Hacker News Reader

I think the problem with your argument is that most people don't think those things would apply to them, or they wouldn't care if they did. And in their defense, at least in the the US, most of the examples you give are hypotheticals. Possible rejoinders:

1. In the US, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act already prohibits this. For other things, like "are you a skydiver", the insurance company already has the right to ask you that.

2. I mean, sure, I'm sure I've broken some laws, but I can't think of any examples of overly agressive prosecutions for people who weren't already guilty of bad shit.

3. I mean, people are already used to creepy hypertargeted Facebook ads, most of them have don't really care anymore.

4. I mean sure, but how does this affect me?

5. This just sounds like a hand-wavy slippery slope argument.

I think the issue for most people in the US is that they still fundamentally believe that the justice system is generally "just", at least with respect to themselves, though that is obviously changing. Contrast that with Germany, where people are vividly aware of what happens when the government uses personal data nefariously.

Your response to point 2 made me gasp. Just watch a few episodes of any of the many true crime false conviction series on Netflix. Unscrupulous prosecutors are not rare, and it does not matter who you are—if you get caught in the crosshairs you could go to prison for a crime you didn’t commit, or be coerced to provide false witness against a friend or loved one for a crime they didn’t commit.

Netflix is definitely a reliable and objective source for crime data.

Fact is stranger than fiction.

I watched that series and if we were in a ubiquitous surveillance state few if any of those people would have been convicted. They would have had video/phone tracking to verify their alibi and/or video of the crime showing they didn't do it.

That's making a big assumption that everyone has equal access to surveillance data and that most if not all players are fair-mindedly searching for the truth.

If you assume the other way, pervasive surveillance makes a frame-up easier.

I live in a country where the accused has equal access to the evidence.

And your rejoinder doesn't make sense. If you were being railroaded for a crime video showing that you didn't do it cant hurt you.

In many US jurisdictions, the decision over what police body cam footage to release is left to the police themselves. For example:

https://www.denverpost.com/2019/11/18/body-camera-aurora-pol...

> Police Chief Nick Metz said he wants to release body camera footage from the August death of Elijah McClain to lend more transparency to the investigation. But three months later, police still have it — advised by the district attorney’s office to keep it in house.

In many US jurisdictions, the decision over what police body cam footage to release is left to the police themselves

In the UK as well, there have been several cases where the police have chosen only to disclose “relevant” evidence, when the existence of additional evidence becomes known the case collapses.

I said "the accused", not everyone. If you are charged with a crime and if that footage could be evidence then it is required that the state turn it over to the accused.

Only evidence produced in court. Body cameras can "shut off" or "break", the full footage can be destroyed, etc.

> I live in a country where the accused has equal access to the evidence.

Really? Where? Because in most countries with laws requiring that, police and prosecutors regularly ignore said laws with impunity.

For many people in the U.S., overzealous prosecutors are their allies so long as the people they are prosecuting who are "already guilty of bad shit" belong to undesirable demographics. Prosecutors and their selective enforcement efforts are central to suppressing minority votes through felony disenfranchisement, for instance in Florida.

I wonder how the arguments against surveillance capitalism poll across targeted minorities vs. the general population. I speculate that sentiments diverge in the same direction as sentiments towards the police.

I'm sure there are bad prosecutors, but Netflix is hardly a source to look into something like this. They tend to make very compelling, but obviously biased, documentaries.

But I agree with your sentiment otherwise.

As for # 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz

This is a great example, though, of why most people won't care. Most people will look at that and think "Swartz hacked in to a system, stole data, and distributed it for free. Sure, the prosecution may have been harsh, but I don't go around hacking into systems."

To be clear, I don't agree with that, or any of the 5 points I put above. But I still think it's important to emphasize that 90+ percent of people will look at that and similar cases and think "that situation doesn't apply to me."

> 1. In the US, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act already prohibits this.

That only applies to genetic data. There are several ways for your insurer to find out everything wrong with you, especially when many medical practices sell your data. It does not cover any other type of insurance, other than health insurance. Genetic information can be used to discriminate in disability insurance, long-term care insurance, life insurance etc.

>I think the issue for most people in the US is that they still fundamentally believe that the justice system is generally "just", at least with respect to themselves, though that is obviously changing.

I think you highlighted a bigger core issue: people think that the past was somehow better and what they're seeing in their time is unique. The justice system isn't changing, it's been like this for at least a century, probably longer. America hasn't just elected its first rabble rousing demagogue for a president and now the country is going to shit, this has happened before. Multiple times.

This is worrisome to me because it causes emotional overreactions to situations that aren't really that unprecedented. We elected Donald Trump, and obviously we are special so we have to make sure this doesn't happen again. The punchline is that we are ignorant of the past and are unaware that the republic has carried on just fine after previously awful presidents, and without that knowledge, we may make a number of bad decisions that negatively affect the future of this country.

>1. If an insurance company finds out that you’re more predisposed to a disease, they will charge you or your employer a higher rate

I've never really understood this one. Do you want to force insurance companies to spread the costs associated with insuring high-risk individuals across their whole clientele via this information opacity? Why not just use a single-payer system instead of that Rube Goldberg machine at this point?

I don't think that Target thing happened in 2012, iirc I first heard that story in 2010.

People would just say "I don't think that would happen" to all of those things. They are not tangible enough. If anything, they would laugh at 3 like they would to any "funny" story.

>If an insurance company finds out that you’re more predisposed to a disease, they will charge you or your employer a higher rate

That make sense, do you really expect insurance company to not charge higher premium to insure someone who predisposed to a disease ?

>The Fed gov’t has ~20,000 laws, it has more than it can count, can you tell me that you haven’t broken a single one? Could a creative prosecutor find something you’re guilty of if they had enough information on you?

Then the issue is with too many laws

>How would you like it if corporations know details about your family before you do?

Doesn't matter

>The world is filled with clever and unscrupulous people, they will never stop finding ways to use your data in ways we can’t imagine, not all of them will be in your favor.

This will be the always the case, regardless of surveillance or not.

Thank you for writing that. I'll ponder them.

Honestly I wish health insurance companies would be more willing to use data for billing. Someone who works to stay fit should be rewarded vs a fat individual or someone doing extreme sports. I know some insurance pays for health monitoring watches and gives bonuses, but mine still doesn't.

I don't support insurance billing more for predisposition to disease, but that's already covered under the law so your point 1 is kind of irrelevant.

> Someone who works to stay fit should be rewarded Rewards to incentivize healthy behavior seems like a good idea.

This study about the impact of an incentive program for preventive care concluded: "Voluntary participation in a patient incentive program was associated with a significantly higher likelihood of receiving preventive care, though receipt of preventive care among those in the program was still lower than ideal."

https://www.ajmc.com/journals/issue/2014/2014-vol20-n6/impac...

> predisposition to disease What about pre-existing conditions?

People who die earlier from poor lifestyles and habits incur a smaller lifetime cost for healthcare, because the vast majority of health expenses occur only when a person lives long enough to become elderly and die from natural causes.

The idea of insurers being willing to pass the savings, if they existed, down to their customers in any significant way is cute, though.

>Someone who works to stay fit should be rewarded vs a fat individual or someone doing extreme sports.

What about those who work to stay fit but are still fat according to their BMI? Not everyone gets dealt a good genetic hand.

>2. The Fed gov’t has ~20,000 laws, it has more than it can count, can you tell me that you haven’t broken a single one? Could a creative prosecutor find something you’re guilty of if they had enough information on you?

people should read "the trial" and internalize it (and ponder what historical context prompted kafka to write it).

1. Isn't this solving the wrong problem? Rather than hiding this information from the insurance company, we can make - and have made - it impermissible for them to use the information as the basis of setting rates.

2. Again, solving the wrong problem. Also, coming to the attention of a prosecutor with a sufficient vendetta to go to various companies to try to dig up dirt seems rather far-fetched. And if they couldn't use personal data for that purpose, wouldn't they find another avenue?

3. If I had kids, I'd want them to be protected - it certainly seems reasonable that children's personal data be protected. Once they become adults, though, I don't see why a parent should have any control over their adult children's behavior.

4. Firstly, you're assuming that your interlocutor shares your concerns about the uses to which that data could be put. Second, data goes stale, meaning it ceases to be valuable or potentially harmful.

5. And the world is also filled with clever and scrupulous people who want to use personal data in ways we can't imagine to everyone's benefit. Shutting down collection and use of personal data prevents those beneficial uses as well as any harmful ones (indeed more so).