Your comment, if I follow, seems to assume I was making the argument that being different would protect against data mining for underwriting purposes; I didn't. The argument I was making is it's likely to unfairly penalize some people because their actions aren't in line with the majority or the expected.
I honestly do believe that it's easy to position consumer data mining as a good thing by initially offering it as an option with the promise of "fairer" rates. Some people will be happy to donate their spending habits to get a discount. This optional program is likely to become less optional over time as people become more used to the idea of sharing their spending habits. After all, that's what we're doing with loyalty card schemes already, isn't it? Credit scores are the epitome of this kind of program.
I honestly do believe that it's easy to position consumer data mining as a good thing by initially offering it as an option with the promise of "fairer" rates. Some people will be happy to donate their spending habits to get a discount. This optional program is likely to become less optional over time as people become more used to the idea of sharing their spending habits. After all, that's what we're doing with loyalty card schemes already, isn't it? Credit scores are the epitome of this kind of program.