When I went to a bank open an online account I asked how and when can I change my password... guy told me "Why would you change it, when you can type anything now". Yea, why would I ever want to change my password that was easy to remember at that point, written on his keyboard, computer and browser?

In California, your auto insurance "base rate" cannot go up by more than a fixed amount (I think 40%?) upon renewal.

This explains why they give me both "Good Driver" and "Exemplary Driver" discounts. I shudder to think what it would look like to lose both discounts and have the base rate go up by 40% all in one fell swoop.

I'm moved back to Oklahoma. The only thing that went up was my car insurance. I thought it was nonsense, but 3 hail storms, crushed car (tree limbs), tornado and 2 hit and run drivers (likely uninsured). I can see why. I pay about 200 more a year. My insurance company has paid 36k to fix my cars the last two years.

My only surprise is that they haven't dropped me. Oh yeah, they paid to fix my rental car when it got crushed by a tree limb while my car was getting fixed from a hit and run.

> 3 hail storms, crushed car (tree limbs), tornado and 2 hit and run drivers (likely uninsured)

Why should any of those claims make your rate go up? If a tree crushes your car you aren't a bigger risk to insure next year.

Oklahoma has an extraordinarily high rate of uninsured drivers.

The tree that crushed my car was a result of an ice storm. We get those frequently as well. (My entire lot is covered in trees.)

Sounds like he's not parking in a garage. I could see that leading to higher rates in some ares of the US.

Geico, as an example, no longer cares if you park your car in a garage (secured) or not. I was explicitly told they no longer consider it statistically meaningful.

Instead, they go off statistics from the area code that your vehicle will generally be parked in and how far your commute to work is.

He wasn't parked in a garage before either. If the cost of insurance is based on risk, the fact that a tree falls on your car doesn't increase your risk. If anything, the risk in the future may be lower as presumably that tree isn't going to fall on the car again.

Hail storms and tornadoes are more likely than where he used to live, I'd suppose?

You are correct, but personally I see it as a good thing. Driving is by far the most dangerous thing an average person does on a regular basis. No other regular activity could easily get you or someone else killed if you stop paying close attention for a second or so, and tens of thousands of people (in the US) do die every year in traffic crashes. Therefore, market pressure towards safer driving is a good thing.

Is there any transparency to the algorithms they use? Do they penalize based on actual statistics, or just someone's moralized opinion of what "safe" driving means?

We're talking about the spy data, not generalized actuarial tables.

I'm talking about what the penalties are based on, since you implied it was arbitrary moral judgment.