Do people have the right to lower their own insurance premiums in exchange for voluntarily giving up their data?

Do people have the right through collective indirection to implement blatantly discriminatory control mechanisms that obfuscate the actual costs of things? (I'd argue not.)

Do people have the right to sell themselves into slavery? (Not in the United States)

There's just some transactions that aren't bueno, because of the higher order effects they cause.

I see normalizing surveillance as a case of that. I'm not even sure that most on aggregate even end up realizing premium savings since the data collected just filters into the new base truth for everyone. The more info an insurer has, the more lopsided the state of affairs for everyone else.

I'm all for freedom when you aren't just effectively creating soft, coercive, control mechanisms.

>Do people have the right through collective indirection to implement blatantly discriminatory control mechanisms that obfuscate the actual costs of things? (I'd argue not.)

More accurately distributing cost of risks to those engaging in the risky behavior seems like it would be the opposite of obfuscating costs. Tobacco users pay more, why shouldn’t alcohol users? Or sugar users?