You could say the same about, for example, the NSA wiretapping your calls and listening in on them. Until you get caught in some bizarre situation as a result, you'll be happily oblivious. But your rights are still being violated.

That data (your profile) is yours, and yours alone. No one has the right to package it and sell it without your consent. Now, it is possible that you may feel gregarious and offer up your data; but that would be by choice.

The amount of harm that a government can do to you is virtually unlimited. The amount of harm most companies can do to you is very small and effectively restricted by the law, even in the very unlikely event that they have some incentive to harm their customers.

The insurance industry's entire profit model is based on harming their customers -- underpaying claims

My impression was their profit model was collecting premiums from a very large number of customers, while only paying out a relatively small number of claims.

Adding to this comment, that's exactly why your rates go up when you get in an accident. Your "trustworthiness" has gone down and the insurance company might have to spend more on you in the long run.

So the logic is that insurance companies intentionally cause accidents for their members, in order to increase premiums and increase their costs?

That doesn't make any sense.

No. My point was that insurance company's profit model is making most of their money off people who don't have accidents and spending some of that on people who do. To recoup the loss after an accident, the insurance company will raise your rate. They're spending more on you, so they want some more from you.

Causing accidents to increase premiums would be pointless and actually cause them to lose money (premiums are almost never more than the actual cost of an accident).

Think of it this way: You have 5 people who pay $100 a month. After 3 months ($1500 profit), Alice causes an accident that costs $500. The insurance company pays for $400 of that and raises Alice's premium by $25. Now, their profit for those 3 months is $1100, but they're also now making $125 a month. That $400 insurance payout is paid for from Alice, Bob, Charlie, David, and Eve's insurance payments totaling $80/person/(3months).

Raised copays are the reason some people don't submit claims. It's a question of "Do I want to pay $300 now, or an extra $25 a month for 2 or 3 years?"

But to say that their profit model is based around causing accidents or paying as little as possible is a complete lie. Sure, insurance companies can be greedy, but their profit model is making money off people who don't have accidents. Paying lesser amounts is just an added "bonus" they get when accidents happen. It's greedy, but that's not the profit model.

Sorry, I was reading in context to tamana's comment above. I know how the industry works, I was thinking that you were trying to explain more on their point, but I see I was wrong. Thanks.

You wouldn't know what the practical consequences are because you are entirely in the dark where the data goes.

That is kind of the point.

By "practical consequence" I mean "something that has actually happened to you or someone you are aware of," not the worst case scenario of a dystopian vision.

If you get mysteriously denied a job, insurance, etc, you won't necessarily know. In fact, since you give out so much data about yourself so often, it's likely impossible for you to know who sold you out exactly or that you were sold out at all.

(As an aside, it is already illegal in the US to deny someone a job or insurance because of their DNA)

It's not illegal to deny life insurance, AFAIK. And in many cases that's more important than health insurance.

If I'm stricken with a terminal illness, health insurance won't do much for me. Life insurance could mean the difference between my family being OK or really struggling.

I'm not sure how that's relevant on meta data. Life insurance typically requires that you disclose up front if you have a terminal illness, and even if you do they can give you a graded life insurance policy.

FYI the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 prohibits the use of genetic information in health insurance and employment.

Have you ever had more than a minor annoyance from not wearing a seatbelt?

I've asked this question before and it is typically answered with nothing more than hypothetical "nightmare" scenarios.

there are plenty of situations that only exist in nightmare scenarios. that doesn't make them any less scary. someone brought up seat belts further up, and it's a decent example. why wear a seat belt? it only protects you in nightmare scenarios

Wearing a seatbelt protects you in very real and measurable ways. Crashes happen many thousands of times per year. You can't say the same about your anonymous data being used.

Fatal car crashes are common, and car crashes that would have been fatal without a seatbelt are extremely common.

A seat belt protects you from real & practical scenarios, not just nightmare scenarios.