478
submitted 7 months ago by downpunxx@fedia.io to c/privacy@lemmy.ml

Romeo Chicco’s auto insurance rate doubled because of information about his speeding, braking and acceleration, according to his complaint.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] init@lemmy.ml 28 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

This is a tough one for me. I'm pro-privacy, but I'm also pro-sane driving habits.

EDIT: Thanks for the replies and some constructive DMs. You brought up a lot of things I needed to consider that my lighthearted comment and thoughts behind it ignored. Privacy is and should be a fundamental right. This comes before the right to drive aggressively or defensively. Privacy should be non-negotiable.

I'm going to leave this comment up because I believe it is a teachable moment. I have reevaluated my position, and I am wrong. Thanks for the thoughtful replies.

[-] dsemy@lemm.ee 31 points 7 months ago

Corporations shouldn't get to decide if you're a sane driver.

[-] capital@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I’d like to see this guys report vs mine before deciding.

Edit: uh oh, shitty drivers detected.

[-] bane_killgrind@lemmy.ml 7 points 7 months ago

Nah just people that understand that the insurance companies will do everything to optimise profits over everything, using any excuse they can.

Heuristics like this will squeeze pennies out of middle earners and be gentle to the more "competitive" customers, that can afford not driving or going to a competitor.

[-] BlitzoTheOisSilent@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago

Yep, I/my car was involved in 3 accidents over the course of 2 years almost a decade ago. First I was rear-ended, second someone turned into me cause they were in the wrong lane, and the final one I wasn't even in the car, it was parked in the city I lived in and was one of 7 cars that were hit during a police pursuit.

That last accident, I had the same insurance company as the guy who was evading police. When I called to file a claim, the woman told me, "Well... We're not sure we'll be able to offer compensation, as your vehicle is one of seven involved, and the driver's insurance only covers XYZ amount, so we may need to put it under your policy." I told them absolutely not, it was not my problem that they willfully insured a criminal, and that I had been a customer for 5+ years, never missed a payment, and did absolutely nothing wrong in this situation. She still pushed, and I told her if that was the route they wanted to go, she could cancel my policy that minute, and suddenly it turned into "Well, let's see what we can do."

Fuck insurance companies, all of them, literally all of them. They also initially refused to give me my check for that last accident, as the guy at the counter told me, "Well, you have a lien on the vehicle, so we should really be sending this to your bank so they can tell you when/where they want the repairs made." I responded, "Well, that sounds like a conversation I need to have with my bank, and since the loan is between myself and them, I don't really understand what business it is of yours, now I'll take my check please."

They recently upped my rates because I moved 1.7 miles away from my old address, which was in a different zip code, and just thinking about all this makes me want to look into leaving them for another company.

God I hate insurance companies.

[-] bane_killgrind@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 months ago

Yeah this is one of these perverse incentives business have.

[-] capital@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

My insurance isn’t doubled. Something’s different between this guy and me.

[-] bane_killgrind@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 months ago

Yeah you are a "flight risk" customer or you have other data points that make them think you are worth offering a lower premium.

[-] capital@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Think my driving record might have something to to with my options?

[-] bane_killgrind@lemmy.ml 3 points 7 months ago

No? There's a minimum base price that you would be charged.

Remember, this is a profitability equation, not a risk assessment. Wearing a Pope hat doesn't make you the Pope.

[-] capital@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I think it does. Seeing as my record is good, thereby making it easier for me to shop around and get a lower price. I think it’s pretty straightforward.

Someone who pays their premiums and doesn’t get in accidents is profitable.

But again, I don’t know all this to the true - I’d like to see his report vs mine.

[-] bane_killgrind@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 months ago

Is your record good? I moved years ago and my rate dropped by half.

Was my record better or something? No.

[-] capital@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Did you move states? Even cities can matter.

I didn’t mean to suggest that ONLY driving record matters.

If you move to a place known for a lot of uninsured drivers, your rates are gonna increase, for example.

[-] cqthca@reddthat.com 2 points 7 months ago

quit making sense. 😏

[-] bane_killgrind@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 months ago

A private business is arbitrarily charging customers for a required service. Living in one postal code or another has no bearing on a driver's actual skill. These people are predatory, pull your head out of your ass.

[-] capital@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

As I said before, premiums aren’t just based on driver skill/record.

If you move to an area with high carjacking rates, your premiums will rise.

You sound like a kid who just started paying attention to this stuff. I thought it was common knowledge.

I’ve lived in 5 different places, over 2 countries, with the same car, under the same insurance company. Rates were always different.

[-] bane_killgrind@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 months ago

So my premiums are higher in my 20000$ car because Lexus drivers get carjacked in my postal code.

It's not new to me. It's always been stupid and predatory.

[-] capital@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

You’re hyperfixating on my examples and missing the point (or, more likely, you understand perfectly but don’t want to admit it). Lots of different metrics go into the final number.

Think insurance rates for those owning the easily stolen models of Hyundai vehicles went up? Likewise, SHOULD they go up after it became apparent they were easily stolen?

[-] bane_killgrind@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 months ago

The whole thing is predatory and abusive, and is enabled by regulatory capture.

[-] capital@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

That can be true and it can also be true that accident rates, individual driver history, carjacking rates, weather patterns, and a long list of other things goes into the final number.

[-] bane_killgrind@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 months ago

Yeah any arbitrary thing they decide makes them more money, they will include, which is a problem.

[-] cqthca@reddthat.com 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I know my credit score has something to do with it, for some reason. I've talked to an insurance actuarial and they use that in their premium formula.

e. as my credit score went +100 pts my insurance went down, co-incidentally? Liability only, so it isn't depreciation of the asset. If anything, on average, an older car would be more dangerous, more liable to have the wheel fall off and collide with a Bentley or something.

[-] jjlinux@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 months ago

I'm a pretty shitty driver, and I pay almost nothing on insurance. But I do live in a third world country, so we get to just cut connections on new data glutton cars, and nobody cares. Plus, any small car damage, we go to a friend's body shop, and fix it for a couple of hundred dollars, the insurance companies have no way of finding out.

[-] okamiueru@lemmy.world 28 points 7 months ago

Am I too European to understand this?

Out of all the things and ways "driving could be more sane", you think the sale of your data to for-profit, private, third parties... will somehow be for the common good?

[-] Jarix@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I think they are saying that this person apparently drives poorly enough to warrant a huge increase in insurance and that they want people who are bad drivers to be found out, but that they don't like the way this person was found to be a bad driver. Kind of a "while this is the result we want this is horrible, and not the way to get it."

They are conflicted, perhaps even made conceptually(?) uncomfortable, because they see value in that persons insurance reflecting their driving history, by the fact that they see a positive outcome in this case of invasion of privacy.

That's how i read it, not then condoning it just sharing some internal dilemma here. If my take is accurate, we should have compassion and help them through this with support not jumping to conclussions.

They very much did not suggest that they approve at all of the sale of their data only that they see a connection.

They cant ignore that people will use this as justification to continue down this path into the complete solvency of privacy...and that it may just work

I'm making a lot of assumptions to explain my take in their eyes and expanding out a bit. Admittedly i am exploring this and cannot prove anything I've just said

[-] Churbleyimyam@lemm.ee 3 points 7 months ago

It's complete speculation but I would think that paying more for insurance would be more likely to make you a worse driver than a better one. Having a crash is probably the only way you'll actually get anything back out of the insurer!

It would be better to just ban people outright or do what they do in France which is to allow people to only to drive a 'sans-permis', which is a tiny car, limited to 30 mph.

[-] cqthca@reddthat.com 1 points 7 months ago

they'll probably mandate the thing the insurance companies want to put into the car. I'd save money as a good driver, but it doesn't taste right.

[-] ReluctantMuskrat@lemmy.world 18 points 7 months ago

If you drive safe then you have nothing to hide.... wait, this sounds familiar, right?

[-] cqthca@reddthat.com 1 points 7 months ago

do the police have this system for each car, link it to when the siren is off. I see a lot of shenanigans goings on

If it is an actual emergency go ahead and speed mr policeman, but you trying to get home early doesn't mean you can drive 95. - The Public.

[-] Zanz@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

After investigating the vehicle calls every event that you use the brakes over 5 miles an hour a heartbreaking event. If you have the region turned off or set to low it still does it.

[-] jjlinux@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

And just because I think people that are brave enough to reevaluate their stand points are awesome, I'm following you (not stalking🤣) on Lemmy moving forward.

I genuinely hope there were more people like you.

Edit: I had no idea I could not follow people here. That goes to show how ignorant I am 🤣🤣🤣.

this post was submitted on 16 Mar 2024
478 points (100.0% liked)

Privacy

31609 readers
371 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

Chat rooms

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS