It seems when I read arguments like this it's always about what I lose. For every job that I lose somebody else wins perhaps also because of data gleaned from surveillance. It isn't necessarily negative.
The insurance argument is pretty persuasive though. Effective insurance requires a big pool. For the same reason that ultra-precise categorization for insurance ruins insurance, ultra-precise targeting of individuals ruins advertising if we want ad-supported platforms.
Thing is, I want a level playing field whether applying for jobs, insurance, health, you name it. A hidden bias is still a bias, and particularly hidden as so much machine processing and AI is a black box unknown even to the creators -- it just spits out (hopefully) helpful results.
I don't want a chilling effect on the next generation such that every party or moment of drunkenness can be held against them in job search. Every teen has moments of idiocy -- mine thankfully were not in the age of constant surveillance, and there wasn't a smart phone or CCTV in sight. Not much freedom to grow in a world where every worst moment goes viral, or gets you on one of the "next door" neighbourhood snooping apps. Where hanging around with friends on a street corner has old folks flagging suspicious behaviour. Give us all room to breathe. Interfere via authorities when you have genuine reason to suspect. No, I don't much like where we're headed and preferred the proposition before.
Totally agree on regulation, but it seems to be coming far too slowly -- globally.
The insurance argument is pretty persuasive though. Effective insurance requires a big pool. For the same reason that ultra-precise categorization for insurance ruins insurance, ultra-precise targeting of individuals ruins advertising if we want ad-supported platforms.
Regulation is more important than ever.