
Vermont’s DMV has been selling personal data to private companies since 2004 - Keverw
https://vtdigger.org/2019/11/25/how-vermonts-dmv-makes-millions-selling-personal-information/
======
dsparkman
Florida made $77 million in 2017 alone in selling its DMV data to bill
collectors, data brokers, marketing firms, and insurance companies.

[https://www.fastcompany.com/90376510/floridas-dmv-is-
selling...](https://www.fastcompany.com/90376510/floridas-dmv-is-selling-
drivers-personal-information-to-bill-collectors-and-data-brokers)

~~~
choward
They hardly made any money. That's only 4 dollars per resident. That's
ridiculous. I'd rather they just tax me another 10 dollars than give away my
information without consent.

~~~
paulddraper
Not all residents drive.

But in any case, I doubt many people would think $4/yr for info that's
probably already available.

~~~
SilasX
Nitpick: the comparison should be to the number of residents that get an
official state ID through the DMV, not drivers, and the former is a lot closer
to the total >15-year-old population than drivers would be.

(At least, if Florida is like a typical state DMV, which issues the state ID
cards that may or may not have a driving endorsement.)

------
_dubbs_yo
There was a follow up by the VT Governor on this. He instructed the DMV to
stop the practice for at least private investigators.

Federal law requires some of this information be for sale to insurance
companies, trucking companies, others.

[https://vtdigger.org/2019/12/06/scott-tells-dmv-to-stop-
givi...](https://vtdigger.org/2019/12/06/scott-tells-dmv-to-stop-giving-
private-investigators-personal-data/)

~~~
chadlavi
> Federal law requires some of this information be for sale to insurance
> companies, trucking companies, others.

man, that is incredibly f*cked.

~~~
cptskippy
I don't know how the laws are structured but there is a legitimate need for
information to flow both ways between automotive insurance providers and State
DMVs.

In many States, like GA, Insurers must report vehicle coverage changes to the
State. If you get pulled over, Police Officers do not need to ask for
insurance cards and can cite you for lapsed coverage.

At the same time, insurers want to know for liability purposes all drivers
list at policy residences and when a driver's license is suspended.

Perhaps that information should be free with stipulations on how it can be
used.

~~~
rhizome
> _At the same time, insurers want to know for liability purposes all drivers
> list at policy residences and when a driver 's license is suspended._

What they want is irrelevant, and what they need is not-this. They'll find out
someone's license is suspended when a coverage event happens, and that's it.
Similarly, the police will know your license is suspended before insurance is
in question.

There's simply no need to be proactive about getting that information because
there's no risk to them for not knowing. Same with addresses and pretty much
everything else not on an application for insurance at the outset.

I simply don't see how "liability purposes" fits.

~~~
cptskippy
There are numerous ways it can play out depending on the way each state
structures their liability laws but imagine your child turns 16, you forget or
"forget" to add them to your policy, and they are involved in a serious
accident.

In some states the insurance company is on the hook because everyone at a
residence is covered under the policy unless listed as excluded. The insurance
company has no way to collect on any premium uprate that might have occurred
had you listed them on the policy. And they might have recourse to come after
you. And they could cancel your policy.

In other states the insurance company could retroactively cancel your policy
for failure to list a driver leaving you with the liability from the accident.

------
glitchc
Perhaps it’s time for a federal privacy law if even local governments want in
on the analytics action.

~~~
nfoz
Devil's advocate, why not let Vermonters vote in their own privacy law for
their own government?

~~~
paulddraper
At the risk of getting too political on HN, the knee-jerk reaction to national
(sometimes even international) solutions for every problem is tiresome and
unwise.

Some problems necessitate that, but most do not, this being one of them.

I can't find the source, but I read a strong argument about the difficult of
moving between nations, states, and municipalities, and the conclusion was
that the more localized the legislation, the greater freedom people have.
"Vote with your feet"-type deal.

~~~
slg
The only time I have ever heard of people moving somewhere because of laws is
rich people moving to save on taxes. I have not personally known a single
person who has actually voted with their feet on issues like this. Maybe I'm
an outlier on that, but anecdotally it just doesn't seem like a real thing in
practice despite it being a common theory. I would guess that is especially
true on something like privacy which is likely very few peoples top priorities
when choosing a place to live.

~~~
paulddraper
_Many people_ move because of taxes, government programs, cost of living,
education, social norms, housing, transportation, job opportunities, etc.

All of these are directly or indirectly influenced by policy.

\---

Would you move purely because of a DMV privacy policy? No, probably not. But
the basic principal of being able to choose your government by your location
is sound.

At the extreme local level, consider HOAs. Their presence certainly influences
people's choice to live there.

~~~
slg
Almost all the things you listed that in my experience actually motivate
people are indirectly influenced by policy. The things that are directly
influenced by government action like government programs rarely seem to have
an impact (taxes can be an exception like previously mentioned).

>Would you move purely because of a DMV privacy policy? No, probably not. But
the basic principal of being able to choose your government by your location
is sound.

But doesn't that last sentence invalidate the first? If no one actually moves
based off privacy law, the idea of allowing people to choose their own privacy
law through voting with their feet is pointless in practice.

I don't think HOAs are a good comparison because it is trivially easy to move
a couple blocks within a city in comparison to moving to a different state or
country. Also a lot of problems within HOAs stem from interpersonal conflicts
and not fundamental differences in political ideology.

~~~
paulddraper
> it is trivially easy to move a couple blocks within a city in comparison to
> moving to a different state or country

Exactly. Extreme example of how the more localized we can keep politics, the
better people can choose their government.

> If no one actually moves based off privacy law

A. Just like employment, there is a totality of factors to consider.

B. That should tell you how important it is.

> Also a lot of problems within HOAs stem from interpersonal conflicts

Have you ever seen state or national news?

\---

I'm suggesting that as a rule, it's best to localize policy when possible.

Even if you disagree with the principal of "vote with your feet", there is
still the point of how unnecessary it is to have 300 million people reach a
consensus on DMV operation, when all you really need is the couple million it
actually affects.

~~~
slg
>Exactly. Extreme example of how the more localized we can keep politics, the
better people can choose their government.

Using this logic, why doesn't every block in the US have their own local
government? The reason is that these things don't scale linearly and that some
decisions need to be made on a large scale in order to be practical. You can't
have individual blocks creating their own privacy legislation and expect
companies to be able to meet every law in every jurisdiction. There is a
reason you have probably gotten dozen of "We have updated our privacy policy"
emails over the last two months and that is because of the CCPA. Are we
supposed to go through that process every time any individual municipality
adjust their laws? Coming to a consensus on a singular approach to something
like that is much more efficient even if large groups of people are unhappy
with the final law.

~~~
paulddraper
I never claimed that every problem is best solved at the neighborhood block
level.

I think Vermont DMV is best solved at the Vermont level.

------
VectorLock
I wonder how many DMVs do this. I bet its way more than people think.

I went to a tire retailer website and they were able to look up make/model car
by having me put in my license plate number. I thought that was pretty creepy
- if that have that, what else do they have?

~~~
Spooky23
Probably more than you think.

There are private networks selling near real time location data from LPRs.
There are probably physical retailers that can map you from the cash register
to your vehicle.

------
hinkley
If you’re in Washington State, chat up the DoL clerk the next time you renew
your tabs. They’re not a government office, and they’ve been legislated to
only make a couple bucks off of each tab or plate.

If memory serves they make more money off the convenience fee for paying with
a credit card than they do off of the licensing.

They basically don’t have a way to turn a net profit. This is exactly the sort
of situation that would make someone sell customer data.

~~~
QuotedForTruth
I think the situation that makes the DMV sell their customer data is
privatization of the DMV. Why should the DMV have to turn a profit? If they
weren't at some point turned into a profit seeking entity, there would be no
motivation to make money off their customers personal info.

~~~
Keverw
Wonder what other states have done privatization... I know I was reading in
Texas, driving schools are allowed to give you your driving exam, so you can
do the written test online and the driven test with the same driving school
you bought your lessons from. I thought that was kinda cool and unique. So be
useful if you are an adult who never got their license but don't really have
any family or friends to let you use their car for a test. I know someone who
refuses to let their adult child have a driver license as long as they still
live at home because they fear a rise in insurance rates due to their age. I
think i'd be cool if high school had driver ed again like in the old days.

~~~
vonmoltke
> I know someone who refuses to let their adult child have a driver license as
> long as they still live at home because they fear a rise in insurance rates
> due to their age.

That was my situation. I didn't get a license until I was 22, a month or so
before I moved out (and the move was planned when I did).

------
korethr
> DMV officials say the vast majority of the revenue comes from insurance
> companies and businesses who buy information about their employees’ driving
> histories.

> However, the department has also allowed law firms, private investigators
> and out-of-state corporations to buy or access personal information about
> Vermont drivers, including where they live, the cars they drive, their
> driving records and their criminal histories.

None of that strikes me as improper, with the exception of maybe out-of-state
corporations, and in that case, it would depend on what the corporation was
and what they intended to use the data for. Whether the data remains in
possession of the corp after its original intended use (and for how long) and
whether it is kept only for the original stated use or made available to other
portions of the corp for other purposes would play into whether I considered
that in improper or not.

IOW, the case of selling data to corporations is gonna be a case-by-case "it
depends".

As for insurance companies and private investigators, I think it is right and
proper that such entities can look up things like address, criminal history,
or vehicles owned. While it seems that every entity gathering up any and all
possible data about people will claim that all of the data gathered serves a
legitimate business need, in the case of entities like insurance companies or
investigators, I think that claim is more likely to be true than not.

------
DN20
I am surprised that VTdigger would report this, since they typically side with
the state instead of the individual, and aggressively solicit donations from
unions & corporations that profit from the corrupt status quo in Vermont. The
executive director is a corporate fascist who worships the state and censors
like crazy: the board routinely breaks their own posting rules to permit or
remove comments in accordance with their political agendas. Pointless whining
is always welcome, but hard facts and practical solutions are prohibited.
Here's an example of censored comments from the current article:

> "We don’t just let anybody have it."

Smith is obviously lying here: if the data is so easy to get that nearly 800
companies already have it, there is simply no way to monitor & regulate what
is done with that data. Some of these companies are false fronts, and the data
is being used for criminal purposes — including fraud & industrial espionage.
The public should refuse to support the governor in the next election until he
prosecutes Smith for every stolen record in the DMV database. I recommend that
we offer him a deal: 20 years in prison for a guilty plea, versus a life
sentence for a quarter million deliberate violations of the fourth amendment
(which amounts to high treason.)

> Federal law requires DMVs to provide driver information to government
> agencies, and sell it to certain businesses...

The correct phrasing here would be "federal policy", not "federal law": A
federal statute or regulation which violates the federal constitution is not
law. The powers of the federal government are enumerated in Article I, and all
other powers are reserved to the states by the tenth amendment. When the
states created the federal constitution they did NOT create a federal police
jurisdiction within the states. The federal government has no lawful authority
to demand personal information on state residents, or dictate state DMV
policy.

------
krallja
Illinois DMV definitely sells names and addresses. They misspelled my name in
a very unique way on my drivers license once, and I’ve received junk mail to
that name ever since.

~~~
oops
Did you ever present that license to anyone though? It could have been them
that sold your info. e.g. concert venues who scan licenses, etc. Not that I
doubt the DMV did it!

~~~
krallja
No, I noticed the error while walking out of the DMV and went back in line to
have it corrected. The physical card never left the premises!

------
77pt77
There are a bunch of websites with this information available for a very small
fee.

It's incredible you can find names, addresses, phone numbers, emails,
properties, cars owned, etc.

Most of the questions asked for identity verification are useless if so much
information is effectively public.

And then there are soft credit checks...

My impression is that there is a huge blind spot in americans regarding these
things, they not only don't care but are hostile to anyone pointing the
problems.

I don't see this improving in the future.

------
ddingus
What other States allow their DMV to do this?

~~~
kevin_thibedeau
Pretty much all of them. NY DMV shares information with the private, foreign
company running the 407 toll highway in Toronto. Canadians from other
provinces have better data protection that prevents such sharing.

------
sukilot
Public information for sale:

> The database shows where people live, what cars are registered to them,
> whether they have criminal records, and their driving histories.

> The only information it won’t provide on any condition is driver medical
> information and Social Security numbers, according to DMV officials.
> Photographs are also not for sale.

------
rubyfan
As is every other DMV. Also voting records. Chalk it up to bankrupt state
governments.

------
m463
California does too.

I wonder if the new california privacy law allows you to opt out somehow.

------
pdq
Pretty much all states sell this data. It's vital for auto insurance companies
to be able to get up-to-date driving records for policy quotes.

~~~
miketery
The issue isn't for insurance companies (where there is consent).

> “Nobody — from agencies like the DMV to large corporations like Facebook and
> Google — should be profiting from sharing or selling personal information
> without meaningful consent. Congress must get serious about ending practices
> that violate the privacy of ordinary Americans,” Sanders said.

------
whalesalad
If it means a pleasant experience at the DMV... sign me up.

~~~
hinkley
I like you, you’re funny.

A pleasant experience at the DMV... hahaha!

------
madcow2011
Some of this is necessary, I think. When you get an auto insurance quote,
companies like ChoicePoint (LexisNexis) are what provide driver history
(accidents, violations, insurance fraud info, etc).

So it's not like they're Google/FB/Amazon using this data for ad purposes.

Obviously, not all of the money comes from carriers like this, but I wanted to
point out that _some_ of it is legit.

~~~
choward
What's to stop those same insurance companies from using it for marketing
purposes?

