5 ms·

1. If an insurance company finds out that you’re more predisposed to a disease, they will charge you or your employer a higher rate 2. The Fed gov’t has ~20,00

1. If an insurance company finds out that you’re more predisposed to a disease, they will charge you or your employer a higher rate 2. The Fed gov’t has ~20,000 laws, it has more than it can count, can you tell me that you haven’t broken a single one? Could a creative prosecutor find something you’re guilty of if they had enough information on you? 3. In 2012 (edit: 2010) target sent ads to a teen girl for baby supplies, the father angrily talked to the store manager asking why they were sending baby supply ads to his daughter. When he found out his daughter was pregnant, he apologized to the store manager. Target had a good idea the girl was pregnant because of the items she bought in their store. How would you like it if corporations know details about your family before you do? (Pro tip: they already know things you don’t know) 4. Organizations are not monolithic, they’re full of people who are constantly moving around and organizational priorities change. Any restrictions on use and protections will be ignored eventually and changed in privacy policies, which they have complete discretion to change. 5. The world is filled with clever and unscrupulous people, they will never stop finding ways to use your data in ways we can’t imagine, not all of them will be in your favor.

Anon1096 6y ago
Honestly I wish health insurance companies would be more willing to use data for billing. Someone who works to stay fit should be rewarded vs a fat individual or someone doing extreme sports. I know some insurance pays for health monitoring watches and gives bonuses, but mine still doesn't. I don't support insurance billing more for predisposition to disease, but that's already covered under the law so your point 1 is kind of irrelevant.
- tjpnz 6y ago
  >Someone who works to stay fit should be rewarded vs a fat individual or someone doing extreme sports. What about those who work to stay fit but are still fat according to their BMI? Not everyone gets dealt a good genetic hand.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- joubert 6y ago
  > Someone who works to stay fit should be rewarded Rewards to incentivize healthy behavior seems like a good idea. This study about the impact of an incentive program for preventive care concluded: "Voluntary participation in a patient incentive program was associated with a significantly higher likelihood of receiving preventive care, though receipt of preventive care among those in the program was still lower than ideal." https://www.ajmc.com/journals/issue/2014/2014-vol20-n6/impact-of-a-patient-incentive-program-on-receipt-of-preventive-care https://www.ajmc.com/journals/issue/2014/2014-vol20-n6/impac... > predisposition to disease What about pre-existing conditions?
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  People who die earlier from poor lifestyles and habits incur a smaller lifetime cost for healthcare, because the vast majority of health expenses occur only when a person lives long enough to become elderly and die from natural causes. The idea of insurers being willing to pass the savings, if they existed, down to their customers in any significant way is cute, though.
throwgeorge 6y ago
>2. The Fed gov’t has ~20,000 laws, it has more than it can count, can you tell me that you haven’t broken a single one? Could a creative prosecutor find something you’re guilty of if they had enough information on you? people should read "the trial" and internalize it (and ponder what historical context prompted kafka to write it).
hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
I think the problem with your argument is that most people don't think those things would apply to them, or they wouldn't care if they did. And in their defense, at least in the the US, most of the examples you give are hypotheticals. Possible rejoinders: 1. In the US, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act already prohibits this. For other things, like "are you a skydiver", the insurance company already has the right to ask you that. 2. I mean, sure, I'm sure I've broken some laws, but I can't think of any examples of overly agressive prosecutions for people who weren't already guilty of bad shit. 3. I mean, people are already used to creepy hypertargeted Facebook ads, most of them have don't really care anymore. 4. I mean sure, but how does this affect me? 5. This just sounds like a hand-wavy slippery slope argument. I think the issue for most people in the US is that they still fundamentally believe that the justice system is generally "just", at least with respect to themselves, though that is obviously changing. Contrast that with Germany, where people are vividly aware of what happens when the government uses personal data nefariously.
- jkhdigital 6y ago
  Your response to point 2 made me gasp. Just watch a few episodes of any of the many true crime false conviction series on Netflix. Unscrupulous prosecutors are not rare, and it does not matter who you are—if you get caught in the crosshairs you could go to prison for a crime you didn’t commit, or be coerced to provide false witness against a friend or loved one for a crime they didn’t commit.
  - zeroonetwothree 6y ago
    Netflix is definitely a reliable and objective source for crime data.
    - briefcomment 6y ago
      Fact is stranger than fiction.
  - rectang 6y ago
    For many people in the U.S., overzealous prosecutors are their allies so long as the people they are prosecuting who are "already guilty of bad shit" belong to undesirable demographics. Prosecutors and their selective enforcement efforts are central to suppressing minority votes through felony disenfranchisement, for instance in Florida. I wonder how the arguments against surveillance capitalism poll across targeted minorities vs. the general population. I speculate that sentiments diverge in the same direction as sentiments towards the police.
catalogia 6y ago
I don't think that Target thing happened in 2012, iirc I first heard that story in 2010.
matz1 6y ago
>If an insurance company finds out that you’re more predisposed to a disease, they will charge you or your employer a higher rate That make sense, do you really expect insurance company to not charge higher premium to insure someone who predisposed to a disease ? >The Fed gov’t has ~20,000 laws, it has more than it can count, can you tell me that you haven’t broken a single one? Could a creative prosecutor find something you’re guilty of if they had enough information on you? Then the issue is with too many laws >How would you like it if corporations know details about your family before you do? Doesn't matter >The world is filled with clever and unscrupulous people, they will never stop finding ways to use your data in ways we can’t imagine, not all of them will be in your favor. This will be the always the case, regardless of surveillance or not.
tdrgabi 6y ago
Thank you for writing that. I'll ponder them.
scatters 6y ago
1. Isn't this solving the wrong problem? Rather than hiding this information from the insurance company, we can make - and have made - it impermissible for them to use the information as the basis of setting rates. 2. Again, solving the wrong problem. Also, coming to the attention of a prosecutor with a sufficient vendetta to go to various companies to try to dig up dirt seems rather far-fetched. And if they couldn't use personal data for that purpose, wouldn't they find another avenue? 3. If I had kids, I'd want them to be protected - it certainly seems reasonable that children's personal data be protected. Once they become adults, though, I don't see why a parent should have any control over their adult children's behavior. 4. Firstly, you're assuming that your interlocutor shares your concerns about the uses to which that data could be put. Second, data goes stale, meaning it ceases to be valuable or potentially harmful. 5. And the world is also filled with clever and scrupulous people who want to use personal data in ways we can't imagine to everyone's benefit. Shutting down collection and use of personal data prevents those beneficial uses as well as any harmful ones (indeed more so).
Kiro 6y ago
People would just say "I don't think that would happen" to all of those things. They are not tangible enough. If anything, they would laugh at 3 like they would to any "funny" story.
alboy 6y ago
>1. If an insurance company finds out that you’re more predisposed to a disease, they will charge you or your employer a higher rate I've never really understood this one. Do you want to force insurance companies to spread the costs associated with insuring high-risk individuals across their whole clientele via this information opacity? Why not just use a single-payer system instead of that Rube Goldberg machine at this point?

Anon1096 6y ago

Honestly I wish health insurance companies would be more willing to use data for billing. Someone who works to stay fit should be rewarded vs a fat individual or someone doing extreme sports. I know some insurance pays for health monitoring watches and gives bonuses, but mine still doesn't. I don't support insurance billing more for predisposition to disease, but that's already covered under the law so your point 1 is kind of irrelevant.

tjpnz 6y ago
>Someone who works to stay fit should be rewarded vs a fat individual or someone doing extreme sports. What about those who work to stay fit but are still fat according to their BMI? Not everyone gets dealt a good genetic hand.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
joubert 6y ago
> Someone who works to stay fit should be rewarded Rewards to incentivize healthy behavior seems like a good idea. This study about the impact of an incentive program for preventive care concluded: "Voluntary participation in a patient incentive program was associated with a significantly higher likelihood of receiving preventive care, though receipt of preventive care among those in the program was still lower than ideal." https://www.ajmc.com/journals/issue/2014/2014-vol20-n6/impact-of-a-patient-incentive-program-on-receipt-of-preventive-care https://www.ajmc.com/journals/issue/2014/2014-vol20-n6/impac... > predisposition to disease What about pre-existing conditions?
heavyset_go 6y ago
People who die earlier from poor lifestyles and habits incur a smaller lifetime cost for healthcare, because the vast majority of health expenses occur only when a person lives long enough to become elderly and die from natural causes. The idea of insurers being willing to pass the savings, if they existed, down to their customers in any significant way is cute, though.

throwgeorge 6y ago

>2. The Fed gov’t has ~20,000 laws, it has more than it can count, can you tell me that you haven’t broken a single one? Could a creative prosecutor find something you’re guilty of if they had enough information on you? people should read "the trial" and internalize it (and ponder what historical context prompted kafka to write it).

hn_throwaway_99 6y ago

I think the problem with your argument is that most people don't think those things would apply to them, or they wouldn't care if they did. And in their defense, at least in the the US, most of the examples you give are hypotheticals. Possible rejoinders: 1. In the US, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act already prohibits this. For other things, like "are you a skydiver", the insurance company already has the right to ask you that. 2. I mean, sure, I'm sure I've broken some laws, but I can't think of any examples of overly agressive prosecutions for people who weren't already guilty of bad shit. 3. I mean, people are already used to creepy hypertargeted Facebook ads, most of them have don't really care anymore. 4. I mean sure, but how does this affect me? 5. This just sounds like a hand-wavy slippery slope argument. I think the issue for most people in the US is that they still fundamentally believe that the justice system is generally "just", at least with respect to themselves, though that is obviously changing. Contrast that with Germany, where people are vividly aware of what happens when the government uses personal data nefariously.

jkhdigital 6y ago
Your response to point 2 made me gasp. Just watch a few episodes of any of the many true crime false conviction series on Netflix. Unscrupulous prosecutors are not rare, and it does not matter who you are—if you get caught in the crosshairs you could go to prison for a crime you didn’t commit, or be coerced to provide false witness against a friend or loved one for a crime they didn’t commit.
- zeroonetwothree 6y ago
  Netflix is definitely a reliable and objective source for crime data.
  - briefcomment 6y ago
    Fact is stranger than fiction.
- rectang 6y ago
  For many people in the U.S., overzealous prosecutors are their allies so long as the people they are prosecuting who are "already guilty of bad shit" belong to undesirable demographics. Prosecutors and their selective enforcement efforts are central to suppressing minority votes through felony disenfranchisement, for instance in Florida. I wonder how the arguments against surveillance capitalism poll across targeted minorities vs. the general population. I speculate that sentiments diverge in the same direction as sentiments towards the police.

catalogia 6y ago

I don't think that Target thing happened in 2012, iirc I first heard that story in 2010.

matz1 6y ago

>If an insurance company finds out that you’re more predisposed to a disease, they will charge you or your employer a higher rate That make sense, do you really expect insurance company to not charge higher premium to insure someone who predisposed to a disease ? >The Fed gov’t has ~20,000 laws, it has more than it can count, can you tell me that you haven’t broken a single one? Could a creative prosecutor find something you’re guilty of if they had enough information on you? Then the issue is with too many laws >How would you like it if corporations know details about your family before you do? Doesn't matter >The world is filled with clever and unscrupulous people, they will never stop finding ways to use your data in ways we can’t imagine, not all of them will be in your favor. This will be the always the case, regardless of surveillance or not.

tdrgabi 6y ago

Thank you for writing that. I'll ponder them.

scatters 6y ago

1. Isn't this solving the wrong problem? Rather than hiding this information from the insurance company, we can make - and have made - it impermissible for them to use the information as the basis of setting rates. 2. Again, solving the wrong problem. Also, coming to the attention of a prosecutor with a sufficient vendetta to go to various companies to try to dig up dirt seems rather far-fetched. And if they couldn't use personal data for that purpose, wouldn't they find another avenue? 3. If I had kids, I'd want them to be protected - it certainly seems reasonable that children's personal data be protected. Once they become adults, though, I don't see why a parent should have any control over their adult children's behavior. 4. Firstly, you're assuming that your interlocutor shares your concerns about the uses to which that data could be put. Second, data goes stale, meaning it ceases to be valuable or potentially harmful. 5. And the world is also filled with clever and scrupulous people who want to use personal data in ways we can't imagine to everyone's benefit. Shutting down collection and use of personal data prevents those beneficial uses as well as any harmful ones (indeed more so).

Kiro 6y ago

People would just say "I don't think that would happen" to all of those things. They are not tangible enough. If anything, they would laugh at 3 like they would to any "funny" story.

alboy 6y ago

>1. If an insurance company finds out that you’re more predisposed to a disease, they will charge you or your employer a higher rate I've never really understood this one. Do you want to force insurance companies to spread the costs associated with insuring high-risk individuals across their whole clientele via this information opacity? Why not just use a single-payer system instead of that Rube Goldberg machine at this point?