Toyota, Progressive Insurance, and a data analytics firm are now being accused of collecting detailed personal driving information without proper consent

  • SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Counterpoint: maybe people who drive like dangerous cunts need some kind of enforcement?

      • Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 hours ago

        😆 they haven’t in years. I think when maps let us report police locations they all stopped policing traffic

      • btsax@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        I’ve always been a fan of the idea that you don’t need armed police to do traffic enforcement, you could get this done with another group of unarmed local officials of some sort with cameras, like meter maids but mobile. Headlights too bright, muffler too loud or missing, speeding, etc could be gathered and enforced much more rapidly. All the fines etc. are mailed out, no dangerous human-human or dangerous roadside interactions required. Would increase the amount and effectiveness as well. It would also free up police to do what they are (in theory, in an ideal world) supposed to be doing which is solving crimes.

        • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Yeah, that could work. Just keep corporations out of it. They’ve proven they can’t be responsible for traffic enforcement (or anything else where the goal is making things better for people) because their main concern will always be profit. They may sound reasonable at first but once they get their foot in the door they will be constantly tightening the screws. Just look at what’s happened with red light cameras.

          • btsax@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 hours ago

            Yes, you must keep it as government officials, members of the public etc. and not let it turn into a revenue generator even then. The focus should be on enforcement with the end goal of safer public spaces.

    • timsjel@piefed.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      Im Kinda with you on this. Or no, Im not, but this is one of those where i get conflicted and cant help but feel a little bit satisfied about asholes being punished. For me it’s the same as when I hear about someone assulting a rapist. Im morally against the “taking the law into your own hands” but still…

    • Janx@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      So… we all have to accept that privacy/accountability trade-off? I know I didn’t agree to it.

    • bthest@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Nope. Insurance companies raising rates aren’t going to change anyone’s driving habits.

      • Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Yup, insurance companies raising rates is going to change plenty of people’s driving habits

    • OshagHennessey@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Why does “some kind of enforcement” need to involve violating the privacy of everyone, including people who don’t drive like dangerous cunts? Do you really think there’s no other way to enforce traffic laws?