9 ms·

I'd say there's a one really important difference between being Black and using Hotmail, and that difference is the same reason why one is a protected class and

I'd say there's a one really important difference between being Black and using Hotmail, and that difference is the same reason why one is a protected class and one isn't. The real concern here isn't discriminating against people with Hotmail accounts. On the surface level, there's nothing wrong with that. This does become an issue if the property of having a Hotmail account is used as an avenue to discriminate against people based on their membership in a protected class -- a sort of actuarial parallel construction, if you will. At that point, we do have a bit of a problem. > We need regulation in place to stop any punitive decision making, public and private, which can be found in court to be based on correlation instead of causation. So, young men could not be charged more for insurance than young women? In fact, young people in general would have to get the same price as everyone else? People in New York would have to pay the same as someone in rural Alaska? Someone who's been driving a year gets charged the same as someone who has been driving fifteen, etc.? Even being in an accident doesn't cause you to get in another accident. It's just correlated with that outcome. Throw out the entire actuarial aspect of insurance? These "punitive" charges are all based on correlation. I don't see this happening. ---- That said, as a non-statistician, I'm interested in what kinds of tests can be run on signals to verify that they're not proxies for selecting and discriminating against protected classes. Is there a way to modify a signal using its correlation with membership in these classes such that you can marginalize the attributes you're not allowed to discriminate based on? For example, it seems reasonable to believe that hotmail use is correlated with age, race, gender, etc. As an insurance company, I would have information on hand to inform me as to the extent of this correlation, at least among my customer base, and I would in turn know the correlations of those factors with risk. Could I somehow remove the racial, gender, and age components of the Hotmail risk signal to obtain a signal that only conveys the portion of the risk correlation that is not based on those classes? If so, what is that statistical technique called?

lukego 9y ago
There's a simple technique to "control for" those factors. First you split your population into groups that each have a similar race, gender, and age. Then within those groups you make comparisons of the hotmail users to the others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlling_for_a_variable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlling_for_a_variable You would need to keep in mind xkcd #882 (https://xkcd.com/882/ https://xkcd.com/882/).
- discoursism 9y ago
  Let me ask some clarifying questions, because I think I understand the broad strokes of what you're saying, but I'm not clear on some details. OK, so I find that among Black users, Hotmail is associated with a 1.05 relative risk to the baseline, and among white users, 1.15 relative risk. How do I then apply this knowledge to an incoming user of an unknown race with a Hotmail account? Do I give them the population weighted average of of the relative risks among all my buckets? What if I do know their race? Do Black users get assigned 1.05 as much risk and white users get 1.15? Also, what if some of my buckets aren't full enough to get a high confidence of the relative Hotmail risk in that bucket? Let's say I don't have enough gay Hispanic women in my cohort. Do I just drop them from the analysis and hope they're similar to the other populations?
  - MarkMc 9y ago
    Also, what if Hotmail is associated with a 1.15 relative risk for both black and white users, but a black user is significantly more likely to have a Hotmail account than a white user?
razorunreal 9y ago
If you can explain why it is OK for car insurance to charge differently by gender, but by race is not OK, I will be impressed.
- discoursism 9y ago
  I can't say for certain, because I wasn't involved in the decision. ;) My gut reaction is that it only ends up being seen as OK because the group being penalized has historically been at an advantage in most other areas financially. I am aware that some European countries are moving to do away with charging by gender.
  - dogruck 9y ago
    Well, then women will be forced to pay more than their fair share for car insurance, putting them at even more of a disadvantage. Right?
    - eloff 9y ago
      And this observation is downvoted because? It's just stating obviously true facts as far as I can tell. edit And then I get downvoted for sticking my neck out. Let me break the parent post down. It asserts that charging genders equally will shift more burden to women. This is clearly true because premiums are higher for men because we have more accidents (so much for all the female driver jokes). It also asserts women were a previously disadvantaged class. Also clearly true. So to the downvoters out there, you might have found something disagreeable about the parent post, but you're wrong and he's right.
      - gambiting 9y ago
        Look at my other reply to the parent post for my explanation as to why I disagree.
      - leereeves 9y ago
        I see two things wrong in the post: > fair share Male drivers and female drivers don't have a "fair share" of insurance costs. No one should be obligated to pay for the actions of others simply because they're the same sex. Driving risk should be evaluated on an individual basis based on those individuals' behavior. > putting them at even more of a disadvantage Young women are no longer at a disadvantage. Young women graduate college more often and earn more than young men. I focus on young women and young men in this case because those are the people most affected by gender discrimination in auto insurance pricing, because they lack individual driving records on which to base insurance rates.
mc32 9y ago
What happens in your case if an entity is not in any way "aware" of people's protected class (they don't collect that info) but using these other properties coincidentally affect a protected class? Say you _don't_ collect info on people's religiousness but other properties you collect in effect result in you either discriminating for or against either religious people or perhaps against atheists. If there is no awareness, is there still liability?
- discoursism 9y ago
  I'm not a lawyer, but I'd say if you make a good faith effort to prevent that eventuality, it would probably at least mitigate liability. That's a great question, though.
- icebraining 9y ago
  Yes, you can still be liable even if you're not aware: "Where a disparate impact is shown, the plaintiff can prevail without the necessity of showing intentional discrimination unless the defendant employer demonstrates that the practice or policy in question has a demonstrable relationship to the requirements of the job in question" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
thriftwy 9y ago
> In fact, young people in general would have to get the same price as everyone else? I really enjoy the fact that young people pay for car "insurance" more because of their increased risk at driving, but old people don't pay for health "insurance" more (if they pay at all) because of their increased risk at getting ill. Because one of those would be totally unfair while the other one is totally OK. You understand which one is which, right? It is basically youth serfdom.
- andrewaylett 9y ago
  Here in the UK, if you elect to get private health cover in addition to the NHS-provided general care, older people do pay more.
  - ZeroGravitas 9y ago
    I think they pay more in the US as well? I thought the aspect of ACA limits how much more they have to pay (and the Republican drafts had similar rules, but allowed a greater differential). The reasoning being, over your lifetime you pay a bit more when young, which acts as a virtual savings account for when your older and need more care. If you relied on people saving, they wouldn't and you'd have old people dying in the streets. Similar logic applies to enforcing pension savings.
    - thriftwy 9y ago
      But it's not savings it's redistribution, i.e. extortion. Young generation is guaranteed nothing for their contribution. It could only be sound if population is to grow organically and indefinitely, which will obviously be unsustainable either.
      - ZeroGravitas 9y ago
        The society getting richer is probably the defining property that makes it sustainable, not the number of bodies in it.

lukego 9y ago

There's a simple technique to "control for" those factors. First you split your population into groups that each have a similar race, gender, and age. Then within those groups you make comparisons of the hotmail users to the others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlling_for_a_variable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlling_for_a_variable You would need to keep in mind xkcd #882 (https://xkcd.com/882/ https://xkcd.com/882/).

discoursism 9y ago
Let me ask some clarifying questions, because I think I understand the broad strokes of what you're saying, but I'm not clear on some details. OK, so I find that among Black users, Hotmail is associated with a 1.05 relative risk to the baseline, and among white users, 1.15 relative risk. How do I then apply this knowledge to an incoming user of an unknown race with a Hotmail account? Do I give them the population weighted average of of the relative risks among all my buckets? What if I do know their race? Do Black users get assigned 1.05 as much risk and white users get 1.15? Also, what if some of my buckets aren't full enough to get a high confidence of the relative Hotmail risk in that bucket? Let's say I don't have enough gay Hispanic women in my cohort. Do I just drop them from the analysis and hope they're similar to the other populations?
- MarkMc 9y ago
  Also, what if Hotmail is associated with a 1.15 relative risk for both black and white users, but a black user is significantly more likely to have a Hotmail account than a white user?

razorunreal 9y ago

If you can explain why it is OK for car insurance to charge differently by gender, but by race is not OK, I will be impressed.

discoursism 9y ago
I can't say for certain, because I wasn't involved in the decision. ;) My gut reaction is that it only ends up being seen as OK because the group being penalized has historically been at an advantage in most other areas financially. I am aware that some European countries are moving to do away with charging by gender.
- dogruck 9y ago
  Well, then women will be forced to pay more than their fair share for car insurance, putting them at even more of a disadvantage. Right?
  - eloff 9y ago
    And this observation is downvoted because? It's just stating obviously true facts as far as I can tell. edit And then I get downvoted for sticking my neck out. Let me break the parent post down. It asserts that charging genders equally will shift more burden to women. This is clearly true because premiums are higher for men because we have more accidents (so much for all the female driver jokes). It also asserts women were a previously disadvantaged class. Also clearly true. So to the downvoters out there, you might have found something disagreeable about the parent post, but you're wrong and he's right.
    - gambiting 9y ago
      Look at my other reply to the parent post for my explanation as to why I disagree.
    - leereeves 9y ago
      I see two things wrong in the post: > fair share Male drivers and female drivers don't have a "fair share" of insurance costs. No one should be obligated to pay for the actions of others simply because they're the same sex. Driving risk should be evaluated on an individual basis based on those individuals' behavior. > putting them at even more of a disadvantage Young women are no longer at a disadvantage. Young women graduate college more often and earn more than young men. I focus on young women and young men in this case because those are the people most affected by gender discrimination in auto insurance pricing, because they lack individual driving records on which to base insurance rates.

mc32 9y ago

What happens in your case if an entity is not in any way "aware" of people's protected class (they don't collect that info) but using these other properties coincidentally affect a protected class? Say you _don't_ collect info on people's religiousness but other properties you collect in effect result in you either discriminating for or against either religious people or perhaps against atheists. If there is no awareness, is there still liability?

discoursism 9y ago
I'm not a lawyer, but I'd say if you make a good faith effort to prevent that eventuality, it would probably at least mitigate liability. That's a great question, though.
icebraining 9y ago
Yes, you can still be liable even if you're not aware: "Where a disparate impact is shown, the plaintiff can prevail without the necessity of showing intentional discrimination unless the defendant employer demonstrates that the practice or policy in question has a demonstrable relationship to the requirements of the job in question" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

thriftwy 9y ago

> In fact, young people in general would have to get the same price as everyone else? I really enjoy the fact that young people pay for car "insurance" more because of their increased risk at driving, but old people don't pay for health "insurance" more (if they pay at all) because of their increased risk at getting ill. Because one of those would be totally unfair while the other one is totally OK. You understand which one is which, right? It is basically youth serfdom.

andrewaylett 9y ago
Here in the UK, if you elect to get private health cover in addition to the NHS-provided general care, older people do pay more.
- ZeroGravitas 9y ago
  I think they pay more in the US as well? I thought the aspect of ACA limits how much more they have to pay (and the Republican drafts had similar rules, but allowed a greater differential). The reasoning being, over your lifetime you pay a bit more when young, which acts as a virtual savings account for when your older and need more care. If you relied on people saving, they wouldn't and you'd have old people dying in the streets. Similar logic applies to enforcing pension savings.
  - thriftwy 9y ago
    But it's not savings it's redistribution, i.e. extortion. Young generation is guaranteed nothing for their contribution. It could only be sound if population is to grow organically and indefinitely, which will obviously be unsustainable either.
    - ZeroGravitas 9y ago
      The society getting richer is probably the defining property that makes it sustainable, not the number of bodies in it.