That's a foolish attitude to have about this. The more people use this type of system, the more pressure there will be on those of us who don't want to be spied on, or have our cars hacked. Eventually, it might not be possible to get insurance without a spy system like this, and that's a perfectly valid reason to want to push back against it now. Banning this practice completely would be ideal.
That's your standard slippery slope argument. Which isn't automatically invalid, but you need to show that the slope will be slipped down, and that action needs to be taken now to stop it, rather than simply reversing it if and when you slip down.
If a significant number of people dislike these systems, some insurance company will find a competitive advantage by catering to them. If the number isn't significant... is it right to legislate just for them?
There's nothing invalid about a slippery slope argument when a cursory examination of history will show that the slope will be slipped down.
The slippery slope argument is only a fallacy because it's not a tautology: ie, it's theoretically possible for a government to not misuse laws and draw more power to themselves over time, and it's theoretically possible for insurance companies to not discriminate against their customers. Mind you, that's never happened once in all of recorded history, but it's theoretically possible. If you account for human behavior, any argument that you'd call a slippery slope fallacy isn't invalidated by that.
Besides, consider what insurance companies are doing these days. Imagine if insurance companies had perfect information on who was going to crash their car and who wasn't. What would they do then? Why, they'd sell insurance to those who they knew would never crash, and refuse to cover anyone who would. Now, what would be the point of their existence, from society's standpoint? None at all, save enriching themselves. They would be pure parasites, of no value to society whatsoever.
Why is that relevant? Because with everything they do to more accurately predict who is more of a risk, they inch themselves closer and closer to becoming useless parasites on society. The entire point of having insurance companies is that a group of people can pay into a pool that actually protects them when they need it. The insurance companies are trying to make it so they never have to pay out to anyone. Why should we as a society let them do this? They need to be limited in their ability to discriminate against people, and drawing a line at spying on their customers is a minimally decent line to stop them at.
Much better would be if they were forced by law to insure anyone who wanted insurance, and they could only charge the highest risk class twice as much as the lowest risk class for insurance, but ending spying would be better than nothing.
