4 ms·

That seems to have to do with employment practices. The article is talking about a private company using publicly available data as a factor in determining whe

That seems to have to do with employment practices. The article is talking about a private company using publicly available data as a factor in determining whether or not to extend a loan to you. I think it's kind of shitty, but I don't know that it's any different than say using gender as a factor.

hawleyal 13y ago
In the USA, that gender thing is illegal.
- acheron 13y ago
  Tell that to car insurance companies.
  - jelled 13y ago
    lending laws != insurance laws.
    - JWLong 13y ago
      That may be true, but the principles are pretty much the same. Both parties would use gender to assess risk.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - count 13y ago
    Interestingly, governments are doing exactly that: http://www.theactuary.com/news/2013/01/gender-directive-has-already-pushed-up-womens-car-insurance-prices/ http://www.theactuary.com/news/2013/01/gender-directive-has-... It's now illegal in some nations to discriminate pricing based on gender.
    - neilc 13y ago
      If gender is predictive of higher/lower risk for a particular policy, then banning its use seems bizarre. It makes even less sense if the the insurance company is allowed to consider other factors that are correlated with gender (e.g., age, profession).
      - russellsprouts 13y ago
        If it were illegal for all companies, you could probably assume each company would have approximately an equal number of men and women. They could charge the men and women the same price - the average of the old men's and women's rates. The income would be the same.
      - pessimizer 13y ago
        The case that can be made for banning such a practice is that gender doesn't determine higher/lower risk, it's just associated with it. There's nothing about gender in an of itself that makes you drive badly, even if 80% of women get together at a secret meeting and agree to drive badly. In that case, the 20% would be suffering discrimination purely because of their gender. >It makes even less sense if the the insurance company is allowed to consider other factors that are correlated with gender (e.g., age, profession). Agreed.
        Houshalter 13y ago
        >There's nothing about gender in an of itself that makes you drive badly, even if 80% of women get together at a secret meeting and agree to drive badly. In that case, the 20% would be suffering discrimination purely because of their gender. Look at it the other way around. By not taking it into account, 100% of men would be suffering because of the 80% of women. In any case, this isn't any different with all other factors. Age and profession for example. There are really good 16 year old drivers, why should they have to pay higher insurance? By your logic making any predictions is wrong if they aren't 100% accurate. Gender is just a subcase.
        13y ago
- elmuchoprez 13y ago
  As has been pointed out, it's not illegal when it comes to insurance. I'm not sure it's illegal when it comes to lending. Honestly, I'm a little confused by some of these equality laws. I'm pretty sure that the law can't compel you to make a loan you don't want to make, whether there is a good reason on not. I think you just can't say the denial was for a racial reason or gender reason or whatever. But even if those things were at the heart of your decision, so long as you don't say it, is that even illegal? And in this case, I'm talking about private companies who don't have connection to US government. (ie: I think if you're government ensured or whatever, they have more power to compel specific behavior.)
  - ignostic 13y ago
    It is illegal when it comes to lending. See the section on disparate impact. http://www.occ.gov/topics/consumer-protection/fair-lending/index-fair-lending.html http://www.occ.gov/topics/consumer-protection/fair-lending/i...
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
  - markdown 13y ago
    > But even if those things were at the heart of your decision, so long as you don't say it, is that even illegal? Yes, absolutely. If you want the right to set up a business to serve the people of the nation, the people have decided that you can do so, so long as you serve them without regard to color, gender, etc. Our forefathers made these laws because they saw that given the opportunity, entities with a profit motive will pursue profit over all else, to the detriment of society as a whole. It was seen that when discrimination occurs, society as a whole suffers. I don't want my neighbor to go broke and let his house fall apart because he married a black woman from a hellhole in detroit.
    - elmuchoprez 13y ago
      "Our forefathers made these laws because they saw that given the opportunity, entities with a profit motive will pursue profit over all else, to the detriment of society as a whole." Half of our "forefathers" built fortunes on the backs of slaves. They got plenty of other things right, but many of them missed the mark on racial and gender equality.
ignostic 13y ago
It seems to read that way, but the doctrine has been applied to the Fair Housing Act and more. http://www.propublica.org/article/disparate-impact-and-fair-housing-seven-cases-you-should-know http://www.propublica.org/article/disparate-impact-and-fair-...

hawleyal 13y ago

In the USA, that gender thing is illegal.

acheron 13y ago
Tell that to car insurance companies.
- jelled 13y ago
  lending laws != insurance laws.
  - JWLong 13y ago
    That may be true, but the principles are pretty much the same. Both parties would use gender to assess risk.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- count 13y ago
  Interestingly, governments are doing exactly that: http://www.theactuary.com/news/2013/01/gender-directive-has-already-pushed-up-womens-car-insurance-prices/ http://www.theactuary.com/news/2013/01/gender-directive-has-... It's now illegal in some nations to discriminate pricing based on gender.
  - neilc 13y ago
    If gender is predictive of higher/lower risk for a particular policy, then banning its use seems bizarre. It makes even less sense if the the insurance company is allowed to consider other factors that are correlated with gender (e.g., age, profession).
    - russellsprouts 13y ago
      If it were illegal for all companies, you could probably assume each company would have approximately an equal number of men and women. They could charge the men and women the same price - the average of the old men's and women's rates. The income would be the same.
    - pessimizer 13y ago
      The case that can be made for banning such a practice is that gender doesn't determine higher/lower risk, it's just associated with it. There's nothing about gender in an of itself that makes you drive badly, even if 80% of women get together at a secret meeting and agree to drive badly. In that case, the 20% would be suffering discrimination purely because of their gender. >It makes even less sense if the the insurance company is allowed to consider other factors that are correlated with gender (e.g., age, profession). Agreed.
      - Houshalter 13y ago
        >There's nothing about gender in an of itself that makes you drive badly, even if 80% of women get together at a secret meeting and agree to drive badly. In that case, the 20% would be suffering discrimination purely because of their gender. Look at it the other way around. By not taking it into account, 100% of men would be suffering because of the 80% of women. In any case, this isn't any different with all other factors. Age and profession for example. There are really good 16 year old drivers, why should they have to pay higher insurance? By your logic making any predictions is wrong if they aren't 100% accurate. Gender is just a subcase.
        13y ago
elmuchoprez 13y ago
As has been pointed out, it's not illegal when it comes to insurance. I'm not sure it's illegal when it comes to lending. Honestly, I'm a little confused by some of these equality laws. I'm pretty sure that the law can't compel you to make a loan you don't want to make, whether there is a good reason on not. I think you just can't say the denial was for a racial reason or gender reason or whatever. But even if those things were at the heart of your decision, so long as you don't say it, is that even illegal? And in this case, I'm talking about private companies who don't have connection to US government. (ie: I think if you're government ensured or whatever, they have more power to compel specific behavior.)
- ignostic 13y ago
  It is illegal when it comes to lending. See the section on disparate impact. http://www.occ.gov/topics/consumer-protection/fair-lending/index-fair-lending.html http://www.occ.gov/topics/consumer-protection/fair-lending/i...
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- markdown 13y ago
  > But even if those things were at the heart of your decision, so long as you don't say it, is that even illegal? Yes, absolutely. If you want the right to set up a business to serve the people of the nation, the people have decided that you can do so, so long as you serve them without regard to color, gender, etc. Our forefathers made these laws because they saw that given the opportunity, entities with a profit motive will pursue profit over all else, to the detriment of society as a whole. It was seen that when discrimination occurs, society as a whole suffers. I don't want my neighbor to go broke and let his house fall apart because he married a black woman from a hellhole in detroit.
  - elmuchoprez 13y ago
    "Our forefathers made these laws because they saw that given the opportunity, entities with a profit motive will pursue profit over all else, to the detriment of society as a whole." Half of our "forefathers" built fortunes on the backs of slaves. They got plenty of other things right, but many of them missed the mark on racial and gender equality.

ignostic 13y ago

It seems to read that way, but the doctrine has been applied to the Fair Housing Act and more. http://www.propublica.org/article/disparate-impact-and-fair-housing-seven-cases-you-should-know http://www.propublica.org/article/disparate-impact-and-fair-...