blkgenius

Update April 26, 2024

At GM, we believe that vehicles are not just modes of transportation — they’re also technology platforms that can enrich our customers’ lives. Vehicles have become increasingly connected, intelligent, and personalized with features that improve the overall driving experience and safety on every journey. As our technology progresses, we are committed to being transparent in our privacy practices and empowering customers with control of their data.

Over the last several weeks, we have heard feedback from many customers about the OnStar Smart Driver product. Customer trust is a priority for us, which is why we have taken several decisive actions and are continuing to review our processes:

Discontinuing OnStar Smart Driver: We established the Smart Driver product to promote safer driving behavior for the benefit of customers who chose to participate. However, we’ve decided to discontinue Smart Driver across all GM vehicles and unenroll all customers. This process will begin over the next few months.

Terminating partnerships with LexisNexis and Verisk: We terminated our relationships with third-party telematics companies, LexisNexis and Verisk. Any data sharing with these companies ended on March 20, 2024.

Enhancing privacy controls: We are working on enhanced privacy controls aimed at greater transparency. At the same time, we are focused on providing customers with the ability to manage vehicle performance, diagnostics and, most importantly, what is needed to keep them and their vehicles safe.

New leadership: Alisa Bergman will join General Motors as our new Chief Trust and Privacy Officer on April 29, 2024. She comes to GM from Fanatics, where she served as Chief Privacy Officer (CPO), and before that held the roles of CPO at Adobe and Warner Bros. She was a Board member for the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP) and is currently on the Advisory Boards of the IAPP AI Governance Center and The Future of Privacy Forum.

Red5 C8

Translation: We’re sorry we got caught.

24RiptideBlue

I suppose we are supposed to see this announcement as “good news”….. but the management team that authorized all this is still there.

Discontinuing the horrendous practices that were in place is obviously a good thing. I can’t understand how they ever started this nonsense in the first place. As our nations laws can’t seem to keep up with technology I offer this guidance to gm…. If you have an idea regarding customers data… first ask yourselves two questions.
1) Can the FBI do this to individuals without a warrant?
If the answer is no DON’T DO IT….
3) Will this cause our customers financial harm?
If the answer is yes, again, DON’T DO IT….

The opening statement also doesn’t warm my heart… “technology platforms that enrich our lives…” 🙄… please… this is gm’s excuse to keep pushing the envelope in regards to customers privacy in the goal of turning YOUR private car into THEIR continuous revenue generator…. They don’t give a **** about anything but money and are taking this action because they believe future sales are in jeopardy…

Personally I wish gm would focus on marking great cars at the lowest possible cost. Fight the EPA and publish the eco fines they pay for producing the cars we love. The car manufacturers are far too in bed with government and their “you will buy an EV whether you want one or not….” And stop trying to turn cars into “technology platforms” by making features that should be standard, subscription based.

ecdy

Well, they will have a new privacy officer in place. We should ask her to make it her first job to get dealers to disconnect the transmitting apparatus, and tell us how to do it so the car warranty isn't voided. These measures should be a part of the ultimate class action settlement (preventing future harm). In addition of course to the money due owners for the breach of privacy (past harm).

GM appears to be running scared on this issue, which affects many thousands of buyers, more than of just C8s.

You can read the class anyone complaint for the suit filed in Florida at
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/03/14/business/chicco-vs-gm-lexisnexis.html?searchResultPosition=4

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/03/14/business/chicco-vs-gm-lexisnexis.html
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/03/14/business/chicco-vs-gm-lexisnexis.html
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/03/14/business/chicco-vs-gm-lexisnexis.html

24RiptideBlue

What a great idea!!!!

I wish I thought of it!!!

For anyone harmed that joins the suit…
Please sue for the ability to turn off the 4G connection in OUR private cars!!!
or if people do want to use Onstar, turn off the cars ability to transmit our private driving data. It should 100% customer choice to share or not share drivers data.

The ability to opt out, at the vehicle, is the only way to truly protect the customer. As long as our vehicles are transmitting data nonstop, gm is going to push the envelope to maximize their revenue from our data.

rawbar

Just a follow up to report I was successfully able to get LN to remove all OnStar data from my report. I informed them I was not the driver of the vehicle, LN reports their data was unverifiable so has removed it. I just need to request another LN report to make sure no new data was reported between the time I filed my dispute and the time they removed the data.

In the meanwhile, I just received my report from Verisk and have to do the same with them. They also have dozens of records in my report.
Just spoke with Verisk, they seem very fly by night, I was transferred to the VM of one individual upon calling and hitting "1". I called back in a bit and got the owner of that same VM.
First, she "educated" me that GM is no longer reporting the data. I had to explain I'm calling to dispute the data they ALREADY have on my record, prior to GM halting their reporting. She then tried to send me to GM.
I had to try to nicely educate her on the FCRA dispute process (which she really didn't want to hear). After putting me on hold in the middle of a sentence, she came back confirming what I said, she said they will get back to me in 30 days in writing with their decision. She asked me who the driver of the vehicle was when I told her it was not me, I said I was not going to provide that info. She let it go.

Brettsss

Lucky day my C8 was sold pre recall notice to the fund raising raffle organization. Here in Canada there is a daytime running light recall and recently sold vehicles cannot take delivery. This also blocked out salesman from connecting to Onstar! Lucky as it was allowed to leave with me for the 5 hr journey home. Probably will not hook it up to avoid any spying

rawbar

Onstar is on when it leaves the factory, you don't have an account or a subscription, but it's reporting to GM. I know this 100% as Macmulkin wouldn't turn it on for me to track delivery of the car because GM asked them to stop doing this for customers due to idiots who were remotely starting the car. So I called my buddy that worked for GM's telematics group, gave him my VIN and he sent me a link that opened a google map showing where my car was, without Onstar ever having been turned on by the dealership. I just dug up his message. As you can see, my car was still sitting in the lot at BG reporting away.

3LZR21U

That is deeply unnerving, to say the least.

Like guided munitions being targeted to your location via using a sat-phone--levels of unnerving.

24RiptideBlue

We need a software change that allows any owner to turn off the gm 4G LTE connection they put in our cars.

Why does gm have its own phone line into my car?

The ability to be informed and be able to turn these connections off should be part of any class action settlement or just new legislation. It’s not a lot to ask.

thunderstrike

Do you think the GM in concert with Cadillac has the spy phone line and on-star collecting data in the Presidential Limo, the Cadillac Beast?
________________________________________
Currently own:
2019 Mustang GT Premium 6MT Daily Driver
2023 Corvette Stingray 2LT
2017 Porsche 718 Cayman
2009 Jeep Wrangler Rubicon

24RiptideBlue

I would assume they did until the secret service called their friends in the NSA 🤔

rawbar

I've worked with the USSS as it relates to tech prior to presidential visits. They are extremely thorough in understanding what sort of data and access can be had going in and out of anywhere the president might be. Including details such as lighting, automated shades, any sensors, on and on. I'm pretty sure the Beast is safe from OnStar .
As a chuckle, the first time this happened, my cell phone rang, I said hello, they said this is Agent so and so from the Boston office of the USSS. I said Ok ha-ha, who is this really?
One of my IT clients was going to be hosting a dinner fundraiser for Obama.

C-17LoadVette

Well I got my LexisNexis report. I have 267 instances where GM/Onstar tracked me over a 2 year period in my 2022 Silverado. I never signed up for the Onstar driver app, and I surely didn't invite GM to share or distribute my driving information with LexisNexis. Also, didn't allow or authorize LexisNexis to share my information. I contacted the lawyer representing the gentleman in Florida with the same issue on his Cadillac. I asked if we could enjoin to their class action lawsuit, but they are not taking on new clients for their lawsuit. If anyone is aware or can recommend an attorney who would be willing to file a class action; we are ready to go, and would like to make sure this kind of stuff does not happen again to any consumer.

dohabandit

I would assume that every single C8 sold to date is continuously gathering vehicle performance data to be relayed via telematics / cellemetry. To include your GPS location, speed, accelerometer data, control input positions, temperature data, yadda yadda.
The assumption is that this data is used to understand vehicle performance characteristics and to correlate component failures with vehicle usage and service history to look for potential design flaws or updated recommendations for required service, etc.
This data gathering costs money, someone at GM probably decided "let's find a way to monetize this data" and recoup some of those costs.

I DON'T have a problem with the vehicle gathering performance data used to improve the product OR gasp, to invalidate warranty claims!
I read a story a year or so ago about someone with a non-Z51 C8 that tracked their car, had a failure on the track and was denied their warranty claim because GM knew the location of the vehicle and literally saw it on the track. Sounds acceptable to me and falls under the FAFO clause we should all agree to as responsible adults!
How many youtuber videos are there out there where they picked up a new C8 and with less than 100mi on the ODO are out on the street going FULL SEND? GM should invalidate those warranties too... Why? Because I want to keep costs down and make the newer models more affordable for people like myself as GM isn't a charitable organization. They are going to pass those costs on to the consumer, guaranteed.

I DO have a problem with the data being sold to other companies for any use whatsoever. How I drive my C8 on the track has no bearing on how safe my driving is on the road. Mixing that data up and telling my insurance company that I am driving over 100MPH, hard braking, and going into turns at 1.2G does not reflect my driving on the street. If anything it should reduce my insurance costs as it shows I am a responsible and skilled driver. I would rather my already "public" history of traffic violations and auto insurance claims or lack thereof tell that story.

GM should just stop sharing this data (which they now have), and for anyone that was wrongfully harmed by this data sharing (insurance premiums, etc) should be made whole if it is verifiable that the data was misinterpreted.
If you think this means huge cash payouts to folks (or class action settlements to scummy lawyers), I am against this as this will only drive up the cost for new vehicles and I don't want this payout siphoning out of my pocket which is exactly what it will do. Give them an extra year on their B2B warranty or something... build faith back in the product.

iamlegend

I guess this is one of the very few advantages to living in california.

24RiptideBlue

I would ask the attorney who wasn’t adding claimants… they are often connected or at least aware of law practices that handle the same kind of cases.

Good luck…. I think gm’s behavior is beyond belief. Anyone who was tracked and the their data sold has been harmed and the worst part is you don’t know all the ways that data may have been used against you. Everyone deserves compensation… serious compensation because companies need to be afraid of financial penalties, the kind of penalties that cost senior executives their jobs…

24RiptideBlue

We are not safe until we can turn that 4G LTE gm phone connection in our private cars OFF…. gm has proven that when given the opportunity they will go directly to the most harmful practices for their customers in regards to telematics data if it makes a buck. Individual owners need the option to share or not share their data. The default position at purchase cannot be “and we get all your driving information… and more” like it is now… or this will happen again… my bet…

dohabandit

I would assume the best way to achieve that requires two methods.
1) have GM add the option to entirely disable the 4G LTE modem. This "could" be done entirely with a firmware update. Even if they did offer this, would you trust that slider switch was doing what they say it does?
2) Install an impedance matched dummy antenna load that sends the signal to ground without burning up and damaging the 4G LTE radio.

GM should do option #1 right away to appease the masses before this class action gains traction.

CanadianCacti

In one of these threads, perhaps pre merge someone here was working on this. Not sure of the result though.