Automakers are sharing consumers' driving behavior with insurance companies

Informed consent & “opt‑in” reality

• Many argue “opt‑in” is largely fictional: data collection is bundled into other services, hidden behind dark patterns, or requires obscure steps to disable.
• Examples: Toyota buyers told analytics “can’t be turned off,” SOS-button opt‑outs resisted via scripts, and confusing online “consent centers.”
• Stickers and privacy notices can be changed unilaterally, undermining any one-time consent.
• Several note most drivers have no idea their behavior is being sold to intermediaries like LexisNexis.

Ownership, control, and software locks

• Long subthread on whether “ownership” is a useful concept when manufacturers retain software control.
• One side: if you bought the car, you should be able to disable tracking, remove hardware, modify components; private contracts shouldn’t override that.
• Other side: ownership is legally defined and always constrained (e.g., emissions, safety), so the real axis is “who has control over what,” not abstract ownership.

Privacy, surveillance capitalism & regulation

• Strong sense that connected-car tech has flipped from empowering users to enabling corporate and state surveillance.
• Comparisons to credit bureaus, employment databases, and retail data sharing; this is seen as just another node in a large data‑broker ecosystem.
• Split on solutions:
  • One camp calls for hard law: explicit, revocable, opt‑in only; existential fines; board‑level penalties; privacy “bill of rights.”
  • Others are skeptical regulation will be enforced effectively, citing GDPR’s enforcement gaps and heavy industry lobbying.
  • Homomorphic encryption is proposed but mostly dismissed as too slow, partial, and misaligned with corporate incentives.

Insurance use of telematics data

• Some like risk‑based pricing: dangerous drivers pay more, safe/low‑mileage drivers less.
• Many worries about:
  • Crude metrics (hard braking, acceleration, frequent lane changes) misclassifying defensive or skilled driving.
  • Missing context (track days, wildlife, bad maps, school zones vs empty roads, time of day).
  • Opaque scoring, no way to audit or contest data, and data being used mainly to raise rates or deny coverage.
  • Future “penalty” for refusing tracking, turning discounts into de facto surcharges.

Workarounds and resistance

• Users share practical steps: pulling specific fuses, unplugging modems, removing antennas, choosing older/“dumb” cars, or rebuilding older vehicles.
• Concerns these actions could be used to label drivers as higher risk or allegedly “void warranties,” though warranty law may limit that.
• Broader nihilism from some: data collection is now default in cars; without strong law, opting out is a technical and legal cat‑and‑mouse game.