3 ms·

Google (probably) knows my sexual orientation, number and frequency of partners, if I'm trying to get pregnant, if I'm self-treating anything, if I'm hiding any

Google (probably) knows my sexual orientation, number and frequency of partners, if I'm trying to get pregnant, if I'm self-treating anything, if I'm hiding anything, if I drive recklessly, if I've settled car accidents under the table, etc. Some of these are not protected even under the ACA or other regulations, which may not survive in their current form for very long. There's a lot more to discriminate against when you have total information awareness of a person. Most of it surprisingly legal. As a google search engine user, chrome user, android user, and web dev - I imagine google's picture of me is and highly invasive and creepily accurate. This is bothersome privacy violation and a major competitive advantage against other potential insurers.

Karunamon 12y ago
Keep in mind the whole point of insurance is shared, proportional risk. Is it both simultaneously the Wrong Thing for an insurance company to use all available information to make an informed decision, and the Right Thing for a person to put on airs to appear less statistically risky than they actually are? Bluntly, this quacks like an argument for deception for personal gain (via lower premiums). Granted we can talk about insurance companies being shady, but even a completely honest one would, say, rightly raise your rates after an accident.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- Thrymr 12y ago
  > Keep in mind the whole point of insurance is shared, proportional risk. The fundamental problem is that the more information is brought to bear on the idea of "risk", the less shared it is. This is especially stark in health insurance: do you have family history of serious diseases? Do you carry a particular gene? Do you engage in risky behavior like smoking, adventure sports, promiscuous sex? It can price some people out of the insurance market altogether, and make it less of a "shared" pool. This is precisely the problem the ACA is trying (with debatable success) to tackle. Auto insurance is arguably more directly tied to statistically risky behavior rather than factors beyond your control (like genetics), but the potential is still there. We as a society are not ready for total information awareness on the part of our insurer. If Google offered insurance directly, could they deny a claim based on an email you sent before or after an accident? Raise your rates if you search for fast cars online? What's the difference between actually risky behaviors, and behaviors that are merely correlated with higher risk? The insurance markets are opaque enough without adding black box algorithms working on nearly limitless data inputs.
  - Karunamon 12y ago
    The opaqueness is a feature, not a bug. With full transparent knowledge of what goes into the risk calculation, people will absolutely game the system and ruin it for everyone else.
twoodfin 12y ago
Some of these are not protected even under the ACA or other regulations... Not so. ACA allows insurers to price their plans based on only three factors: - Age - Smoker/Nonsmoker - A geographic "community rating", based only on the broad area in which you live That's it. If they sell a plan to anyone who matches along those three axes, they have to sell it to everyone who matches.

Karunamon 12y ago

Keep in mind the whole point of insurance is shared, proportional risk. Is it both simultaneously the Wrong Thing for an insurance company to use all available information to make an informed decision, and the Right Thing for a person to put on airs to appear less statistically risky than they actually are? Bluntly, this quacks like an argument for deception for personal gain (via lower premiums). Granted we can talk about insurance companies being shady, but even a completely honest one would, say, rightly raise your rates after an accident.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
Thrymr 12y ago
> Keep in mind the whole point of insurance is shared, proportional risk. The fundamental problem is that the more information is brought to bear on the idea of "risk", the less shared it is. This is especially stark in health insurance: do you have family history of serious diseases? Do you carry a particular gene? Do you engage in risky behavior like smoking, adventure sports, promiscuous sex? It can price some people out of the insurance market altogether, and make it less of a "shared" pool. This is precisely the problem the ACA is trying (with debatable success) to tackle. Auto insurance is arguably more directly tied to statistically risky behavior rather than factors beyond your control (like genetics), but the potential is still there. We as a society are not ready for total information awareness on the part of our insurer. If Google offered insurance directly, could they deny a claim based on an email you sent before or after an accident? Raise your rates if you search for fast cars online? What's the difference between actually risky behaviors, and behaviors that are merely correlated with higher risk? The insurance markets are opaque enough without adding black box algorithms working on nearly limitless data inputs.
- Karunamon 12y ago
  The opaqueness is a feature, not a bug. With full transparent knowledge of what goes into the risk calculation, people will absolutely game the system and ruin it for everyone else.

twoodfin 12y ago

Some of these are not protected even under the ACA or other regulations... Not so. ACA allows insurers to price their plans based on only three factors: - Age - Smoker/Nonsmoker - A geographic "community rating", based only on the broad area in which you live That's it. If they sell a plan to anyone who matches along those three axes, they have to sell it to everyone who matches.