State Farm Insurance is WATCHING!

I thought geico was the only one "watching" me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YvAYIJSSZY

Your speed and driving habits may not be able to be observed, but most modern cell phones are able to be tracked and give your locations via cell tower info. And its not just the government that has access to that info in past and/or present tense.

I think this would make a nice protective cover for that device.

HappyAndy wrote: I think this would make a nice protective cover for that device.

Did you say Magnets!?!

pilotbraden wrote: I would like to put that device on *My C sports racer*, to get some impossible numbers and see how they react. It would probably turn into an expensive nightmare.

^fixed^

GameboyRMH wrote:

DirtyBird222 wrote:

GameboyRMH wrote: They could kill it off by tamper-proofing the box, some embedded trigger wire filaments + holo stickers = no tampering. Some already use encrypted storage.

I know some nerds that would be able to crack that nonsense in a couple weeks time. These insurance companies aren't going to invent some new code that is uncrackable, and if it saves a nerd some $ and they already know how to crack, you can bet they'd be more than willing to spend their free time to crack their encryption algorithms .

You'd be right if not for the wire filament tamper-proofing. Breach the case, trash the goodies inside. Militaries use it to keep devices with onboard encryption keys out of enemy hands. And getting keys from a device that has them onboard somehow is one thing, cracking encryption algorithms is a whole different thing. This isn't jokey consumer DRM.

But it is just a consumer electronic because the insurance companies are just purchasing them from a 3rd party. I highly doubt they are going to use tamper proof wiring. Insurance companies are all about the bottom line, the robustness of tamper proof wiring is going to cost more and they know a majority of the simpletons on the road don't have enough computer knowledge or ability to crack such a thing so why would they even bother with the cost?

The safest device in use is one that isn't connected to a network, powered off, and not in use. Where there is a will there is a way. If it's OBD-powered, you'd be able to put your own input data in via USB as mentioned before. If it's GPS, unplug it, put it in a static proof bag or a subaru SVX, leave it in a vehicle you drive sparingly. That's still considered hacking/cracking :).

pilotbraden wrote: I would like to put that device on *My C sports racer*, to get some impossible numbers and see how they react. It would probably turn into an expensive nightmare.

^fixed^

Yawn...this same old tired conversation again?

It's no different than what Progressive, and many other insurance companies, offer. It's an optional...not mandatory...program. The idea behind it is NOT to be big brother and know where you are. It's about driving patterns and behavior. Those are the things that the people who will shell out big bucks because of someone elses mistake, aka insurance companies, look at when writing policies. I don't think I'd want to insure someone who drives like their running a NASCAR road race on the street. Would you? Conversly, someone driving with common sense is much more palatable. I know you guys tend to be paranoid about these things and distrustful of insurance. Believe it, don't believe it, whatever...but from someone on the inside of this business I can tell you it's not about spying or intruding or being big brother.

Osterkraut wrote:

N Sperlo wrote: I wonder if he knew he broke a federal law that could cost him $25,000.00.

Citation required. I doubt you'll find one because I just checked and in 91.21, no specific mention of personal GPS devices. GPS, being a receive-only system, is good to go unless expressly banned by the airline.

Thats a good point. My wife isn't a flight attendant anymore, so I can talk a little more about it. A guy wouldn't shut off his phone. $15,000 fine. The FAA agent said saved the guy $10,000.

The specific device all depends on weather the airline wants to consider it a personal electronic device.

N Sperlo wrote:

Osterkraut wrote:

N Sperlo wrote: I wonder if he knew he broke a federal law that could cost him $25,000.00.

Citation required. I doubt you'll find one because I just checked and in 91.21, no specific mention of personal GPS devices. GPS, being a receive-only system, is good to go unless expressly banned by the airline.

Thats a good point. My wife isn't a flight attendant anymore, so I can talk a little more about it. A guy wouldn't shut off his phone. $15,000 fine. The FAA agent said saved the guy $10,000. The specific device all depends on weather the airline wants to consider it a personal electronic device.

I have no idea but I've read that airline personnel have the ability to either zap a particular cellphone useless or create some sort of magnetized field temporarily that won't allow any use of said device?

In reply to drainoil:

Thats not true. The reason for shutting down electronic devices has nothing to do with interference. Thats just an excuse they use. I can't get into it any further without risking being hunted down by the TSA.

I suspect these devices will eventually become the norm. They may not become mandatory, but to not have one it will become very expensive. Except of course for those vehicles for which it just won't work, like my pick up truck.

In reply to N Sperlo:
Agreed, it is an exercise to attempt to get people's attention and loose items stored before landing.
In addition, those little masks are not as much oxygen as they are there to muffle the screams. Lets face it, if the masks are out, the pilot does not need the distraction while trying to hear the radio.

How do the dongles communicate with the insurance companies? Is it a mini cell phone, wi-fi, or what?

cwh wrote: How do the dongles communicate with the insurance companies? Is it a mini cell phone, wi-fi, or what?

Not yet, cellular data is expensive. Right now the data is collected annually by an agent, via a cable on all the models I've seen. But I suppose in the future it might be possible for the insurance company to adjust your rate in real-time.

In reply to N Sperlo:

I wrote some wordy stuff but generally speaking, aren't PED's allowed on commercial airliners for non-critical phases of flight? I'd be curious to hear how this all worked out. GPS receivers are usually pretty low powered devices as well which makes a large fine seem less likely.

Now if he didn't stow the thing during take-off or landing, that's a different story.

N Sperlo wrote: I can't get into it any further without risking being hunted down by the TSA.

Eyeroll! You're the like the James Bond of Rent-a-cops, aren't you?

Do you have to keep them in full time or is only for a trial period?

In reply to pres589:

The power has nothing to do with it. JohnRW knows the real reason and is hinting at it. It's more of an ICE issue.

pres589 wrote: In reply to N Sperlo: I wrote some wordy stuff but generally speaking, aren't PED's allowed on commercial airliners for non-critical phases of flight? I'd be curious to hear how this all worked out. GPS receivers are usually pretty low powered devices as well which makes a large fine seem less likely. Now if he didn't stow the thing during take-off or landing, that's a different story.

You are correct. There are a few things outright allowed (like pacemakers), and then the FAA has a "allowed unless the airline says they're not" policy.

Osterkraut wrote:

N Sperlo wrote: I can't get into it any further without risking being hunted down by the TSA.

Eyeroll! You're the like the James Bond of Rent-a-cops, aren't you?

I like to think so.
I'm also a salesman and politician, technically.

N Sperlo wrote: In reply to pres589: The power has nothing to do with it. JohnRW knows the real reason and is hinting at it. It's more of an ICE issue.

Maybe it is now but they had the same rules pre-9/11, when the rules against electronic devices onboard were due to a mix of lack of information and air rage prevention.

In reply to GameboyRMH:

... 9/11? Who said 9/11?

Klayfish wrote: Yawn...this same old tired conversation again? It's no different than what Progressive, and many other insurance companies, offer. It's an optional...not mandatory...program. The idea behind it is NOT to be big brother and know where you are. It's about driving patterns and behavior. Those are the things that the people who will shell out big bucks because of someone elses mistake, aka insurance companies, look at when writing policies. I don't think I'd want to insure someone who drives like their running a NASCAR road race on the street. Would you? Conversly, someone driving with common sense is much more palatable. I know you guys tend to be paranoid about these things and distrustful of insurance. Believe it, don't believe it, whatever...but from someone on the inside of this business I can tell you it's not about spying or intruding or being big brother.

It's not the fact that it's optional that pisses me off, it's the idea of the very real possibility that this could easily become manditory, be it from the insurance companies, the govt, or whoever.

And again, you being an industry insider, you want to know how I drive? Please tell me what's wrong with judging my driving by my driving record? If, after 27 years, or even just a few years of having a license, I don't have an unreasonable amount of tickets and/or accidents, what more is there to worry about?

This is absolutely the equivalent of big brother saying "You don't have a criminal record, but go ahead and wear this ankle bracelet just incase"

N Sperlo wrote: In reply to drainoil: Thats not true. The reason for shutting down electronic devices has nothing to do with interference. Thats just an excuse they use. I can't get into it any further without risking being hunted down by the TSA.

I beg to differ. While wearing a David Clark or a Bose headset, a cell phone searching for a signal or being used, will make a loud popping or ticking noise in the speakers. One or two phones are bad, I can imagine an airliner full would be awful. This is very distracting and can interfere with communication. I have been told by other pilots that this happens with all headsets and over the cockpit speaker.