Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Think You Can Live Offline Without Being Tracked? Here's What It Takes

fastcompany.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 97 posts

Re: Think You Can Live Offline Without Being Tracked? Here's What It Takes

#81

Post by enoch_r »

scarmig wrote: post #53
diminoten wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're focusing on the specific example, rather than the general idea that your purchase history indicates your riskiness, and an insurance company who has that data available to them will adjust your policy based on your behavior. And why shouldn't they? It's the same concept as you indicating whether or not you smoke, how much you drive to/from work daily, how many driving tickets you have, etc. Questions you willf…

The flip side of that is that people who don't provide that information are going to be grouped into a pool of relatively high risk people and be forced to pay higher bills. And the incentives line up such that, if you're better than the average non-sharer of personal information, you'll be significantly better off switching to being a sharer, which in turn increases the risk profile of the remaining non-sharers. And…

I have serious reservations about our changing cultural attitudes towards privacy too. But let's be honest here--this would make insurance cheaper for a lot of people, and more expensive for the subset of people who are currently getting subsidized by their peers. I mean, say that playing a couple hours of video games per week really does increase mortality significantly--why should people who don't play video games be forced to subsidize your habits (this is unlikely, anyway--I don't think one's choices of which leisure products to consume are significantly correlated with either positive or negative health outcomes)?

So why not use examples like these? "Oh, you bike to work? Great--your bill is going down! Oh, you have a good credit score? Okay, your premiums just went down again. Oh, you eat salad once in a while? Great, it doesn't take much to eat more healthily than the average American, so--you guessed it--your bill just went down again!"

Less information asymmetry between customers and insurance companies would lead to better prices for safer people, and fairer prices for riskier people (by "fairer" I mean "closer to their average lifetime insurance payout).

Whether it's worth it in terms of the loss of privacy is another question, but we shouldn't stack the deck by pretending everyone's premiums will go up unfairly.

Re: Think You Can Live Offline Without Being Tracked? Here's What It Takes

#82

Post by mynewwork »

diminoten wrote: post #50
bch wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are they wrong? Did you not just increase their liability by 0.001%? Not if you bought the 6 pack for the contractors working on your fitness room.

Like the other guy did, you're focusing on the specific example, when the question and debate revolves around the general concept. But if you really must play this game, then perhaps the fact that you believe a 6 pack to even be a worthy gift is telling of your lifestyle enough to determine risk. Maybe it doesn't matter if you give it to someone else or not, just the fact that you purchase beer a certain amount of ti…

But the specific example points out the flaw. The data can be misleading, for some people and in some scenarios substantially (buying a round of drinks for clients looks the same as buying yourself 8 drinks at the bar to your credit card).

Plus, with government-run healthcare, the definitions of healthy will be subject to lobbying. Look at the arguments now about what is healthy food... are carbs bad? is fat? what about organic? GMO? Meat? Grains? Eggs are healthy again after being bad for you after being good for you. I have coworkers who swear by paleo diets and somehow everyone doing crossfit is convinced they're in the 2% of humans with a gluten sensitivity.

Now imagine that confusion with lobbyists from every direction trying to prevent their products from being put on the 'bad foods' list.

Re: Think You Can Live Offline Without Being Tracked? Here's What It Takes

#83

Post by maxerickson »

diminoten wrote: post #50
bch wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are they wrong? Did you not just increase their liability by 0.001%? Not if you bought the 6 pack for the contractors working on your fitness room.

Like the other guy did, you're focusing on the specific example, when the question and debate revolves around the general concept. But if you really must play this game, then perhaps the fact that you believe a 6 pack to even be a worthy gift is telling of your lifestyle enough to determine risk. Maybe it doesn't matter if you give it to someone else or not, just the fact that you purchase beer a certain amount of ti…

Actually, I think you might need proof by implementation, I don't think it is obvious that purchase patterns have actuarial value, never mind single purchases (for instance, deferred refills and discarded food don't show up at the register, both are strategies for coping with fast food).

Re: Think You Can Live Offline Without Being Tracked? Here's What It Takes

#84

Post by enoch_r »

6d0debc071 wrote: post #55
diminoten wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are they wrong? Did you not just increase their liability by 0.001%? I guess I'm still having a hard time squaring personal responsibility with this idea of complete anonymity. It's not that we shouldn't be able to hide anything, but like the article said, it's just not possible (or even reasonable to expect) to hide everything. Existing in society leaves a footprint, especially in cases like license plates - they're…

> Are they wrong? Did you not just increase their liability by 0.001%? If people with lower risks didn't pay for people with higher risks, there'd be no insurance market. If you can perfectly predict what's going to happen to someone - and you charge them all exactly what it's going to cost, + your overheads, then there's no reason they should buy insurance rather than putting the money into an investment plan. Actua…

This is simply not true. People are risk averse, and buy insurance to protect them from unlikely negative outcomes, not because they believe that the insurance company will, on average, pay out more than they pay in premiums.

I can invest $200 a month for the next 10 years, or I can buy health insurance. On average, I will have more money after 10 years of investing. But the additional $24,000 of savings will increase my happiness very little relative to getting the healthcare I need in the case of a catastrophic injury or illness. So I'll gladly lose a little bit of money every month (statistically) to avoid the possibility of that outcome.

Edited to add: one way to think of this is to pose the following thought experiment. Imagine that tomorrow you have a 50% chance of doubling your wealth and income, and a 50% chance of losing everything. What would you be willing to pay to guarantee that you keep your current wealth and income? If you're like most people, the answer is nonzero and positive. That's how insurance companies make money.

Re: Think You Can Live Offline Without Being Tracked? Here's What It Takes

#85

Post by maxerickson »

6d0debc071 wrote: post #55
diminoten wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are they wrong? Did you not just increase their liability by 0.001%? I guess I'm still having a hard time squaring personal responsibility with this idea of complete anonymity. It's not that we shouldn't be able to hide anything, but like the article said, it's just not possible (or even reasonable to expect) to hide everything. Existing in society leaves a footprint, especially in cases like license plates - they're…

> Are they wrong? Did you not just increase their liability by 0.001%? If people with lower risks didn't pay for people with higher risks, there'd be no insurance market. If you can perfectly predict what's going to happen to someone - and you charge them all exactly what it's going to cost, + your overheads, then there's no reason they should buy insurance rather than putting the money into an investment plan. Actua…

You are conflating risk and outcome. All drivers are at some risk, some bad and lucky drivers will never have a bad outcome, some good drivers will have multiple bad outcomes.

Risk of injury is similar. I would expect the understanding necessary to accurately predict cancer to be very useful in treating it (it should also have much potential to reduce costs...).

Re: Think You Can Live Offline Without Being Tracked? Here's What It Takes

#86

Post by instaheat »

angersock wrote: post #3
instaheat wrote: post #2

"Friends can be an impediment to a life off the radar." Top 1% of the super paranoid indeed. While I understand the reach of the government and the lengths they'll go to gain information - this article is absolutely ridiculous to me. I like my friends, I like to travel, I like to do things. Effectively letting the government control your life because you are afraid of what they MIGHT do? Give me a fucking break.

Bully for you that you don't perceive an issue here. The fact is beyond dispute that the social services in widest use actively turn your friends into informants on you. If that doesn't bother you, fine--but don't mock the people for whom that is an uncomfortable reality.

I do perceive an issue here. I just refuse to let - yet another - uncomfortable reality dictate the way I live.

I understand what is going on out there. I'm just not going to be a martyr.

Advertisers, go ahead and try to sell me something based on what you think I like.

It won't work on me. It's a hail mary play.

I guess what I'm really trying to say is I'm not in position to change anything so I suppose I can be thankful for the likes of Edward Snowden and companies that fight back far reaching government requests (Like AirBnb did recently) but I'm going to live my life and live it fully, challenging authority every step of the way hinging on the fact that I believe in the Bill of Rights.

Re: Think You Can Live Offline Without Being Tracked? Here's What It Takes

#87

Post by sliverstorm »

devindotcom wrote: post #79
sliverstorm wrote: post #11

Moral of the story: to really disappear, you're going to need to go live in a forest somewhere or move to the high plains of Tibet. Potentially useful information, if there's mobsters after you. The RFID tags in tires is a perfect illustration of why it's going to be practically impossible to live in the modern world and cover all your tracks. I certainly didn't know there are tags in tires (which, BTW, is a nifty id…

I agree, it's not all your activity you want to keep secret (in which case move to the forest), it's the secret activity. It's not secret when you walk to the store, and it's not secret when you post a photo online or check into a location. However, there must always be a method for secret communication, and of course there is now, it's just not as convenient as the non-secure methods.

When has secret communication ever been as convenient as the non-secure methods? Dead-drops, circling letters in the newspaper, putting a flower pot on your balcony...

Re: Think You Can Live Offline Without Being Tracked? Here's What It Takes

#88

Post by NovemberWest »

devindotcom wrote: post #79
sliverstorm wrote: post #11

Moral of the story: to really disappear, you're going to need to go live in a forest somewhere or move to the high plains of Tibet. Potentially useful information, if there's mobsters after you. The RFID tags in tires is a perfect illustration of why it's going to be practically impossible to live in the modern world and cover all your tracks. I certainly didn't know there are tags in tires (which, BTW, is a nifty id…

I agree, it's not all your activity you want to keep secret (in which case move to the forest), it's the secret activity. It's not secret when you walk to the store, and it's not secret when you post a photo online or check into a location. However, there must always be a method for secret communication, and of course there is now, it's just not as convenient as the non-secure methods.

I don't know. I have a tendency to get noticd merely for being different. I have genuine concerns about ordinary, nonsecret activities of mine taking notice. But that concern is mostly not relevant to the kind of intelligence being discussed here.

/pedant

Re: Think You Can Live Offline Without Being Tracked? Here's What It Takes

#89

Post by diminoten »

mynewwork wrote: post #82
diminoten wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like the other guy did, you're focusing on the specific example, when the question and debate revolves around the general concept. But if you really must play this game, then perhaps the fact that you believe a 6 pack to even be a worthy gift is telling of your lifestyle enough to determine risk. Maybe it doesn't matter if you give it to someone else or not, just the fact that you purchase beer a certain amount of ti…

But the specific example points out the flaw. The data can be misleading, for some people and in some scenarios substantially (buying a round of drinks for clients looks the same as buying yourself 8 drinks at the bar to your credit card). Plus, with government-run healthcare, the definitions of healthy will be subject to lobbying. Look at the arguments now about what is healthy food... are carbs bad? is fat? what ab…

This isn't about government run healthcare, and the specific example is an implementation detail so no it does not point out the flaw, it points out nothing more than the fact that no system is 100% perfect.

Re: Think You Can Live Offline Without Being Tracked? Here's What It Takes

#90

Post by ctdonath »

tedunangst wrote: post #77
ctdonath wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly the problem I have with any "federal sales tax" program: the airgap between what I'm buying and automated governmental analysis thereof shrinks to sparking distance, thanks to instant rendering of tax coupled with inevitable "requirement" to adjust that tax based on arbitrary legislated factors. Buy a six pack? healthcare premium increases. Buy health products? get a tax credit. Buy fertilizer? auto-c…

How do you know that all that data isn't being collected by the state and and passed up to the federal government?

May be, but they can't admit it.

I'm concerned about what happens when it's legislated, normalized, and accepted.

Post reply on HN