Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022;175(1):7-19.
doi: 10.1007/s10551-020-04668-1. Epub 2020 Nov 8.

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

Affiliations

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

Michele Loi et al. J Bus Ethics. 2022.

Abstract

Clients 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.

Keywords: Big data; Coercion; Data sharing; Insurance; Threats.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interestMichele Loi and Markus Christen have obtained (15 September 2020) the INNOSUISSE research grant 44692.1 IP-SBM with Axa and Mobiliar (insurance companies) as implementation partners and co-funders.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Alder GS. Ethical issues in electronic performance monitoring: A consideration of deontological and teleological perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics. 1998;17(7):729–743. doi: 10.1023/A:1005776615072. - DOI
    1. Anderson S. Coercion. In: Zalta EN, editor. The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford: Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University; 2017.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    1. Ashworth L, Free C. Marketing dataveillance and digital privacy: Using theories of justice to understand consumers’ online privacy concerns. Journal of Business Ethics. 2006;67(2):107–123. doi: 10.1007/s10551-006-9007-7. - DOI

LinkOut - more resources