I find the part about insurance companies scouring social media particularly troubling. While most of my social media accounts are locked down, I suppose those companies could employ "Cambridge...
I find the part about insurance companies scouring social media particularly troubling. While most of my social media accounts are locked down, I suppose those companies could employ "Cambridge Analytical"-style tactics to get access to what I've marked only for friends. News items like this make me increasingly uneasy about the lack of universal healthcare in the USA. How do I know that a photo someone else posts of me (potentially without my permission) won't be used as justification for raising my premiums?
Working in property and casualty insurance, underwriters at my company will check an applicants Facebook, Yelp reviews, website, etc while they're still on the phone with the agent learning about...
Working in property and casualty insurance, underwriters at my company will check an applicants Facebook, Yelp reviews, website, etc while they're still on the phone with the agent learning about the account. We have found so much crazy stuff - "handymen" that are roofers, "family restaurants" with Coyote Wild-style bartenders and mechanical bulls, etc. We don't do the same for people applying for personal insurance but we do look at Zillow, Google Maps, etc to get a feel for the property and general upkeep.
These practices help everyone. We would find out about the fraud/misrepresentation eventually and either retroactively charge the right premium if there haven't been any claims or not pay the claim and cancel the policy if there have. That doesn't help the insured, their agent, or us. The cost of dealing with these claims makes everyone's premium more expensive so it harms society at large.
Thank you for explaining, that makes sense to me for property insurance. I guess when I read the word insurance, my mind goes straight to health, but I can see the value in doing research before...
Thank you for explaining, that makes sense to me for property insurance. I guess when I read the word insurance, my mind goes straight to health, but I can see the value in doing research before insuring properties and businesses.
Public stuff, fine. Not public stuff, trouble. I suppose you check public stuff, or else we're learning about a scandal here. The comment you replying to was talking about private and friends only...
Public stuff, fine. Not public stuff, trouble. I suppose you check public stuff, or else we're learning about a scandal here. The comment you replying to was talking about private and friends only stuff.
We don't look at anything private, just pointing out how checking social media benefits everyone involved. I don't think any insurance companies would go Cambridge Analytica on you, they are...
We don't look at anything private, just pointing out how checking social media benefits everyone involved. I don't think any insurance companies would go Cambridge Analytica on you, they are overall pretty conservative and risk averse. A state department of insurance would probably come down on them pretty hard if they were violating people's privacy cavalierly.
This was my immediate first thought - oh you want to see more of me doing physical exercise? I guess I'll have an actual use for my Facebook account now other than for logging into other apps.
This was my immediate first thought - oh you want to see more of me doing physical exercise? I guess I'll have an actual use for my Facebook account now other than for logging into other apps.
The title seems kinda ridiculous. Most of the article is about tech companies banning you from their service... which seems pretty obvious. As a private company providing a service, of course Uber...
The title seems kinda ridiculous. Most of the article is about tech companies banning you from their service... which seems pretty obvious. As a private company providing a service, of course Uber and Whatsapp can ban you from their services. McDonalds can ban you from all of their stores since they started.
There can be issues, then, in areas where those services are monopolistic. However, the article didn't really talk about that, instead choosing to just be like "ooooooo did you know Uber can ban you for ANY reason!?!?".
To call equivalency between that and "social credit" is ridiculous.
Yes, there is exaggeration in the headline, but the article is describing a system that's still evolving. When companies start sharing data about problem users, it gets a bit closer to "social...
Yes, there is exaggeration in the headline, but the article is describing a system that's still evolving. When companies start sharing data about problem users, it gets a bit closer to "social credit" in effect. Credit scores arose because banks and other lenders share data about people to avoid deadbeats, and eventually someone decided to score the data. It's not hard to see a similar thing happening here.
I don't see the tech giants pooling data about users because they have plenty. This is part of their competitive advantage. But small companies like bars have an incentive to pool data about problem users, via service providers. That could add up to a social-credit-like system.
Google's captcha system is sort of similar because it shares a score about whether someone is a bot.
It's a concern, but I don't think anyone knows what should be done instead. "Extra-legal" sort of implies that the proper way would be to make it a government function, but nobody wants government...
It's a concern, but I don't think anyone knows what should be done instead. "Extra-legal" sort of implies that the proper way would be to make it a government function, but nobody wants government workers moderating online forums, or deciding who is allowed to take a cab based on a government list.
There is a company helping bars check ID's because the bars need it and are willing to pay for it, and that's because the law requires ID checks and their customers don't want to be harassed. It's not clear that there's a better way?
What can we do other than demanding or legislating that private organizations do a better job of judging us?
I find the part about insurance companies scouring social media particularly troubling. While most of my social media accounts are locked down, I suppose those companies could employ "Cambridge Analytical"-style tactics to get access to what I've marked only for friends. News items like this make me increasingly uneasy about the lack of universal healthcare in the USA. How do I know that a photo someone else posts of me (potentially without my permission) won't be used as justification for raising my premiums?
Working in property and casualty insurance, underwriters at my company will check an applicants Facebook, Yelp reviews, website, etc while they're still on the phone with the agent learning about the account. We have found so much crazy stuff - "handymen" that are roofers, "family restaurants" with Coyote Wild-style bartenders and mechanical bulls, etc. We don't do the same for people applying for personal insurance but we do look at Zillow, Google Maps, etc to get a feel for the property and general upkeep.
These practices help everyone. We would find out about the fraud/misrepresentation eventually and either retroactively charge the right premium if there haven't been any claims or not pay the claim and cancel the policy if there have. That doesn't help the insured, their agent, or us. The cost of dealing with these claims makes everyone's premium more expensive so it harms society at large.
Thank you for explaining, that makes sense to me for property insurance. I guess when I read the word insurance, my mind goes straight to health, but I can see the value in doing research before insuring properties and businesses.
Public stuff, fine. Not public stuff, trouble. I suppose you check public stuff, or else we're learning about a scandal here. The comment you replying to was talking about private and friends only stuff.
We don't look at anything private, just pointing out how checking social media benefits everyone involved. I don't think any insurance companies would go Cambridge Analytica on you, they are overall pretty conservative and risk averse. A state department of insurance would probably come down on them pretty hard if they were violating people's privacy cavalierly.
I wonder if this will allow exploitation? e.g. have a social media account filled with fake healthy lifestyle photos?
This was my immediate first thought - oh you want to see more of me doing physical exercise? I guess I'll have an actual use for my Facebook account now other than for logging into other apps.
That’s exactly what I was thinking. Let me start posting veggie smoothy recipes and photos of (someone who looks like) me winning a 10k race.
The title seems kinda ridiculous. Most of the article is about tech companies banning you from their service... which seems pretty obvious. As a private company providing a service, of course Uber and Whatsapp can ban you from their services. McDonalds can ban you from all of their stores since they started.
There can be issues, then, in areas where those services are monopolistic. However, the article didn't really talk about that, instead choosing to just be like "ooooooo did you know Uber can ban you for ANY reason!?!?".
To call equivalency between that and "social credit" is ridiculous.
Yes, there is exaggeration in the headline, but the article is describing a system that's still evolving. When companies start sharing data about problem users, it gets a bit closer to "social credit" in effect. Credit scores arose because banks and other lenders share data about people to avoid deadbeats, and eventually someone decided to score the data. It's not hard to see a similar thing happening here.
I don't see the tech giants pooling data about users because they have plenty. This is part of their competitive advantage. But small companies like bars have an incentive to pool data about problem users, via service providers. That could add up to a social-credit-like system.
Google's captcha system is sort of similar because it shares a score about whether someone is a bot.
I'm not sure if my lack of presence on social media will go for or against me in this kind of system.
The “Chinese-style” in the title is a bit click-baitey. But the point about construction of an extra-legal justice system is a real concern.
It's a concern, but I don't think anyone knows what should be done instead. "Extra-legal" sort of implies that the proper way would be to make it a government function, but nobody wants government workers moderating online forums, or deciding who is allowed to take a cab based on a government list.
There is a company helping bars check ID's because the bars need it and are willing to pay for it, and that's because the law requires ID checks and their customers don't want to be harassed. It's not clear that there's a better way?
What can we do other than demanding or legislating that private organizations do a better job of judging us?