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

Colorado House passes bill to limit surveillance pricing and wage setting

coloradonewsline.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 73 posts

Re: Colorado House passes bill to limit surveillance pricing and wage setting

#31

Post by TJSomething »

thayne wrote: post #21

I like the idea, but I'm not sure how enforceable it will be in practice. It seems like it would be relatively difficult to prove a company is using surveillance pricing, and companies may just accept the risk of paying a fine.

If you can do traffic interception, there's a pretty good chance there's going to be traces of price levels in the API and the analytics. Especially since it's probably going to be bolted on to the side of anything PCI compliant. If there isn't, then it's probably going to be really easy to subpoena to prove mens rea, because getting that right is tricky and requires a fair amount of review and coordination.

Re: Colorado House passes bill to limit surveillance pricing and wage setting

#33

Post by Jiro »

irishcoffee wrote: post #20
adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds great! The theory behind capitalism only works if prices are transparent and goods are transferable. These sorts of "special discounts" are fundamentally harmful to the economy as a whole.

I can see how say, a roofing business might have a “VIP” sale during a slow season, such that a discounted contract is signed and money is exchanged in the future when the weather doesn’t prohibit the work. I don’t think that is unreasonable.

The season is the same for all customers, so that isn't surveillance pricing.

Re: Colorado House passes bill to limit surveillance pricing and wage setting

#34

Post by kelnos »

thegreatpeter wrote: post #13
jrochkind1 wrote: post #8

> Republican Rep. Chris Richardson, an Elbert County Republican, argued that the bill is too broad and could regulate standard analytic usage in the workplace, such as a human resources software that recommends a pay band for employees based on performance. He does not think this is is just selling it further? Oh no, it might prohibit software automatically determining my wages, how could we even have a society if we…

“I absolutely agree that consumers and wage earners should not be exploited by the use of their data,” he said. “But it’s still overly broad and it’s still overly vague in very important parts. And I believe it’s overly simplistic in its definition of wage setting.”

That's standard conservative speak for "don't interfere with business practices". "Overly broad" is just a way to shut down discussion.

Re: Colorado House passes bill to limit surveillance pricing and wage setting

#37

Post by kotaKat »

Is this the "electronic ink pricetags bad" thing that the UFCW keeps peddling because "it takes clerk work away"?

I still don't understand how they think we're going to change UPC pricing live per-person in the physical retail environment. Does the price tag change depending who looks at it? What if two people look at it at the same time? They obviously both can't be surveillance priced at that moment. The UFCW is mad they don't understand they can re-skill the worker that was trained to stick little paper labels up that they can now maintain pricetag batteries and hardware instead.

Re: Colorado House passes bill to limit surveillance pricing and wage setting

#38

Post by adestefan »

kelnos wrote: post #34
thegreatpeter wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“I absolutely agree that consumers and wage earners should not be exploited by the use of their data,” he said. “But it’s still overly broad and it’s still overly vague in very important parts. And I believe it’s overly simplistic in its definition of wage setting.”

That's standard conservative speak for "don't interfere with business practices". "Overly broad" is just a way to shut down discussion.

That’s juicy coming from the current Republican Party.

Re: Colorado House passes bill to limit surveillance pricing and wage setting

#39

Post by wat10000 »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #27
thayne wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If capatilism was working the way it was supposed to, the customer could choose between paying more up front, but having the option of a "free" return, or paying less upfront byt having to pay for a return (or not be able to return it). And for that matter, the customer would have enough information to know the quality of the product before purchasing, but that is often not possible.

Everybody knows the cows are not actually spheres. It's about how you deal with it. If you try to sell "return insurance" then some customers don't buy it but end up wanting to return it anyway and then leave you a bad review for not having free returns. That costs you more than charging somewhat higher prices and having free returns, so that's what you do instead. But now efficiency requires some other mechanism of…

Your idea of charging less to customers who know what they want is also a spherical cow.

They’ll buy your entire life from a data broker and charge you more because yesterday you accidentally viewed some Lamborghini seat covers. They’ll calculate that you have less willpower on Thursday nights and change their advertised price from $10 to ON SALE $2 off $12. They’ll just do coincidentally use the same algorithm to determine their price as all the other stores do so they don’t have to worry about competing on price.

Re: Colorado House passes bill to limit surveillance pricing and wage setting

#40

Post by wat10000 »

irishcoffee wrote: post #20
adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds great! The theory behind capitalism only works if prices are transparent and goods are transferable. These sorts of "special discounts" are fundamentally harmful to the economy as a whole.

I can see how say, a roofing business might have a “VIP” sale during a slow season, such that a discounted contract is signed and money is exchanged in the future when the weather doesn’t prohibit the work. I don’t think that is unreasonable.

I can see how a roofing business might buy your online shopping history, deduce that you drive a Lexus, and bump up their prices. Then profile you as not very handy, and cut corners knowing you won’t spot the issues.
Post reply on HN