Social Media and Privacy

[r3p1v]

guerilla, clearly you don't value non-discrimination or privacy, so I think it's a waste of time to debate this.

Why don't you say what you think will actually happen in the US once more and more companies start using this data?

 

[guerilla]

guerilla, clearly you don't value non-discrimination or privacy, so I think it's a waste of time to debate this.

I wish we could debate it, but to do that properly, everything needs to be on the table.

As Ayn Rand said, "Check your premises."

I think it's important that we break down these problems further than the normal problem => reaction => solution cycle if we want to have meaningful discourse.

I don't value non-discrimination because it is nonsense. Humans are, and all human action is motivated by, discriminating (deciding between tradeoffs). No two people, no two objects, at any time or place, are "equal". We can afford somewhat equal dignity, but if you can't see the difference between a 60 year old 300 lb woman with cancer, and a 15 year old boy who is a healthy distance runner, or you can't see the difference between someone with crazy behavior and a transient work history, and someone who has social and family pressure in their lives to be good citizens, and a solid record then ...

Are you equally against credit reporting? Do you feel it is unfair that we judge people based upon their past history to pay?

Also, you never did explain why it is ridiculous. And you also didn't answer my question, as to why you think businesses would engage in this data collection, and use it to influence decisions, if it didn't actually prove useful.

Do you know many businesses that spy on people just for kicks?

And is it really spying if YOU choose to put YOUR information into the public domain? No one is forcing you to have a facebook or twitter, or to say anything in particular on it.

Also, I think it is very cheap for you to say I don't value privacy. You clearly don't know who you're talking to. I am very private about many matters. When I need a loan (hopefully never) or I need a job (hopefully never) I will have to make a decision about how much privacy I am willing to trade off to get those things.

Why don't you say what you think will actually happen in the US once more and more companies start using this data?

Assuming the information is actually valuable (can be correlated to risk) then prices will go down for good clients, and up for bad clients.

Exactly as it should.

Look, we live in a world of consequences. If you don't conduct yourself appropriately, you have less opportunities. If you don't create solid social relationships, and spend your time trolling and acting like an asshole online, there are consequences.

The notion that people should get equal access, when there is a downside if people don't honor the relationship, and everyone has a different risk factor for being honorable, is great. In a socialist utopia.

Sadly, they don't exist because human nature doesn't work that way, and because it conflicts with the fundamental laws of reality.

So maybe this isn't the answer you wanted, and maybe inside, you wish I would get hit by a small car.

 

[r3p1v]

I wish we could debate it, but to do that properly, everything needs to be on the table.

I think it might be a waste of time because it's highly unlikely that either of us will change our views. I'm not really interested in debating all of this, I'm mostly just interested in where people think this trend is heading and how people, companies, and the government will react.

I don't value non-discrimination because it is nonsense. Humans are, and all human action is motivated by, discriminating (deciding between tradeoffs). No two people, no two objects, at any time or place, are "equal". We can afford somewhat equal dignity, but if you can't see the difference between a 60 year old 300 lb woman with cancer, and a 15 year old boy who is a healthy distance runner, or you can't see the difference between someone with crazy behavior and a transient work history, and someone who has social and family pressure in their lives to be good citizens, and a solid record then ...

What happens is that people end up making wide generalizations about whole groups of people. Statistically it may be true, but not everybody in the group is like that and it's unfair to those people.

I know the market usually corrects problems like this, but not always, not instantly, and sometimes it takes a really really long time. So it's unfair to those that are being hurt by factors that are out of their control.

Are you equally against credit reporting? Do you feel it is unfair that we judge people based upon their past history to pay?

No, because it is clearly a good indication of their ability to pay and not based on something that is out of their control.

Also, you never did explain why it is ridiculous. And you also didn't answer my question, as to why you think businesses would engage in this data collection, and use it to influence decisions, if it didn't actually prove useful.

It's ridiculous because it's a huge invasion of privacy. They think that it will help them make better decisions. But maybe it doesn't.

Do you know many businesses that spy on people just for kicks?

Possibly. I doubt it is what people are told to do, but people who have access to private information probably occasional do it for kicks. People, companies, and markets are not always rational and well run. They are operated by humans and often make mistakes.

And is it really spying if YOU choose to put YOUR information into the public domain? No one is forcing you to have a facebook or twitter, or to say anything in particular on it.

Idk, I think there is a somewhat reasonable expectation of privacy on social networks. Also many people don't understand that their profile and everything is visible to ANYBODY, not just their friends.

Assuming the information is actually valuable (can be correlated to risk) then prices will go down for good clients, and up for bad clients.

Exactly as it should.

Look, we live in a world of consequences. If you don't conduct yourself appropriately, you have less opportunities. If you don't create solid social relationships, and spend your time trolling and acting like an asshole online, there are consequences.

The notion that people should get equal access, when there is a downside if people don't honor the relationship, and everyone has a different risk factor for being honorable, is great. In a socialist utopia.

Sadly, they don't exist because human nature doesn't work that way, and because it conflicts with the fundamental laws of reality.

I'm not sure I totally understand those last two lines. Are you basically saying that ideally the use of this data would work, but realistically it won't?

I was about to say I think you're out of touch with reality if you honestly think that people and the government won't react when they can't get a job or a car loan because there are too many curse words in their facebook posts or because they like Justin Bieber.

So maybe this isn't the answer you wanted, and maybe inside, you wish I would get hit by a small car.

Lol, no, I enjoy understanding how and why other intelligence people think even if their views are very different from mine.

 

[guerilla]

I think it might be a waste of time because it's highly unlikely that either of us will change our views. I'm not really interested in debating all of this, I'm mostly just interested in where people think this trend is heading and how people, companies, and the government will react.

Doesn't look like anyone cares besides us.

What happens is that people end up making wide generalizations about whole groups of people. Statistically it may be true, but not everybody in the group is like that and it's unfair to those people.

Why is it unfair? Firms that make bad judgments will take losses. Firms that make good judgments will make profits.

I know the market usually corrects problems like this, but not always, not instantly, and sometimes it takes a really really long time. So it's unfair to those that are being hurt by factors that are out of their control.

There is no such thing as instant, prior justice. You're asking for Utopia.

No, because it is clearly a good indication of their ability to pay and not based on something that is out of their control.

So how you handle your relationships, behavior, and how you represent yourself publicly is beyond your control?

Sounds like cherry picking to me.

It's ridiculous because it's a huge invasion of privacy.

It's public information, not private information.

Possibly. I doubt it is what people are told to do, but people who have access to private information probably occasional do it for kicks. People, companies, and markets are not always rational and well run. They are operated by humans and often make mistakes.

Is that what you argument is based upon? That companies are going to ignore profits, and engage in malicious social behavior?

Idk, I think there is a somewhat reasonable expectation of privacy on social networks.

Why is it reasonable?

Also many people don't understand that their profile and everything is visible to ANYBODY, not just their friends.

And how will they realize that if there are never any incentives to know?

I mean, look dude, some Israeli company could scrape this data, rate clients and American firms could subscribe to it. The notion the USG can deal with this because the internet is implicitly only available to Americans or that firms don't cooperate between countries is ...

I'm not sure I totally understand those last two lines. Are you basically saying that ideally the use of this data would work, but realistically it won't?

I don't care if it works or not. I am not in that business. If it works, people will do it. If it doesn't have efficacy, people will not.

Socialism is to me, either the product of stupidity or ignorance, and so any socialist ideas to me, are not very attractive.

I was about to say I think you're out of touch with reality if you honestly think that people and the government won't react when they can't get a job or a car loan because there are too many curse words in their facebook posts or because they like Justin Bieber.

I think they will react, like I think they drop bombs on brown people, like they pay off banksters, like they do all sorts of stupid and counter-productive things like student loans, subsidies, welfare etc.

Don't confuse popularity + government interference with some sort of validation. Remember, states used to torture people, rape women, and burn people at the stake, with the people chanting and cheering. This sort of silliness is only marginally better, and I am fairly certain people will look back on us 500 years from now the way we look back on people who kept slaves.

Lol, no, I enjoy understanding how and why other intelligence people think even if their views are very different from mine.

I wish you didn't make emotional appeals, and explained your position clearly. Most people say thing are "ridiculous" but cannot actually define specifically what is ridiculous. For someone like me, who argues somewhat autistically, that can be very frustrating.

 

[r3p1v]

Ok, let's setup a scenario of normal discrimination. Let's say car insurance companies discover that statically women get into more car accidents, so they price their insurance accordingly (raise the price).

Ok, so 100% of all women do not get into more car accidents than men. So there is going to be a subset of that group that is paying more than they should because of the group that they are in. They have no control over that and can't change their gender. So they are going to be financially hurt.

Now let's assume that all insurance companies do this because it makes them more money and there is no way for the insurance company to get better data to determine which women are actually better drivers. And let's assume that it doesn't make economic sense for them to spend time and money to figure out which ones are better drivers and give them a discount. It's just a lot easier to raise rates on all women because of the statics.

So what is wrong with having a government elected by the people tell the insurance companies that that isn't allowed? That they can't use a person's gender to raise their insurance rates.

 

[r3p1v]

I think they will react, like I think they drop bombs on brown people, like they pay off banksters, like they do all sorts of stupid and counter-productive things like student loans, subsidies, welfare etc.

You seem to think that the market is 100% right and 100% efficient and the government is the exact opposite. Maybe I'm exaggerating a little bit, but that seems to be your view.

Both the government and markets are operated by humans. Humans are not perfect and often make mistakes. They often do things that don't make sense, are irrational, and not in their best interest. There are tons of companies that are very poorly run, abusive, or fraudulent.

 

[BigWill]

Ok, let's setup a scenario of normal discrimination. Let's say car insurance companies discover that statically women get into more car accidents, so they price their insurance accordingly (raise the price).

Ok, so 100% of all women do not get into more car accidents than men. So there is going to be a subset of that group that is paying more than they should because of the group that they are in. They have no control over that and can't change their gender. So they are going to be financially hurt.

Now let's assume that all insurance companies do this because it makes them more money and there is no way for the insurance company to get better data to determine which women are actually better drivers. And let's assume that it doesn't make economic sense for them to spend time and money to figure out which ones are better drivers and give them a discount. It's just a lot easier to raise rates on all women because of the statics.

So what is wrong with having a government elected by the people tell the insurance companies that that isn't allowed? That they can't use a person's gender to raise their insurance rates.

Insurance isn't a right. Use a different insurance company.

Now if they all do it and you are not happy with that. You can get an insurance bond in staid of insurance. Or don't have insurance at all.

 

[r3p1v]

Or don't have insurance at all.

There is a law saying you have to have car insurance. (or I guess that bond thing you're talking about)

 

[BigWill]

There is a law saying you have to have car insurance. (or I guess that bond thing you're talking about)

Yeah, don't drive. Or build you're roads and drive on those

Or here in my state - if your motor is under 49cc you don't need to title, nor insure

 

[guerilla]

Ok, so 100% of all women do not get into more car accidents than men. So there is going to be a subset of that group that is paying more than they should because of the group that they are in. They have no control over that and can't change their gender. So they are going to be financially hurt.

Well, there is an incentive for a firm to price properly, and refine beyond the simple male-female level because the first firm to give women who are low risk lower rates, will get more business. There is a profit motive to do so because one can capture more market share by pricing more accurately relative to risk.

Now let's assume that all insurance companies do this because it makes them more money and there is no way for the insurance company to get better data to determine which women are actually better drivers. And let's assume that it doesn't make economic sense for them to spend time and money to figure out which ones are better drivers and give them a discount. It's just a lot easier to raise rates on all women because of the statics.

Right, but that's not a realistic scenario. I mean, you do some sort of internet marketing, right? Do you ever run out of campaign data to make decisions over? Is there no incentive for people to get better, smarter, develop superior processes?

The economic incentive here is competition.

So what is wrong with having a government elected by the people tell the insurance companies that that isn't allowed? That they can't use a person's gender to raise their insurance rates.

First of all, government is not elected by the people. The elections are political theater. If no one voted, there would still be government. There has throughout history. We simply believe that democracy somehow makes us all stake holders in the state. Of course, when you get sued or attacked by the government, or you want to change government, or hold someone accountable, you, the little guy, has no power or effect whatsoever.

So let's bypass that democracy is legitimate, because as we all know, democracy brought Hitler to power, and the USSR had elections all the time.

I don't think you're looking at this economically at all. And that's a problem because economics deals with cause and effect, the results of tradeoffs.

Do you really think insurance will be cheaper if firms are not able to make risk assessments? If sex actually has something to do with accident rates, then it's relevant data. If it is *NOT* relevant, and firms price this way, they are creating a competitive inefficiency.

By preventing firms from being able to assess risk at the individual level through more granular analysis, you're going to make insurance cheaper for risky people, and more expensive for less risky people. You're going to force averaging. No money is saved. You've just shifted the cost of insuring a bad driver, to a good driver.

Discrimination is essential when making decisions. You don't have sex with people you think are ugly. Presuming you're hetero, you don't have sex with other men. You discriminate.

Put yourself in the shoes of an insurance provider. Do you want to be denied the ability to do the most complete analysis possible of risk?

Again, prices are going to adjust to state interventions. Government regulation never makes anything cheaper. They simply hide the direct costs by making everyone pay too much.

You seem to think that the market is 100% right and 100% efficient and the government is the exact opposite. Maybe I'm exaggerating a little bit, but that seems to be your view.

That's close enough. The market works voluntarily. The government works through force.

I prefer that all relationships are voluntary for economic, philosophic and ethical reasons.

There is a law saying you have to have car insurance. (or I guess that bond thing you're talking about)

Right, but that's a wrong. People shouldn't require insurance. They simply need to be responsible for damages, and then everyone would have an incentive to get insurance.

We see this stuff very differently. You see these issues as social goods government can provide, and I see them as rackets set up to protect and maintain particular industries. Remove the racket and let incentives (consequences of action) direct human behavior. That is fair.

 

[WickedJoe]

Trust and transparency are the future, and it's going to come at the cost of privacy.

I agree - whether I like it or not. But I'm talking about a 100% complete lack of physical privacy. What I see eventually happening is the continued miniaturization and cheapening of camera's, drones, and eventually nanites until they become surveillance nanites that could be so cheap (and possibly self-reproducing) that they end up literally everywhere.

I can easily imagine at some point in the future anyone could see anyone or anything in the world at any time they want without the permission of the viewed. It will be impossible to stop. It's basically omnipresence.

There are quite a few different techs that will be coming out in the next few hundred years that will change what it means to be human. It will completely change society and our interactions. Omnipresence for all might mean a complete end of all wars.

 

[guerilla]

I agree with almost all of that.

Any electronic surveillance can be countered with electronic counter-measures.

That said, I see a change (as you indicated re: war) towards changes in human behavior. There will be huge disincentives to be an asshole, a douchebag, say crazy things, or rip people off because everyone will know, and the social cost of being pathological is very high.

 

[WickedJoe]

I agree with almost all of that.

Any electronic surveillance can be countered with electronic counter-measures.

That said, I see a change (as you indicated re: war) towards changes in human behavior. There will be huge disincentives to be an asshole, a douchebag, say crazy things, or rip people off because everyone will know, and the social cost of being pathological is very high.

Unfortunately even if everyone had the omnipresence tech.. it still could end up distopic IMO. Mainly because shunning could be taken to a whole new level stopping behaviors deemed inappropriate by the masses. Instead of the usual one-man tyranny you could end up with a tyranny of public opinion. Or, alternatively the masses might end up more open minded after seeing all the weird shit going on out there and come to accept weirdness as it is.

Either way, shits about to get real.

 

[guerilla]

I think that technology won't develop in isolation, and personally, I try to avoid looking to far into the future because there are simply too many variable to account for. It can make you wonko.

But I agree, technologically, shit is going to get real. The question is, will the state (regulation, patent, taxes) hold it back? Or will we be able to realize a very different future?

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

This could lead to people having very curated public social accounts.

My Facebook has been sterilized since day 1, I guess I always knew this was the end game.

To see this development in a positive light is to ignore the fact that extension of credit is not - as conventional wisdom would have you believe - solely about your ability to pay. Rather in the best of cases it is based on a balance between potential profits on interest as well as minimizing the risk of default. But If we have learned anything in the last 6 years it is that lenders have increasingly shifted the balance towards profits over the elimination of risk. The proof is in lenders actions. Creditors now consider late fees in their profit models. Mortgage companies made millions of loans to people who were not worthy of a carrying a loan based on their credit and there income. The risks were shifted to other sectors of the economy or to the public sector. In many cases the risks were simply ignored, for short profit gain with little regard for the sustainability of the companies themselves.

Do people really have a hard time getting credit in the U.S.? They may have a hard time getting good terms, but predatory lending is still the norm. The article mentions college students. This is a perfect example. This is a demographic group who's members are often unemployed or working low paying jobs, have little or no established credit history, and a high statistical risk of default. Yet your typical college student is inundated with offers for credit. High interest credit, but credit nonetheless.
Although, a personal anecdote does not constitute a trend, I will still offer a little personal experience anyway. I'm a big fan of same as cash deals. The ones where if you pay the balance off within some time period, you pay zero interest. However, I have never failed to pay off the balance prior to the interest coming due. In essence I have used them a free personal loans. I keep the money in my bank earning interest, the store gives me the product and loses out on the benefit of having all the money for the product they sold me and earning the interest themselves. Of course they offer these plans because statistically most people will fail to pay off the balance in time and end of paying the interest. Despite the fact that I have kept excellent credit and have always held a good stable job throughout my adult life, I have been turned down a number of times for these kinds of deals. If credit worthiness or income were the issue, I would have no trouble getting the loan. This is despite the fact that I have had no trouble getting preferred financing on secured and unsecured loans from credit unions and banks in the past. On several occasions I actually called to contest the card or loan being turned down. In each case I was told the same thing. My credit history indicated an established history of paying off loans on time or early, as if that was a negative thing! I was told that It would not be profitable for the company/store to extend me a same as cash deal. This completely flies in the face of conventional wisdom, but does illustrated the reality that the extension of credit is a more complex process then it seems. It makes business sense too if you understand their motivations. Why would a store want to extend a deal to whose purpose is to trap the consumer into paying a high interest payment on some item, when that person has a history of not falling into the trap? They also assume that if I don't get the same as cash loan I will simply pay for the item. Its a risk they take because the real profit is not in selling me an item, but in selling me the credit to buy the item. This is basis for our finacialized economic system. The U.S.'s chief product today is consumer debt, not consumer goods.

This data will not be used to make loans to people that otherwise have little established credit history. They already give these people loans. Rather it will be used to more accurately predict which customers will be most profitable. These high profit individuals are those who carry high balances on multiple revolving accounts, and pay late. The exact opposite of people with good credit. Creditors in collusion with the government have already made it difficult to default and are continuing to do so, so traditional credit worthiness is in essence becoming less important. The future (actually the present too) is permanently indebted customers who pay interest (rents) to creditors indefinitely. This technology will be used to better identify those potential members of new indentured class.

FICA = Federal Insurance Contributions Act (aka) payroll tax.
I know you were referring to FICO, although I disagree with your points. FICO score is a quantitative representation of an intangible. In this case it is the likeliness of an individual to pay back a loan. It is, as you allude to, based on more than repayment history alone and includes things like amount of credit, high balances, etc. These are all things that are found to statistically correlate to a higher likelyhood that you will default on your debt. The score does not represent whether or not you will be a good customer. A good customer is sort of an amorphous concept. Yes, it may include how likely you are to pay your debts, but it includes the other things you discuss like how likely you are to add to the profitability of a business. It also may represent how much assistance you require from staff, are you difficult, are you loyal, etc. The problem with "customer-worthiness" and the reason we have quantitative measures like FICO is peoples definition of "customer-worthiness" can be extremely biased. Race and gender, for example have historically been used as a factor in judging "customer-worthiness" and still is in many cases; just not openly. Unfortunately people receive a different quality of customer service based on appearance and socioeconomic background all the time. One intended benefit of numerical scoring like FICO is that it is based on standard metrics that are supposed to be divorced from bias. FICO is a metric used across the industry in and of itself. This is superior to having to rely solely on the good or bad will of some loan officer. The good old day of a gentleman handshake sealing the deal were mostly good days so long as you were a white male. Of course lenders are not forced into using solely FICO scores or FICO scores at all. And you are right in that they, and credit reports in general, have begun to define people. I think that this is an awful trend. Its one of the many aspects of modern life the makes me want to move to the wildness and live like Grizzly Adams. I don't want to be defined by a number. Not my my FICO score, and not by Klout score either. FICO ignores circumstances, bad luck, or identity fraud (although its effects can be contested). It is far too inelastic as well. A college kid living off of ramen noodles may have a completely completely different real credit-worthiness when they graduate and get a good paying job (assuming they can). It will take a while however for their score to catch up. Divorced women who have not worked outside the home ever, or in many years are in an even worse situation. Just checking if anybody actually reads this shit which I copied from two comments on the site. They may have a good job, but zero credit history. Their score is not necessarily an accurate reflection of their default risk. These situations perhaps are where it is a good thing if a loan officer has some flexibility. Its not a black and white issue. FICO scores are good and bad.

However all of this misses the point of my original post. I think the evidence has shown - and I'm talking about the national state of affairs, not solely my personal anecdote - that in the eyes of today's lenders, bad credit and a higher likely hood to pay higher rates and rack up penalties and late fees are actually desirable qualities from a profit standpoint. Higher risk customers represent higher profits. It doesn't matter if this creates systemic risk because: A. lenders are working to make default harder or impossible, and B. because the government has shown a willingness to turn a blind eye and bail these industries out when the systemic risk turns to systemic collapse. I submit that the technology discussed in the article will not simply be used to provide an under-served population an alternative metric for determining credit worthiness. Lets get real. This technology will be used the same way all aggregated personal data is used. That is, it will be used to target customers in any way that maximizes profit for those industries, with little regard for the negative externalities it creates.

Could you please expound on that?

 

[supplyshock]

I think that technology won't develop in isolation, and personally, I try to avoid looking to far into the future because there are simply too many variable to account for. It can make you wonko.

But I agree, technologically, shit is going to get real. The question is, will the state (regulation, patent, taxes) hold it back? Or will we be able to realize a very different future?

Lol Anarchy Lol.

Fuckin cunt always bringing this shit up in every thread.

 

[guerilla]

My Facebook has been sterilized since day 1, I guess I always knew this was the end game.

I don't post anything too controversial on Facebook, because I don't really have super controversial views, and frankly it's mostly family and a half dozen cool guys from here, so what's the point?

I suppose it helps being self-employed. It's not like I am worried my boss is going to find out that I don't like government and I am really into economics.

I haven't always lived by this, but I have tried to most of the time. I try not to do stuff I would be embarrassed to tell someone about. It's a simple rule.

 

[r3p1v]

guerilla, I agree with most of what you said in your last response to my posts.

I understand that market forces and competition fix a LOT of things. But you seem to believe that the market is perfect and can solve all problems.

I'll restate what I said earlier but you didn't comment on:

Both the government and markets are operated by humans. Humans are not perfect and often make mistakes. They often do things that don't make sense, are irrational, and not in their best interest. There are tons of companies that are very poorly run, abusive, or fraudulent.

These {bad/inefficient} {companies/people/sectors/divisions within a company} can stay that way for years, decades, lifetimes, or indefinitely because nobody within the company cares, nobody notices, it doesn't have an effect on profits, or it doesn't have a significant enough effect on profits.

 

[Andy Capp]

and maybe inside, you wish I would get hit by a small car.

Lol at a "small" car being the preferred vehicle of choice. Only if it's towing a caravan and even then a bus, b double semi, or a rampaging herd of buffalo would be far more appropriate.

 

[CCarter]

TL;DR

I used to be all about privacy until a year or so ago, but I see it very differently now. Trust and transparency are the future, and it's going to come at the cost of privacy.

Not.Sure.If.Serious.jpg