I'd feel better about this if they weren't charging people thousands for the batteries. As it is, this looks like a scam by utility companies to force their costs onto consumers and charge them for it on top of that. People should be being paid by the utility for storing, hosting, and allowing access to the power company's distributed infrastructure.
It's not as if the batteries people are paying for become their property, or are only for the homeowner's benefit. The utility company has the right to use that power however they want at any time including the "right to use all the energy in the battery". The homeowner also has to allow contractors, subcontractors, or third-parties onto their property. Physical access aside, they also have to allow the utility free access to their network and free use of their internet connection/bandwidth. The utility will not compensate homeowners for any of that.
Homeowners must also agree to install the utility company's cell phone apps/software. I'd bet those apps are collecting data and probably pushing ads too. They have to agree to the “Customer Privacy” terms, which will only be shown to them "upon installation of the Equipment".
The utility company advertises this as a means to prevent power outages (which, if they were doing their job in the first place, should be extremely rare occurrences), but the fine print makes it clear that homeowners should not assume that they will have any access to the power that battery holds in the event of a power outage or at any other time.
The utility also requires homeowners to agree to terms that state the utility will not be liable for any damage to persons or property caused by use of/replacement of/repair of/or the utility's failure to repair the utility's equipment and software. The homeowner also "bears the entire risk of loss, theft or damage" to the utility's equipment.
This would be a bad deal even if the utility were paying a monthly fee to homeowners. The fact that they've conned customers into paying the utility for using them, their internet, and assuming all liability/responsibility for the utility company's hardware is insane.
>I'd feel better about this if they weren't charging people thousands for the batteries. As it is, this looks like a scam by utility companies to force their costs onto consumers and charge them for it on top of that. People should be being paid by the utility for storing, hosting, and allowing access to the power company's distributed infrastructure.
I participated in this program early on (currently on year 8 or 9) and I don't think you're giving a fair characterization. First, the batteries took the place of a generator, and have reliable protected my buildings from power outages since. Part of the program is that in case of storm warnings or other risk it actually switches out from the VPP for the duration to protect you instead. So there's direct value to having them, particularly in a rural area of a rural state, regardless of any other money. Having a sizable generator isn't free, not just in terms of purchase but in terms of
Second, the utility did in fact pay with a pretty massive discount (around $5-6k per battery at the time IIRC). The amount they were willing to pay wasn't enough to completely cancel out the battery cost back then, but it was like 70-80% of the cost. And in general looking at all the various VPP programs in the region utilities remain very much willing to pay you per kWh, whether it's a lease or BYOB.
There are multiple ways to make a battery work for you in terms of ROI, and the math has changed over the years as various component costs have changed as well as being individual to each person's situation in terms of their own usage patterns and generation. But I don't think this was a scam at all, it was a genuine win/win even before getting into softer factors like reducing usage of fossil fuel peaker plants that a lot of us do really care about. In an ideal world neutralizing that carbon pollution would all just be built into pricing so the market could better sort it out, but as it stands I don't feel bad about supporting a shift to some extent too. And even though I'm probably going to just buy my own batteries next time around due to other changes, I'd certainly consider contributing to a VPP again depending. It's been a positive experience.
>The utility company advertises this as a means to prevent power outages (which if they were doing their job in the first place should be extremely rare occurrences)
This is just really hard in some parts of New England given the history of grid development (we have a lot of really weird legacy layouts), weather, trees, population density, and lack of resources. If you're at the end of a quarter to a half mile driveway in the forest up a steep mountain dirt road and aren't able to bury the lines then it can be tough in storms. Plus other weirdness, last year a pole came down and it turns out bears had been using it as a scratching post and just ripped through the entire thing. Was actually pretty cool but also a power outage.
>but the fine print makes it clear that homeowners should not assume that they will have any access to the power that battery holds in the event of a power outage or at any other time.*
In all these years it's never once been an issue though. And I don't consider that "fine print" but obvious: if you're participating in a VPP at all, then obviously there will be times when your battery has been drawn down. That's the deal duh. And with the best will in the world they can't predict things like some drunk driver taking out a pole and causing an outage (this happened again not that long ago). It's not impossible that there could be the bad luck of that happening right when the battery happened to be down to a low level. That's the risk. But they do pay you for it. And almost any way you'd make batteries pay beyond power protection entails some risk or else some cost too, like if you want to rate-shift so that you only pay the lowest night time energy rate by charging then and then running off your batteries during the day, then you'll of course be at risk of lower remaining storage if there's then a grid failure too when you were expecting to charge back up again. You can spend money on that risk in turn, but there's no free lunch here.
> First, the batteries took the place of a generator,
The generator would have been yours, and only used for your needs. It wouldn't have involved any data collection, the uncompensated use of your bandwidth, or exposed you to so much liability.
> Part of the program is that in case of storm warnings or other risk it actually switches out from the VPP for the duration to protect you instead.
They may do this, but by their own terms they aren't obligated to. The good news is that in the event where a cable is cut/down and they lose the ability to siphon power from your battery you will be sure to get the benefit of whatever power it has stored. It's also nice that they compensate you for the power that they draw, but again, all of that energy is already theirs by right.
The state contracts them to provide the people with reliable power and you pay them for that service. They should be expected to reasonably deliver that in exchange. Installing their equipment inside people's homes can be part of how they manage that responsibility, but it's still their responsibility and they should compensate you for that and not expect you to pay them even more for the privilege of paying their costs and accepting liability.
> it was a genuine win/win even before getting into softer factors like reducing usage of fossil fuel peaker plants that a lot of us do really care about.
It's honestly not a bad idea conceptually. It seems like it can have real benefits, but the terms are exploitative. At a minimum they should be obligated to prioritize your power needs above others when it comes to energy stored in the battery on your premises, and they should be obligated to compensate you for power taken, as well as for providing them storage, access, security and bandwidth for their equipment, and they should also assume responsibility for any damage/harm their equipment causes to your property and anyone one on your property as long as it wasn't caused by tampering or improper use. Ideally, you'd also be able to opt out of all personal data collection (not related directly to the use/monitoring of their hardware), and any loss/theft/damage would be covered by their insurance (provided their equipment was reasonably secured), otherwise they'd have to pay you enough to get additional insurance coverage of your own.
I'm glad it worked out for you when you had it, but unless the terms were very different from what they are today you were absolutely cheated and being taken advantage of, even if you didn't feel that way.
IIUC, the benefit for the customer is a battery backup that is much cheaper than buying the batteries themselves would be, plus the ability to make money when their battery is taken over for a few hours during occasional peak usage events. Provided the former override the latter, as seems to be the case, I don't see what the issue is.
I think you're claiming that battery backup shouldn't be needed in the first place if the power company was doing their job properly, since then there wouldn't be frequent outages in the first place. But I gather that this just isn't practical in rural Vermont. To put it another way: In that environment, a power company guaranteeing 99.999% uptime could not offer this at a price that is acceptable to most customers. So the equilibrium naturally shifts towards citizens tolerating more frequent outages than would be tolerated in, say, central NYC, and/or paying for mitigations like generators or batteries.
> IIUC, the benefit for the customer is a battery backup that is much cheaper than buying the batteries themselves would be, plus the ability to make money when their battery is taken over for a few hours during occasional peak usage events. Provided the former override the latter, as seems to be the case, I don't see what the issue is.
They don't get a battery backup. The utility company gets a battery backup and the customer pays a large percentage of that cost. The utility company isn't obligated to let the consumer who paid for part of that battery draw power from it, ever. They explicitly state that all the energy it stores is theirs, and that they can drain all of it away any time they want to.
Customers are being contractually obligated to shell out thousands of dollars, over a 10 year commitment they're punished for backing out of, obligated to not hold the utility company responsible for any damage they cause, obligated to take on a bunch of liability for things they have no control over, obligated to allow the company access to their property, obligated to allow the company access to use their internet service free of charge, and for all of that the utility company isn't obligated to do anything but install the company's equipment on the customer's property
All the customer gets is that maybe they'll be paid for the power the company takes from the battery (the company doesn't have to pay anything) and to maybe get to draw power from it if there's a service outage (the company isn't obligated to let them use any of it).
There are customers who say they are being paid for that energy and they have been able to use the power to avoid outages, and that's great, but that can change at any time and for any reason because the terms they agreed to don't obligate the utility to do either of those things. The terms explicitly say that all of the energy in the battery belongs to the utility company and they can use it however they see fit.
Maybe this utility company is the nicest company in the world. Maybe the utility company today would volunteer out of the kindness of their heart to rebuild someone's house if a software update causes the battery to catch fire and the customer's home burned to the ground along with everything in it, but the terms say they wouldn't have to do that and couldn't be made to. Maybe the company would never ever stop paying customers for the energy they take, or leave the customer without power while they drain the full battery to help restore service for businesses or wealthier customers. The terms would let them do those things though.
You shouldn't pay out thousands of dollars, take on a list of obligations, and expose yourself to huge risks and liabilities and then still be forced to just hope that the company will do the right thing, and keep doing the right thing for the next decade of your life. That's the problem.
I've now read the GMP terms on their website, and I've moved closer to your position.
> They don't get a battery backup.
The customer in effect gets a "probabilistic" battery backup -- whatever is in the battery at outage time. As you say, the terms (para. 15) explicitly allow that GMP can use the entire battery at any time; it seems I was confusing those terms with different ones ("at most 36 times per year") mentioned by another commenter, which were actually for a different company, in NC. This is not as good as a battery that you fully control, and it would have been nice to see GMP place limits on its usage level in the terms, but it's much better than nothing, as made clear by commenter xoa and the customers interviewed in TFA. GMP wants high total charge levels in customer batteries, so their incentives are aligned with customers; the only potential misalignment I see is that it may not matter to GMP how that charge is distributed across customer batteries (to them, everyone at 50% charge may look identical to 50% of customers at full charge and 50% empty, but the former is much better from customers' perspective), but I also can't think of any reason why GMP would benefit from an unbalanced charge distribution, and maintaining rough balance seems straightforward, so I don't think that would be a conflict in practice.
> maybe get to draw power from it if there's a service outage (the company isn't obligated to let them use any of it).
This is simply wrong. Para. 15 explicitly obligates GMP to permit this:
> As Lessee, Customer’s control over the Energy Storage System is limited to its usage as a backup power source in the event of a power outage up to the point that the battery is completely depleted.
Outages are obviously "bidirectional", so there's no conceivable way for GMP to draw on the battery in the event of one anyway!
I didn't see any mention of net metering or payment for exporting electricity back out to the grid, which surprised me. Without such an agreement in writing, it seems unlikely that GMP would ever pay for this access, so I agree with you there.
The internet usage clause is reasonable and common sense, IMO. I suppose it would be better to include an upper limit to make sure that it isn't hogging the connection, but it would be my very last concern.
The only clause that I really disliked was para. 20, clearing them of any liability for damages caused by the battery.
> Para. 15 explicitly obligates GMP to permit this:
As Lessee, Customer’s control over the Energy Storage System is limited to its usage as a backup power source in the event of a power outage up to the point that the battery is completely depleted
That doesn't bind GMP, it binds the customer. It simply limits their control over the battery to a specific use under a specific circumstance. I suspect that GMP will often be left without the ability to stop users from using their battery as a backup in the event of a power outage (depending on the nature of the outage) but they make it clear that when they can, they are entitled to by adding:
"GMP shall have the ability to continuously utilize the Energy Storage System at its sole discretion for the Term and has the right to use all the energy in the battery."
It does state that the system they install will have "whole-
home backup power capability" and the program description includes the line "The Energy Storage System can [note CAN and not WILL] provide Customer with whole-home backup power during a Grid outage."
I think there's a fair expectation that at least some of the time the battery will work to supply whole-home backup power when there's an outage. They were pretty careful to pepper in enough weasel words throughout to keep their options open when they have options at all though. Like you said, outages can be "bidirectional". A cut cable isn't going let stored power out any more than it lets the power in.
The biggest concern I can see is power being shifted to keep the lights on for specific customers while leaving others with power-filled batteries in the dark or draining faster. We already see a lot of inequalities with how power companies treat people. Wealthier neighborhoods are often less likely to experience outages, get their power restored sooner, are more likely to get upgrades/maintenance, etc. Having these batteries in people's homes, especially those farther out from critical infrastructure (which usually gets top priority from utility companies) can actually help with that, but only if the utility company plays fair. It'd be nice to see something explicit that would give priority to the energy stored in the battery to the homeowner who helped pay for it in times of need.
> The internet usage clause is reasonable and common sense, IMO. I suppose it would be better to include an upper limit to make sure that it isn't hogging the connection, but it would be my very last concern.
I'm glad that reportedly the bandwidth usage isn't heavy at least. It'd be nice if they segmented off the device for customers when they installed the service. Not many users will be able to isolate their home network from the utility's equipment. I could see these batteries being a good target for hackers to get a foothold into a person's network and I've seen examples where companies use their access to a person's home network as a way to collect more consumer data through scans.
I'm also curious to know whats in the privacy policy they won't show you until after they show up to install the device.
autoexec · · focus · HN ↗
It's not as if the batteries people are paying for become their property, or are only for the homeowner's benefit. The utility company has the right to use that power however they want at any time including the "right to use all the energy in the battery". The homeowner also has to allow contractors, subcontractors, or third-parties onto their property. Physical access aside, they also have to allow the utility free access to their network and free use of their internet connection/bandwidth. The utility will not compensate homeowners for any of that.
Homeowners must also agree to install the utility company's cell phone apps/software. I'd bet those apps are collecting data and probably pushing ads too. They have to agree to the “Customer Privacy” terms, which will only be shown to them "upon installation of the Equipment".
The utility company advertises this as a means to prevent power outages (which, if they were doing their job in the first place, should be extremely rare occurrences), but the fine print makes it clear that homeowners should not assume that they will have any access to the power that battery holds in the event of a power outage or at any other time.
The utility also requires homeowners to agree to terms that state the utility will not be liable for any damage to persons or property caused by use of/replacement of/repair of/or the utility's failure to repair the utility's equipment and software. The homeowner also "bears the entire risk of loss, theft or damage" to the utility's equipment.
This would be a bad deal even if the utility were paying a monthly fee to homeowners. The fact that they've conned customers into paying the utility for using them, their internet, and assuming all liability/responsibility for the utility company's hardware is insane.
xoa · · focus · HN ↗
I participated in this program early on (currently on year 8 or 9) and I don't think you're giving a fair characterization. First, the batteries took the place of a generator, and have reliable protected my buildings from power outages since. Part of the program is that in case of storm warnings or other risk it actually switches out from the VPP for the duration to protect you instead. So there's direct value to having them, particularly in a rural area of a rural state, regardless of any other money. Having a sizable generator isn't free, not just in terms of purchase but in terms of
Second, the utility did in fact pay with a pretty massive discount (around $5-6k per battery at the time IIRC). The amount they were willing to pay wasn't enough to completely cancel out the battery cost back then, but it was like 70-80% of the cost. And in general looking at all the various VPP programs in the region utilities remain very much willing to pay you per kWh, whether it's a lease or BYOB.
There are multiple ways to make a battery work for you in terms of ROI, and the math has changed over the years as various component costs have changed as well as being individual to each person's situation in terms of their own usage patterns and generation. But I don't think this was a scam at all, it was a genuine win/win even before getting into softer factors like reducing usage of fossil fuel peaker plants that a lot of us do really care about. In an ideal world neutralizing that carbon pollution would all just be built into pricing so the market could better sort it out, but as it stands I don't feel bad about supporting a shift to some extent too. And even though I'm probably going to just buy my own batteries next time around due to other changes, I'd certainly consider contributing to a VPP again depending. It's been a positive experience.
>The utility company advertises this as a means to prevent power outages (which if they were doing their job in the first place should be extremely rare occurrences)
This is just really hard in some parts of New England given the history of grid development (we have a lot of really weird legacy layouts), weather, trees, population density, and lack of resources. If you're at the end of a quarter to a half mile driveway in the forest up a steep mountain dirt road and aren't able to bury the lines then it can be tough in storms. Plus other weirdness, last year a pole came down and it turns out bears had been using it as a scratching post and just ripped through the entire thing. Was actually pretty cool but also a power outage.
>but the fine print makes it clear that homeowners should not assume that they will have any access to the power that battery holds in the event of a power outage or at any other time.*
In all these years it's never once been an issue though. And I don't consider that "fine print" but obvious: if you're participating in a VPP at all, then obviously there will be times when your battery has been drawn down. That's the deal duh. And with the best will in the world they can't predict things like some drunk driver taking out a pole and causing an outage (this happened again not that long ago). It's not impossible that there could be the bad luck of that happening right when the battery happened to be down to a low level. That's the risk. But they do pay you for it. And almost any way you'd make batteries pay beyond power protection entails some risk or else some cost too, like if you want to rate-shift so that you only pay the lowest night time energy rate by charging then and then running off your batteries during the day, then you'll of course be at risk of lower remaining storage if there's then a grid failure too when you were expecting to charge back up again. You can spend money on that risk in turn, but there's no free lunch here.
autoexec · · focus · HN ↗
The generator would have been yours, and only used for your needs. It wouldn't have involved any data collection, the uncompensated use of your bandwidth, or exposed you to so much liability.
> Part of the program is that in case of storm warnings or other risk it actually switches out from the VPP for the duration to protect you instead.
They may do this, but by their own terms they aren't obligated to. The good news is that in the event where a cable is cut/down and they lose the ability to siphon power from your battery you will be sure to get the benefit of whatever power it has stored. It's also nice that they compensate you for the power that they draw, but again, all of that energy is already theirs by right.
The state contracts them to provide the people with reliable power and you pay them for that service. They should be expected to reasonably deliver that in exchange. Installing their equipment inside people's homes can be part of how they manage that responsibility, but it's still their responsibility and they should compensate you for that and not expect you to pay them even more for the privilege of paying their costs and accepting liability.
> it was a genuine win/win even before getting into softer factors like reducing usage of fossil fuel peaker plants that a lot of us do really care about.
It's honestly not a bad idea conceptually. It seems like it can have real benefits, but the terms are exploitative. At a minimum they should be obligated to prioritize your power needs above others when it comes to energy stored in the battery on your premises, and they should be obligated to compensate you for power taken, as well as for providing them storage, access, security and bandwidth for their equipment, and they should also assume responsibility for any damage/harm their equipment causes to your property and anyone one on your property as long as it wasn't caused by tampering or improper use. Ideally, you'd also be able to opt out of all personal data collection (not related directly to the use/monitoring of their hardware), and any loss/theft/damage would be covered by their insurance (provided their equipment was reasonably secured), otherwise they'd have to pay you enough to get additional insurance coverage of your own.
I'm glad it worked out for you when you had it, but unless the terms were very different from what they are today you were absolutely cheated and being taken advantage of, even if you didn't feel that way.
akoboldfrying · · focus · HN ↗
IIUC, the benefit for the customer is a battery backup that is much cheaper than buying the batteries themselves would be, plus the ability to make money when their battery is taken over for a few hours during occasional peak usage events. Provided the former override the latter, as seems to be the case, I don't see what the issue is.
I think you're claiming that battery backup shouldn't be needed in the first place if the power company was doing their job properly, since then there wouldn't be frequent outages in the first place. But I gather that this just isn't practical in rural Vermont. To put it another way: In that environment, a power company guaranteeing 99.999% uptime could not offer this at a price that is acceptable to most customers. So the equilibrium naturally shifts towards citizens tolerating more frequent outages than would be tolerated in, say, central NYC, and/or paying for mitigations like generators or batteries.
autoexec · · focus · HN ↗
They don't get a battery backup. The utility company gets a battery backup and the customer pays a large percentage of that cost. The utility company isn't obligated to let the consumer who paid for part of that battery draw power from it, ever. They explicitly state that all the energy it stores is theirs, and that they can drain all of it away any time they want to.
Customers are being contractually obligated to shell out thousands of dollars, over a 10 year commitment they're punished for backing out of, obligated to not hold the utility company responsible for any damage they cause, obligated to take on a bunch of liability for things they have no control over, obligated to allow the company access to their property, obligated to allow the company access to use their internet service free of charge, and for all of that the utility company isn't obligated to do anything but install the company's equipment on the customer's property
All the customer gets is that maybe they'll be paid for the power the company takes from the battery (the company doesn't have to pay anything) and to maybe get to draw power from it if there's a service outage (the company isn't obligated to let them use any of it).
There are customers who say they are being paid for that energy and they have been able to use the power to avoid outages, and that's great, but that can change at any time and for any reason because the terms they agreed to don't obligate the utility to do either of those things. The terms explicitly say that all of the energy in the battery belongs to the utility company and they can use it however they see fit.
Maybe this utility company is the nicest company in the world. Maybe the utility company today would volunteer out of the kindness of their heart to rebuild someone's house if a software update causes the battery to catch fire and the customer's home burned to the ground along with everything in it, but the terms say they wouldn't have to do that and couldn't be made to. Maybe the company would never ever stop paying customers for the energy they take, or leave the customer without power while they drain the full battery to help restore service for businesses or wealthier customers. The terms would let them do those things though.
You shouldn't pay out thousands of dollars, take on a list of obligations, and expose yourself to huge risks and liabilities and then still be forced to just hope that the company will do the right thing, and keep doing the right thing for the next decade of your life. That's the problem.
akoboldfrying · · focus · HN ↗
> They don't get a battery backup.
The customer in effect gets a "probabilistic" battery backup -- whatever is in the battery at outage time. As you say, the terms (para. 15) explicitly allow that GMP can use the entire battery at any time; it seems I was confusing those terms with different ones ("at most 36 times per year") mentioned by another commenter, which were actually for a different company, in NC. This is not as good as a battery that you fully control, and it would have been nice to see GMP place limits on its usage level in the terms, but it's much better than nothing, as made clear by commenter xoa and the customers interviewed in TFA. GMP wants high total charge levels in customer batteries, so their incentives are aligned with customers; the only potential misalignment I see is that it may not matter to GMP how that charge is distributed across customer batteries (to them, everyone at 50% charge may look identical to 50% of customers at full charge and 50% empty, but the former is much better from customers' perspective), but I also can't think of any reason why GMP would benefit from an unbalanced charge distribution, and maintaining rough balance seems straightforward, so I don't think that would be a conflict in practice.
> maybe get to draw power from it if there's a service outage (the company isn't obligated to let them use any of it).
This is simply wrong. Para. 15 explicitly obligates GMP to permit this:
> As Lessee, Customer’s control over the Energy Storage System is limited to its usage as a backup power source in the event of a power outage up to the point that the battery is completely depleted.
Outages are obviously "bidirectional", so there's no conceivable way for GMP to draw on the battery in the event of one anyway!
I didn't see any mention of net metering or payment for exporting electricity back out to the grid, which surprised me. Without such an agreement in writing, it seems unlikely that GMP would ever pay for this access, so I agree with you there.
The internet usage clause is reasonable and common sense, IMO. I suppose it would be better to include an upper limit to make sure that it isn't hogging the connection, but it would be my very last concern.
The only clause that I really disliked was para. 20, clearing them of any liability for damages caused by the battery.
autoexec · · focus · HN ↗
That doesn't bind GMP, it binds the customer. It simply limits their control over the battery to a specific use under a specific circumstance. I suspect that GMP will often be left without the ability to stop users from using their battery as a backup in the event of a power outage (depending on the nature of the outage) but they make it clear that when they can, they are entitled to by adding:
"GMP shall have the ability to continuously utilize the Energy Storage System at its sole discretion for the Term and has the right to use all the energy in the battery."
It does state that the system they install will have "whole- home backup power capability" and the program description includes the line "The Energy Storage System can [note CAN and not WILL] provide Customer with whole-home backup power during a Grid outage."
I think there's a fair expectation that at least some of the time the battery will work to supply whole-home backup power when there's an outage. They were pretty careful to pepper in enough weasel words throughout to keep their options open when they have options at all though. Like you said, outages can be "bidirectional". A cut cable isn't going let stored power out any more than it lets the power in.
The biggest concern I can see is power being shifted to keep the lights on for specific customers while leaving others with power-filled batteries in the dark or draining faster. We already see a lot of inequalities with how power companies treat people. Wealthier neighborhoods are often less likely to experience outages, get their power restored sooner, are more likely to get upgrades/maintenance, etc. Having these batteries in people's homes, especially those farther out from critical infrastructure (which usually gets top priority from utility companies) can actually help with that, but only if the utility company plays fair. It'd be nice to see something explicit that would give priority to the energy stored in the battery to the homeowner who helped pay for it in times of need.
> The internet usage clause is reasonable and common sense, IMO. I suppose it would be better to include an upper limit to make sure that it isn't hogging the connection, but it would be my very last concern.
I'm glad that reportedly the bandwidth usage isn't heavy at least. It'd be nice if they segmented off the device for customers when they installed the service. Not many users will be able to isolate their home network from the utility's equipment. I could see these batteries being a good target for hackers to get a foothold into a person's network and I've seen examples where companies use their access to a person's home network as a way to collect more consumer data through scans.
I'm also curious to know whats in the privacy policy they won't show you until after they show up to install the device.