Although I was quite clear, let me be clearer. "Pulling a report" by WF or any other organization doesn't matter because the clearinghouse for data reported by our cars is done through LN as far as performance data. So, if you prohibit the dissemination of this data, which is what an LN opt out does, no one can get your vette reported data, period. The other data like speeding tickets, accidents, etc. have nothing to do with LN and reach your insurance company by other means, as I've described. So, you're talking about apples and oranges. So, as I understand the situation, altering the vehicle in any way to prohibit LN from disseminating data is ill-advised.

 

As I've stated, being in Ca. has nothing to do with opting out.

 

Perhaps not opting out but I don't believe LexisNexis allows you delete your data in all states unless you have special circumstances.

 

As I previously stated, that's not what I was told. Why not call them and determine for yourself?

 

I checked both boxes on the California online form, opt-out and delete my data, as well as requesting a copy of my report, so I don't need to call them unless I don't receive the report or confirmation. Other people from other states have said they didn't have the option to delete their information unless they provided justification (police officer, etc.).

 

That's because as I first noted, they needed to call as I did. I had no problem and neither will they if they call.😉

 

Don’t ya hate what a mess gm has turned this into? What kind of company designs and builds a car that will do 0-60 in under 3.0 seconds then tells your insurance company every time you use the capability AND classifies the action as “aggressive acceleration”. Disgusting…

I’m hoping your not quite right but to some the price of blocking Onstar maybe high. When it comes to car tech I live in the dark ages. Don’t connect or use my phone in the car. I drive to disconnect….

gm uses its 4G antenna to transmit telematics data because gm has an unlimited data agreement with AT&T. Any data transmission that doesn’t go through the car’s antenna has to be paid for and that’s your defense. Any connection that uses the customers phone to is going to be sensitive to data usage. gm doesn’t want owners getting massive phone bills because the car used your phone to transmit car data.

However connect to WiFi and I can definitely see the car taking advantage to transmit data over that connection. Connecting to WiFi requires your permission (at least it does in my car). I can also see in my car if it’s connected to any other network and I have specifically turned everything off. WiFi, Hotspot, OTA… all off. Now if i disconnect the cars 4G antenna I think I am no longer transmitting data.

The other thing I recommend as this issue was all over the news yesterday I’m sure a lot of people are calling their insurance company to ask if they buy this kind of stuff and use it to set rates ? My company is Amica and they are employee owned and been good to me for many years. Also MA (and a few other states) have privacy laws and/or insurance regulations that might prevent companies doing business in their state from using data collected involuntarily. I plan on contacting Amica this week and if they do buy this data I’m going to call around and try and find an insurance company that does NOT uses unauthorized data collection to set rates.

My next car will be at least five years old and definitely not a gm product. I actual considered a Blackwing to update my daily which is currently a six year old AMG. Cancel that… sad…

 

And the data are probably incorrectly applied. Insurance companies can base their rates on driving history - speeding tickets and other traffic citations. Accident history. Experience (age) youthful drivers. When they do this, I would like to think they have some data that shows that claims history is predicted by those factors. What about credit rating? Can they use that?

So anyway, do those folks with a bad claims history or a bad driving record also have a record of hard acceleration, hard braking, and high speed events? Is that proof of anything?

Is there any data that shows people with a record of hard acceleration, hard braking and high speed events also have a bad claims history. Even that is not sufficient. You need to show that those without a record of hard braking,, hard acceleration, and high speed events has a statistically significant lower rate of claims history/accidents than those that do have a record. If not, then the information is superfluous.

Like this: 20% of sick leave days are taken on Monday and Friday. Does that prove anything? NO. Its just a consequence of the fact that Monday and Friday are are 20% of the work week. So if sick days are evenly spread over all five days, then 20% will be Monday and Friday.

Drawing conclusion based on data must be carefully done. And in this case GM is applying some unknown (and potentially flawed) algorithms to characterize driving behavior (with little or no knowledge of whether or not those metrics are predictive of claims history) , and the insurance companies are using those data to predict future claims history and set rates accordingly, probably with very little understanding of the algorithms used to produce the characterizations. Seems pretty bogus.

 

[QUOTE=Andybump;1607618685]And the data are probably incorrectly applied. Insurance companies can base their rates on driving history - speeding tickets and other traffic citations. Accident history. Experience (age) youthful drivers. When they do this, I would like to think they have some data that shows that claims history is predicted by those factors. What about credit rating? Can they use that?

So anyway, do those folks with a bad claims history or a bad driving record also have a record of hard acceleration, hard braking, and high speed events? Is that proof of anything?

Is there any data that shows people with a record of hard acceleration, hard braking and high speed events also have a bad claims history. Even that is not sufficient. You need to show that those without a record of hard braking,, hard acceleration, and high speed events has a statistically significant lower rate of claims history/accidents than those that do have a record. If not, then the information is superfluous.

Like this: 20% of sick leave days are taken on Monday and Friday. Does that prove anything? NO. Its just a consequence of the fact that Monday and Friday are are 20% of the work week. So if sick days are evenly spread over all five days, then 20% will be Monday and Friday.

Drawing conclusion based on data must be carefully done. And in this case GM is applying some unknown (and potentially flawed) algorithms to characterize driving behavior (with little or no knowledge of whether or not those metrics are predictive of claims history) , and the insurance companies are using those data to predict future claims history and set rates accordingly, probably with very little understanding of the algorithms used to produce the characterizations. Seems pretty bogus.

The fallacy in your argument is shown by the thousands of criminal convictions based upon circumstantial evidence only over the centuries.

 

Say what? What argument? I was making the point that we have no evidence that the OnStar data being used by insurance companies to predict future claims and set rates accordingly is actually predictive of future claims.

If anything that would seem consistent with your suggestion that false convictions were based on circumstantial evidence - which, given the conviction was false, must have been data incorrectly applied to the situation.

 

Heck, none of these last two posts even matter when the data can't be connected to a specific driver. LN ties every driving incident of my car to me because GM. GM has absolutely zero way to know wtf was even driving during each event. The federal FCRA law says that any records tied to my consumer report MUST be verifiably mine. If they can't verify that info, the law requires it to be removed from my report. Which is the angle I'm taking to get rid of it. I could make a whole other set of arguments about insurance, track usage etc, but it's all moot if the records have to be purged due to FCRA.

 

For purposes of law enforcement, the driver would need to be known. But, for purposes of setting an insurance rate, the insurance company my not care whose driving it. If they see evidence that your car is being recklessly driven on a regular basis (to distinguish it from being a stolen car) they can raise your rate for insuring that car. The FCRA is Fair Credit Reporting Act. Its purpose is to protect consumers from erroneous data in their credit report. We're not talking here about credit reports, are we? Does it contain any language that would regulate the (out of control?) reporting of the way an insured vehicle is being driven? I would be all for similar regulations that do apply to how data are collected and applied by insurance companies to set auto insurance rates. As I noted, somewhere in this process, they should be required to show that the metrics being used to set the rates were legitimate predictors of future claims.

 

It is applicable to both "credit reporting agencies", such as Equifax, Experian and Transunion as well as "consumer reporting agencies", such as LexisNexis. It doesn't regulate types of info, what it regulates is that info tied to *ME* personally must be accurate and verifiable. If they want to develop a new database that ties telematics records to a VIN, that's a different story. But as it stands now, LN is connecting info to a specific individual, and FCRA says it needs to be verifiable that the data relates to the individual, and if it can't be verified then it must be removed. When I filed my dispute, I told them "I am not the driver of this vehicle". It's up to LN now to validate all of those records are tied to drives I personally made. I'm not an idealist, I realize this may not work, but I'm also stubborn and persistant and if they don't remove them, I won't be taking no for an answer.

 

I may have missed it in this massive thread, but is there a post for disconnecting the 4G antenna? Where is it located? Is that the one on the driver side?

 

Well, I hope you are right. I'm all for something that regulates this process being discussed. I see its about consumer reporting agencies. The act includes a definition of those. I read it, and attached it. What does it say? To me, it sounds like it is limited to consumer reporting agencies collecting and reporting public record and credit account information for the purpose credit reporting. If so, then it does not include a reporting agency that collect driving metrics and reports them to an insurance company for the purpose of determining insurance rate.

 

Here is a link to the FCRA for those interested in assessing its applicability to the subject at hand.

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc...ay2023-508.pdf

 

I'm not an attorney, just a guy who likes to research. That said, I'm using the same document and think the relevant pieces are:

(d) Consumer Report (1) In general. The term “consumer report” means any written, oral, or other communication of any information by a consumer reporting agency bearing on a consumer’s credit worthiness, credit standing, 2 § 603 - 15 U.S.C. § 1681a credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living which is used or expected to be used or collected in whole or in part for the purpose of serving as a factor in establishing the consumer’s eligibility for (A) credit or insurance to be used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes; (B) employment purposes; or(C) any other purpose authorized under section 604 [§ 1681b].

15 U.S. Code § 1681b - Permissible purposes of consumer reports
...."(C) "intends to use the information in connection with the underwriting of insurance involving the consumer"
source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1681b



§ 611. Procedure in case of disputed accuracy [15 U.S.C. § 1681i] (a) Reinvestigations of Disputed Information (1) Reinvestigation Required (A) In general. Subject to subsection (f), and except as provided in subsection (g) if the completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in a consumer’s file at a consumer reporting agency is disputed by the consumer and the consumer notifies the agency directly, or indirectly through a reseller, of such dispute, the agency shall, free of charge, conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information is inaccurate and record the current status of the § 611 - 15 U.S.C. § 1681i 59 disputed information, or delete the item from the file in accordance with paragraph (5), before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the agency receives the notice of the dispute from the consumer or reseller.

 

Passenger side.

 

As I've said, LN told me that it can and does freeze and account and delete data with a simple request, telephonic, or written, by the LN account holder. Since you refuse to call them as I suggested to confirm, you can believe anything you'd like, but based on what I was told by LN, you're in error. Aso, what basis or experience do you have that there is 100% certainty that insurance companies will decline to write a policy without LN data?

 

I was just stating what other people have posted that they were unable to delete their data in some states without justifying the reason. It may or may not be true but that is what their website implies and internet searches say. There is no reason for me to call them because their online allowed me to delete the data. Someone that was unable to delete their data online could call them to see if they could do it by phone but there is no reason for me to call them because I have already done it online.