Don't you think rerouting DNS, configuring your DNS server specifically for a handful of clients, and running a web server to stream video data over your local wireless network (noting that the OP had network security concerns already) that could easily be stored locally might be overkill if the device itself can be left running only the video app?

I don't want to deprive you of geek points, but sometimes there might be a simpler solution.

Setup a wireless network where all the HTTP requests go to the server with your content.

At least on some very popular models of tablets, it is unnecessarily difficult to restrict settings like DNS servers.

Something like this might be helpful though. Only run the Video client with the videos available locally.

So in summary, what you are telling me is that with all the sharp breaking/swerving I have to do as a matter of course on my daily commute, is that I'm a bad driver? I for one, wont be accepting a company that requires such an invasion of my privacy.

That's a straw man argument. I said nothing of the sort.

What I'm telling you is that if you have a lot of sharp braking/swerving then you might be more likely to have an accident. Ergo you're a higher risk to insure and the insurance company may wish to raise your premium.

Being a higher risk doesn't necessarily mean you're a better or worse driver. In your case it's simply that the conditions you have to drive in that may make you more of a risk. However, if most people who live where you do encounter the same number of folk cutting them off, and your hard braking/swerving while being more frequent than you personally would like is below average, you could even see a premium reduction.

The insurance company doesn't really care about your driving ability per se. They care about your risk. A poor driver who only ever drives along 40 miles of straight rural road once a week is probably a lower insurance risk than an average driver who commutes fifteen miles a day in rush hour city traffic.

To clarify, because apparently that's necessary, how vigorously somebody starts/stops, or navigates their turns, depends on a myriad of other conditions that the GPS is simply incapable of recording. Road temperature, ice/snow/rain, other drivers, pedestrians with a desire to tempt fate, wildlife running out into traffic, etc.. The fact that you stop suddenly is not an indication of your inability to drive safely, and could actually be an indication that you're a *good* driver (a bad driver might not react at all and end up hitting the dog that ran out into the road). To use a GPS in that way is bad science at best, and negligent at worst, because it has the potential to reward bad driving habits (such as driving too slow or not paying proper attention to the road) while penalising good habits (such as reacting to sudden changes in driving conditions).

I'm still unsure as to your point?

If the data they collect shows that for the majority of drivers this indicates you're more likely to be involved in an accident then you're placed in an appropriate group by the insurance company for the risk they can assess.

A good driver may occasionally be confronted with a car that cuts them off or a pedestrian that forces them to break sharply. However a bad driver would statistically face a similar number of such obstacles while having more hard brakes due to driving too fast and too close. The good driver will still appear statistically safer to the insurance company.

I don't think the insurance company is claiming it's perfect. But I don't think your argument that some data may be imperfect means none of the data can be used stands muster.

The insurance company knows random stuff happens, but over 12,000+ miles per year, random stuff should average out. If you're frequently slamming on the brakes because of pedestrians running in front of your car, then however good a driver you are your risk of an accident is higher than mine and I see no reason why your premium should not reflect that.

I tend to agree. It's worth pointing out that Progressive Insurance in the US monitor much the same data without the use of GPS. So they monitor time of day, speed and hard braking but don't use GPS so are not invading your privacy to nearly the same extent while still being in possession of useful data.

Of course GPS data allows your insurer to factor in other aspects too, like the accident rate for the actual road your driving on at the time of day you're using it. I can see why they'd like to have that data, but I'd personally be much more reluctant to hand it over.

Using GPS data to determine "how well you make a turn" is BS, and a dangerous route to go.

Why is it BS? If they've tested this, they would know quite quickly whether there's a statistically significant link to your likelihood of having an accident.

Just because there will be outliers in each group doesn't mean this isn't a sensible way to apportion risk. As a non-smoker I expect my life insurance costs to be lower than those for a smoker. Still I could get hit by a truck tomorrow, while my neighbor who smokes might live until they're 100.

The biggest problem I can see is the risk that insurance for poor drivers could become so expensive more of them opt to drive uninsured.

It would have been nice if they reply atleast pointed us in the right direction.. who the fuck are we supposed to ask to look into this if not the Whitehouse?

I agree that would be nice. Since they didn't, and since you ask, the answer would be the FBI and the US Attorney's Office. I believe you can contact them yourself if you believe a crime has been committed, it doesn't require the president.

Exactly as I predicted when everybody here on Slashdot was insisting the would HAVE TO act.

This is Obama, he need only make the promise. He doesn't have to DO anything.

Are you seriously suggesting there should be a criminal investigation against anyone where 25,000 people call for it?

This has nothing to do with Obama. it has everything to do with Federal prosecutors. Write a letter to both the FBI and the US Attorney's Office stating that you believe a crime has been committed that is within their jurisdiction and requesting they investigate. 25,000 letters like that might achieve something.

There are also issues with PGP and webmail used by probably the majority of home users, as well as the multitude of devices people now have for email.

You need to sync keys between devices securely, and with webmail you pretty much need to have a browser plugin take over the signing part, unless you want to entrust your private key to a third party.

Simply checking mail onan untrusted web terminal then becomes problematic - sure you can read signed but not encrypted email, but if you tell people it's okay to trust that sometimes, they won't bother checking at other times.

There are very real costs to carbon reduction.

Correct, it's not like anyone has ever associated California with smog or anything. Not like employees lose millions of potential work days per year to illness from poor air quality.

Of course there are costs to reducing carbon output. There are also very real costs to keeping carbon output at current levels.