Live data from Hacker News

San Francisco: Don't Fall for Industry Defense of Surveillance Pricing

eff.org

91–94 of 94 posts

Re: San Francisco: Don't Fall for Industry Defense of Surveillance Pricing

#91
post #68
post #64

To me it's insane how popular surveillance pricing is in discussions on HN. I think that so far it is the pinnacle of useless rent-seeking from the tech-finance alliance. Bit by bit eliminating the 'inefficiency' of people not giving companies the last few cents they have remaining. Evil. At first I was quick to assume that the proponents of these schemes work in adtech, data harvesting and processing companies, or a…

Let's take your credit score example for a second. There's a similar argument elsewhere here but why do you think the 800+ credit score loan rate (let's say $500/mo for the sake of argument) is the base rate, and anyone paying more than $500/mo is getting screwed? Is it not equally likely that the default is the highest payment there is? Obviously reality is probably somewhere in the middle.

credit scores reflect default risk to the lender, at least in theory. it might not be the best possible model but people with a history of paying on time will probably keep doing it.

in retail the only risk is stealing or bad behavior inside the store, and there is no way to estimate that risk for an individual person who never had an incident before.

all a store can do is use population models that are effectively open race/sex/ethnic/wealth discrimination, as in "Black customers steal more on average so we charge them more to compensate" or "East Asian women are willing to spend more on cosmetics so we raise the price for them".

if you believe that should be legal then you support the most harmful form of racism that exist today.

Re: San Francisco: Don't Fall for Industry Defense of Surveillance Pricing

#92
post #32
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the "actual price" what you're willing to pay for it, or the lowest possible price you could pay based on whatever combination of membership(s) and coupon(s) is available?

to me the actual price is in the realms of a couple dollars higher than what the reseller paid for it, to account for paying employees and taxes and so on the price i end up paying is always some multiple of the real price

Well that's just not based in reality. You might as well be saying "to me the actual price is $0 because we shouldn't have any money like Star Trek."

You're certainly allowed to have that opinion, but there's no reason to take you seriously if you do.

Re: San Francisco: Don't Fall for Industry Defense of Surveillance Pricing

#93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what's the difference? For me, it's the surveillance infrastructure per se . My main curiosity around these bills is to what extent surveillance pricing–versus ad targeting–drives the economics of those systems. (My prior is not much.)

You realize that there's plenty of surveillance in the infrastructure that sends coupon codes to some patrons and collates loyalty points, right?

> there's plenty of surveillance in the infrastructure that sends coupon codes to some patrons and collates loyalty points, right?

Sure. I choose whether I participate in that when I use a coupon or sign up for a loyalty programme. Surveillance pricing is more universal.

Re: San Francisco: Don't Fall for Industry Defense of Surveillance Pricing

#94

I had an interesting conversation with an coworker recently - If you give an agent a budget of $500 to buy a flight, and the airline knows this and bumps your price to $499 even though it will offer the same flight at $300 to someone else, is there harm done? I argued it feels unjust. He said it's totally fair, it's within budget so what's the problem? Naturally this trends towards a sort of principal-agent problem w…

You've just described the golden age of piracy (itself a principal agent problem, and imo it'll be solved like piracy was). It's also a good example of the "If I break a butcher's windows and cause him to buy a new pane, haven't I done good?" And the answer is no. What you've described is a poor/inefficient allocation of money.
Post reply on HN