The New GM and Privacy
[Guest post by DRJ]
GM is out of bankruptcy and calling itself the New GM. New GM is keeping the “core brands” — Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick and GMC cars, trucks and crossovers. New GM is also emailing old GM customers, reassuring them that it will service GM vehicles and offering ‘summer savings‘ on new purchases.
The email includes this notice:
“We want to keep you informed about updates that are relevant to you. General Motors Corporation, Saturn LLC, and Saturn Distribution Corporation are transferring your personal information (e.g., your contact information and vehicle purchase history) to General Motors Company. General Motors Company has substantially the same privacy policies in place as General Motors Corporation had.”
Call me cynical but “substantially the same” is not “the same” privacy policy. I suspect the main difference is that my owner information is now being shared with court and government data bases.
I planned to end this post here but then I found New GM’s Privacy Statement. Here is a brief excerpt and I suspect the bolded portion is the new addition:
Your privacy is important to General Motors Company (GM), as is your trust in GM products and services. We want you to know that the information you share with us will be treated with care.
***
The information you share with us may be used by GM, our affiliates, our licensees, and dealers. It may be used by our suppliers exclusively to provide services for GM, and by our business partners to conduct joint marketing programs with GM. It may also be shared in connection with the sale, transfer or financing of a significant part of a GM business. We will not share your personal information with third parties other than these, or with any third party for their independent use without your permission.
Court, government and maybe more databases.
PS — Feel free to use this post to talk about GM exiting bankruptcy, too.
— DRJ
I thought GM’s new CEO, Obama, I think his name was, was a believer in a strong right of privacy.
HowdySir (0d70bb) — 7/11/2009 @ 2:23 pmGM is coming out of a sham BK proceeding. Secured Creditors got screwed so Obama could dole out the alms to all his buddies in the UAW! No where does the Constitution grant the Executive with power to do what Obsama did to legitimate investors in GM and Chrysler like the Indiana Pension Funds. Plain and simple they got screwed so Obsama could pay back the UAW for helping him get elected (and to help getting him re-elected).
We should start a pool: Pick the date Government Motors needs another bailout? I say it won’t last a year. By July 4, 2010 GM will be back at the government trough begging for more cash.
In a free market, GM would be allowed to die. Artificially prolonging that certain death will only make it more expensive, and take longer to get it over with thereby extending the agony.
We’re screwed. Our children are screwed worse. Our grandchildren are screwed even worse. Hope n’ change baby, hope n’ change.
J. Raymond Wright (e8d0ca) — 7/11/2009 @ 2:26 pmIf the govt gets the data it may be subject to the privacy act.
imdw (e6c812) — 7/11/2009 @ 2:47 pmGood one, HowdySir. I wish I’d thought of it.
DRJ (6f3f43) — 7/11/2009 @ 2:58 pmimdw,
I guess that would make my data about as safe as Joe the Plumber’s personal information.
DRJ (6f3f43) — 7/11/2009 @ 3:02 pmsigh…. they have everything they will ever need on me due to my career choices. Still won’t buy a GM under any circumstance.
voiceofreason2 (451cf4) — 7/11/2009 @ 3:21 pmThe federal privacy act is different. It may not be safer, but you at least can sue. Sometimes.
imdw (015b0a) — 7/11/2009 @ 3:23 pmSuing the government is usually a snap, quick too.
/sarc
daleyrocks (718861) — 7/11/2009 @ 3:27 pmIf either GM or Chrystler go back into bankrupcy within the next five years I don’t see the political will to bail them out again being present. I hope no one buys the UAW shares when those go on the market, would be sweet justice.
Soronel Haetir (2a5236) — 7/11/2009 @ 3:37 pmSince I refuse to do business with that dirty little socialist company, I am not worried about them getting my personal information. For “marketing” purposes, I guess they can give your personal info to the UAW. That ought to be comforting.
JD (60310b) — 7/11/2009 @ 3:44 pmI’m curious if the government and/or New GM will use owner information to target big gas-guzzling, carbon-emitting vehicles for buyouts or carbon credit “offers.”
DRJ (6f3f43) — 7/11/2009 @ 4:48 pmIt may also be shared in connection with the sale, transfer or financing of a significant part of a GM business.
That seems like a pretty standard clause to me. I’m all in favor of abolishing such clauses across the board, but unless we’re going to do that, I don’t see why releasing data to non-government buyers or financers should be ok but releasing data to the government, acting in the guise of a buyer or financer, shouldn’t be.
aphrael (9e8ccd) — 7/11/2009 @ 5:56 pmGovernment has power, authority and access that individual companies don’t. Thus, while I agree there are good reasons to make this information available to parties to a transaction, it’s another reason government should not be one of those parties.
DRJ (6f3f43) — 7/11/2009 @ 6:09 pmObama’s $50 billion centralized Electronic Health Records project has some privacy issues with it too. This comprehensive log of the time and location of every doctor visit, prescription transaction, and medical test has potential for abuse. TMZ.com is looking forward to this database coming online.
Wesson (03286d) — 7/11/2009 @ 6:13 pmI’d never buy a GM or Chrysler product after Presidente Zero has given these businesses to his supporters. I doubt many former patrons will buy into this new government entity.
Thomas Jackson (8ffd46) — 7/11/2009 @ 9:04 pmDRJ, that’s a fair point, but given that the government is one of those parties in the case of the new GM, what should it do? Not share the information and be at a disadvantage at the negotiating table?
I guess what I’m saying is: the decision to nationalize GM has already been made and implemented. Whether that was a good decision or not, at this point it’s in everybody’s interest for the new GM to do whatever it can to be successful, thereby repaying the investment and making subsequent privatization feasible. So, if this kind of information-sharing clause is standard in the industry, and if it is there for an economically functional reason, then – absent a push to ban it in general – I want the new GM to do it.
aphrael (9e8ccd) — 7/11/2009 @ 9:08 pmWesson: that project is a nightmare, and fundamentally I think it’s a result of two incompatible goals.
Goal #1: have my medical records easily accessible to any doctor I see.
Goal #2: have my medical records not easily accessible to anyone else.
I think it’s impossible to resolve these two without an ironclad way to ensure that anyone trying to access the information is a doctor currently treating me (or someone else I have authorized). As far as I can tell, the tech doesn’t exist to do it.
aphrael (9e8ccd) — 7/11/2009 @ 9:10 pm