7 ms·

The solution to this conundrum and similar potential problems with other 'smart' devices is to leave them on the (virtual) shelves. If your insurer starts to pr

The solution to this conundrum and similar potential problems with other 'smart' devices is to leave them on the (virtual) shelves. If your insurer starts to promote the use of such a device you change insurer. The same goes for car insurance which wants to have access to (live) tracking data on your car, home insurance who demand the installation of and access to 'security systems', the list gets longer and longer. The way things are going this new nosy technology is set to create a new class of Luddites, those who while not averse to technology in itself do not accept their lives to be steered by profit-seeking entities through the use of such. Another interesting question is whether law enforcement will be allowed to access such data and whether it can be used as proof against the wearer. If your data indicates you were in a higher state of alert with a raised pulse, the gyroscope and position sensors indicate you were physically active, the location data puts you in a given area and the microphone picked up suspect sounds they won't need much more to convict you. Who is the legal owner of the data? Some countries give people the right to refuse to testify against themselves so if the data is owned by the wearer I'd expect it to be off-limits to the law. The potential good uses of this type of technology are myriad, it just needs to be made big-brother-proof. That will be a hard task since there are situations where you'd want some of these easily-abused features to be used - e.g. call in emergency services if the device detects a life-threatening condition, etc.

close04 6y ago
> leave them on the (virtual) shelves That's easy today because this option is unpopular. But look back and see how many things we (as entire populations, not necessarily individuals) starting accepting that was unfathomable a couple of decades ago. Without strong government intervention we may end up at the point where you can take it or forfeit the insurance.
- wmeredith 6y ago
  This is what I see coming as the mega corps eat our society alongside software. Look at the regulatory capture the telcos have managed with their negotiated service area monopolies or duopolies. It’s easy to say “buy something else” until there’s nothing else to buy and the product is a requirement for functioning in society (insurance, internet connectivity, healthcare). We need trust busting candidates now.
  - jrockway 6y ago
    I don't think trust busting can make the telco problem go away. You can punish someone for their past wrongdoings, but that doesn't necessarily incentivize anyone to become an ISP after the fact. You have to look at how we invest in infrastructure instead. In most of the country, ISPs are responsible for building their own infrastructure; they have to either dig up streets or beg the local power company for pole access. If they didn't have to do that, many more companies would be interested in being ISPs. As it stands right now, it's too expensive and too risky. Sure, being an ISP is 95% profit once you've paid for the infrastructure, but the payoff period is many decades. Nobody has that risk appetite anymore. In Manhattan, under every street is a subway where you can put power cables, fiber optic cables, etc. The result is that there are a multitude of business ISPs around, because someone already dug a hole in the ground where their cables can go. The actual stringing of cables is a straightforward procedure; sure you need to buy trucks and cables, but that's a lot cheaper than saying "hey we're closing 5th Ave. for 3 months" and digging the whole thing up. The street was dug up once (in 1891!), and now nobody has to do it again. (OK, the tunnels are pretty full, but it's better than nothing.) If every street were built like this, it is likely that there would be many more ISPs. The big risks are gone. (There is a secondary problem in that many people still like linear TV, and many TV networks are owned by companies that are also ISPs. AT&T owns HBO. Comcast owns NBC. So that would be the sticking point after there is infrastructure, and sure... have the government break them up. They'll probably be dead long before we have the infrastructure, though.) The short term solution is probably to invest in better trenching techniques. I've heard of microtrenches, nanotrenches, and picotrenches. Maybe we need femototrenches where you just run a fiber to someone's house through their lawn and cover it up with tape where it crosses the sidewalk. It's better than nothing. But probably still too risky for anyone to attempt.
- spockz 6y ago
  Here in the Netherlands I see a tracking device for cars becoming popular. It is being marketed as a device to get early insights in car breakdown oh and btw you get a 10-20% discount on the insurance fee. That could amount to €40 a month which is a big incentive for people. Sometimes there are even additional insurance discounts when the accelerator has detected a gentle driving style.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    Why should a gentle driver subsidize aggressive drivers? Why should a person that has a healthy diet and does regular cardiovascular exercise subsidize someone who doesn’t? Should someone that drinks only water subsidize those who regularly drink carbonated sugary or alcoholic drinks? With more data, it’s possible to see how much certain lifestyles subsidize others, so it will be interesting what society deems eligible for subsidies and not.
    - drewcon 6y ago
      You just described exactly how insurance actually works. I don’t really want to live in a world where the higher risk people are MORE disincentivized from being able to secure insurance by eliminating “subsidies” because of their behavior. Insurers need more of lower risk people to subsidize higher risk people (or events) otherwise the whole thing simply doesn’t work.
      - lotsofpulp 6y ago
        As an insured, insurance is to protect yourself from an unknown randomly distributed loss that you can’t afford. As an insurer, you can afford to insure if the losses occur within the assumed probability distribution and loss magnitude parameters. In the case of auto (or driving) insurance, it is known that driving aggressively will cause more collisions hence more losses. Therefore, any insurance company not taking this knowledge into account will have uncompetitive premiums compared to another insurance company that is. Insurance only doesn’t work in this case for people who choose to drive aggressively. A more contentious point would be people living in poor areas having to pay more for insurance due to more property crime in poorer areas. It’s easy to say someone who drives recklessly chooses to and should suffer the consequences, but what about someone who happened to be born to poorer parents? In the case of healthcare, there are a few known factors that make many chronic health events not random, such as bad diet, lack of excercise, and bad genes. A broken arm might be a sufficiently random event, but what should society do about the non random health losses? What if you were born to poor parents and never had much of a chance to make it so you had a job schedule that allowed you a routine to workout regularly? Or time to cook healthy foods? Or you don’t make enough money to live near grocery stores that sell nutritious foods? But then at least 70% of Americans are fat. And I see them voluntarily buying large containers of sugar water multiple times a week. Why should I have to pay for their diabetes? Same for a smoker or an alcohol drinker? It’s a nuanced topic that makes me wonder what freedom is and how much freedom can cost. Am I restricting freedom by not wanting to pay for others’ actions known to cause certain losses? Should people be restricted from certain actions if they can’t afford the losses, therefore restricting their freedom? Can they even be restricted, logistically?
rayhendricks 6y ago
I do agree with the possibility of uses for this kind of technology, however at least in the United States, health insurance is largely tied to ones employer which makes it impossible to switch insurance companies.

close04 6y ago

> leave them on the (virtual) shelves That's easy today because this option is unpopular. But look back and see how many things we (as entire populations, not necessarily individuals) starting accepting that was unfathomable a couple of decades ago. Without strong government intervention we may end up at the point where you can take it or forfeit the insurance.

wmeredith 6y ago
This is what I see coming as the mega corps eat our society alongside software. Look at the regulatory capture the telcos have managed with their negotiated service area monopolies or duopolies. It’s easy to say “buy something else” until there’s nothing else to buy and the product is a requirement for functioning in society (insurance, internet connectivity, healthcare). We need trust busting candidates now.
- jrockway 6y ago
  I don't think trust busting can make the telco problem go away. You can punish someone for their past wrongdoings, but that doesn't necessarily incentivize anyone to become an ISP after the fact. You have to look at how we invest in infrastructure instead. In most of the country, ISPs are responsible for building their own infrastructure; they have to either dig up streets or beg the local power company for pole access. If they didn't have to do that, many more companies would be interested in being ISPs. As it stands right now, it's too expensive and too risky. Sure, being an ISP is 95% profit once you've paid for the infrastructure, but the payoff period is many decades. Nobody has that risk appetite anymore. In Manhattan, under every street is a subway where you can put power cables, fiber optic cables, etc. The result is that there are a multitude of business ISPs around, because someone already dug a hole in the ground where their cables can go. The actual stringing of cables is a straightforward procedure; sure you need to buy trucks and cables, but that's a lot cheaper than saying "hey we're closing 5th Ave. for 3 months" and digging the whole thing up. The street was dug up once (in 1891!), and now nobody has to do it again. (OK, the tunnels are pretty full, but it's better than nothing.) If every street were built like this, it is likely that there would be many more ISPs. The big risks are gone. (There is a secondary problem in that many people still like linear TV, and many TV networks are owned by companies that are also ISPs. AT&T owns HBO. Comcast owns NBC. So that would be the sticking point after there is infrastructure, and sure... have the government break them up. They'll probably be dead long before we have the infrastructure, though.) The short term solution is probably to invest in better trenching techniques. I've heard of microtrenches, nanotrenches, and picotrenches. Maybe we need femototrenches where you just run a fiber to someone's house through their lawn and cover it up with tape where it crosses the sidewalk. It's better than nothing. But probably still too risky for anyone to attempt.
spockz 6y ago
Here in the Netherlands I see a tracking device for cars becoming popular. It is being marketed as a device to get early insights in car breakdown oh and btw you get a 10-20% discount on the insurance fee. That could amount to €40 a month which is a big incentive for people. Sometimes there are even additional insurance discounts when the accelerator has detected a gentle driving style.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  Why should a gentle driver subsidize aggressive drivers? Why should a person that has a healthy diet and does regular cardiovascular exercise subsidize someone who doesn’t? Should someone that drinks only water subsidize those who regularly drink carbonated sugary or alcoholic drinks? With more data, it’s possible to see how much certain lifestyles subsidize others, so it will be interesting what society deems eligible for subsidies and not.
  - drewcon 6y ago
    You just described exactly how insurance actually works. I don’t really want to live in a world where the higher risk people are MORE disincentivized from being able to secure insurance by eliminating “subsidies” because of their behavior. Insurers need more of lower risk people to subsidize higher risk people (or events) otherwise the whole thing simply doesn’t work.
    - lotsofpulp 6y ago
      As an insured, insurance is to protect yourself from an unknown randomly distributed loss that you can’t afford. As an insurer, you can afford to insure if the losses occur within the assumed probability distribution and loss magnitude parameters. In the case of auto (or driving) insurance, it is known that driving aggressively will cause more collisions hence more losses. Therefore, any insurance company not taking this knowledge into account will have uncompetitive premiums compared to another insurance company that is. Insurance only doesn’t work in this case for people who choose to drive aggressively. A more contentious point would be people living in poor areas having to pay more for insurance due to more property crime in poorer areas. It’s easy to say someone who drives recklessly chooses to and should suffer the consequences, but what about someone who happened to be born to poorer parents? In the case of healthcare, there are a few known factors that make many chronic health events not random, such as bad diet, lack of excercise, and bad genes. A broken arm might be a sufficiently random event, but what should society do about the non random health losses? What if you were born to poor parents and never had much of a chance to make it so you had a job schedule that allowed you a routine to workout regularly? Or time to cook healthy foods? Or you don’t make enough money to live near grocery stores that sell nutritious foods? But then at least 70% of Americans are fat. And I see them voluntarily buying large containers of sugar water multiple times a week. Why should I have to pay for their diabetes? Same for a smoker or an alcohol drinker? It’s a nuanced topic that makes me wonder what freedom is and how much freedom can cost. Am I restricting freedom by not wanting to pay for others’ actions known to cause certain losses? Should people be restricted from certain actions if they can’t afford the losses, therefore restricting their freedom? Can they even be restricted, logistically?

rayhendricks 6y ago

I do agree with the possibility of uses for this kind of technology, however at least in the United States, health insurance is largely tied to ones employer which makes it impossible to switch insurance companies.