4 ms·
In these cases, the argument is always of the type you just mentioned. “What’s the big deal the data is already available, relax”. On top of that, it comes wit
by gxs 3y ago
In these cases, the argument is always of the type you just mentioned.
“What’s the big deal the data is already available, relax”. On top of that, it comes with an air of condescension as if no one had ever thought about that before.
One concern with things like this is that it’s different when you have to send someone out to inspect a home vs inspecting thousands of homes at a time. Once you have data in that volume, you can start to infer things that do borderline encroach on privacy.
What is the case here, and it might be what you were trying to point out, is that this kind of data is already collected regularly and is by the books legal. The concern here is simply at the application.
At this point the cats out of the bag and the best we can hope for is at least some level of protection through legislation.
- tptacek 3y agoAgain: insurers can and do demand home inspections when underwriting. This is strictly less intrusive than common existing practices in insurance.
- gxs 3y agoThe irony of starting a comment with again when you yourself didn’t read the reply. I acknowledged that all this info is already out there. That insurance companies can demand to inspect your home. And even further that that this aerial footage is already widely available. My comment was specifically calling out that collecting data one house inspection at a time is different than collecting data at high volumes. But let’s gloss over the fact that someone didn’t even fully disagree with you, but even then you couldn’t get over that one point that you didn’t like.