[rice_classic]

Originally Posted by The359

Again, your location or speed is not private. Nor is Allstate's device tracking your location. A lack of a complete answer on specifically GPS is not a definitive statement of privacy, not that one needs GPS to track a vehicle.

Please stand back from the painting and look again, you're standing so close you can't see the picture displayed on the canvas.

Originally Posted by The359

I get higher rates for paying my bill every month instead of every six months. Why? Because it costs the company money to handle that every month instead of once every six months. I get higher rates if I get a paper bill. Why? Costs more money to mail the letters than email them. So how exactly are higher rates scare tactics?

Irrelevant argument and red herring. Auto-pay, payment interval times, electronic billing have nothing to do with the subject at hand as all can be implemented without a violation of privacy, or eventual forced violation of such.

Originally Posted by The359

How exactly are these companies making a profit from "behaviour manipulation" if these devices tend to lower people's insurance rates? That would be a net loss in my book...

Seriously? Take a psychology course then take a marketing course then get back to me how companies profit on behavior manipulation. Also by the term profit I also mean mitigate losses (which in turn increases profits). Behavior manipulation is the cornerstone of marketing. A good example of this limited data plans, carriers restricting their phones to their service, ISP's monitoring what your downloading and blocking P2P traffic, TV stations that are "black out" in your area so you cannot watch an alternate broadcast of the sporting event... even though you're PAYING for that other channel. etc etc etc. On a government side we try to manipulate behavior all the time, why do you think the tax code is the way it is? Have you ever heard the term "Sin Tax"... that's legislative behavior manipulation.

Originally Posted by The359

Again, the insurance companies would not want the government to regulate the use of this technology because it puts more obstacles in their way and decreases the chances of "manipulation for profit". What health insurance company is enjoying this government regulation nonsense right now? And wow, really, seat belt laws is a lobby now? Next you'll tell me we didn't land on the moon...

You give the people with all the money and the power way too much credit. Companies both LOVE and HATE legislation/regulation. Regulation can dissolve a monopoly or it can entrench it. FORD and GM love the CAFE regulations as it helps decrease their competition from foreign competitors and allows them to keep selling big profitable trucks. In WA State COSTCO penned the law to privatize liquor sales, which in turn will give massive profits to Costco. The bill failed the first time so their lobby resubmitted it and then they spent many millions promoting it and it won by a narrow margin. The MPAA/RIAA almost convinced our congress to pass SOPA!! Or did you forget? And yes, the insurance companies lobbied for the federal requirement of seat belt use because it reduces claims of sizable amounts. That "nanny state" regulation increased profits of the companies but did not result in lower insurance premiums.

Originally Posted by The359

You have to have a data plan with a smart phone because...who would want a smart phone without one? Sort of defeats the purpose, doesn't it? The number of people who would want one is so tiny that to make a plan just for these people would not be very profitable. It's streamlining and simplification of a business product, not privacy invasion.

That's not a privacy invasion, it's a restriction. Once one company started doing it, then they all did. This is a good example of non-collusion collusion. Also, you forget that smart phones have been around longer than mobile internet, in fact before they were phones they were called digital PDA's. I used to use a smartphone without a data plan years ago before 3G and 4G were out why? Because calendar and syncing. It was easier to take notes, use the device as a PDA and other various organizational productivity functions than using a old school "planner/binder". Remember, some people use their devices for productivity, not just twitter and instagram.

Originally Posted by The359

The internet goes through your ISP, why would you not expect them to keep track of what is going through their network? That's like telling them to just turn on the faucet and ignore what might be going throught he pipe.

In fact that's exactly what they should be doing is just selling us a pipeline, that's all they should be doing. They can monitor bandwidth usage and allocation whilst still providing user privacy.

I have a right to privacy, and so do you. I live in house which I finance through bank but the bank doesn't have a right to come inside and sort through my files and sleep in my bed. In fact, if they did do that, they better be bullet proof.

Originally Posted by The359

Google has been adament about not giving their search data to outside organisations. There is quite a difference between acquiring information and giving it away.

This you're completely wrong on. First, their entire business model is to sell our information to advertisers. Google tracks EVERYTHING and records it PERMANENTLY. They also work very closely with the NSA/CIA/FBI. Their records on how much they have shared with our "friendly" government is public, go look it up.

Here's a good article on the Google/Apple big brother conundrum:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/networking...ig-brother/989

Originally Posted by The359

Your health insurance provider has all kinds of personal information, but they do not give it away. Tell me how you choosing to use a service that stores information for their own benefit of the service, which in turn benefits you, is any different than you choosing to provide your personal information for your own medical benefit? And demise as lemmings? Jesus, theatrics much? This isn't 1984.

Once again, you think too highly of those in power. They don't have your interest at heart. Currently the medical field has lots of laws regarding patient confidentiality. If companies were able to openly share patients information that could easily be used against us. Kind of like how insurance companies would exclude pre-existing conditions. Actually this is worse than 1984. In that book it was the government that was doing it and at least theoretically (maybe not in reality) we have some control over that via democracy but instead the world of 1984 is being implemented by private corporations and instead of it being forced on us, we're volunteering for it like children being tempted into the van with a candy bar.

Hey look FREE CANDY!

Originally Posted by The359

As for CVS, you appear to be slightly incorrect. CVS's health insurance is from an outside party, the same party that would handle the required screenings.

But you're sharing your medical situation with someone who IS NOT your doctor. I, of course, understand what CVS is trying to do, mitigate costs and that's exactly right isn't it? At what point is my employer going to dictate what I eat, drink, or smoke (that are legal of course) or how I relax in my free time? The CVS thing is a bigger argument that deserves it's own thread but the point is... personal/private information is being required by the employer (third party or not) in an aggressive manner to manipulate behavior for the sake of mitigating losses or increasing profits. Please learn to recognize a slippery slope when it's sitting your lap and calling you Momma.

Originally Posted by The359

The point is, "if they become mandatory", "if they track with GPS", "if they whatever" is all useless, because none of these things exist yet, and at the moment I don't see a single person showing a single shred of evidence to indicate that there is movement in this direction. "What could happen" is fine, but a ton of things "can happen". Simply believing there is only one conceivable outcome is foolish.

Sitting back and doing nothing is foolish, we are not foolish, we are much worse because we are not sitting back and letting it happen. We are lining up (and logging in) with our wallets open to pay for own cages.

Anyway, I know you're going to have a big long retort to this and that's fine but I quit now. If you don't get it by now, I can't help you. If you have no respect for your own privacy and think all these faux-price-reduction options are noble and selfless by these huge share holder controlled corporations and that that because you're buying a product or service you somehow should be expected to relinquish your right to privacy... Well then, Good luck is all I can say.


I think I need to write a sequel to 1984 called "2024: All your privacy is belong to us, for profit."