Why is Progressive Insurance LYING about their spy devices?
(Note: This post contains original research on an important topic. I beg readers to spread the word.)
Since when has it become acceptable for television commercials to tell outright lies? I was under the impression that deceptive advertising was illegal.
You know about Progressive Insurance. That's the company whose TV ads feature a lovely lady wearing a white uniform and blindingly red lipstick. The folks at Progressive are pushing a device called Snapshot which plugs into your car's steering column and sends the company information about your driving habits. If you practice good habits, you get a substantial discount.
The question is: How much info are you sending to them? Are they tracking your location via GPS? Are they keeping track of how fast you go?
Progressive insists that they don't collect location and speed info. In the video embedded above, you'll see a Progressive commercial in which the lady with the stoplight lips assures you that the company doesn't want to know where you go or how fast you get there. All they want to know is the amount of driving you do, how hard you hit the brakes, and what time of day you travel.
Progressive says the device captures no speed data or GPS information.
Even if that were all there were to it, I still would advise you to steer clear of Snapshot. Insurance companies have a financial incentive to deny claims. The more info you give them, the more reasons they have for issuing a denial.
But the real problem is this: I've uncovered evidence that Progressive Insurance is lying about Snapshot.
I'm sure that Ms. StoplightLips -- whose real name is Stephanie Courtney, and who is surely a decent and well-meaning person -- would not knowingly tell lies. Nevertheless, there are strange discrepancies between the things that lovely Stephanie is being paid to say on TV and the things we learn if we do a little research.
First, let's look at the issue of speed. The ads are unequivocal: Progressive doesn't want to know how fast you drive. But the small print tells a story with conflicting details...
Data We Collect
The Snapshot device records vehicle speed and time of day, and when the device is connected and disconnected from the vehicle. It also records the Vehicle Identification Number upon installation. Other information, such as miles driven and rates of acceleration and braking, is derived from the speed and time information recorded by the device.
Data We Don't Collect
Snapshot focuses on how safely, how often, how far, and when you drive, NOT where you drive. The Snapshot device does not contain GPS technology and does not track vehicle location or whether you’re exceeding the speed limit.
(Emphasis added.) Well, which is it? Do they collect data about speed, or don't they?
A close reading of the above text reveals the truth: Of course Snapshot transmits info about "vehicle speed." The device simply doesn't reveal whether or not you were exceeding the speed limit at any given time.
But if the company collects speed data, investigators can easily discover whether you were going over the limit after the fact. They may even be able to do so in real time. (Has someone written software which collates the speed limits on all of America's roads? I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the insurance companies have an app for that.)
So: If you put in a claim, Progressive will know if you were traveling 42 miles per hour in a 40 mph zone. Claim denied!
Wait. Can Snapshot's speed data be used to deny a claim? Progressive offers mixed signals. On one hand, the company says:
We will not use Snapshot data to resolve an insurance claim you have with us without first obtaining permission from you or the vehicle owner.
On the other hand:
We will not share Snapshot data with any third parties unless it’s necessary or appropriate to service your insurance policy, prevent fraud, perform research, or comply with the law.
That's a pretty damned huge loophole: "...if it's necessary or appropriate to service your insurance policy." If the matter involves the legal system in any way -- as very likely it will -- your speed data will no longer be private. Conceivably, even a civil case unrelated to driving could result in a subpoena for information.
In my judgment, the company's "small print" admission about speed data is in direct conflict with what lovely Stephanie says in the commercials.
Now let's turn to location tracking. Even in their "small print" area, Progressive is unequivocal on this score:
The Snapshot device does not contain GPS technology and does not track vehicle location...
And that is that, yes?
No. Snapshot is an example of what the industry calls a telematics device, defined here as...
...a type of machine-to-machine (M2M) communication that combines GPS, mobile computing and cellular communication.
Hmm. If telematics involve GPS by definition, can we trust Progressive?
Drivers plug a device, the “Snapshot,” into the car’s onboard diagnostic port, or OBD-II, typically found near the steering wheel. [The OBD-II is a standardized digital communications port which was made mandatory in 1996 for all cars sold in the United States.] Using telematics and mobile technology, as they drive, information is shared wirelessly, via AT&T’s network, with Progressive.
(Emphasis in original.) If the company uses ATT's network, then they can triangulate location. That's the key part they're not telling you.
Cell phone triangulation is not the same as GPS; it's a different technology. While triangulation is not as pinpoint accurate as GPS (which can track you to the square foot), triangulation allows trackers to use the information from two or more transmission towers to get a very good idea of where you are. In fact, the FCC has mandatedincreasingly accurate location tracking from non-GPS mobile devices. Very soon, wireless carriers will be required to provide
...far more precise location information, within 50 to 100 meters in most cases.
(Fifty meters roughly equals 55 yards.) So who is kidding whom, Progressive? GPS isn't the only way to spy on someone.
Telematic auto insurance was independently invented and patented by a major U.S. auto insurance company, Progressive Auto Insurance U.S. Patent 5,797,134 and a Spanish independent inventor, Salvador Minguijon Perez (European Patent EP0700009B1). The Progressive patents cover the use of a cell phone and GPS to track movements of a car. The Perez patents cover monitoring the car's engine control computer to determine distance driven, speed, time of day, braking force, etc. Ironically, Progressive is developing the Perez technology in the US and European auto insurer Norwich Union is developing the Progressive technology for Europe.
(Emphasis added.) Here is the link to Progressive's actual patent. The schematic shows how Snapshot actually works.
Figure 4 of the patent reveals that the system does, in fact, make use of GPS! Don't take my word for it. Hit the link, read Progressive's own patent, and see for yourself. (Click on the image to your left to enlarge it.) If you go further into the patent for the thing-that-became-Snapshot, you'll find that the data sent to Progressive will include:
Location vehicle is parked at night (in garage, in driveway, on street); and location vehicle is parked at work (high theft locations, etc.).
How can Stephanie tell the world that Snapshot can't track your car's location, when the patent clearly states otherwise?
Progressive is not the only company getting into the telematics business. Pretty soon, these devices will be standard.
(In case you're curious: No, I'm not writing these words to justify my own bad driving habits. I rarely drive, and when I do, I stay under the limit and brake very early. Even when I was in my 20s, my brother used to kid me about driving like someone's grandma.)
Perhaps some of you are now itching to write a justification for Progressive's tracking abilities. Perhaps some of you want to serve up a variation of that classic line: "If you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about."
Even if I were to grant that point -- which I don't -- we still must face the issue of deceptive advertising. If a fast food company says that its burgers contain 100% beef, then I expect the meat patty to have nothing but dead cow in it; I don't want soy beans or corn meal or other filler. Similarly, if Stephanie Courtney steps in front of a video camera and announces that Progressives' new doohickey can't track your speed or location, then I expect that statement to be accurate on its face. I don't want the company to mount a well-lawyered defense that relies on casuistry or strained argumentation. I don't want to hear any company spokesperson saying: "Well, technically..."
A note about the embedded video: The presenter, Mark Dice, holds to a lot of conspiratorial beliefs which I do not share. I don't know the guy and I do not agree with much of his worldview. But when it comes to this issue, he's right on target.
Again: PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE READ THIS POST. I would like to see congressional hearings on this issue. (And thanks to reader Prowlerzee for sending me down this research trail.)
Thank YOU, Joseph for writing on this, not to mention all the original research! I know what you mean about not agreeing completely with some of those who are sending out warnings about this trend. I was made aware of this via an odd "drivers rights" type newsletter, but when it comes to privacy and civil rights we have a Vinn diagram overlap of common concern that overrides our differences. It's ironic that "Progressive" insurance is pushing this, because progressives seem to be lagging on these Constitutional issues. For some reason, the recording of the time of day/night irks me the most. How is this rewarding "safe" drivers? What if you must drive late at night? What if that's sometimes the safer choice, due to lack of other drivers on the road, despite the conventional "wisdom" otherwise? Oh, and as far as my similarity to Stephanie, it's mostly my goofy, chirpy performance demeanor...the physical resemblance is more superficial, since I also used to sport a vintage style. I've retained the eyebrows but have toned down the lips! Still, it distresses me to have confirmation she's now paid to lie.
posted by prowlerzee : 4:43 PM
They are lying about it for the same reason companies and politicians in the US lie about everything. They get away with it.
The same reason bank lie about how much people owe
The same reason BHO lied about what policies he would pursue.
The same reason the people at Perdue Chicken dont tell you whats in the chicken.
They dont have to. It makes them money. And they dont suffer any adverse consequences.
posted by Anonymous : 4:49 PM
zee, I had forgotten that I had talked about Mark Dice in a previous post. Called him a "crank," I did. Which was pretty much true -- he was prattling on about the mythical Illuminati, as though he actually knew something about it. So it feels a little strange to be featuring one of his videos...!
I can't comprehend why nighttime driving would be considered less safe than daytime driving. If your body has adjusted to a night schedule, driving never really becomes pleasant until the hours between midnight and 6 a.m.
In my post, I link to Stephanie Courtney's stand-up routine. Frankly, I think she's funny and charming. Is there any way we could make sure she sees this post...?
Statistics can be curious things. Im sure that drivers who do more night driving have more accidents than day drivers. I can imagine that night driving is correlated to doing more miles in total. People who need to be on the road at night probably have to do miles. I can also imagine that night driving has a non-trivial correlation to drinking and driving. Finally, I think more accidents happen at night regardless of your own driving performance. After all, lots of accidents involve one a-hole and one totally innocent party.
For what little its worth
posted by Anonymous : 5:11 PM
Joseph, do you use "tags" and "clouds?" I'm not sure how they work in relation to search engines, but even using Stephanie's name is bound to get this post to come up if anyone is doing a search on her...including herself, any agents, and her important client. It would be wonderful if she had the integrity to bow out of this gig, however lucrative it is.
@Harry...performers and everyday revelers are out at night, often in urban areas, and not necessarily driving long distances. Cops are also out in force and lying in wait. I disagree with targeting these people. Bartenders tend to be extremely professional and excellent at cutting off problem drinkers. It would take a post too long to go into here, but suffice it to say MADD's founder has quit them because the group has been taken over by Prohibitionists, who are funneling money to cops. The unconstitutional "checkpoints" and also the red light cameras, both of which purport to increase safety and don't, have become the focus of some "drivers rights" groups. Citizens have discovered, for instance, yellow light time has been shortened to increase revenue...and these things increase accidents. One reason this is not more common knowledge is that these are local actions; thus, the reason I subscribe to a newsletter that follows it nationally. They also follow these "safety" additions to cars, like ignition locks tied to breathalizers and this snapshot device. It's a nightmare in the making. People fret about air travel...how many know there is a mobile "xray" device police can aim at your moving vehicle?
posted by prowlerzee : 10:46 PM
Don't buy a vehicle made after 1996, no OBDII port to plug this electronic rat into.
posted by Mr. Mike : 11:03 PM
Mike, I really HATE OBDII. And I'd give much to have my classic VW bug back.
zee, I'm going to have to research what you say about MADD and yellow lights and such. I can say, though, that a long drive at night through the country can be like soaring through heaven.
I don't use tags. Tried 'em, but it was too much like work. I don't do any of the things people normally do to increase traffic.
For several years, most new cars have had several computers on them, which gather gigabytes per year of information in each car, and I assume this is communicated wirelessly.
posted by b : 8:21 PM
GPS does use triangulation.
posted by b : 8:22 PM
Joseph, even before I read that about MADD,I noticed the trend. Don't know about anyone else, but the tv commercials talking about "buzzed" driving (as opposed to drunk driving)infuriated me. Social re-engineering at its most annoying. I mean, you may as well outlaw pubs and restaurants and weddings that serve alcohol. These are not the people who are severe repeat offenders, yet they are being criminalized. In DC I remember reading a lawyer got arrested for having one drink at dinner...that's the new standard. I guess all our reps in DC getting loaded at swank events don't have to worry because they all have private "designated drivers." I'm sure those ignition breathalizers will become as standard as shoulder straps in cars. Anyway. I was thinking about a recent country drive through the entire night when I wrote it's sometimes safer...or at least less stressful than making the same drive through daytime holiday traffic.
posted by prowlerzee : 11:55 PM
May I generalise? I think this technology in cars has been in mass use for years. It wouldn't surprise me if there are receivers in petrol stations too. Stuff comes out years and years and years later, if at all.
In the UK, the extent of video surveillance in shopping malls came out (in the sense of not just being a topic of interest among conspiracy types, whether crazy right-wing ones or, ahem, sane ones like us) after a toddler was murdered in 1993. Ditto with mobile phone tracking around 1999.
British retail stores also track people around the shops using their mobile phones. (This was admitted in 2011 - have a look here.)
The UK is rare as an 'advanced' country where you can buy and use an unregistered SIM card and mobile phone. And this is in a territory where the authorities assist the US military and intelligence machine in its current 'world war' in a very high-profile way. Did they miss something? Was the 'civil liberties' lobby too strong?
Of course not. So why is it? Well the answer must be that face-recognition software is used in a big way by the security state, all over the fucking place.
I can't prove that. It doesn't matter. It doesn't stop it being true. Detail-junkies are great; critics of tyranny don't all have to think and act the same way...
PS I said GPS uses triangulation. By that I mean it involves solving triangles. A pedant could argue it was trilateralisation, because it works out the angles, and therefore the person's location, from the side-lengths, i.e. the distances from the satellites. But since more than one satellite is required, it's still triangulation.
posted by Anonymous : 5:45 AM
You ask if there is a database of Speed Limits. Of course there is! My TomTom tells me what the speed limit is on the road I'm traveling about 80% of the time (totally unscientific statistic right there). I've also noticed that the the noted speed limit changes within a few feet of a new speed limit sign, so obviously the data is pretty darned accurate.
posted by Anonymous : 11:04 AM
Honestly...paranoia doesn't imply they're not out to get you after all. I' ve been using the snapshot for over a month now... and frankly I am -very- pleased with it. 28% initial discount after 30 days and a projected 30% discount with my policy renewal coming up.
I've learned a great deal in reviewing the reports provided by them on their website - including how to improve my driving style. A bit conformist I know but frankly it takes MY insurance rate away from being calculated by 'statistics' because they SEE how I drive.
And when you consider the cost of auto-insurance these days I think it would be fair to say that a LOT of people (who do NOT dirve well) would be terrified to place such a device in their vehicles.
I look forward to continued use of the snapshot in my vehicle. At some point I think the device will catch on, and the ONLY ones that don't want to see it installed in their cars are the ones who's driving is already 'questionable' at best and would likely see an Increase in their rates.
Traven, I'm not going to say that I'm a safe driver, if only because the people who say those words are usually kidding themselves. Tell ya this, though: Those who know me make fun of how SLOW I drive. They also make fun of the way I brake early and come to a very slow stop way, way before the limit line.
Yet I would NEVER use that device. Never.
Yes, you get a discount -- for now. But once the devices become ubiquitous, the discount will disappear and we'll all be stuck with the spy thingie hooked into our cars. That's how this crap always works, and you know it.
Surely you can agree that false advertising is always wrong?
If Stephanie is saying one thing in the commercials -- while the patent for the device says the exact opposite -- then, yeah, that's a huge damned problem. You can't argue your way around that fact.
I will admit, I just recently received snapshot, and installed it in my car. I agree completely with all of your points regarding being watched and taking all of our rights away. How close do you think Progressive is working with the federal government in order to, "catch" those speeding people? I completely agree that all of the statements made within the commercial are totally different when you're reading through the pamphlet. Personally, I commute to school AND work. I'm just waiting for the second I am forced to file a claim, but am denied because of some information found on my snapshot device. I believe that, especially for a young driver, I am very good behind the wheel, for what it's worth- but, do I believe that young people should be forced into getting devices like the snapshot just so they can afford to be insured, as in my case? ...Most definitely not. Something is harshly wrong with our country, and everyone is just bowing down and taking it. Honestly, it frightens me what our society will look like in only a few years. Thank you, for confirming my suspicions.
posted by Anonymous : 3:42 AM
They can't deny your claim...period. Read your policy! If you kill someone and total your car while drunk, they still have to pay. (they pay for your own damage only if you have collision insurance of course) Sheesh.
posted by Anonymous : 6:30 PM
1. Telematics technology obviously presents a raft of troubling privacy issues -- in private use.
2. Telematics in business/institutional use is a whole different ballgame. You drive a company vehicle and they have a right -- even a duty -- to know where you go and how you're driving.
3. "Vehicle fleet telematics" is increasingly an integral part of managing business vehicles, even for very small businesses -- for instance a guy who's got 3-4 repair techs out making service calls around town all day.
Note: I've written extensively about advanced fleet telematics on behalf of a telematics service provider.
4. In the commercial world, telematics is making measurable impacts on safety and regulatory compliance. As one of many examples, the feds have long required drivers of large interstate trucks to keep logs showing how many hours they've driven each day. (Get drowsy at the wheel of a big rig doing 70, and you can wipe out an entire family in an eyeblink. It happens.) To curb epidemic cheating, these hours-of-service (HOS) logs must increasingly be automated -- tied into telematics GPS/OBD systems. Thanks to smart federal regulation, automated HOS is already starting to protect you and your family on highways across the US.
5. Oddly, Progressive Insurance offers Snapshot only on personal vehicles, where Joseph gives us strong evidence pointing to a corporate cover-up of privacy invasion. (Thank you, J.!) Progressive does NOT offer Snapshot on its commercial vehicle insurance, where it could do enormous good while posing little or no privacy conflict. Go figure.
6. On many commercial vehicles, Progressive wouldn't have to supply an OBD data-capture device because many commercial vehicles already have GPS tracking and OBD data capture installed. Progressive would only have to capture the existing data stream.
7. The telematics provider I mentioned, already has a working relationship with another large insurer to do precisely what Progressive is NOT doing with Snapshot: offering insurance discounts to businesses where safe driving behavior can be independently verified in fleet vehicles.
8. Driven by competition and demand, telematics technology and services continue to evolve at a galloping pace, particularly for fleet vehicles, while the cost is declining. Which means telematics-based insurance discounts can increasingly cover the entire cost of telematics services. Which in turn means telematics for many small businesses will soon be essentially free (i.e., zero net cost).
At the same time, I would not put telematics in my personal vehicle because of all the same issues Joseph raised.
posted by Anonymous : 2:12 AM
Note - just because the patent filing mentions GPS, it is NOT a given that the system built HAS GPS. They just patentented a system and method that included the capability of using GPS as an input. Whther they have this patent on those claims or not, they do not have to build their product that way to have a useful patent.
posted by Anonymous : 6:21 PM
Something you missed is "the owners" of the vehicle. At some point Progressive could own the vehicle.
They could foreseeably agree to pay for the vehicle, and then in court, side against you for the third parties' damages.
posted by Anonymous : 10:53 PM
posted by Anonymous : 3:15 PM
The online information at progressive about how this data can be subpoenaed in the case of an accident waves a red flag. No way for me!
posted by Anonymous : 11:40 AM
Don't get pissed if you don't want to obey the law and drive like an idiot. I do obey the law for the most part and I’m always dodging rude idiots who drive like maniacs. Besides, it is a voluntary program so you don’t have to participate if you don’t want to. If you need to hide your driving habits, then maybe you ought to slow down. Oh and I do believe in privacy, but you’re out there with the rest of us so driving is not a private affair.
posted by Anonymous : 9:34 PM
Look, Anonymous moron -- I can assure you that I am a safer driver than you. I always go under the speed limit and I always brake early. I said so in the post, which you apparently did not read.
You did not address the point of that post -- DECEPTIVE ADVERTISING.
Are you really proposing that deceptive advertising ought to be tolerated? How can people make a responsible decision about a voluntary program if the advertising is deceptive?
I drive less than I would actually like to. It's two miles from my house to school. However when I take a trip across the state for parts or to pick up a car, it's people like Joe that inadvertently cause accidents. Think of cars on the interstate as terds in a pipe they all want to go the same speed but if you have a slow turd it backs that shit up to your house. It's about flow and people doing relatively the same speed. 90 in 70 is bad. Just as bad as your dumb ass doing 50 in a 70. I know this because I followed my 68 year old father for 498mi, when doing 70-73 having to pass somebody meant slowing down traffic in the fast lane, if anyone even remembers what the lane is for, cars would tap there brakes to turn off cruise control setting off a wave of reactions, then people started following too close, excessive lane changes, road rage, Think. people doing absolutely nothing wrong have to slam on the brakes and do the dreaded window mirror neck judgement game and in the middle of all this you decide to brake befor the deceleration lane even begins. Just so YOU can be "safe", have some common consideration for other drivers. The signs are there for a reason, realise there are other people who don't give two shits about your safety, and I don't want to be near those people, do you? so I drive assertively and efficiently you should too! As far as this snapshot device goes, I really want to know if someone who drives and assertively and efficiently will not be given the same discounts as those who just drive how ever they want to drive and turn a blind eye to design standards i.e. America's love of stop signs and lights and then fail to use them correctly. I'm done ranting. I won't be coming back. It's not the nature of the data that scares me. It's the interpretation of that data, that is the real danger.
posted by Anonymous : 8:23 AM
This video is stupid! i have had snapshot before and they do not lie about it! they say that they dont care how fast u r going not that they dont capture speed! they use ur speed and the time to determine acceleration and deceleration. And there is no gps.
posted by Anonymous : 7:52 PM
Driving at night produces far less accidents statistically. The bigger the crowd, the more likely you are to bump into someone in a crowd. During the day, cars can come out of nowhere if you're not looking carefully, at night, you're at least warned by headlights (unless it's a rare case where the other guy's headlights are off).
Not everyone out at night is either tired or drunk...man that one gets old, but so does getting tailed by the popo's when one goes to Walmart when the crowds are most tolerable (non-existent).
Society is 24/7 more than ever. I'd be much more dangerous on the road trying to adjust to daylight hours after a decade being on nights @ the hospital;Eyes blinded by the sun, reaction time stifled, just in time for all the ratracers darting in and out of the Jimmy Johns parking lot, worried they'll be 2 minutes late on their way back from lunch.
Not that I support this device, but they should factor in a persons active work hours if they are going to use time-of-day as a reference point.
posted by Anonymous : 7:54 PM
If anybody really cares where my boring ass is going, I will tell them. Geeze what is it with you people and "privacy"? The same people who whine about privacy go on Facebook and brag about how they were so fucked up and drove home.....
posted by Anonymous : 2:00 PM
I have disassembled and analyzed this device. As an electrical engineer, I can tell you that it does not track vehicle speeds by gps, the OBCII feeds speedometer data to the device. Also, it transmits its data like a text message through AT&T after the trip has ended and the vehicle has been turned off. So they could find everywhere you go and turn your car off, but CANNOT know where you are when driving.
posted by Anonymous : 3:38 PM
i have one.. i opened it up.. SUPPRIZE! NO GPS ANTENNA OR CHIP! progressive must of invented a new gps that dont need antenna's they should sell the idea, they would make millions!
I use this in my SUV and honestly i have no issues with it. So what if it has a GPS in it. What are they going to do, raise your rates for going to a store they don't shop at? It seems most of the comments seem to be "i wont use this because they can deny my claim because they will know i was speeding!". Stop speeding. It seems OP excuse of "i go slower then the speed limit" is some sort of "get out of jail free card" and its not. You can get a ticket for that as well. Slow driving is as much a problem as speeding. Here is your stop, glad i could be your school bus driver for the day.
It seems to me anyone with an issue with this device needs to stop driving like an idiot. Scared Progressive is tracking you? Are you a millionaire? Are you some sort of VIP to this country? WTF do they care about where you are and when you get there? LOL. Self important crap is what you all are. Put on your foil hat, get snapshot, save money.
Bashing a company for "misinformation in a commercial" is one thing, but, bashing them with some crazy unproven theory-crafting is another. I remove your soapbox and replace it with a hole. Thanks for playing. Bet you were upset the world didn't end Dec 21 2012 to huh? All those preparations and nothing came of it .. sorry bro.
posted by Anonymous : 5:24 PM
I think you jump to lots of conclusions. The most obvious statement that does not have any correlation that you make huge assumptions on is their patent.
Most all patents have claims in them that are not actually implemented in products. When you write patents you include every concept you can think of at the time of filing the patent. Obviously it is conceivable that GPS data MIGHT be used so of course you would want to patent it. It does NOT mean that it IS used though.
I have my own concerns with the Snapshot system but some of the factually incorrect and in some cases wild conclusions you jump to force me to question and discount ALL the information you have provided. When you get such obvious things about patents wrong, I'm pretty sure you got plenty of other things wrong too unfortunately.
posted by Scott Blair : 1:16 AM
I have used this in all my cars and it is not that big of a deal. You only use it for a couple of weeks for them to gather the necessary data to determine if you are a good driver as all of us think we are. If you are, you get 30% off. If not, there is no discount. The device works using telematics and therefore there is no GPS functionality to identify coordinates. It also has no inherent capability to determine anything, just take the data from the onboard computer and transit it to the progressive systems. Vehicle speed, braking times etc are all collected by YOUR car in the onboard computer which can be obtained if you get into a wreck even without the Snapshot device. All they do is gather it for a short time to determine if you are a good driver. If you don't use it insurance companies simply use actuarial data to determine if you are a safe driver. We all know how that works. This is definitely the way to go for insuring drivers because there are too many idiots on the road that I don't want to be associated with when I am quoted a policy. I now pay 30% less than I used to because I had the snapshot in all my cars.
posted by Anonymous : 4:58 PM
Automatic Speeding Tickets!?!?! Damn Big Brother!!!
How dare they try and make us obey the law! I'm appalled at how they try to make everyone safer by keeping others from breaking the law and practicing unsafe behaviors!
Sheesh. I'm sick of all this stuff.
Being able to use the GPS information in my care in court cases against me?!?! If I break the law, the last thing I want is for people to know where I was when the crime I was commiting was going down... Or even worse, I would HATE to have them try to use that information to acquit me!
The patent document posted in the article shows a GPS feeding a vehicle's onboard navigation system. It does not show the Snapshot device having an integrated GPS receiver.
posted by Anonymous : 7:24 PM
As soon as I heard the ads for snapshot, I knew it wasn't something I would ever willingly put in m car.
posted by Anonymous : 11:52 PM
Spoken like a "Good German."
Is there no end to the asses you'll kiss or the cocks you'll suck in order to save a few dollars?
posted by Anonymous : 2:24 AM
"Why is Progressive Insurance LYING about their spy devices?"------------Because they are low lifes !
posted by Anonymous : 10:09 AM
Progressive Insurance is one of the most corrupt companies in the nation! I know this first hand as a former automotive collision shop owner for many years. State Farm and Allstate are right there with them. My recommendation is Mutual of Enumclaw.
posted by Anonymous : 7:40 AM
Fact of the matter is, Stephanie Courtney is getting older every day. When she first started out w/ appearances in Progressive commercials, my girl and I were watching TV together and I mentioned to her that I'd knock the boots right off Steph in a heartbeat, if given the opportunity. My girlfriend kinda frowned and said "great..if that's your taste in women then I guess im not sh** to you, at least in the looks department!" (Made me laugh). But these days, not so much. She still has appeal, but to an older crowd of men who are probably reluctant to change over to Progressive anyway. If Progressive became more "aggressive" in their marketing prowess, they'd have chicks like Mila Kunis & Megan Fox wrestling over a Snapshot device in a mud filled kiddie pool. THAT, my friends, would produce results. Just my $.02 on it.
The heart of the populous will ultimately secure our fate. Me? I'd never concent to give any more information than necessary to anyone, be they corporate, or private in the name of security; which in this case security is cash savings. I'll pay the extra to be free (and not to companies looking for such info) and not enslaved to act as others deem prudent.
If you think that controlling others to act in ways you see fit in the name security, safety, or whatever soul leaching term you can find will change basic human nature then you need to get used to two things: strife, and disappointment. Because those are the only things that are resultant of tyranny.
posted by Anonymous : 1:34 PM
The feds are arguing right now over mandatory black boxes that will record everything the car's computer is able to record, plus real-time gps data, standing time parking location, duration, etc. There are already companies that can equip your company owned fleet with this type of device that can catch you speeding, sleeping, off your route, etc. BTW- Garmin GPS gives the speed limit where ever you are as a small regular speed-limit sign in the display that turns yellow if you exceed the speed limit and red if you go 10 miles over. So that technology exists now. Can you see having to have your black box read each year and then pay for any parking violations that the cops missed, or any speeding tickets you would have gotten? The black box will also be able to bring the car to a controlled stop when activated by the cops -- to prevent car chases of course. Memory is so cheap and small, about 300,000 miles of data can be recorded, so all owners of most cars will have complete records. The data can be uploaded as well. Next it'll be audio/video capability.
posted by Anonymous : 2:37 PM
It appears Joseph Cannon does all his research on the Internet and I did not see anyone else comment on the true function of the onboard diagnostic system.
The OBD II system does not know what time it is. Nor does it know what date it is. It doesn't need to know. It doesn't know if the car is driving in New York Eastern Time or California Pacific Time. Can you remember the last time you changed the date in your car after changing the battery? LOL If the Snapshot device is receiving time information, it's not getting it from the car. It may use Atomic Clock technology to record time. There is no cellular technology within the Snapshot device and you will not find it in an OBD II system either. You will not find GPS technology in either the Snapshot or OBD II system. Some newer vehicles contain a GPS receiver for the navigation head unit or Blue Tooth technology to pair your own personal mobile phone, but you will not access that through the OBD II port. My research doesn't come from searching the Internet, just educational training and hands on experience from being Master Mechanic for the last 16 years.
posted by Anonymous : 12:44 AM
Dear Auther, You are CLEARLY confused. Let me help you clarify what the difference is between Snapshot monitoring your speed (which they say they do) and monitoring speed limit... Snapshot doesn't contain GPS so can't tell whether you are going the SPEED LIMIT, but it does monitor speed so it can tell if you brake hard. If you are travelling 70 MPH in a 45 MPH zone prgressive won't know the speed limit of the road (np GPS), only that you were travelling 70. Then if you brake hard ans suddendly are travelling 20MPH, they will know this. In summary, REALLY?!? You wrote that whole article not knowing the difference between speed monitoring and them knowling the speed limit?? wow man...