Abstract
AbstractClients may feel trapped into sharing their private digital data with insurance companies to get a desired insurance product or premium. However, private insurance must collect some data to offer products and premiums appropriate to the client’s level of risk. This situation creates tension between the value of privacy and common insurance business practice. We argue for three main claims: first, coercion to share private data with insurers is pro tanto wrong because it violates the autonomous choice of a privacy-valuing client. Second, we maintain that irrespective of being coerced, the choice of accepting digital surveillance by insurers makes it harder for the client to protect his or her autonomy (and to act spontaneously and authentically). The violation of autonomy also makes coercing customers into digital surveillance pro tanto morally wrong. Third, having identified an economically plausible process involving no direct coercion by insurers, leading to the adoption of digital surveillance, we argue that such an outcome generates further threats against autonomy. This threat provides individuals with a pro tanto reason to prevent this process. We highlight the freedom dilemma faced by regulators who aim to prevent this outcome by constraining market freedoms and argue for the need for further moral and empirical research on this question.
Funder
Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
University of Zurich
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Law,Economics and Econometrics,Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous),General Business, Management and Accounting,Business and International Management
Reference47 articles.
1. Alder, G. S. (1998). Ethical issues in electronic performance monitoring: A consideration of deontological and teleological perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(7), 729–743. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005776615072
2. Anderson, S. (2017). Coercion. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford: Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
3. Aquinas, T. (1920). The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas. Trans. by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Retrieved from https://www.newadvent.org/summa/. Accessed 24 Jan 2017.
4. Art. 29 Working Party. (2018). Guidelines on Consent under Regulation 2016/679 (Wp259rev.01). European Commission. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/article29/item-detail.cfm?item_id=623051. Accessed 6 June 2020.
5. Ashworth, L., & Free, C. (2006). Marketing dataveillance and digital privacy: Using theories of justice to understand consumers’ online privacy concerns. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(2), 107–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9007-7
Cited by
8 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献