21–30 of 52 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or they stop posting what they really think and instead post in a style that gives them the best price.
I can see it spawning a few parody accounts but, more likely, not worth the time required to build a plausible profile?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would assume things like income and education are already now used in this kind of pricing decisions.
Indeed, often acquired directly, but most often supported through proxies, which often have multiple partial correlations, such as, median house price in the applicant's area, crime rate in the applicant's area, applicant's job title, etc.
Yeah right, that is not how insurance works. The cost per year for an insurance company is relatively stable and simply the chance a person crashes * the average cost of a crash * the amount of people insured. The other customers, without FB or who use a lot of exclamation marks will thus pay for a higher amount of the total costs. This gives them an incentive to go to a fair insurance company.
Good. Hopefully this will make people more aware of the consequences of what they share on the internet. With the IP bill in parliament at the moment looking set to pass with minor amendments, this could not be more timely.
That IP bill is a horror show and it's passing with a wink and a nod, I'm fast losing what little faith I had in Government to do the right thing. We seem to have the worst government we've had in my life time (or perhaps I'm just politically more aware of whats going on).
And there goes FB's business model. Nobody is going to post anything once people realize their money is at stake. This seems like a good opportunity for a new friends and family social network.
new service idea: PR friendly facebook accounts. Pay £1 / month to have a 2nd facebook account with auto generated posts that get you discounts on car insurance.
Are there laws that require insurance pricing to be transparent?
It's interesting because they clearly believe they have workable actuarial data to support this, so in many ways good on them for using the data that's available. On the other hand, based on the examples given, it seems this is going to penalise people using language incorrectly - which I would assume can be strongly correlated with poor education. So on that basis, they're going to be saying that poor people are wor…
I would assume things like income and education are already now used in this kind of pricing decisions.
But they do use credit score, which negatively affects poor people. They say it is because people with poor credit are more likely to file a claim (note it isn't because of poor driving, just simply ability to cover a smaller incident).
They also use crime rates in an area, how far you drive to work, whether or not you have off street parking - and if that parking is by your house or not. All indicators of a person's finances.
Civil status affects insurance rates - after getting divorced, my rates increased. I've never had a ticket nor an accident. (I think they lower after marriage - somehow, you are assumed to be more responsible even though nothing else changed).
It is amazing how much doesn't depend on your actual driving habits. I understand some of it (ie, crime rate, how much you drive to work) because it does increase risk, but not things like whether or not I'm married.