Trading privacy for survival is another tax on the poor

Re:Trading privacy for survival is another tax on the poor by rcar on Monday March 18, 2019 @01:52PM (#19423311)

This is a nice follow-on. The one additional thing I'd point out is that when a Class B driver gets the quote from this carrier of $1,684 but gets a quote of $1,100 from another carrier, they're likely to head for the cheaper option, providing further benefit to the carrier using the trackers.

Also, I haven't worked in property/casualty insurance, but my understanding of these trackers is that they don't include GPS capabilities, almost certainly for those sorts of reasons you mention. The risk of bad headlines incentivizes carriers to do what they can to ensure that the false-positive Class B drivers are not correlated with anything potentially sensitive.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Trading privacy for survival is another tax on the poor by Tyrek on Monday March 18, 2019 @02:17PM (#19423570)

While insurance is a different industry, the fact that tech companies continue to make decisions that play badly in the media spotlight suggests that 'bad headlines' isn't a huge deterrent in today's world.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Trading privacy for survival is another tax on the poor by yardie on Monday March 18, 2019 @02:16PM (#19423553)

> my understanding of these trackers is that they don't include GPS capabilities

A friend has one of these in her car and it literally has an LED labelled GPS. Which makes no sense because one of the arguments I heard they need GPS to get mileage and speed, which you can already get from OBD.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Trading privacy for survival is another tax on the poor by Scoundreller on Monday March 18, 2019 @03:50PM (#19424509)

Not if you install bigger tires ;)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Trading privacy for survival is another tax on the poor by Scoundreller on Monday March 18, 2019 @03:49PM (#19424502)

Poor people (should be) the least likely to care about headlines over cost.

[ Parent | on HN ]