Highway to (Digital) Surveillance: When Are Clients Coerced to Share Their Data with Insurers?

Author:

Loi MicheleORCID,Hauser Christian,Christen Markus

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

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3