3 ms·
Suppose someone has collected data on my groceries. They now know I buy a lot of red meat, and may then figure I must be eating a lot of red meat. Suppose my in
by gaze 7y ago
Suppose someone has collected data on my groceries. They now know I buy a lot of red meat, and may then figure I must be eating a lot of red meat. Suppose my insurance rates now go up.
Okay I hear you saying “well maybe your rates should go up if you eat a lot of red meat. You’re costing everyone else a lot of money.” I’d say you have some highly misguided morals, and I’d say that such a scheme would never lead to savings for people who don’t eat red meat, but almost surely additional costs for those who do. The thing to remember is these schemes never, ever benefit you. They make other people money, generally at your expense.
- matz1 7y agoSo you are saying that insurance company should just have to accept higher loss from you?
- gaze 7y agoI’d say that for-profit insurance as a concept is unethical, but also yes.
- ultrarunner 7y ago> They make other people money, generally at your expense. Sure, sometimes (as a matter of probability). But are you really claiming that all data collection is a zero-sum game wherein only the collectors can possibly win?
- TeMPOraL 7y agoNot sometimes, almost always. Data collection isn't a zero-sum game. Between you and collectors, it's positive-sum game with you almost always having negative gains. At the society level, this game is embedded in the negative-sum game of advertising.