22 ms·

Maybe have some standardized record of relevant issues. But it can't be that you do something, pay for yourself and then have to disclose that. On a side note

Maybe have some standardized record of relevant issues. But it can't be that you do something, pay for yourself and then have to disclose that. On a side note I am not even sure if individualized car insurance (and health insurance) prices are worth the effort of collecting all that data. You have to build up a big bureaucracy that evaluates all the data. Maybe it's cheaper to just take a nationwide average and save money by not needing that bureaucracy?

bilbo0s 8y ago
The thing is though that JadeNB is still making a good point. Hypothetically, if I were to give my DNA to many of these services, I'm giving it to them with full understanding that they are allowed to share that information with anyone they see fit. Well, I can't now complain that they saw fit to share it with my insurance company can I? I certainly can't complain that my insurance company was interested in getting that data. The insurance companies collect relevant historical data for every other type of insurance. I do agree with you that your DNA should be private. And it is private, so long as you keep it private. Telling a thirdparty, especially one who is a known loudmouth, the details of your DNA is the opposite of keeping it private.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  "Hypothetically, if I were to give my DNA to many of these services, I'm giving it to them with full understanding that they are allowed to share that information with anyone they see fit. " I know legally this is ok but "sharing as they see fit" practices just need to stop. We have to go back to a model where the customer pays for a service and that's it. No sharing in the background to subsidize the cost of the service. That would make some services more expensive but then the customer can share his data for a price. If he chooses to do so .
- JadeNB 8y ago
  > The thing is though that JadeNB is still making a good point. I'm not sure that I agree with your summary of my point. In fact, I think that stronger regulations against data vendors are probably the right thing. I was merely arguing that a reflexive argument against allowing companies to gather external data might have unexpected consequences.

bilbo0s 8y ago

The thing is though that JadeNB is still making a good point. Hypothetically, if I were to give my DNA to many of these services, I'm giving it to them with full understanding that they are allowed to share that information with anyone they see fit. Well, I can't now complain that they saw fit to share it with my insurance company can I? I certainly can't complain that my insurance company was interested in getting that data. The insurance companies collect relevant historical data for every other type of insurance. I do agree with you that your DNA should be private. And it is private, so long as you keep it private. Telling a thirdparty, especially one who is a known loudmouth, the details of your DNA is the opposite of keeping it private.

maxxxxx 8y ago
"Hypothetically, if I were to give my DNA to many of these services, I'm giving it to them with full understanding that they are allowed to share that information with anyone they see fit. " I know legally this is ok but "sharing as they see fit" practices just need to stop. We have to go back to a model where the customer pays for a service and that's it. No sharing in the background to subsidize the cost of the service. That would make some services more expensive but then the customer can share his data for a price. If he chooses to do so .
JadeNB 8y ago
> The thing is though that JadeNB is still making a good point. I'm not sure that I agree with your summary of my point. In fact, I think that stronger regulations against data vendors are probably the right thing. I was merely arguing that a reflexive argument against allowing companies to gather external data might have unexpected consequences.