Unfortunately, this article leaves the exact nature of information she was relying on vague/confusing. > "she was able to receive relevant information beforeha

Unfortunately, this article leaves the exact nature of information she was relying on vague/confusing. > "she was able to receive relevant information beforehand that tells her if the flight was going to be delayed or cancelled. Thereafter, she would purchase the tickets to the flights that are likely to be delayed or cancelled, before checking if there is any extreme weather along the route the flight is going to take that day." Specifically, I'm not sure what the "before checking for extreme weather along the route" bit is supposed to mean, especially since it seems to imply that she checked for extreme weather after she already purchased the insurance? Something is odd with the grammar here. Furthermore, the quote never specifies what the "relevant information" actually was. So... does this mean that she received inside information (e.g., from a former coworker) that the flight had been cancelled? Or does it mean that she was looking at publicly-available information (e.g., weather data) to make the call? I think the ethics and usefulness of some aspect of this are dependent on the answer to that question, and I'm not sure the article says definitively one way or another. With that being said, I think the ethical problems with the fake identities seem more clear...