Florida Man Sues G.M. and LexisNexis Over Sale of His Cadillac Data

Because they have open records for police activity. The same crazy stuff probably happens in your area, it's just not required to be public information.

No no no, that's just "Florida Man", that's the one dude you keep hearing about. Florida Georg is a statistical outlier and should not be counted.

Double insurance rates don't qualify?

GM owns Chevy and Cadillac. There's literally no difference between the two except exterior branding.

Interesting, they should team up.

These different car manufacturers couldn't possibly use the same 3rd-party data service?

To my knowledge, this opts you out of having your data sold for marketing purposes, under whichever nebulous definition they choose for marketing. LN will still have your data and collect it, but they would be unable to sell it for marketing purposes. I am just beginning my journey to opt out of everything I can, especially in light of recent news about automakers selling your driving habits to insurance companies.

I've been radicalized, it seems.

your comment is innacurate and does not add to this discussion in my opinion.

i do not trust ford for many reasons beyond the invasion of privacy outlined here. while i never stated it explicitly as the reason for my mistrust of ford, i'm well aware that all car companies do data trading/selling and that details of the extent are largely unknown outside the shady data brokerage world. at no point did i state that they did not or that there are companies that do not.

this example is an example of what i feel is a company that went too far, by extracting data from the vehicle without informing me they were doing it. a vehicle which was brought to their authorized dealer, to repair their faulty parts, which they were deemed responsible for after numerous complaints and fatal accidents, some involving children falling out of the vehicle after the doorsprings malfunctioned, even when the doors appeared to be locked, while the car was moving in excess of 60mph. this was not the first recall for the issue either. it was the second for all doors except for the back/trunk door, where it was the third.

that is still irrelevant information though. the car was no longer under their warranty, it was purchased used. i gave no permission for them to do anything beyond the necessary and required repairs which came about due to their negligence. i signed no contract with them. i was supplied with no terms or conditions.

if i went to the doctor to get my appendix removed, i would not expect to wake up and learn the doctor decided to do a colonoscopy just for shits and giggles, even if it did detect something critical. if i mentioned my grandparents address while going under with aenesthesia, i would not expect the doctor to send them an offer addressed to me, to purchase my tonsils.

at no point did i make the claim that anyone could buy a car without it selling data of the purchaser. until now, where i will state that yes, you absolutely can buy a car that is not selling data. any car being sold that isn't younger than me will not be selling any data, unless major customization was performed because they would be far too old. the technology didn't exist 40+ years ago.

what motivation was behind your assumptive and half false comment?

I don't think that's true. For one thing, it's easy to buy a car from a random person, without granting any permission to any car company to download stuff from your car and sell it. If a car company were to access your car without permission, you could sue for damages (see OP).

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

Edit: uh oh, shitty drivers detected.

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

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.