I did a little bit of research on the "Progressive snapshot device" and they claim at the Progressive website that "The Snapshot device doesn't track your location or whether you're speeding, and it doesn't contain GPS technology."

But after further investigation the device transmits signals either live real time or in smaller batches of information through cell phone towers. It plugs directly into the OBD 2 (On Board Diagnostics port) that hooks up directly to your car's computer.

As someone put into the comments section of an article discussing this device at Slashgear.com

http://www.slashgear.com/progressive-snapshot-hardware-details-revealed-15140002/

"vehicle-speed, engine RPM, throttle position and when you press the brake" are all information sent by the device.

And much like cell phone towers it can be used to triangulate the vehicles position.

I think I will do a big NOOO THANK YOU FLO to this little beauty.

I imagine not too much longer in the future there will be calls to incorporate cute little devices like this onto every vehicle made. After all if you are not breaking any driving laws why would you object? Are you a terrorist insurgent speeder trying to kill children?

Then we can create a new department to handle the oversight.

The DVI Department of vehicle Information. Issue them some military camo and name tapes, load them up with rifles and use breaching charges to remove children from the homes of people who endanger their child's safety by refusing to use the tracking devices in their vehicles.

After all if you are not breaking any driving laws why would you object? Are you a terrorist insurgent speeder trying to kill children?|

i love you

I'm sure it's just my imagination, but it seems much more blatant over the last couple years.

It's like they don't even care to disguise it anymore.

You win the internet for today, and it's not your imagination. Every element of our "master's" behavior is in-your-face provocative. IMO, they want to stir up "militia", "white supremist", Tea-Party or other generally-recognized "nutcases". Pardon the expression, but this dick-waving is bound to provoke one of DHS's "domestic enemies" into a bloody, totally inappropriate response. Then our Messiah will reluctantly declare martial law.

Maybe they are testing us to see if we are worthy? Maybe there was an agreement made by the founding fathers to test us to see if we are worthy of inheriting these rights? Maybe there is a secret government clause to intentionally wipe their asses with the constitution as many times as possible to see if there are any true patriots left? A test if you will. And we are failing because no one will stand up and fight it?

Maybe all it takes is one John brown every hundred years to prove we are worthy of inheriting these rights and freedoms?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_%28abolitionist%29

I posted this a month ago. The whole thing is a bit disturbing. If they didn't want it to seem normal, why air it? If everyone found it uncomfortable and not natural, it could potentially turn them off from the company. Unfortunately most people find this okay.

Yes, definitely a strange commercial. However, the logistics of the implications of your analysis don't add up.

For example, no one can really argue against the shift towards a police state given all the recent events(tsa, anaheim, ows, etc)

If this police state is part of a grand scheme being ushered in by the ruling elite, then your interpretation of the video suggests 'predictive programming'. This is what I take exception with because in order for commercials to be carrying the 'right' message, the ad firm involved would need to be 'in on it' in order to tailor their ads appropriately.

Add up all the 'predictive' messages/ads out there (eg. coke;cctv) and the companies involved, and it would require too many people to be aware of the 'plan' to keep it secret; and no discernable method to compartmentalize the nature of the task to hide the motivations.

That is the most legitimate criticism of any suggestion of this nature.

It's like a catch 22. If the "plan" and influence really is so widespread, then how can that possibly be reconciled with the numbers required to pull it off quietly?

I think this is a good question to ask and a necessary balance. It think the slide towards a police state is practically undeniable, but it's hard to come up with a feasible answer for what you asked.

To flip this question, maybe we should consider the marketing team as trying to manipulate the subconscious conception of power dynamics and reverence for authority that's been cultivated by the establishment. Maybe if a commercial can activate associations between the product and a body of power like the TSA, then it's beneficial? People are aggressively being trained to be cooperative and give authority to the TSA, so perhaps a display of that when paired with a product in some way persuades a person to purchase the product or service?

I think what you asked is the biggest sticking point in these types of discussions.

well that was creepy

You must have been pretty high when you thought of this. I'm not completely disagreeing with you or anything but you gotta admit this is some damn fine stoner paranoia.

This Flo character's name and crimson lipstick makes me think of period blood.

I don't see it. I won't be installing their tracker in my car anytime soon but as a private insurance company, if it helps them keep costs down (since their customers will probably drive less aggressively knowing they are being monitored)... then it's up to them. For me, I'd rather pay a higher premium but maintain my privacy.

I doubt we'll see a push for these things in all cars for two reasons:

• Everybody speeds. Laws that affect a bunch of people don't get enforced as hard as other ones do. Notice that it's just accepted that people drink and drive? You'd think if they really wanted to stop it... bars would be monitored much more closely. It also depends if it's an activity that politicians and police like to do themselves. They like to speed and they like to drink and drive. They don't like protesting, don't like weed, etc. These are enforced much more closely.

• Speeding and whatnot generate revenue. If people were too scared to speed, we'd see less speeding tickets being written. I don't think they (the politicians and police) want that. They want people speeding. That's why speed limits are set artificially low.

It starts off as a choice to install it.

Then it becomes mandatory with one insurance company.

Then every insurance company makes it mandatory.

Then you are arrested for not being insured.

Where I live, you are not arrested for having no car insurance.

Not yet.