Ford is selling your vehicle/driving data to auto insurance coverage

the poacher

You can turn off all or some connectivity features going to your screen in your Bronco, and clicking on Settings/Connectivity/Connected Vehicle Feature. One of the lovely options there which was enabled is Driving Data...

Heck , I have to turn on my ambient lighting every week because something keeps resetting it to off . What makes you think turning something off actually stays off ,lol.

Was this written on a smart phone with an Alexa, Siri or other devices in the area. Lol. Starlink aka Skynet is online and right above your head.

Xpathf1nderX

welcome to the 21st Century. If you have anything that is powered, its monitored or has the ability to be monitored....you can, and wont, be able to hide from it. It used to really freak me out, but its data, and has a value to someone, and what drives every business? a buck. (no bronco pun intended).

Rydfree

Heck , I have to turn on my ambient lighting every week because something keeps resetting it to off . What makes you think turning something off actually stays off ,lol.

Second!

the poacher

Hey OB,
You can turn it off by going to your screen in your Bronco and clicking on the Settings button, then Connectivity/Connected Vehicle Feature. One of the lovely options there which will be enabled is Driving Data. You may want to disable the others too.

I did it the easy way, I just turned all the connectivity off and do not have the Ford Pass app on my phone.

Somehow for all these years I've managed to live without a connected car, I figured I still can with the Bronco. Yes, I'm a Boomer 🤣🤣🤣

Rydfree

Heck , I have to turn on my ambient lighting every week because something keeps resetting it to off . What makes you think turning something off actually stays off ,lol.

There is a standard SAE Data Sharing (connectivity) icon, it is impimprinted on the lower right cocorner of the driver's door window glass. See page 434 of the owners manual.

When you turn off all connectivity via the TV screen, a faded-out connectivity icon with a cross-line through it sits up in the right upper corner of the screen indicating the car connectivity is disabled.

Eninty

When you turn off all connectivity via the TV screen, a faded-out connectivity icon with a cross-line through it sits up in the right upper corner of the screen indicating the car connectivity is disabled.

Is it really though ?

Good article about Fordpass and the data it collects and how to disable it..

https://www.fordtremor.com/threads/breaking-the-data-link-with-fordpass.5193/

Rydfree

Is it really though ?

I've not yet looked at the sat/cell antenna connector. Maybe it disconnects easily enough. 😂

Or there's always tinfoil...

I just assume that everything I do and buy gets recorded and sold to someone. I figured that you have no privacy unless you live off grid with no smart phone and internet.

OrangecrushBronco

False. They're selling a vehicles information. Not where/how you're operating it but if a vehicle is maintained or damaged. I'm all for that, it's not fool proof but it atleast helps people not getting ripped off.

No, that is not false, dealerships sell your info and your vehicle info. I’m not saying all, just like everything, there’s always good/bad apples.

As I suspected, The California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) is investigating the auto manufacturers around all of this personal data that they are collecting and then selling to companies like Lexus Nexus. I'm gonna guess that in short order there will be some fines/changes happening around all of this, at least in CA. At the very least, GM, Ford, etc. are going to have to disclose what's happening here and get consent in something other than the fine print. Something like that annoying, yet important, message you get about cookies on most websites now. Here's a story from 6 months ago about this that you might find interesting. https://www.reuters.com/business/au...ection Agency,which companies it is reviewing.

Sam I Am 1966

Believe it or not, law enforcement here is NOT allowed to pull anyone over solely for an expired tag.

Maybe in your state.

I got pulled over once 2 days before my tag expired and the cop said that was the reason for pulling me over and threatened to have car towed even though is was still legal.This is why the public doesn't like cops.

Bronco V-8

Maybe in your state.

I got pulled over once 2 days before my tag expired and the cop said that was the reason for pulling me over and threatened to have car towed even though is was still legal.This is why the public doesn't like cops.

We gave a thirty day grace period and even then I would warn the driver. You would have to really work hard to get a ticket from me🤣

TK1215

We gave a thirty day grace period and even then I would warn the driver. You would have to really work hard to get a ticket from me🤣

Not sure where you worked, but here in CA the CHP will give their mother a ticket for being 1 MPH over the speed limit. Those guys have NO sense of humor. 😅 The only person who I ever heard about getting out of a ticket from the CHP was my late wife. She was an ER nurse, and would lead with "hey, haven't I seen you in my ER" when the cop walked up to the window. Worked every time. No cop wants to wake up in the ER and see someone they just gave a ticket to staring down at them asking "how much does it hurt? Oh, a 10? OK, I'll be RIGHT back with those pain meds" ... and then disappear for 30 minutes. LOL

JoergH

Not sure where you worked, but here in CA the CHP will give their mother a ticket for being 1 MPH over the speed limit. Those guys have NO sense of humor. 😅 The only person who I ever heard about getting out of a ticket from the CHP was my late wife. She was an ER nurse, and would lead with "hey, haven't I seen you in my ER" when the cop walked up to the window. Worked every time. No cop wants to wake up in the ER and see someone they just gave a ticket to staring down at them asking "how much does it hurt? Oh, a 10? OK, I'll be RIGHT back with those pain meds" ... and then disappear for 30 minutes. LOL

I worked in SF. The CHP loved to ticket cops🫣

Hi,

Actuary and data analytics director here. Just some short comments:

• Yes, big companies collect big data
• Yes, it is generally individualized data
• That said, we do not care what John or Jane Doe are doing, nor does the math typically hold up that well at the individual level.
• What we do care about is what are the group of John or Jane Does that behave similarly are doing. We can then - dependent upon industry - utilize those segments in a variety of ways: advertising, product suggestions, rate adjustments, and so on. But, we need that individualized data to build those segmentations.

Now, from the NYT article, were Mr. Dahl's rates increased due to the driving data? Most likely, yes. But, what I find disingenuous about the article is that the author writes it in a way that makes it seem like companies are out to target you and specifically you. Big brother is going to get you. It is why they use a N=1 example, Mr. Dahl, to personalize the fear. His insurance company didn't target Mr. Dahl. His insurance company targeted the cohort who behaved similarly to Mr. Dahl. In other words, Mr. Dahl had tens of thousands of folks just like him who got the same increase. That is the actuary's job: calculate risk.

As data scientists, it is never about you - for us or the companies who hire us ( and we aren't even remotely cheap... not even the overseas contractors some companies use). It is about the segmentation of like behaviors that we can measure and then subsequently influence on large scale. The scale allows for easy monetization on an efficient basis, and more importantly it is actual consumer behavior data. That's been a really fascinating thing to scale in the last 20 years (for the simplicity of rounding the years to the nearest 10).

Before 'big data' we relied - again, industry dependent - on either less detailed data (so fewer variables for our models to capture and tease out behaviors; in the insurance example, data science of the past would have relied upon internal 1st party data the company had on its own clients plus, I imagine, there was probably an aggregator of police report data that could then be purchased for a fee from a 3rd party), or we relied on consumer survey data (which is full of a multitude of bias and challenges, including but not limited to cultural biases, gender biases, and simply data collection challenges... hello... remember those kids at the mall with clipboards asking for 'just 20 minutes of your time'... yikes).

As data scientists, we've been doing this even since "Boomers" were teenagers. It was just less sophisticated and relied upon fewer points of data to make decisions. Plus, we had to use slide rules and punch computers instead of cloud servers.

Okay, that wasn't short at all. Sorry, but happy to answer any questions about what it is large companies actually do with all that data. (I currently work in Consumer Product Goods, or CPG for short. Also called "FMCG" or Fast Moving Consumable Goods... translation: stuff sold at the grocery store.)

Irishdore

Hi,

Actuary and data analytics director here. Just some short comments:

• Yes, big companies collect big data
• Yes, it is generally individualized data
• That said, we do not care what John or Jane Doe are doing, nor does the math typically hold up that well at the individual level.
• What we do care about is what are the group of John or Jane Does that behave similarly are doing. We can then - dependent upon industry - utilize those segments in a variety of ways: advertising, product suggestions, rate adjustments, and so on. But, we need that individualized data to build those segmentations.

Now, from the NYT article, were Mr. Dahl's rates increased due to the driving data? Most likely, yes. But, what I find disingenuous about the article is that the author writes it in a way that makes it seem like companies are out to target you and specifically you. Big brother is going to get you. It is why they use a N=1 example, Mr. Dahl, to personalize the fear. His insurance company didn't target Mr. Dahl. His insurance company targeted the cohort who behaved similarly to Mr. Dahl. In other words, Mr. Dahl had tens of thousands of folks just like him who got the same increase. That is the actuary's job: calculate risk.

As data scientists, it is never about you - for us or the companies who hire us ( and we aren't even remotely cheap... not even the overseas contractors some companies use). It is about the segmentation of like behaviors that we can measure and then subsequently influence on large scale. The scale allows for easy monetization on an efficient basis, and more importantly it is actual consumer behavior data. That's been a really fascinating thing to scale in the last 20 years (for the simplicity of rounding the years to the nearest 10).

Before 'big data' we relied - again, industry dependent - on either less detailed data (so fewer variables for our models to capture and tease out behaviors; in the insurance example, data science of the past would have relied upon internal 1st party data the company had on its own clients plus, I imagine, there was probably an aggregator of police report data that could then be purchased for a fee from a 3rd party), or we relied on consumer survey data (which is full of a multitude of bias and challenges, including but not limited to cultural biases, gender biases, and simply data collection challenges... hello... remember those kids at the mall with clipboards asking for 'just 20 minutes of your time'... yikes).

As data scientists, we've been doing this even since "Boomers" were teenagers. It was just less sophisticated and relied upon fewer points of data to make decisions. Plus, we had to use slide rules and punch computers instead of cloud servers.

Okay, that wasn't short at all. Sorry, but happy to answer any questions about what it is large companies actually do with all that data. (I currently work in Consumer Product Goods, or CPG for short. Also called "FMCG" or Fast Moving Consumable Goods... translation: stuff sold at the grocery store.)

The issue to this thread is that the individualized data being created by every Ford owner is being used without most owners realizing that it is being sold and disseminated to a variety of different companies. Ford, like most companies are not forthcoming about how the owners data is being sold, let alone how it is being used by these third party companies. If Ford wants to pay me for my data, then I can make that decision as to whether I wish to allow them to use my data or not. As it stands right now, the data is being mined by Ford, to sell at a profit, to a variety of third party companies without informing any of the owners this is being done, or providing any way of opting in or out. How the data is mined by the scientists, though certainly a concern, is not the issue.

TK1215

I worked in SF. The CHP loved to ticket cops🫣

Don't feel bad, it's not just SF cops. My brother-in-law is a retired LA County Deputy Sheriff, and says the same thing.

the poacher

The issue to this thread is that the individualized data being created by every Ford owner is being used without most owners realizing that it is being sold and disseminated to a variety of different companies. Ford, like most companies are not forthcoming about how the owners data is being sold, let alone how it is being used by these third party companies. If Ford wants to pay me for my data, then I can make that decision as to whether I wish to allow them to use my data or not. As it stands right now, the data is being mined by Ford, to sell at a profit, to a variety of third party companies without informing any of the owners this is being done, or providing any way of opting in or out. How the data is mined by the scientists, though certainly a concern, is not the issue.

I think you're spot on about the collection of the data. Sure it's with our consent, but that consent is buried in some fine print somewhere. Yes, I KNOW I should read all the fine print, but how many people really do? This is the reason that things like the EU's GDPR require that consent be EXPLICIT and OBVIOUS, not buried in the fine print somewhere. In the US some states, like CA have similar regulations. CA passed the CCPA in 2020, and then enhanced it and created an enforcement mechanism in the CPRA which went into effect last year. Other states are also implementing similar laws for exactly these reasons. In the end, this is about exactly what you said @the poacher it's about us maintaining control of our personal data. Sorry, I don't see how grabbing our personal data without our permission and then dumping it into a giant pool with other peoples personal data and then drawing conclusions about the entire pool/group is OK. Sure, it get DONE, but that doesn't make it RIGHT.

Irishdore

Hi,

Actuary and data analytics director here. Just some short comments:

• Yes, big companies collect big data
• Yes, it is generally individualized data
• That said, we do not care what John or Jane Doe are doing, nor does the math typically hold up that well at the individual level.
• What we do care about is what are the group of John or Jane Does that behave similarly are doing. We can then - dependent upon industry - utilize those segments in a variety of ways: advertising, product suggestions, rate adjustments, and so on. But, we need that individualized data to build those segmentations.

Now, from the NYT article, were Mr. Dahl's rates increased due to the driving data? Most likely, yes. But, what I find disingenuous about the article is that the author writes it in a way that makes it seem like companies are out to target you and specifically you. Big brother is going to get you. It is why they use a N=1 example, Mr. Dahl, to personalize the fear. His insurance company didn't target Mr. Dahl. His insurance company targeted the cohort who behaved similarly to Mr. Dahl. In other words, Mr. Dahl had tens of thousands of folks just like him who got the same increase. That is the actuary's job: calculate risk.

As data scientists, it is never about you - for us or the companies who hire us ( and we aren't even remotely cheap... not even the overseas contractors some companies use). It is about the segmentation of like behaviors that we can measure and then subsequently influence on large scale. The scale allows for easy monetization on an efficient basis, and more importantly it is actual consumer behavior data. That's been a really fascinating thing to scale in the last 20 years (for the simplicity of rounding the years to the nearest 10).

Before 'big data' we relied - again, industry dependent - on either less detailed data (so fewer variables for our models to capture and tease out behaviors; in the insurance example, data science of the past would have relied upon internal 1st party data the company had on its own clients plus, I imagine, there was probably an aggregator of police report data that could then be purchased for a fee from a 3rd party), or we relied on consumer survey data (which is full of a multitude of bias and challenges, including but not limited to cultural biases, gender biases, and simply data collection challenges... hello... remember those kids at the mall with clipboards asking for 'just 20 minutes of your time'... yikes).

As data scientists, we've been doing this even since "Boomers" were teenagers. It was just less sophisticated and relied upon fewer points of data to make decisions. Plus, we had to use slide rules and punch computers instead of cloud servers.

Okay, that wasn't short at all. Sorry, but happy to answer any questions about what it is large companies actually do with all that data. (I currently work in Consumer Product Goods, or CPG for short. Also called "FMCG" or Fast Moving Consumable Goods... translation: stuff sold at the grocery store.)

Well, then I have an issue. I don't think abnormal acceleration data or abnormal braking data correlates to bad driving habits that suggest higher group rates for individuals.

Analyzing data out of context is bad practice. But when the results are higher premiums for a population, well who cares, because everyone gets screwed.

Base an individual's rates on his driving record, I'm fine with that approach. That's how it used to be done.