Data Mining Exec Pays For Burgers In Cash To Keep His Insurance Company From Knowing His Bad Diet Habits

from the privacy?-what's-that? dept

The Economist recently had an interesting article on how insurance companies are increasingly using data mining to "analyze risk." That is, they look through the data which was originally collected for the purpose of better marketing, and use it as a tool to see if you lead an unhealthy life. However, the really interesting point is highlighted by Kashmir Hill, where an exec at a datamining company admits that he's changed his habits because of this. Not his eating habits, mind you. But how he purchases food:

Insurers' interest in data mining will only grow, says Kevin Pledge, the boss of Insight Decision Solutions, an underwriting-technology consultancy based near Toronto.... Insurance firms will also analyse grocery purchases for clues about policyholders, he predicts. But that raises some sticky questions about privacy. Mr Pledge himself has begun to forgo his supermarket loyalty-card discount on junk food and pay for his burgers in cash. Promising as data mining is, much will depend on how regulators, and consumers, react.

He also notes that he's working on a system that will go through your social media profiles to see if you provide any info insurers may want to know about. This, of course, is the natural extension of our data explosion. But, in my experience, all of these companies who collect data seem to do an incredibly bad job at getting it right. And... as long as there's that "cash hole" for data, it's hard to see how accurate such information would really be.

Filed Under: data mining, health, insurance, social media

UMG Finds Perfect Biz Model: Cheat Artists, Then, If Caught, Demand Insurance Company Pay Instead

from the wow dept

The sheer chutzpah of Universal Music is really quite stunning. As you may recall, in 2009, it came out that the major record labels had been screwing over musicians in Canada with a bit of sleight of hand called "exploit now, pay later if at all." The way it worked was that labels would put old works on compilations without getting artists' permission, then put the artists' names on a "pending" list, which was supposed to mean that payment to those artists was "pending." Except the pending lists were never touched and the royalties were never paid. Labels not paying artists royalties is a pretty common issue, but here they weren't even getting any credit at all. Pretty sneaky. Realizing they had been caught red handed, the labels "settled" by agreeing to pay the $45 million in royalties owed.

However, it turns out that Universal Music Group actually seems to think that its insurance company should be paying the $14.4 million it owes (UMG's share of the $45 million). It's now suing its insurance company for refusing to pay. If you think about it for a second, you realize just how insane this claim is. Basically, Universal Music is claiming that it can simply not pay any royalties at all, then wait to get sued... and if it loses and has to pay, it believes its insurance company has to foot the bill. Now there's a business model!

Filed Under: canada, cheating, copyright, insurance, scams
Companies: universal music

Sony's Insurer Says It Shouldn't Have To Pay For Cost Of PlayStation Network Hack

from the sony-swims-alone dept

Butcherer79 points to even more problems for Sony in the aftermath of the massive hacking of the PlayStation Network. It seems that Sony was expecting its insurance provider, Zurich American Insurance, to cover any costs. Zurich American Insurance apparently has other ideas:

Zurich American Insurance has now gone to court in New York seeking a declaration that it does not have to help Sony with current or future legal action related to the data breach.

Legal papers filed by Zurich reveal that 55 separate class action lawsuits are pending in the US because of the breach.

Sony has indicated that it expected Zurich to cover any such fees, but Zurich is saying no way, no how. Apparently, Zurich says that its contract with Sony doesn't even cover the parts of the business that were hacked, and other clauses in the deal show that this isn't Zurich's problem at all.

Filed Under: hack, insurance, lawsuits, playstation, playstation network
Companies: sony, zurich american insurance

Will Your Home Insurance Provider Jack Up Your Rates If Your Tweet Appears On PleaseRobMe?

from the welcome-to-social-media dept

We were just recently discussing the phenomenon of sites like "PleaseRobMe," which reposted Twitter/FourSquare messages of people announcing that they had left their homes, and wondering if it was all just a moral panic. It seemed unlikely that any burglars were seriously using such sites as a way to pick homes to rob. But do insurance companies agree? Michael Scott points us to the news that at least some insurance providers are exploring social media usage in figuring out insurance rates. Right now, it appears that they're mostly looking at social networking info in doing claims investigations, but it may soon go beyond that. The author of the linked article suggests that at least some insurance companies are looking to take it further, in looking at your social media usage to determine your risk level (and, eventually, your premiums).

Filed Under: insurance, social networks

Facebook Photos Coming Back To Haunt Users In Surprising Ways

from the privacy-is-an-illusion? dept

There have been a bunch of stories lately about how pictures that people put up on Facebook are coming back to haunt them in unexpected ways. First, we have the case of Adam Bauer, a University of Wisconsin-La Crosse student who had been careful about who he friended, but chose to accept a friend request from an unknown user, because "she was a good-looking girl." Turns out that the "good-looking girl" was actually the La Crosse police, who ticketed him for underage drinking because of a photo on Facebook of Bauer holding a drink. This reminds me of a case we wrote about six years ago, involving a woman who posted some naked photos of herself at some locations around Lincoln, Nebraska -- leading the police to charge her with violating local no-nudity laws.

The other story that a bunch of folks have submitted was the case of a woman who who lost her disability insurance benefits because of photos on Facebook. She was on sick-leave due to a diagnosis of depression. Yet, somehow the insurance company got access to her Facebook photos that showed her out having fun -- at a birthday party, on vacation and the beach and at a Chippendale's show. Now it's entirely possible that there was insurance fraud going on. Or, it's also possible that someone who had been diagnosed with depression was trying to put her life back together. It's a bit difficult to think that an insurance agent looking at photos online is better at diagnosing the situation than a trained doctor.

In both of these cases, the issue is that photos might not tell the whole story. Making major decisions based just on some photos uploaded to social networks seems fraught with potential problems. I could certainly see using them as part of a larger investigation, but it doesn't seem like that was the case in either situation. But, in the meantime, it's a reminder that your privacy is increasingly disappearing -- and you may be surprised about decisions that others make about you based on what you assumed was perfectly innocent activities.

Filed Under: insurance, photos, police, social networks
Companies: facebook

Insurance Company Sues Website Offering Claim Advice... Saying It's Infringing

from the entitlement-culture dept

Yet another example of "entitlement culture," as companies misuse intellectual property law to try to prop up questionable business models, comes in this latest story, sent in by Jesse. An insurance company in British Columbia, Canada, called ICBC, is suing a website that offers advice on how not to get your insurance claim denied. Obviously, for policy holders, this is useful information. But, to ICBC, it's copyright infringement. Well, at least that's what the article linked above says. I have a hard time seeing how there's a copyright claim here -- especially since the ICBC spokesperson states that they don't have a problem with the content, and that they just have to protect their trademark. So... let's give ICBC the benefit of the doubt and assume the newspaper reporter screwed up, and this is actually a trademark claim rather than a copyright claim (professional reporters for the win, again!). Even so, this would seem like a typical "gripes site" type discussion where, as long as it's clear that the site in question is not run by the company, there shouldn't be any problem. In fact, given that the site provides useful information for ICBC customers, it's difficult to see what the problem is, other than that the insurance company doesn't like its policy holders to learn how to stand up for their rights.

Filed Under: gripes site, infringement, insurance, trademark
Companies: icbc

Spammer Discovers His Insurance Policy Doesn't Cover $6 Million Spam Fines

from the just-so-you-know... dept

Scott Richter was a bigtime spammer, who was so proud of being a spammer, at one point he planned to release his own line of "Spamking" clothing (seriously). In 2005, though, he filed for bankruptcy (even though it appeared his spamming operations were still rolling in cash. That same year, there were reports that Richter had actually gone legit and he was actually removed from the infamous ROKSO list of known spammers (not an easy list to get removed from). Except... sometimes it's just difficult to stay away. MySpace sued Richter in 2007 and won a $6 million award against him (though, Richter claimed victory since MySpace wanted much more).

Now, Michael Scott alerts us to the news that Richter tried to have his insurance company pay the fines, but a court has now said that these fines were excluded from the policies, and thus Richter is on the hook for the fines instead. That seems like a good thing. It would be pretty troubling if spammers were able to buy insurance against getting fined.

Filed Under: insurance, scott richter, spam

Canadian Insurance Company Snooped On Jurors Insurance Claims During Trial

from the that-seems-bad dept

We've seen it over and over again -- when people have access to large databases of information, it's almost impossible for them to resist the temptation to abuse the info. The latest example comes via Michael Scott, who points us to the news that the Insurance Corporation of B.C. (ICBC) was caught checking its own database to examine the claim histories of potential jurors in a trial in which the company was involved. Not surprisingly, this is a massive breach of Canadian privacy laws and also raises questions about the jury itself. The judge in the case is now trying to find out if ICBC has done this in other cases as well. ICBC seems to be bending over backwards to say this won't happen again and that it's put in place safeguards, but it's not clear why it happened in the first place.

Filed Under: canada, insurance, jury, snooping
Companies: icbc

Anti-Driving-While-Yakking Tech Made Even Better By Adding Big Brother Insurance

from the two-for-one-special-on-things-you-don't-need-or-want dept

Researchers from the University of Utah -- home of our favorite ban-yakking-while-driving research center -- have come up with a new device they say can stop teens from using their phones while driving (via Phone Scoop). The device envelops a car key, and releasing the key to operate the car activates a radio in the device, which the researchers say forces the driver's phone into "driving mode," which only allows calls to 911 and pre-approved numbers, such as the driver's parents. Like earlier, similar ideas, there are a few bugbears: we're unaware of any phone that features such a mode, and it's unclear exactly why it's okay to be distracted by a phone call to one's parents while driving, but not by calls to other people. Singling out teens, when plenty of adults talk on their phones while driving, doesn't seem totally right, but never fear: the company commercializing the technology wants to hook up with insurance companies to use the device as a tool for Big Brother-style surveillance insurance that collects all sorts of data about drivers' behavior, then using the data to calculate insurance rates. While some insurance companies have shown interest in the anti-chatting technology, consumers have shown zero interest in Big Brother insurance, likely relegating this latest idea to the dustbin.

Filed Under: driving while yakking, insurance, software

Turns Out Drivers Not So Interested In Big Brother Style Car Insurance

from the please-don't-spy-on-me dept

Four years ago, we wrote about the concept of "Big Brother-style car insurance," where drivers would agree to have special black boxes attached to their cars which would transmit all sorts of info to the insurance company about their driving habits, including how much, when and how fast they drove. Those drivers who drove safer (or at safer "times") were offered better rates. We were actually quite surprised in 2005 to hear the company behind the most intrusive of these programs, Norwich Union in the UK, claim that the early tests were going so well that it was expanding the program. Three years later, we now learn that the "going so well" part may have only been on the insurers' side, rather than the customers' side. In a post talking about why such surveillance insurance plans are a bad, bad idea, the EFF also points out that Norwich Union has just ditched its offering, noting that... well... almost no one signed up. Turns out that people aren't so keen to sign up for Big Brother Brand car insurance after all. The "going well" part was actually all just wishful thinking, as the company says that it thought people would sign up only to discover that they didn't.

Filed Under: driving, gps, insurance, monitoring