure they're not required by the federal law of the UK.

        1. Neil Barnes Silver badge

          Re: They have cameras, microphones, GPS tracking, ... connected to the internet

          Or indeed Germany. But consider: I don't have to change my car every year or two.

      2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: They have cameras, microphones, GPS tracking, ... connected to the internet

        "A reverse camera is required by federal law. Do you plan on removing yours after purchase?"

        You are assuming his car was purchased after that became law. Or is the law retrospective and all cars must have them retro-fitted regardless of age? I bet the freedumb lovers are over the moon if that's the case :-)

  7. Headley_Grange Silver badge

    I thought that in the US the insurance was for the vehicle, not the driver. Maybe things have changed, but the last time I was in the US (10+ years ago) my friend lent us his car for a few days. I asked about insurance and he didn't seem to understand why I was asking and then explained that the insurance covered the vehicle and anyone who was driving it.

    1. hayzoos

      The coverage is for the vehicle. The rating formula factors in the "rated driver" on the policy. Good luck in figuring out the formula. Some insurance companies had considered all driving age people in a household for the rating, even if one or more had their own insurance, even if with another insurance company. I do not know if that is still practiced. Insurance is regulated in the US at the state government level.

    2. Cliffwilliams44 Silver badge

      It's both! You are only required to carry liability insurance, this insures the driver from liability for injury, $20,000 minimum. So, the minimum,doesn't cover much if you put someone in the hospital, then no-fault kicks in and the injured parties insurance kicks in. (then the sue you!)

      Insuring the vehicle is only required by the lien holder. Once your car is paid off, it is not required.

      In regards to your friend, that is correct, his collision coverage, covers his car and his liability covers HIM against liability for someone else driving his car! If you smash into someone else's car and put them in a wheel chair for life, his insurance will protect HIM from liability, but I can assure you that his insurance company and the injured person's insurance company will come after you for their money! As will the victim! So I would hope you have some form of insurance, auto, home owners, or other form of liability. and that it is not just the legal minimum!

      It's the same when you rent a car. You must have current auto insurance or pay the rental company for coverage. The rental company coverage DOES NOT cover your liability. I think you can purchase that for an additional fee.

      This is why I don't drive other's cars, no let anyone drive my cars.

      1. Headley_Grange Silver badge

        Wow. Sounds like I was driving with, effectively, no insurance for me. Scary.

    3. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

      then explained that the insurance covered the vehicle and anyone who was driving it

      In the UK it covers the vehicle, named driver(s) and, in most Fully Comprehensive insurances, anyone authorised to drive it by the owner. The 'anyone' clause usually only has 3rd-party cover [1] so, if they write off your car, you get nowt..

      [1] Every car on the road legally has to have a minimum of 3rd-party cover [2] [3[ so that anyone in an accident with that car is covered.

      [2] There is an exception - you can post a very large bond (£1 million?) to be used in the event of an accident. Unsurprisingly, very few people do that.

      [3] ISTR that the monarch isn't required to have insurance (or a number plate)..

      1. Headley_Grange Silver badge

        " ..in most Fully Comprehensive insurances, anyone authorised to drive it by the owner."

        Depends on the car in my experience. I've owned a couple of high-performance cars and the insurance specified minimum ages and years holding a driving licence for unnamed authorized drivers - 25 years old and holding a licence for more than 5 years, from memory.

        1. jdiebdhidbsusbvwbsidnsoskebid Silver badge

          "I've owned a couple of high-performance cars and the insurance specified minimum ages and years holding a driving licence for unnamed authorized drivers - 25 years old and holding a licence for more than 5 years"

          I've got the same clauses in policies for very low performance cars. I presume it's to stop parents buying [cheap] insurance in their own name when it's really for the children to drive.

      2. jdiebdhidbsusbvwbsidnsoskebid Silver badge

        Certain organisations (e.g. large government departments) are permitted to self insure. When I had need to look into this closely self insurance turned out effectively to be no insurance, but said department being big enough to financially cover any insurance type claims. I presume that high level bean counters deemed this more cost effective and an acceptable risk. This is an exception to crazyoldcatman's point 1 (every vehicle needing minimum third party issuance) but legal.

      3. rafff

        you can post a very large bond (£1 million?) to be used in the event of an accident.

        Organisations with large fleets of vehicles do this e.g. GPO - when they existed, and probably bus companies.

      4. Korev Silver badge
        Pirate

        > [3] ISTR that the monarch isn't required to have insurance (or a number plate)..

        Apparently the governor of Gibraltar, as the King's representative, has a crown instead of a number plate. The Spanish aren't hugely enthusiastic about that for some reason, so the car has a flip down number plate.

      5. nobody who matters Silver badge

        <....."In the UK it covers the vehicle, named driver(s) and, in most Fully Comprehensive insurances, anyone authorised to drive it by the owner. The 'anyone' clause usually only has 3rd-party cover [1] so, if they write off your car, you get nowt..".....>

        I think you have that slightly back-to-front: under a UK 'Fully Comprehensive' policy, "any driver with the permission of the insured" (ie. the policy holder) is an extra cost option. Fully Comp will only cover the policy holder themselves to drive the specified vehicle unless they either request other named drivers to be added, or they ask for the any driver blanket coverage, but both of those options will generate an additional cost.

        Most fully comprehensive policies will also cover the policyholder to drive another vehicle which does not belong to them and is not hired to them, but only on a 'third party only' basis. The important point about thid party only (as you said) is that you are only covered against liability for damage or injury to another vehicle or person; it does not cover damage to the vehicle that you are driving or injury to yourself.

        The option to self insure by lodging a deposit of £500 000 with the Accountant General of the Senior Courts was removed in 2019 (as was a similar route by providing a security to the same, but that one also required permission from the Secretary of State at the Department of Transport and the issue of a warrant to that effect). These options were abolished for a number of reasons, but the principal one at the time was that they were incompatable with EU Law on motor insurance (and at the time of the consultation on the changes in 2017, the UK was still a member of the EU). For further information see: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2019/1047/pdfs/uksiem_20191047_en.pdf

  8. Jimmy2Cows Silver badge

    Only can't share for 5 years?

    Consent decree ... forbids the automaker from disclosing geolocation and driver behavior data to consumer reporting agencies for five years

    Why only 5 years? Why not forever, without express and verifiable WRITTEN consent from the victim customer. Yeah, written, not implied from some dark pattern tick box. Written. As in the customer must write a letter, delivered by post, to you approving disclosure. Verifiable, as in for every customer whose data you disclose, you must produce the authorising letter.

    What do you mean, no one will bother? What do you mean, the storage and administration will we too expensive? Oh well. Too bad for you, GM.

    And where's the massive fines and jail time for the executives who approved this? Doesn't seem to be any fine at all. So GM made their money, and now get a tickle on the wrist with a pinky promise not to do it again. For five years. Or until they find some other wheeze, and chance their arm because the penalties are a joke.

  9. mark l 2 Silver badge

    Foreign governments won't need a network of operatives to spy on people anymore, they can just set up a data broker and then offer to pay for all the location data direct from the car manufactures. And because these corporations are all greedy MF's they will happy sell their customers data to the highest bidders. Who cares if later that data broker turns out to be a shell company run by the Chinese or Russian government.

    1. ecofeco Silver badge

      "The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them."

      - actual quote not verified, but the spirit is correct.

  10. abufrejoval

    Who wouldn't knowingly consent to have their driving assessed by their insurance company?

    Plenty of people with plenty of different motivations...

    Humanity is diverse and that includes what others regard as perverse.

    Let's tackle the poor bastards first: if you struggle to stay afloat, lowering your insurance premium by *any* means becomes a priority. So if you can demonstrate "safe driving" by going half the (upper) speed limit, they will, regardless if they have the opposite effect by inciting others into reckless passing to compensate.

    You can see it with the elderly: they know both that their sensory equipment is deteriorating and their reaction time increasing. But quite a lot really depend on driving to participate in life or stay out of assisted living they can neither afford nor tolerate. So they go extra, extra careful to stay out of trouble... regardless of their impact on traffic flow.

    And then there are those, who try to impose their "virtuosity" on others. You know the type, who will stay on the left lane at 130km/h because that's the recommended maximum speed on the Autobahn and far more green than going full throttle... whilst they didn't take the even more ecological train, either, which runs 300km/h alongside, ...but unfortunately won't stop were you need to go.

    They are in permanent "driver's ed" mode and probably expect to be given not just a lower risk rating but essentially an insurance knighthood.

    As my utterly corrupt almost-ex-wife used to say: "90% of all virtue are functioning social control" which she used to great effect to cover her misdeeds. Yet without closing the feedback loop in one manner or another, insurance cannot work, as California wildfires demonstrate rather fiery these days.

    And I guess the logical extension of that is your insurance getting cancelled automatically as your car heads into an unavoidable collision.

    A neutral party in the middle seems a necessary solution, but won't come free (money) and is very difficult to maintain free from coercion via AIs or plain old software.

    1. ecofeco Silver badge

      Re: Who wouldn't knowingly consent to have their driving assessed by their insurance company?

      A corporation sold out its customers and violated their privacy.

      Do try and stay on point.

      1. abufrejoval

        Re: Who wouldn't knowingly consent to have their driving assessed by their insurance company?

        Well, I guess you need to zoom out a bit to get my point.

        People may prefer privacy for some things and under some circumstances.

        But peope also feel the urge to go in quite the opposite direction and broadcast their virtue.

        In both cases they want to influence or manipulate how they are perceived by others because that provides benefits to them.

        Social networks got one of their most important boost from people who wanted to broadcast a projection of themselves to a wider audience and in a more controllable manner: could be being bigger, smarter, sexier, whatever. Few things wind up as deadly as fanatics trying to outdo each other very publically on some imagined virtue.

        And for some it's just proving to the insurance company that they deserve lower premiums or some other benefit: they are happy to forfeit privacy there to gain an advantage.

        And insurance companies are very happy to shift the load to the less obviously virtuous and increase the premiums as a windfall: it's one type of greed or another all around.

        Everyone tries to manipulate everybody else for a benefit. And that is behaviour far older than homo sapiens, you can see it in plenty of other species, too.

        And sometimes the worst offenders don't get what they deserve, they just get re-elected instead.

  11. MJI Silver badge

    What is GM actually for?

    They have shrunk their car production, now a lot with the same group who own Chrysler, sold off their railway loco building.

    Is there anything left?

    Are they relevant?

    To Europe, Austrailia, and New Zealand, not at all.

    Suggest buying a car from a company actually wanting to make them, as to who, I do not know.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It's illegal. Why do the CEOs never end up in prison? They'll learn that lesson real quick.

  13. JRStern Bronze badge

    Does the web site let you disable the self-destruct command?

    What about disabling the vehicle if you miss a payment?

  14. M.V. Lipvig Silver badge

    Should be opt in

    Always opt in, never opt out. All it would take is a weekly software update that requires a feesh opt out due to the new software specs to render opting out useless. Kinda like how this one software company we all know and hate operates.

  15. harrys Bronze badge

    damn!!

    sounds like a really good way of getting your premiums down....

    install it on a burner phone with your details and leave the phone in a low mileage careful owners car

    shame stories come out....

  16. Wang Cores

    A five year (IE temporary) suspension? I'm starting to delusionally (or maybe not) believe the sop ass "punishments" are to legitimize it more than discourage it.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like