Insurers Are Spying on Your Home From the Sky

[Landon Caeli]

Companies are using drones to check out roofs or to spot yard debris and undeclared trampolines.

Cindy Picos was dropped by her home insurer last month. The reason: aerial photos of her roof, which her insurer refused to let her see.

“I thought they had the wrong house,” said Picos, who lives in northern California. “Our roof is in fine shape.”

https://www.wsj.com/real-estate/home-insurance-aerial-images-37a18b16

Redirect Notice

 

[Hazelelponi]

That's new ..

 

[Landon Caeli]

Using technology in ways that negatively impact people's opinions is, IMO, a "scandal".

....The bad part about this, is that it causes people to think about how they can use technology to their own personal benefit as well! Such as attaching bombs to drones, and blowing things up that they don't like, such as political rallies, protests, abortion clinic's, the personal homes of political rivals, etc.

We ought to think long and hard about how we use, or *misuse* technology, for the greater good of society.

 

[AlexB23]

Companies are using drones to check out roofs or to spot yard debris and undeclared trampolines.

Cindy Picos was dropped by her home insurer last month. The reason: aerial photos of her roof, which her insurer refused to let her see.

“I thought they had the wrong house,” said Picos, who lives in northern California. “Our roof is in fine shape.”

https://www.wsj.com/real-estate/home-insurance-aerial-images-37a18b16

Redirect Notice

Seems that "1984" has become reality. Aerial tech can be used for good, such as monitoring crops and farms, but can also be used for bad, such as spying on home owners.


Here is a summary of the article (Fury as home insurance companies cancel coverage after drone photos) below:

The article by Dolores Chang, published on April 6, 2024, in the Wall Street Journal reports on homeowners' accusations against insurance companies for canceling their coverage after covertly capturing images of their properties using drones, high-altitude balloons, and manned airplanes. Cindy Picos, a resident of Auburn, California, was one such homeowner who was dropped by CSAA Insurance after they obtained aerial photos of her roof without her knowledge or consent. Picos was denied access to view the images and felt that her roof was in good condition.

Marilyn Smith and CJ Sveen, among other homeowners, shared similar experiences where their policies were rejected after the insurance company monitored their homes via drone. The Geospatial Insurance Consortium, a company providing aerial imagery and geospatial information to insurers, covers 99 percent of the US population through its airplane imagery program.

Homeowners whose policies were canceled reportedly included those with deferred maintenance on their pools or clutter in their front yards. CSAA and AAA Homeowners Insurance are among the companies that have been criticized for using aerial images to clear out customers they don't want, as some homeowners were not given an opportunity to address the issues before their policies were non-renewed.

The use of aerial images for underwriting and rating is raising concerns regarding consumer privacy, with some arguing that the technology is ahead of any consumer protections. Douglas Heller, director of insurance at the Consumer Federation of America, stated that part of the industry strategy is to avoid situations where consumers can say 'yes' or 'no' to this kind of "spyware" approach to underwriting and rating. Neil Pearson, a consultant who works with imagery companies, anticipates that the use of aerial images will only get more detailed and frequent in the future.

The article notes that some insurance companies have stopped writing new policies in California due to wildfire concerns, adding to the tension for homeowners whose policies are being canceled. Some believe that this could be an opportunity for companies to use aerial images to clear out customers they don't want, as Nichole Brink, a former agent for Farmers Insurance, put it: "It's like they're using anything as an excuse to get people off their books." DailyMail.com reached out to the insurance companies for further information on their policies and practices regarding aerial image usage in underwriting and rating.

 

[bèlla]

John Williams began sounding alarms on insurance companies a year ago. He mentioned pending hikes, policy cancellations and modifications that were quietly made to disqualify many. When you tell people a takedown is underway they think you're paranoid or a conspiracy theorist. But no one following the money is asleep. Things are moving fast.

Stories like this are a foreshadowing of things to come. Do you think that's the lone use they've devised? When you tell people we'll live in a surveillance society they don't believe you. When you say social credit's on the horizon they say it will never happen.

You know the old adage about "Lord why didn't you help me?" And He replies, I sent you this, this, and this and you ignored it.

~bella

 

[JosephZ]

These same people would have had their policies canceled for the same reasons 30 years ago. Homeowners policies have always required that the property be free of clutter and other hazards, along with the home being properly maintained and in good repair. Using drones or other aircraft to inspect a property isn't much different than a field inspector doing the same from the ground. In both cases, they inspect the property without the knowledge or consent of the homeowner.

 

[AlexB23]

These same people would have had their policies canceled for the same reasons 30 years ago. Homeowners policies have always required that the property be free of clutter and other hazards, along with the home being properly maintained and in good repair. Using drones or other aircraft to inspect a property isn't much different than a field inspector doing the same from the ground. In both cases, they inspect the property without the knowledge or consent of the homeowner.

Consent is key. Insurance companies should ideally allow people to opt in to these inspections.

 

[JosephZ]

Consent is key. Insurance companies should ideally allow people to opt in to these inspections.

When someone signs a homeowners policy, they are giving consent to the insurance company to conduct inspections at their discretion. If they need to enter the property, they will ask for permission, but the condition of the roof, siding, clutter, and other outside hazards such as improper fencing and dangerous trees or pets can often be determined without ever accessing the property or the property owner ever knowing an inspection was done.

 

[AlexB23]

When someone signs a homeowners policy, they are giving consent to the insurance company to conduct inspections at their discretion. If they need to enter the property, they will ask for permission, but the condition of the roof, siding, clutter, and other outside hazards such as improper fencing and dangerous trees or pets can often be determined without ever accessing the property or the property owner ever knowing an inspection was done.

Many policies can be 150-200 pages long, and not everyone can understand the legal jargon. Imagine applying this logic to everyday life. Imagine if a creepy priest gives a document to a young boy looking to sing in the local church choir, and on page 135, paragraph 2, section 6b, the document says "Priests may have the right to examine a minor" (hypothetical example). What then? Long documents should clearly state the important info first.


While drone surveillance by insurance companies for property inspections may seem convenient and cost-effective, there are several reasons why some people argue that it is a bad practice:

1. Invasion of Privacy: Drones can capture images and videos of not just the property but also the surrounding areas, potentially violating people's privacy. Even if the drone is only used for inspecting the property, it may inadvertently capture images of minors, neighbors or passersby.
2. Lack of Transparency: The use of drones for inspections without the property owner's knowledge raises questions about transparency and accountability. Property owners may feel violated if they discover that their insurance company has been using drones to inspect their property without their consent.
3. Safety Concerns: Drones can pose a safety risk, especially if they are operated carelessly or malfunction during the inspection. There is also a risk of damage to property or injury to people or animals if the drone crashes or falls from the sky.
4. Potential for Discrimination: Drones could be used to collect data that could be used to discriminate against certain policyholders based on factors such as the condition of their property or their neighborhood. This could lead to unfair pricing and unequal treatment.

 

[JosephZ]

Many policies can be 150-200 pages long, and not everyone can understand the legal jargon. Imagine applying this logic to everyday life.

Homeowners policies have been this way since time immemorial, and somewhere in those many pages, there's a clause stating that the homeowner gives consent to property inspections.

While drone surveillance by insurance companies for property inspections may seem convenient and cost-effective, there are several reasons why some people argue that it is a bad practice:

Like I said in my previous post, I really don't see how using drones is much different than a field inspector doing the same from the ground. Back in the 90s, I did inspections for one of the major insurers in the US. I would park in front of the house or pull in the driveway and walk along the street, taking pictures from different angles and zoom in to get closeups of the roof or any other hazards I may have noticed from the street. Sometimes I would let the homeowner know I was there, but most times I wouldn't. Real estate appraisers also take pictures of people's homes without their knowledge when they are trying to find comparable houses to the ones they are appraising. Between insurance companies, real estate appraisers, and Google Maps/Earth, people would probably be surprised at how often their house is being looked at and photographed.

 

[AlexB23]

Homeowners policies have been this way since time immemorial, and somewhere in those many pages, there's a clause stating that the homeowner gives consent to property inspections.


Like I said in my previous post, I really don't see how using drones is much different than a field inspector doing the same from the ground. Back in the 90s, I did inspections for one of the major insurers in the US. I would park in front of the house or pull in the driveway and walk along the street, taking pictures from different angles and zoom in to get closeups of the roof or any other hazards I may have noticed from the street. Sometimes I would let the homeowner know I was there, but most times I wouldn't. Real estate appraisers also take pictures of people's homes without their knowledge when they are trying to find comparable houses to the ones they are appraising. Between insurance companies, real estate appraisers, and Google Maps/Earth, people would probably be surprised at how often their house is being looked at and photographed.

While it is true that homeowners policies have included property inspections for many decades, and that homeowners implicitly consent to these inspections through the policy agreement, just because something has been around for many decades does not mean it is right. Look at the Jim Crow laws. Those racist laws were around since the 1890s, and ended after the 1960s. The Jim Crow era, which lasted ~75 years, does not make it morally or ethically correct.

The use of drones for home inspections raises significant privacy concerns that were not present when inspectors did their work from the ground. Drones can capture images and videos of a property in much greater detail than an inspector on foot, potentially including intimate details of the home's interior (such as through a skylight) that the homeowner may not be comfortable sharing.

This invasive technology is not Christian, and might be the signs of the end times, for those who believe in the end times.

 

[timothyu]

We ought to think long and hard about how we use, or *misuse* technology, for the greater good of society.

Even Christianity was weaponized 1700 years ago

 

[Bob Crowley]

Between insurance companies, real estate appraisers, and Google Maps/Earth, people would probably be surprised at how often their house is being looked at and photographed.

Well, it looks like I might have to paint a smiley on the roof.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Just discovered that you can buy drone disruptors online, which jam drone frequencies, forcing them to crash land.

They start off around $2000.

 

[Landon Caeli]

When someone signs a homeowners policy, they are giving consent to the insurance company to conduct inspections at their discretion. If they need to enter the property, they will ask for permission, but the condition of the roof, siding, clutter, and other outside hazards such as improper fencing and dangerous trees or pets can often be determined without ever accessing the property or the property owner ever knowing an inspection was done.

People tend to not like drones flying next to their gutters and windows unannounced. It's quite different from knocking on the door, introducing yourself, and explaining what you intend to do in a polite manner.

What people tend to like or not like, matters.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Just discovered that you can buy drone disruptors online, which jam drone frequencies, forcing them to crash land.

They start off around $2000.

This is a great way to get the FAA on your case. Drones are classified as aircraft and you do not own the airspace above your property. Thus, you cannot legally shoot down or otherwise disrupt a drone, even if it's over your property.

Counter-Drone Technology | Can drones be stopped with technology?

Counter-drone technology is rapidly emerging as a way to respond to drone threats. Learn more about type of C-UAS tech, it's use cases and legal concerns.

www.airsight.com

 

[JosephZ]

People tend to not like drones flying next to their gutters and windows unannounced.

A drone doesn't have to fly that close to the house to get good images.

 

[Landon Caeli]

This is a great way to get the FAA on your case. Drones are classified as aircraft and you do not own the airspace above your property. Thus, you cannot legally shoot down or otherwise disrupt a drone, even if it's over your property.

Counter-Drone Technology | Can drones be stopped with technology?

Counter-drone technology is rapidly emerging as a way to respond to drone threats. Learn more about type of C-UAS tech, it's use cases and legal concerns.

www.airsight.com

I don't like that. You do?

 

[Landon Caeli]

A drone doesn't have to fly that close to the house to get good images.

Would you be opposed to, or for permanent surveillance of people's homes by insurance companies, such as something similar to reconnaissance satellite systems, that might include watching people's behaviors as well as the conditions of their homes? Someone who has bond fires more frequently is certainly more prone house fires afterall... other behaviors might indicate other risks as well.

...Is there any limit to your greenlighting of unannounced and secretive surveillance? Or would you allow it all, untramelled?

 

[JosephZ]

Would you be opposed to, or for permanent surveillance of people's homes by insurance companies, such as something similar to reconnaissance satellite systems, that might include watching people's behaviors as well as the conditions of their homes?

Of course, I would be opposed to constant surveillance of properties by insurance companies, but that's not what they are doing. A visual inspection of a property, whether it's by an inspector on the ground or by drone, takes just a matter of minutes and is not intrusive.