
The Oregon DMV took in $11.5M last year by selling your information - fortran77
https://katu.com/news/following-the-money/the-oregon-dmv-took-in-115-million-last-year-by-selling-your-information
======
dang
Related from a few days ago:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22013559](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22013559)

The title says Vermont, but the thread covers other states too.

------
mint2
Insurance companies buy your reports from states or 3rd party aggregators who
bought from the states.

It can actually cost a lot. Oklahoma charges a hefty fee.

Some of this cost is passed back to the consumer through higher overall rates.

But because some people aren’t honest about their tickets and accidents, the
reports help prevent clean drivers from subsidizing accident prone but not
truthful drivers.

~~~
harikb
I see what you did there. The entire reason insurance company buys the data is
to raise rates by zip code or whatever they do.

Now if the insurance is anyways f-ing me over, I might as well have the
state/gov earn some money from it.

Ask the insurance company for some of their data and see if they provide for
free

------
ShroudedNight
> "The DMV lets drivers know about that. It's in the DMV privacy act. How many
> people are actually looking at that, I don't know. But it's there,”

This is not informed consent. Being available if someone is already aware
enough to know where and how to acquire the information is not sufficiently
informative. There is a duty to ensure that your counter-party is aware of the
all eventualities to the transaction that could materially harm their quality
of life.

I believe that for all transactions where a party is acquiring data for use
beyond the direct fulfillment of the immediate service to the counter-party,
the party acquiring the data should require informed consent from the counter-
party. Further, in the case of a person transacting with government, with
potentially some carful circumscription for aspects of law enforcement, I
believe the state should additionally carry the data equivalent to a fiduciary
duty for that transaction.

------
ceejayoz
Most states seem to do this.

Vermont: [https://vtdigger.org/2019/11/25/how-vermonts-dmv-makes-
milli...](https://vtdigger.org/2019/11/25/how-vermonts-dmv-makes-millions-
selling-personal-information/)

Florida: [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)

California: [https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/evjekz/the-california-
dmv...](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/evjekz/the-california-dmv-is-
making-dollar50m-a-year-selling-drivers-personal-information)

Federal law apparently _requires_ they provide the info to some clients,
including insurance companies.

------
wool_gather
While this is worth writing an article about, the headline seems slanted to
draw clicks.

I think a more accurate characterization would be as follows. By state law,
some information in a licensed driver's record is public. The DMV regulates
access to the information, and charges a fee for the service.

The point to emphasize -- and criticize -- is the law that says the
information is public. This is the thing that has to be addressed if the
situation needs to change.

The DMV is just executing that law, not, as implied by the headline, going
rogue and nefariously trying to make some extra bucks by auctioning off
citizens' info.

------
rootusrootus
As an Oregonian, I am disappointed that is all they got.

~~~
harikb
Exactly this! I hope our data is worth more

------
danmg
This is happening in other states too. As soon as you title a new car, you
start getting a ton more junk mail that's referring your make/model of car.

~~~
wool_gather
Are you sure this is from DMV records access and not the dealer? (I suppose it
could easily be _both_.)

~~~
magduf
I'm guessing maybe both. I don't see why my dealer would want someone else
trying to sell me a warranty extension; that competes directly with the
dealer.

~~~
cosmie
The dealer likely hit you with a warranty extension pitch during the sales
process. So the only potential sales cannibalization would be from individuals
that _might_ have purchased a warranty from the dealer after the sale. The
guaranteed revenue from leasing out the list would more than likely makes up
for that possibility, especially if it's coordinated at the manufacturer
level.

~~~
magduf
Dealers will also hit you with warranty extension pitches shortly before your
warranty expires. But you're right, they might be figuring that selling that
info to competitors might net them more money than relying on their own sales
tactics.

------
csours
This is one of the things that happens when you don't raise taxes. (obviously
it's more complicated than that...)

~~~
magduf
Is raising taxes preferable though? In the present scenario, taxes are lower,
because the government is making up for it by selling my info to marketeers,
who then try to sell me crap I don't want. I don't buy any of it, but a
percentage of my more-gullible neighbors do. So, in effect, the more gullible
citizens are subsidizing the smarter or at least more frugal ones.
Alternatively, if the government stopped selling info and jacked up taxes, I'd
lose out on this subsidization. I don't see how this is really a benefit to
me. Basically, it amounts to a "stupid tax".

~~~
csours
Like I said, of course it's more complicated than that. Also, I will point
out, that we are all "stupid" at some point. For instance young people and
elderly people are more susceptible to scams/advertisement. If you think you
will never be elderly, that's fine, but maybe I want my parents to be
protected.

~~~
magduf
Personally, I don't think elderly people who've become gullible have any
business operating a motor vehicle. It's a massive failure of our society that
not being stuck at home in most places requires a car, and this should be
fixed. This would also mostly eliminate the need for a DMV.

------
jiveturkey
All states do this.

