> I have I personally and it saves me around 300€/year on my cars insurance because I am a very defensive driver.
No, that should definitely be opt-in, with explicit consent to data collection and process purposes.
My sister had it, and it was biggest piece of crap imaginable. The system would send her emails warning her about "lack of smoothness" in her driving, because....the system would rate her down every time she went over a speed bump.
The biggest problem was that she would get emails saying "we've detected you were going 70mph in a 20mph zone, if this continues we will cancel your insurance", so we would call them and ask them to provide GPS logs, which they always would - and the logs would always show that she was going legal 70mph on the motorway, which at one point goes above a smaller 20mph road - and of course the system was stupid enough to just query the speed limit for every point, not realizing that this wasn't the road she was actually on. We would email them back explaining, and the warnings would go away until she went on that road again.
Absolute waste of time and money, I think the insurance company would need to pay me to have this fitted, the nerves it cost my sister to have that piece of crap in her car weren't worth whatever discount she got for it.
And after that they'll mandate it for everybody.
I already pay a premium for having more horses under the hood. I don't want to get dinged when I use my car's power.
However, this being integrated into the vehicle in an absolutely intransparent way is a huge step up and a really unsettling privacy violation.
For this to be ethically viable imho, there need to be a few prerequisites
- it’s transparent what has been transmitted
- you can always easily opt out, but you may loose the discount you earned
- your driving can’t make your premium go up beyond the base premium without the discount (sensors will never paint an entirely accurate picture)