New Documents Show That Feds Share License Plate Scanning Data With Insurance Firms
from the crony-capitalism dept
It's one thing for governments to make use of license plate scanning equipment to catalog what cars are crossing their borders. But it takes it to a whole different level to then share that data with insurance firms. However, it appears that's exactly what the US government is doing. A Freedom of Information Act request by privacy group EPIC, discovered that US Customs (part of Homeland Security) is sharing license plate scans with the National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB), which is actually an organization made up of just about every insurance company.The reasons for such sharing of info may appear to be noble. It's technically to try to spot stolen vehicles.
The purpose of furnishing LPR information is to verify that vehicles departing from and arriving into the United States are not stolen vehicles. NICB has access to unique information regarding stolen vehicles, as well as the means of exchanging information regarding stolen vehicles with member insurance company Special Investigative Units and Federal and State law enforcement authorities.The memorandum of understanding insists that the data can only be used for these purposes, but it's unclear if there's any real way to police that, and it certainly means that the uses by NICB are not subject to a FOIA request, since they're not a part of the government. The only "remedy" presented for a firm that uses the information otherwise is to be stricken from the "shared" list. There are also some concerns that even the sharing of the info may be in violation of existing laws.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: insurance companies, license plates, privacy, sharing
Companies: nicb
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
In another news, taxpayer money is being used to spy and promote indefinite detention of innocent citizens. Surely not in America!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
License plate sharing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: License plate sharing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: License plate sharing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: License plate sharing
For example, there are some government agencies that have an arrangement with cruise lines to look for possible terrorists on their passenger and crew lists, but they do this without sharing their respective lists with one another. They do it through double-blind anonymization and comparisons of hashes. If there is a hit, they can contact the cruise line and discuss that specific hit, but otherwise the list is encrypted and not available for any other use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: License plate sharing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: License plate sharing
Savings that wouldn't be kept as profit? Oh, man, now that's funny! Thanks for making my day!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: License plate sharing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: License plate sharing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: License plate sharing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm sure we can create one to fill the void. We can even come up with a random name for them just for arguments sake. How about the "police?" It's catchy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
With that said, I don't see how this could be misused, therefore I am asking what kinds of risks this can bring and what is the be bad or good in it? what are the scenarios that are possible?
Is there more info being shared?
Locations, dates, photos, videos, vehicle owner information?
Accident reports anything that shows this could be a problem?
Only plate numbers are not that much of a concern, but maybe I am wrong and someone can explain it to me how this could be abused.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In this case, the insurance company already knows your plate number & the info associated with that, so knowing when you're travelling out of country, (and where to, and where along the border), is a substantial amount of information. With the wealth of other information insurances companies keep and sniff out, I'm not too comfortable with the gov't giving them direct aid in this unethical behaviour.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why not just reverse the data direction?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why not just reverse the data direction?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Say you have insurance for your vintage vehicle that states it can only be driven a certain number of miles/kilometres per year and/or cannot go interstate and especially not cross borders unless you pay an extra charge for some reason.
Lo and behold the Insurance company sends you a bill to either pay this or they will remove your insurance (for voiding the bullshit contract requirement) and let other insurers know that you have lied on your promise. Guess where they got the info from?
Oh they get fined? or removed from the list? so what. That's probably going to be incorporated into the cost of your insurance premium in future anyway.
Yes it can be abused and because it can be logic dictates at some point it WILL BE!
Criminal data which stolen goods are should ONLy be used by authorities that have a mandate with that criminal data. NOT private companies who can take no action anyway other than call the police, though they might try heavy handed unlawful interference actions... which is called abuse of power (ultra vires)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There is no real deterrent to stop abuse.. A fine is no big deal they will be like okay our bad and continue to do the same bullshit.
Now if we fuck up it's a whole different story we will face jail time for even some of the most stupid shit like "farting at a cop"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you don't like a "bullshit contract requirement", don't sign the contract.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It could be due to monopilisation, industry standard duress practices, the list is huge
And just because you might of committed Insurance fraud (has to be proven first) does not give the insurance companies the right to ultra vire information.
Or would you like them to start profiling you based on your DNA that might be on file. It's the same situation though not as controversial
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Why should you declare that you might take a trip or two a year beyond the forty mile radius you normally occupy when they are already nickle-and-diming you to death?
It's a somewhat food thing that there is an increasing amount of "good driver" exceptions used in the industry, but the default is to use statistics against every individual. And no matter the discount, they are still gaming you somewhere else.
I don't say this from some sort of personal bitterness, either. I had a freaking awesome insurance agent when I was driving.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
We are NOT talking about that here and if you think we are you are deluding yourself and need to really go and understand what contracts are and what fraud is and the absolute differences between them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Specially when already pointed out that it could be made more privacy friendly by sharing only the data from stolen vehicles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Two wrongs do not a right make
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think you'll also find that strictly honest consumers/taxpayers are largely a myth. Just as honest corporations are. The American Way is for everyone to game everyone else for the best personal outcome. It is indirect haggling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Darn -- FOIA'ed again!
Think of the children!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Plates.google.com Register your car now!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Backwards?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why aren't the insurance companies sharing data with the government?
It has always baffled me that police officers want to know if you are insured. Part of the requirements of passing a law requiring me to have car insurance should be that the insurance companies open up their databases to the authorities, so that they can KNOW that I am insured without asking me. That is legal evidence, isn't it? What's the difference between subpoenaing the information versus requiring the insurance companies upfront to make it available?
In 2000, after Y2K expired and after the dotcom crisis decimated the tech market, things were still going good for tech companies here in Iowa, the capital of the insurance industry. There are more SANs in Des Moines, Iowa than you can shake a stick at. The data is there. Like most industries, they invest heavily in fraud detection, which requires humungoid datasets, and the processor horsepower to query it.
Sure, require people to carry around a small, easily counterfeited proof-of-insurance card. But then check back to the mothership to make sure.
It should be the same with any other data that the government requires from insurance companies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Came across a cracked article, 6 Terrifying User Agreements You've Probably Accepted, and it seemed to have in some part a tie in to this.
I'll quote the gist so it can be cleared up.
"As it turns out, OnStar [...] They recently updated their terms of use contract to include two new points. First off, a new agreement forces you to allow OnStar to sell your driving data to whomever they want. We're talking stuff like vehicle speed and location, current odometer reading, driver seat-belt use and air-bag deployment. If that doesn't sound too bad, wait until they sell it to your insurance company, Speedy.
There's also a fine chance that, much like the GPS company TomTom, they could receive a subpoena ordering them to release your data to the police. And since we're talking about technology that can basically record everything you do and say inside your vehicle, OnStar offers so much more information than your typical GPS. In other words, if you're fleeing from justice, don't do it in a newer vehicle."
Suddenly the comparing of government databases seem kind of a better way to go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/drug-enforcement-administration-only-has-40-t b-of-electronic-storage-world-wide/
I alone have half that in my home.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Goal: Profit; Means: Deny Claims
Insurance companies have one goal, and that is to make a profit. The easiest way to do that is to deny claims. The *preferred* way to do that is legitimately. That's why the insurance industry probably has better investigators than the government. Anything they can tack onto one of the myriad coverage exceptions can be used to deny payment.
Say our hypothetical injured insured goes to Mexico for cheap drugs. InsCo gets wind of it. Suddenly, they are denying claim. "People who are actually injured don't go to Mexico." OR "Purchase of potentially illegal drugs voids policy" OR "Injury, if any (which we don't admit), must have occurred in Mexico, which the policy doesn't cover" ... you get the point.
So there's likely all sorts of nefarious stuff Insurance Industry could do with the license plate data.
(Also, all that "news" about rampant auto-insurance fraud is pure propaganda.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Goal: Profit; Means: Deny Claims
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Goal: Profit; Means: Deny Claims
Does your vehicle have an internal combustion engine?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Goal: Profit; Means: Deny Claims
My current (mis)insurance company is great at denying claims, forgetting claims for a few months, reversing denial of claims, telling me my claims are not eligible for payment because I have files too many of them, and then starting all over again. Apparently, their health care professionals, who have never seen me or talked to me, know more about my case than the professionals that are actually treating me. I keep calling that medical malpractice, but I haven't found anyone who agrees with me.
They were supposed to pay on the same rules as my previous insurance company, but their rules keep changing besides not complying with the rules that they are supposed to follow. Imagine my surprise when I found out that they are owned by my previous insurance company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
B.S.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: B.S.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Insurance co.s are not your friend
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
After all, people who drive in traffic are at elevated risk for being in an accident, and they should have to pay more, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AAA denies collision claim on basis of border crossing information
[ link to this | view in chronology ]