> If your insurance company or bank is allowed to use all data it collects to make model of you, it leads to Kafkaesque world. I reflexively agreed with what y

> If your insurance company or bank is allowed to use all data it collects to make model of you, it leads to Kafkaesque world. I reflexively agreed with what you wrote then I started thinking more about it, playing some likely scenarios through in my head, and now I'm not sure it necessarily ends in too bad of a place. My reasoning: Ultimately, risk estimation has to actually reflect reality to be economically sustainable. Insurance is a highly competitive marketplace with low switching costs and relatively low barriers to entry. I've been driving for several decades and have only been involved in a couple of accidents, none of which were remotely attributable to me. I think I'm very low risk, yet I pay what seems to be fairly high premiums. I suspect low-risk drivers like myself are subsidizing higher-risk drivers due to the expense and inaccuracy of more accurately pricing forward risk. So, taken as a general concept, more accurate risk assessment done more efficiently enables the actual risk component of insurance priced more fairly and higher efficiency actuarial estimation reduces the overhead cost of providing the overall insurance 'product' to a consumer. Broadly speaking, these are net positives. In terms of how it's done, I think that the market will react to pricing changes such that there will be insurance companies who promote the fact that they don't use XYZ risk estimation process, much as some Las Vegas casinos advertise that they only use single decks in blackjack vs six decks, increasing the appeal to card counters.