OnStar 'spying' for profit

OnStar recently changed its terms and conditions to allow the sale of customer GPS and related data to third parties including law enforcement!

I have no problem with OnStar providing this data to law enforcement when required by court order, but this goes way to far. As well, I have a huge problem with OnStar selling this information to any commercial entity.

My car has OnStar but I never continued the service after the initial free period. So I'm excluded, right? Not so according to this article.

http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=1270

Big Brother IS watching.

 

That's pretty wild, I can't believe this is going to slip by unnoticed.

 

That's some heavy stuff.

You really have to wonder about the complete idiocy of the people who made the decision to implement those changes.

I mean, stuff like:

when the information they provide is your GPS data, can quite easily kill your company. Not only is there the likelihood for a huge outcry from the consumers, but sales will almost certainly be affected, repeat customers dwindle and the reputation may suffer incredibly for a long time.

All because of this move.

In Germany, something like that can very easily find the company and the relevant decision-makers in huge trouble with the authorities.

 

Shapow! Tort invasion of privacy suit!
--- merged: Sep 21, 2011 8:27 PM ---
Just kidding. There's a buncha crap to sort through. Did Apple ever suffer ramifications for their similar decision to store customer locations on iPhones?

 

People tend to become blind and stupid when it comes to anything Apple.

 

There's nothing to wonder about. They saw an opportunity to make more money, they took it.

 

Very simplistic thinking by GMC, because this is horrible Risk Management.

There is currently little more important for the growing OnStar division of GMC as reputation. With plans to expand to other car manufacturers and the existence of rival products such as Ford's Sync and Hyundai's Blue Link, OnStar needs every bit of an advantage it can get. Especially if the other products can be installed in any car and offer similar levels of service, making them very viable substitutes.

Consider this:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_12/b4220019742521.htm

This is not an advantage, when you want to expand your customer base by the millions.

 

So many whoring peoples personal details or otherwise. Within a week of seeing a consultant for arthritus, a friend started getting all the sales stuff coming through specific to her condition. Used to be, your tradesman was expected to act with discression to a certain degree. Car insurance is going up because insurance companies sell your details on, and then strange people phone you telling you you can claim money and asking you to fib. Its worth thousands to them to hook one fish. One would have thought, to be fair to customers who pay them, they would have at least considered it might be wise to stop selling details - money money money. Greed.

 

What many people do not understand is that "anonymized" data is NOT anonymous. A few years ago, a group of researchers tried to get their hands on the search terms used by Google, Yahoo, and AOL users, on an anonymized basis. Only AOL complied, and the researchers even asked for government intervention to pressure Google and Yahoo because of the laudable (?) goals of their research.

Using the data given to the researchers, it took a reporter a whole 2 DAYS to find an elderly woman (in Virginia, I believe) who agreed to be identified. She was using an odd set of search terms relating to age-related illnesses and conditions, often for her friends who had them. Because she was computer-savvy, they came to her. 2 DAYS!!! And I'm pretty sure she wasn't the first person he identified.

I remember this vividly because at the time I was involved in arguing against the mass release of an electrical utility's customer consumption records on an anonymized basis. I had claimed with 3 months consecutive consumption (other than 0), I could identify over 95% of the customers in their service territory and with 4 months, over 99%, using modern data-mining techniques. I was being ridiculed and labelled a nay-sayer when this came out. After I read the report in a meeting, the release was thankfully stopped.

People generally have no idea of what can be done with anonymized data, and the extreme value of data itself. When you answer a simple survey, you should consider that you are donating $1 - $10 to the organisation conducting the survey. With On-Star's invasive knowledge of your personal habits and activities, I'd think this is more in the $100+ range.

 

Ever wonder why you have to answer so many questions when filling our the warranty card for a new toaster? Why do they need your educational level or your family income. They don't. But selling that data pays for the cost of the warranty.

 

Wait. What? This isn't about GM's risk management - at all. Maybe it's about risk management for insurance companies, but there's no risk here for GM, either in the traditional insurance definition or the expanded business definition. Their only risk is whether or not they're able to sell the data to anyone coupled with any consumer backlash that would affect gross sales. There's no way that an entity the size of GM is going to see their sales suffer by any amount significant enough to affect stock prices or profitability.

 

a bit more on this http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/21/on...ed&utm_campaign=Feed:+Techcrunch+(TechCrunch)

 

Absolutely it is, if my understanding that OnStar is a corprate division of GMC isn't off. I wasn't able to find any sale of OnStar to have happened between March 2011 and now, at least. Further, the risk may not be a real threat to GMC, but my emphasis was on OnStar (though I didn't explicitly state that emphasis).

In business, risk management is the identification of risks (duh) and implementation of appropriate decisions/alterations in order to minimize legal liability and maximize profit opportunities. As stated in the Businessweek article I provided previously, OnStar and it's GMC corporate supervisorship want to expand their customer base increasingly, rolling out compatibility with non-GMC cars for example. They require any edge they can take, and by selling on consumer data at their discretion to the highest bidder, they (OnStar) leave themselves open for a huge dent in reputation, which is the absolute last thing they need as they expand and face new substitutes coming from Ford and Hyundai.

It is poor risk management in the sense that maximum profitability may be ensured for the short-term, but the potential long-term effects of this action may be considerable, if the public recognizes the issue at hand and condemn it. Further, if the Ford and Hyundai substitutes enshrine confidentiality of consumer data, GMC's OnStar suddenly finds itself on the backfoot.

Lastly, if the reputational damage is done; a drop in sales, rise in subscription cancellations and, I believe, possible legal liability may result from poor implementation and handling of subscription cancellations of customers who value their privacy and have explicitly told GMC/OnStar not to sell on their data.

It may not affect GMC to an extent worth taking much notice of, but business doesn't revolve only around the shareholder value of the entire corporation. In the worst case, revenue takes such a big drop that OnStar finds itself making losses, prompting GMC to either axe it or cut down the venture substantially.

In many ways, OnStar's action does not make much sense to me.

 

Remixer, you're using the term "risk management" incorrectly - or at least differently than me. I think that's where our wires are crossed. I'm directly involved in risk management on a day-to-day basis - it's what I do for a living - so it's something that I understand inside and out. It does not include maximizing profit opportunities in my world. That may be the reason behind risk management, but in my world it means reducing the amount of risk involved in any risk/reward decision. That leads to a potentially higher reward, but that's simply the goal. Risk management is the process to reach the goal, not the goal itself.

You're making a lot of assumptions about the potential risk here for what amounts to the American buying public. They have not shown that they're significantly adverse to data collection - they buy from companies that do exactly this all the time - how many Americans got rid of their Facebook accounts? It depends on what the buyers do with the data. If the buyers cause problems or annoyances for GM customers, you'll see sales effected. If the data miners go about their work quietly, there won't be a backlash beyond what we've seen, which is, let's face it, a fringe movement. GM will most likely lose a few sales over this, but those will be relatively minor, I think. The question is, will the data sales receipts be more or less than the gross profit to GM (not the dealers, to GM)? Given enough buyers and a high enough sale price, I would gamble that the data miners represent a larger dollar figure than the privacy advocates.

As far as legal liability arising from this - what the hell are you talking about? Until a OnStar customer can prove they were adversely effected, there's no liability. They have to have some sort of bodily injury (not going to happen), property damage (not going to happen), personal injury (ok, long shot maybe) or some sort of financial loss (not going to happen).

 

FYI:

I think if a lawyer wanted to flex their BS muscles, there is a potential cause of action here. But they'll have to deal with (a) consent, (b) no privacy for driving in public and (c) proving damage to their dignity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_laws_of_the_United_States

 

C'mon, KirStang. Someone driving is, by definition, doing so in public. That means that their speed, seatbelt habits, etc. (which is the data being provided) is all public domain. Anyone on the road is privy to exactly the same information, with the exception being the setting on the climate control system. Even the radio stations are public domain since anyone nearby could hear them.

Let's remember that OnStar is already collecting this data and has been since the sale of the car. If the car changes hands, it's incumbent on the new owners to identify themselves to GM. There's no invasion of privacy if the car owner knew that this data was being collected - and it's in the OnStar packet in our Buick Enclave. I remember reading it. This is like me claiming invasion of privacy when someone takes a picture while I'm walking down the street. I have no expectation of privacy while on a public sidewalk. And anyone driving next to that sidewalk has no expectation of privacy either.

 

1. Agreed, we apply the term risk management differently. I consider the potential short- and long-term effects of any action to be an integral part of a risk assessment, to be included in the evaluation-process involved with a decision made by the executive.

2. Absolutely I am making a whole lot of assumptions. I agree I know little about the American public's awareness and priorities and I have stated before that I knew the consequences such a move would have in a society such as Germany (and likely UK). I seem to be over-estimating the potential/awareness of the US public.

3. I really need to take into account the fact that I know much more about EU civil law than I do about US common law.

EDIT: Here we go:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000D0520:EN:HTML

I now realize the US does not have anything like the EU Directive stated above (as far as I understand, the FTC's FIPP is the closest thing to it, though it's unenforceable), and as such US customers have to either suck it up or cancel their subscription. Point conceded.

 

This little gray rabbit will never buy a car with OnStar, or similar service...

 

Ever wonder why you have to answer so many questions when filling our the warranty card for a new toaster? Why do they need your educational level or your family income. They don't. But selling that data pays for the cost of the warranty.​

I got one, local govt I think, that wanted to know if I was gay, lesbian, or bi-sexual. I drew another box so I could tick 'other'. Whats it got to do with anything, why do they think such things are any of their buisness.
You can, of course, opt to put any old crap in.

 

Starting to get wider coverage http://editorial.autos.msn.com/blogs/autosblogpost.aspx?post=e64b580b-e84c-4cff-8f54-e2cadde67dd6

I'm cool since I already cancelled. The collection from cancelled users only affects those who cancel after Dec. 1.