5881035
story
Comments: 480 +- Your Rights Online: Trust an Insurance Company's "Drive-Cam?" on Sunday September 13, @03:44AM
Posted
by
kdawson
on Sunday September 13, @03:44AM
from the no-voyeurs-here dept.
from the no-voyeurs-here dept.
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicprivacy.gif); width:71px; height:53px;
privacy
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topictransportation.gif); width:75px; height:69px;
transportation
ramen99 writes "Our new car insurance company offered us discounts for our teenage driver if we agree to install a 'drive-cam' that records driving habits and wirelessly transmits video footage to a 'neutral driving coach' for evaluation and comment. While this might be great to monitor a new teen driver, it will also monitor other adult drivers. The insurance company claims that they would never use any information obtained to consider changes in insurance rates, but that really sounds unbelievable. Would you give up your privacy to save some dough? Installation is free, and the camera mounts just under the rear-view mirror. Something seems fishy about this..." Especially when, according to a British insurance firm, computer engineers are most likely to crash (sent in by antdude).
Related Stories
: by
One person's error is another person's data.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
Private Car Cameras (Score:5, Insightful)
However, I've always thought it would be a good a idea to put small cameras in my own car (probably hooked up to a car pc), set to record on motion and store the past few days of video. These would be for my own use only -- I'd never allow a third party unrestricted access, but it might be useful if there's ever any question about what happened in an accident.
They're introducing this product by initially marketing it for teens... as if it is somehow more acceptable to spy on them than anyone else. I'm sure this product will eventually be marketed towards all drivers, but if they introduced it initially like that, it might not get as favorable a response (maybe)...
As for "computer engineers are most likely to crash"
Re:Private Car Cameras (Score:4, Insightful)
They're introducing this product by initially marketing it for teens... as if it is somehow more acceptable to spy on them than anyone else. I'm sure this product will eventually be marketed towards all drivers, but if they introduced it initially like that, it might not get as favorable a response (maybe)...
I'm guessing it'll go like this:
1. teens
2. public employees
3. private employees
4. you
(note, for many #1-3 will already be you.)
Parent
Re:Private Car Cameras (Score:4, Insightful)
Except one of their partners [teensafedriver.com] is Drivecam.com [drivecam.com]
Drivecam advertises a behavior-based risk mitigation program for fleet drivers.
And their site lists a bunch of private companies that utilize their technology.
I think the idea is right, but the order should be:
Parent
Re:Private Car Cameras (Score:5, Funny)
I've had too many assholes hit my car, so it goes:
1) Me
2) Them
3) Others
4) Employees of anyone
5) Profit (?)
Parent
Re:Private Car Cameras (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm with you (and the OP of this thread). I'd love to have a camera in the car that records what's happening in front of me so that when some jackass hits me. Someone backed into my car while it was parked a couple weeks ago and took off. $2000 worth of damage (including some used parts rather than new) and $250 out of my pocket for the deductible. You'd better believe I wish I had video of that incident, because not only would they be paying, they'd be getting a ticket for leaving the scene of an accident. In addition, maybe I could find out why they couldn't see a red car parked in a lot in broad daylight.
For a side project, I've sometimes considered creating an "aggressivedrivers.com" website or something that just shows video of some of the stupid shit I see people doing out on the road. But what would be the point? It's not like anything short of dying will stop those drivers.
Parent
Re:Private Car Cameras (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, my phone belongs to me, not my phone company, and it's open source. Meaning, it's pretty unlikely someone will actually use it to snoop on me. If they can, it'd certainly be a targeted attack, not a broad monitor-every-driver-always situation like we're discussing here. It's next to impossible to defend against a targeted attack, especially when it comes to computers (e.g. cell phones)... but that's not the issue here.
Parent
Re:Private Car Cameras (Score:5, Insightful)
Given mortality rates being the highest for drivers 16-24, what would be a better alternative?
Actual driver training that might reduce the accident rate rather than just attempts to apportion blame better ?
Parent
Re:Private Car Cameras (Score:5, Informative)
Given mortality rates being the highest for drivers 16-24, what would be a better alternative?
Actual driver training that might reduce the accident rate rather than just attempts to apportion blame better ?
Indeed! I'm one of several driving instructors in my local Audi Club who run several teen driving clinics per year. It's astounding how much they'll learn in a single day of instruction. I certainly feel better about their ability to handle a car when they leave, and (I think) so do they.
We teach basic car control, and give them the opportunity to actually lose control in a safe environment, so they know what it's like, know what their car is capable of (and isn't capable of) and mostly, just instill some confidence in them, so that when something happens on the road, they'll already have been there at least once, and hopefully won't panic.
"Driver education" as taught here in the US doesn't teach them anything about driving a car. It teaches them to obey the law (and not too effectively). If they had a solid sense of the amount of energy involved in even the most basic maneuvers, they'd probably look at speeding etc. in a whole new light. And I hope we help, at least a little, with that.
I'd love to require a course like ours for all new drivers before they get a license, and perhaps an occasional refresher for all drivers, period (even us instructors!)
Parent
Re:Private Car Cameras (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Private Car Cameras (Score:4, Insightful)
If they instituted a "what did you have for breakfast monitor" and found that 20% of their driving population sample ate Brand X cereals before having an accident (aha! correlation!), I doubt they'd offer discounts for households that swore off Brand X cereal.
I guess you've never worked for an insurance company, this would not seem unreasonable at all to many of the actuaries I know.
Parent
Re:Private Car Cameras (Score:4, Insightful)
Correlation is necessary, but not sufficient, for causation. Therefore, if you want to eliminate causations, and can afford to error in that direction, eliminating correlations is a good way to do so. Especially since it is so difficult to prove causation.
"Correlation is not causation" does not mean all correlations can be mindlessly discarded.
Parent
Re:Private Car Cameras (Score:5, Insightful)
To an insurance company, if a correlation exists, it is relatively unimportant to know WHY it exists. In fact, the only reason I can think of that they would be interested in the WHY is to use that information to find other correlations.
This isn't because insurance companies are stupid, it's because they aren't. People have this silly idea that correlation is meaningless, and only causation ever matters. However, when evaluating probabilities, causation is utterly useless.
Parent
Re:Private Car Cameras (Score:5, Funny)
You have to think about the big picture here.
It's Monday morning after a weekend of hard rocking. The day is already a bit hazy because several elements of various substances are still floating around in your system.
While traveling a cozy 57mph in a 35mph zone some elderly guy in a walker leaps out of nowhere across the street during a possibly red'ish light.
The light was more maroon than anything.
This is a fairly serious accident, but it's important to note you really shouldn't stick around for something that was obviously not your fault. You reap what you sow or at least that is the passing comment you provide to the evil knievel elderly gentlemen.
In most circumstances this really shouldn't be a problem. However, cameras are funny things and it might be interpreted differently by others. There are just risks and unnecessary risks. Myself... I like to err on the side of caution.
Parent
Re:Private Car Cameras (Score:4, Informative)
How are people supposed to know which posts are jokes if they aren't modded as Funny?
Parent
Re:Private Car Cameras (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Private Car Cameras (Score:5, Insightful)
Ditto. And if you discover the insurance company raised your rates after you install the camera, then just switch companies. That's one of the advantages of not having a monopoly-based system.
Ultimately you'll run in to adverse selection if this becomes widespread. Here's the simplistic version: Drivers start off all paying x, but some are safer than others and the camera picks this up. The safest drivers install the camera and save money. The average safety of those without a camera falls, so the non-camera premium rises. The safest without one install the camera and save money. The average safety of the remainder falls again. And so on.
You have to expect that someday saying no to a camera implies you are almost certainly a high accident risk, so all of the insurance companies will charge you very considerably more.
Parent
Re:Private Car Cameras (Score:4, Interesting)
The crummier the original source (dash cam, web cam, etc) the easier it is to blend in CG elements perfectly.
The higher quality the source (35mm film, RED 4k Camera, IMAX) the harder it is.
And, just FYI, Hollywood is easily capable of creating photo-realistic CGI- but most movie companies aren't interested in paying or scheduling for it. And that's not even considering the fact that all CGI has to be approved by the director- who many times DOES NOT know what looks right in the scene and says it looks too blue or too orange. The end result is that most VFX shots are "good enough" for the money and time allotted.
Lastly, there are many talented individuals out there who given enough time can do photoreal effects.
Here's just one example:
http://vimeo.com/5407991?hd=1 [vimeo.com]
Parent
Re:Private Car Cameras (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Private Car Cameras (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, I was in a situation that was similar, as it involved video footage, but did not involve vehicles.
In the middle of one night, someone shot out the front windows of his store. Lucky, the people who usually worked late and would have been in the line of fire, happened to go home early that day.
The police looked at their harddrive based surveillance system, but due to the quality of the cameras, they were not able to see any identifying marks and simply said "thank you", not "can we have this for evidence."
They did pull the bullets that they could easily reach. That is, the ones that lodged in shortly after entry, rather than passing through the thin walls and eventually hitting somewhere in the back of the warehouse.
I sat down with the owner, captured all the related video, and send it to my home machine. From there, I poured through all the camera views and compiled it into a single run video, cutting from camera to camera to show his path around the building, and the shots that took out the window.
Back at the store, we had the staff watch the video I made, and asked them if anyone knew the vehicle. The color and type were obvious, but the markings were blurry and the license plate was a whopping 4px wide at best. There were some other distinguishing features. Someone said "Hey, that looks like..." who was a customer that was a bit rude, and they had helped him carry stuff out to his vehicle a few weeks before.
From the customer records, they found a name, home address, etc, etc. That was provided to the police, who said "Well, that's not much to go on, sorry we can't do anything."
We then drove out to the guys house. His vehicle was parked on the street, and I clearly video taped all the distinguishing features of the vehicle, along with a good view of the license plates.
I then edited the new footage, and appended it to the end of the first set of footage. I burned several copies of the DVD, signing each one. I also typed up a statement of what I had done, my sources, and that I was willing to testify to what I had done to make the footage. I honestly didn't even know who the shooter was, I just took the evidence, and make it into something that was easy to view.
It took several phone calls to get the case escalated to a more senior officer. He was presented with the DVD, and watched it with the owner of the store. His response was "wow, you did our work for us."
They secured a search warrant based on my DVD. When they arrived at the guys house, he was honestly surprised. They mentioned a little bit of what they knew, such as "we have video surveillance and positive identification of your vehicle being involved in this incident." He admitted to everything and two other shootings that night. The gun was still under the seat of the vehicle (very illegal in that state).
I've never been called to be a witness in the case, so I'm guessing that he plead guilty and took the sentence.
Parent
Re:Private Car Cameras (Score:4, Informative)
Why would you provide evidence against yourself, ever? Don't talk. Don't give them anything. Talk to your lawyer.
If you have evidence, your lawyer will take it and present it with the correct chain of custody maintained.
Providing evidence to the police against yourself has to be one of the stupidest things people can do. Well, I guess pleading guilty to get off on a lighter sentence for something that you weren't involved in is stupider, but that happens a lot.
Parent
Re:Private Car Cameras (Score:4, Insightful)
(also in reply to all the other replies)
all kinds of things can happen. maybe your cam happens to record some criminal activity, and the police come get it as evidence (i call that trouble), maybe it records some situation you got in due to someone elses' mistake, maybe it happens to record what you were doing while you told someone else (boss, wife?) you were doing something else, and just maybe you actually do something utterly stupid.
crashes or whatever in which video images are required to determine who's fault it was are extremely rare. damage patterns (your backside, their front?), rubber on the road, traffic rules and witnesses provide more than enough clues in nearly all crashes. the only situation in which the cam is your only chance, is when someone hits your from the front (were them cam is) and then leaves the scene. i have quite some trouble thinking of such situations where an accident affects the front of your car AND the license plate of the other party is visible on the video AND it wasn't your fault.
therefore i think a cam has more potential to cause trouble than to solve it.
Parent
Field Mod (Score:4, Funny)
Not if you put a PostIt note over it while you're driving.
Subpoena (Score:5, Insightful)
If a participant is involved in an accident, will anyone besides parents and their teens have access to the audio and video?
It is possible American Family might request Teen Safe Driver output from customers in some situations involving the claims process, for instance, as part of an accident investigation. The information also is subject to being subpoenaed by other parties in a legal proceeding.
Which in reality means the very people you wouldn't want to show the video to will be able to see it.
Will be added to you tax ... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's simple (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's simple (Score:5, Informative)
Per the slashdot post - ""Our new car insurance company offered us discounts for our teenage driver if we agree to install a 'drive-cam'"
Per the link provided in it.
"Will teens or parents participating in Teen Safe Driver get a discount on insurance?
A. No. While there are many financial and non-financial benefits from participating in Teen Safe Driver, American Family does not have enough information at this point to provide an insurance discount to participants. "
Parent
One simple rule (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't want it in my car so don't put it in a teenager's either.
Re:One simple rule (Score:5, Insightful)
People who think it's acceptable to monitor their teens' driving habits, cellphone position or bank transactions have an awful basic view of their children. I could understand such measures for small children up to 12 years of age or so, but after that they should be taught trust and responsibility. How are you supposed to grow up as a responsible adult if you have your parents watching and commenting your every move?
The trouble with granting your children privacy is that you also run the risk of them doing things you don't like. They might lie to you. They might go to a parties and drink alcohol. They might even have sex (oh noes!). But this is something that is bound to happen sooner or later anyway, and it's impossible to stop teens from being teens. The solution is not to monitor your children 24/7, but to give them the knowledge and ability to handle those situations. Teach them the risks of alcohol in itself and drunk driving in particular. Tell them about STDs, birth control and safe sex. Let them know when you find out they've lied about their whereabouts and give them a reasonable punishment (e.g. not borrowing the car again for month or so). Better yet, take the opportunity to talk about said things.
As it happens, I don't doubt that Teen Safe Driver works when it comes to reducing accidents. I just think it's an awful way of raising your children.
Parent
Three biggest lies (Score:5, Funny)
Coming soon to an "Ask Slashdot" near you ... (Score:4, Funny)
Easy (Score:5, Insightful)
double standards (Score:4, Insightful)
Consider The Question (Score:5, Interesting)
The insurance company claims that they would never use any information obtained to consider changes in insurance rates, but that really sounds unbelievable.
Consider the question at a basic level. Is your insurance company altruistic, or are they profit seeking? For many corporations the answer is the latter. In fact it may be their fiduciary duty, unless their mission statement says they will be altruistic.
Assuming the corporation is profit seeking, you can assume that your relationship is adversarial. They may consider good treatment of the customer to be a profitable thing, but the principal motivation is still profit.
Can you tell if they treat their customers well? What evidence do you have? If you have no evidence of how they treat their customers, it may indicate that such information is not generally available. If that is the case, it is safe to assume that the company is not overly concerned with customer satisfaction.
That leaves you with legal obligation. What legal binding have they entered into? Did they put the commitment not to use the information to adjust rates in writing? Are they advertising that commitment broadly?
Assuming one of those is true, also consider whether you can prove that they used the information to adjust your rate. If they adjust the rate, and you suspect it was a result of the camera, how will you demonstrate that in a court of law?
Some corporations are altruistic (a typical example being a Mom & Pop in a small community that relies upon good neighbor status). Many other corporations are amoral. Some believe that amorality is, in fact, the right objective of all corporations. If that is the case with your insurance company, you are in an adversarial relationship and should make your decision as such.
Absolutely, unequivocally NO (Score:5, Interesting)
Privacy, like freedom, is a right you should not give up so easily. At present there is really a war against privacy rather than terrorists. It's not fought with bullets, but by bit-by-bit corruption of principles. Just say no.
The only acceptable way this could work is if the device records in such a way they can detect alterations, and they can look at a span of time (say 15 mins) before and after an incident that generated an insurance claim - the rest of their life is of no interest. And that view only after you, as parent, can review before giving permission (apart from your human right to privacy you are also entitled to refrain from self incrimination - it appears you have to give up that right too).
Otherwise your child could (worst case) actually become part of a national covert surveillance system. It would be better if people coming up with such ideas thought about maybe giving some extra training, or limit the power of the car kids may have for the first year - something that doesn't involve even MORE spying on people but brings some knowledge.
In the UK they had a series where frequent joyriders had to go through a programme. Nothing worked, until they were ordered to help at an accident scene - having to help to cut kids their own age out of the wreckage.
It's target at teens because they have less choice (Score:4, Insightful)
"Think of the children" as an argument is a red flag--usually means there's something wrong with what you're saying and you don't want people to think rationally about it.
Usually, Mom and Dad fund teen's car (that's the car which belongs to the teen, for all you BTAF fans).
If the gadget saves m&D money, teen gets a take it or leave it option (well, teenage was a few decades ago; maybe it's changed since then...).
If the surveillance was actually something people wanted, it would be offered to everyone as the latest perk on the insurance plan.
To be fair (Score:5, Funny)
You lose control when 3rd parties are involved (Score:4, Insightful)
Then I followed the link to DriveCam.com. Now is when concern start rising. Yes - I did see an Insurance company monitoring a teenage driver and maintaining extremely personal data forever and may have been okay with that. But now the data goes to yet another service provider. In looking there, it is not clear to me that the videos or data does not go to any other company.
So my interest in helping educate and protect my son is obliterated with so many others having access to this information. I question their inability to do geo-location - it is merely one more chip and a few more bits of data to be passed! Add the name, vehicle info, date/time, location and events (yes - there will be many "events" as someone learns to drive) with audio & video.... sorry The Minority Report comes immediately to mind!!
A far more appealing device would be one that does the recording but retains the data longer. I would buy a device that informs me of "events" as they happen. Give me some information such as sudden swerving, acceleration, braking or jostling of the vehicle. Let me, the responsible parent, be able to choose if I should or should not contact my child and make a parental decision. I would love to be able to review the events at home afterwards. I am not willing to wirelessly transmit this stuff anywhere. Yes, it is after the fact and bad stuff can happen. But it is far better than not being informed like today and would give me the chance to sit down with my child and review his (her) actions as an upcoming adult.
Succinctly - I don't want 3rd parties involved. I'd pay a reasonable amount of money for the device (upto $150 or so) for us to use.
I call shenanigans. . . (Score:5, Funny)
Especially when, according to a British insurance firm, computer engineers are most likely to crash
I don't buy that - how many computer engineers are women?
/ducks
Re:Engineers play video games (Score:4, Insightful)
...and farmers think that 15 miles an hour is fast...
You're from the city, ye? Perhaps the fact that farmers generally live in rural areas with less congested roads could have something to do with it?
Parent
Re:Engineers play video games (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to mention that most people growing up in farming areas (at least here in the UK, not sure about other countries) have usually got at least five years more driving experience when they go to sit their driving tests than people from other areas. If you can't drive a tractor, and fit, maintain and operate all the implements for it by the time you're 11, then it's special school time...
Parent
Lost in translation (Score:5, Funny)
Sometimes the media rewords things for a story, and the original meaning is inadvertently lost in the translation.
The actual statistic is that Microsoft engineers are responsible for most crashes.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
After a while, even when you own the truck, you accept it as part of the cost of doing business.
Re:Black boxes (Score:4, Interesting)
Is the situation in the US really like that? I travel most of the year and have become a great fan of hitchhiking. A lot of my lifts in Europe and Central Asia come from truck drivers, and a lot of them are quite well-educated people, often with university degrees, who began driving trucks because of uncertain economic times. It's not like there's much other work to do in certain places, especially the former Soviet Union.
I wouldn't call the job shit house work either. While it is monotonous, the money is a lot better than you'd expect, and the amount of time drivers have to actually work is continually reduced by new legislation.
Parent
Re:Black boxes (Score:4, Insightful)
Is the situation in the US really like that?
Yes. Right now the US has a serious shortage of experienced truck drivers and new drivers are being shot right through school (figuratively, of course) and into the cab of a truck making long hauls. Truckers are forced to sleep short hours and make long hauls over the speed limits in order to make deadlines in some cases; in others they are paid poorly and "encouraged" to make up the difference on bonuses in order to entice the same behavior. Seasonal trucking often also involves inexperienced drivers; in general, trucks without air brakes can be driven with trivially available licenses.
A lot of my lifts in Europe and Central Asia come from truck drivers, and a lot of them are quite well-educated people, often with university degrees, who began driving trucks because of uncertain economic times. It's not like there's much other work to do in certain places, especially the former Soviet Union.
That's unfortunate for them; it really blows what you say next out of the water though:
I wouldn't call the job shit house work either.
If you have a Uni degree and you're driving a truck because of uncertain economic times, it's shit work. (Anything you want to do is a great career, if it will pay the bills and you won't have to wonder what will happen to you when you're old and senile.)
While it is monotonous, the money is a lot better than you'd expect, and the amount of time drivers have to actually work is continually reduced by new legislation.
Not around here, at least, not effectively.
Parent
Re:Ride a bicycle (Score:4, Insightful)
Fit speed limiters and black box recorders on all cars. Drivers just can't be trusted to obey the law.
What about putting cameras in every home then, since people cannot be trusted to obey the law?
It is a slippery slope.
Parent
Black boxes With GPS are out there now (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:New Deduction/Premium Strategy (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that these 'discounts' match a price increase of the same amount when the technology is ready for the general population. One year, your health insurance provider will give you a $10/month break on your premiums if you sign a 'I do not smoke' form. The next year, the rates will go up by $10/month, or more.
The year after that, the rates go up yet again. They then tell your employer that if any employees are seen smoking on company grounds, they'll double their premiums. Suddenly, you can't smoke within view distance of your work building.
A few months later, they start blood pressure/cholesterol/insulin/weight monitoring. With a discount, of course, if you choose to opt-in.
Insurance is a gambling game. The company is the dealer, and we, the consumers, are the players. We belly up to the table, place our bets, and the dealer gives us our cards. Of course, they've been allowed to stack the deck with their own cards and change the rules around a little bit, because let's face it, you're playing in their casino, under their rules.
This is why people have such a problem with insurance companies. You know, you pay your premiums for five years, make one or two claims, and both of them are auto-rejected, making you call and beg for them to cover it, so you don't have to pay thousands of dollars for a procedure that took five minutes.
Parent
Re:New Deduction/Premium Strategy (Score:4, Insightful)
A safe driver has nothing to fear, takes the camera, and pays less.
This is a fallacy in line with "innocent people having nothing to fear from the government" that we hear as justification for illegal wiretaps, which is patent bullshit. If I get in a wreck and it's my fault, my policy (typically) gets reviewed, maybe canceled and my premiums go up. Insurance companies serve me, not the other way around. I've had one ticket in my last 20 years of driving in a large, congested metro area and I sure as hell don't want my insurance company watching me drive.
Parent
Re:Our company has a policy of NO overnight stays. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but you're an idiot.
You're being forced to work under unreasonable and dangerous conditions.
You are risking your life and others on the road (no sleep, exhaustion, skip eating = eventually you will fall asleep and/or pass out on a major motorway).
Your employers have absolutely zero care for you at all - to the point where what you have said suggest they are actually, knowingly, breaking several employment laws. That's how much respect they have for you.
What they are doing is *not* shifting the cost - it's called finding some idiot to work his arse off and pay you for doing one page of tax paperwork and not caring about *anything* else that happens to them, including if they kill themselves or others.
Get a brain. Get the hell out. If I knew you, I'd report you AND your employer for a) dangerous driving, b) employment-related offences. That's *not* a job. It's slave labour. Screw the "credit crunch", there are millions of jobs out there that pay the same and don't involve that crap. Where the hell are your brains?
Parent
Re:It would be wonderful! (Score:4, Insightful)
So, basically this is massive systematic criminalization of speeding, just because it's so much simpler and easier to enforce.
If you go twice as fast you have four times the energy. This is why speeding is a priority. Car parts sometimes fail while you are using them through no fault of your own, speed limits are supposed to reflect that.
Obligatory Disclaimer: Anyone not going 75 mph on the posted-65mph Highway 280 in California is getting passed by everyone, including the truckers and the buses. Just took 101 to 1something to 1 to 9 to 35 to 280 to 101 to 175 to home yesterday, and the freeway was MOVING. I actually got to get up around 100 C on the thermostat in my 1982 W126 300SD :)
Parent