For the final time, someone show me how your speed or location in public is private. It is not, never has been, and never will be. No special permission is required, no warrants, nothing is required to obtain your location and/or speed on a public roadway. This is a compete and utter false sense of security. What happens within your car may be private, but where you go with your car is not. If you jaywalk, is it a private matter?
Believing that companies will force this technology on us AND raise rates does not negate the arguement that they could easily do both right now, but would not, because it would not be profitable. Raising rates on everyone simply hurts the companies because it leads to more uninsured drivers, which leads to insurance companies having to pay more to cover costs when uninsured drivers are involved in incidents. Where is there any indication from any insurance company that they are attempting to do either of these things in the near future? If these devices were to be expanded and required, there's absolutely no way of knowing if the devices would lower or raise the rates of all customers simply because there is not enough data to make an accurate prediction. And if they lower the rates, then what, they're magically just going to raise the rates anyway? Not going to happen in a competitive market. And speaking of behaviour manipulation in regards to driving, I believe they have those already. They're called tickets and fines. But as pointed out, no police agency is ever going to hand those out for every infraction.
Companies love regulation when it helps them. Mandatory tracking devices would not help one company as it would be a blanket regulation for all companies, therefore they would not welcome the regulations as it would also curb their ability to gain a profit through your presumption of their raising rates. See for instance safety regulations. A government regulation that affects all companies equally and gives them no gain, and requires them to spend more to meet the regulations.
As for comparing an ISP to a bank, your reasoning is off. An ISP is the gateway to a service, and they are offering it to you. They control what goes through them as per an agreement. A bank is offering you a loan, and they have an agreement with you as well. A bank knows how you are transfering money to them, just as an ISP knows how you are browsing the internet through them. A bank would not be allowed to look through your home, just as an ISP would not be able to look through the files on your computer. A bank will however hand over your information if the police have a warrant, just as an ISP would. And banks certainly give out information on their transactions for the purposes of reporting and advertising, not that the information is linked specifically to you. So is a bank invading your privacy if they check some bills you hand them for possible counterfeits? Or offshore accounts in the Caymens?
Google works with the CIA/NSA/FBI, yes. Not on handing over search records though. They codevelop technology for the government, just as many companies do. Google however does not hand over all the information they record. (
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/...oj-motion.html Google v. Department of Justice) Did you know the same company that builds stealth fighters also builds the devices that track your packages through the USPS? Doesn't mean your mailing habits are being transfered to the government. Just because a company does two seperate things does not mean the information from these two things cross over. And advertising? What exactly do you think they are handing to advertisers? Just because you have large sums of data does not mean you cannot parse it when you hand it off.
What I think about companies is that I'm not paranoid about them. If I have reason to worry about them, I worry. If I don't have anything to indicate any sort of sinister voodoo, why by default assume that it must be happening anyway? If all companies are after me, then surely the FT86Club must be deviously trying to milk something from me somehow...
Why would health screenings not be performed by your doctor, let alone a doctor? Regardless of who provides it, the information would still be confidential. CVS would have no hand in the choice of doctor. This is the same as a background check or drug test to get a job. All handled by outside parties who would not share that information with the company I am trying to work for. CVS would not only not know what I eat, but they also would not know if I needed to eat better anyway. In fact the only result from a health screening is that a doctor, either involved with the health screening or your own, would tell you to eat better. And an aggressive manner? Please. If it were aggressive, it'd be $50 to take the exam, not $50 to not take the exam.
If a prediction of a dystopian future written 65 years ago still has not happened yet, why would you believe it's going to happen in the next few years? The dramatics are all just such a horrible waste. You're being paranoid, simple as that. I have respect for my privacy. The point is that I have the freedom to choose to use my privacy as I see fit. Choosing to allow minor information to be handed out is not a submission to servitude, nor is it permission to have any and all privacy handed over, it is a conscious decision made by an intelligent human being. Degrading all who use their freedom of choice as "sheep" makes you a complete ass.
Quote frankly, if you do believe your doom and gloom that all insurance companies will make this mandatory and raise rates, then you should be using this device now anyway. They're just going to track you anyway, and you might as well save a few bucks for when the time comes when you're going to need to spend more!