Data-Driven Deception

This was a tough year to be a features journalist. While a small amount of content started to dribble out of its domain by the end of the year, we effectively lost Vice this year. Stalwarts like Pitchfork saw a sharp cut in their presence.

And, oh yeah, the billionaires started to show that they weren’t afraid of meddling in the media outlets they bought. It feels a little more ethically compromising than ever to link to some media outlets, even the big ones. As you may have caught, over the last two years I have tried to minimize my linking of the New York Times, which seems in many cases to be wearing its mandate all wrong. It leans heavily on the “view from nowhere,” and often puts its hand on the scale.

As a newsletter that writes about history, I traditionally relied on its archives a lot, because they are the best you’ll find for a large media outlet. Last year, I decided to stop, or at least dribble to a crawl. I pointed to their handling of transgender issues, an issue they are not alone in totally blowing. But I also felt like this was a check on me to not just do this research on easy mode. I can still link to the Times, but I need to call it out and make sure I’m only doing so when it’s deserved.

So, with all of that preface … it doesn’t make me jump for joy that my pick for this year’s winner for Best Feature Article is a Times story. But it is a deserving one that made a real impact.

That impact comes from Kashmir Hill, a reporter named after a Led Zeppelin song who has been doing some of the best reporting on digital privacy of anyone around. Hill’s March piece, “Automakers Are Sharing Consumers’ Driving Behavior With Insurance Companies,” exposed something that affected the lives of real people and represented an under-the-radar privacy violation.

In essence, automakers have utilized the innovations that have made cars smarter to both gather data about how people drive, but then distribute it to data brokers, who then sell it back to insurers. And when I say data brokers, I am talking about LexisNexis, a company that cut its teeth on being a researcher’s best friend, and is now using that mandate to sell drivers’ private data directly to insurers.

The intro to the piece makes it clear that what is happening is a direct byproduct of automotive innovation:

Kenn Dahl says he has always been a careful driver. The owner of a software company near Seattle, he drives a leased Chevrolet Bolt. He’s never been responsible for an accident.

So Mr. Dahl, 65, was surprised in 2022 when the cost of his car insurance jumped by 21 percent. Quotes from other insurance companies were also high. One insurance agent told him his LexisNexis report was a factor.

LexisNexis is a New York-based global data broker with a “Risk Solutions” division that caters to the auto insurance industry and has traditionally kept tabs on car accidents and tickets. Upon Mr. Dahl’s request, LexisNexis sent him a 258-page “consumer disclosure report,” which it must provide per the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

What it contained stunned him: more than 130 pages detailing each time he or his wife had driven the Bolt over the previous six months. It included the dates of 640 trips, their start and end times, the distance driven and an accounting of any speeding, hard braking or sharp accelerations. The only thing it didn’t have is where they had driven the car.

The piece untangles a mess of privacy and data-collection policies, pushed forth by apps and middlemen, and it makes clear something that was previously under the radar. It is an impeccable scoop, and it had real-world impact within mere weeks of its publishing. Hill was writing follow-ups throughout the year, including about her own personal driving experience. At least one of the two data brokers in the story shut down the related business in direct response to the story, and General Motors stopped doing business with both companies as a result of Hill’s reporting. When all is said and done, I could imagine stronger laws might be in place to prevent this indirect pipeline between automakers and insurers.

It was difficult this year to make impact with reporting right now, especially in a politically charged environment. Hill’s story managed to do so, creating impacts that plugged into both her existing reporting and the broader narrative that, without checks, businesses will do whatever they want with our data, even when it directly harms their customers.

The Times makes itself hard to love these days, but their reporters do things like this often enough that we can’t close them out entirely. (I will probably continue linking sparingly, that said.)

For now, props to Hill for writing such an impactful story.