PC is based on a perversion and subverting of the Constitution. There's no way to argue around that.
Among the reasons I argue so strongly against it is because I've seen how very similar methods work, myself, direct personal experience. Oh, and I was the party benefiting from the disclosure. Turns out that virtually all of what we had was in fact legitimately obtained.
As for the insurance argument: what state do you live in? Do you have your car smogged? Are you aware that your smog data, which comprises a rather detailed data record, is sold in several large states (California and Washington, off the top of my head, along with a few others) to ISO, the Insurance Services Office (descriptive name, no?), a division of Verisk, to rate your auto insurance. See:
So, the question is: were you made aware of this when you brought your vehicle in for smogging? Did you realize that the dataset was 1) being collected, 2) being sold, and 3) could materially impact your insurance costs?
Moreover: what's the equity here? Yes, as it turns out, miles driven is a significant statistically correlated risk factor in insurance costs. But what is the social purpose of insurance, how should those costs be allocated (often it's the less financially able who drive further to work because they cannot afford to live nearer their jobs), and what are the social equity effects of a hidden pricing and rating factor?
Yes, insurance companies can perform useful functions. They're among the leading business voices for climate change risks, as the underwriting costs directly affect them. Insurance underwriting has either directly or indirectly supported huge improvements in workplace and product safety. Where it used to be possible for companies to argue that negative outcomes were "accidents" and "acts of God", comprehensively compiled incident statistics correlated with causal factors showed that specific patterns of behavior, design, use, etc., were predictably associated with accidents, damage, injury, and/or death.
But gathering that information in a covert fashion strikes me as fundamentally unjust.
> "As for the insurance argument: what state do you live in? Do you have your car smogged? Are you aware that your smog data, which comprises a rather detailed data record, is sold in several large states (California and Washington, off the top of my head, along with a few others) to ISO, the Insurance Services Office (descriptive name, no?), a division of Verisk, to rate your auto insurance. See:"
So here is a question: the last time I had my car's emissions checked in Washington state, my car reported that it was not ready to report its status because I had disconnected the battery a week before, apparently resetting the stuff that it needed to report. I had to drive around for two hours on the highway before going back to the emissions place to have it re-tested.
Is there any value in unplugging the battery shortly before getting your emissions checked?
Among the reasons I argue so strongly against it is because I've seen how very similar methods work, myself, direct personal experience. Oh, and I was the party benefiting from the disclosure. Turns out that virtually all of what we had was in fact legitimately obtained.
As for the insurance argument: what state do you live in? Do you have your car smogged? Are you aware that your smog data, which comprises a rather detailed data record, is sold in several large states (California and Washington, off the top of my head, along with a few others) to ISO, the Insurance Services Office (descriptive name, no?), a division of Verisk, to rate your auto insurance. See:
http://www.verisk.com/underwriting/
http://www.iso.com/Products/QPC/Quality-Planning-Corporation...
So, the question is: were you made aware of this when you brought your vehicle in for smogging? Did you realize that the dataset was 1) being collected, 2) being sold, and 3) could materially impact your insurance costs?
Moreover: what's the equity here? Yes, as it turns out, miles driven is a significant statistically correlated risk factor in insurance costs. But what is the social purpose of insurance, how should those costs be allocated (often it's the less financially able who drive further to work because they cannot afford to live nearer their jobs), and what are the social equity effects of a hidden pricing and rating factor?
Yes, insurance companies can perform useful functions. They're among the leading business voices for climate change risks, as the underwriting costs directly affect them. Insurance underwriting has either directly or indirectly supported huge improvements in workplace and product safety. Where it used to be possible for companies to argue that negative outcomes were "accidents" and "acts of God", comprehensively compiled incident statistics correlated with causal factors showed that specific patterns of behavior, design, use, etc., were predictably associated with accidents, damage, injury, and/or death.
But gathering that information in a covert fashion strikes me as fundamentally unjust.