Apple's 'sexist' credit card investigated by US regulator

[zenkai]

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-50365609

I haven't seen anything on this. But I mainly have two questions:

1) Is it okay to discriminate like this, if its hidden behind the guise of "an algorithm" or "protecting the business?" I would say no, but talking to people about this at work, many are saying yes.

2) How is this any different than car insurance basing rates on gender or where you live, or anything else? Bank do the same for giving out loans.

Any other thoughts?

They will hide behind statistics the same way car insurance companies do.

[Puupi]

Is this fact? because when I looked it up it seems in some states men pay more and other states women pay more almost at a one to one ratio maybe it's different in Finland?

Can't dig up any stuff about it as it has been illegal for 7 years, but before that it surely was the case.

They will hide behind statistics the same way car insurance companies do.

Hide?

[Nellise]

If it didn't make a difference, why have insurance companies charged different amounts depending on your gender for decades?

Just for some sexist agenda or because of a faulty algorithm, right?

Insurance is in the business of discrimination, putting people into different pools to determine rates because insurance is based on probabilities of rare events. It's still not clear if gender discrimination is a valid form of discrimination for all types of insurance. It's outlawed for some types, allowed for others, and some places need statistical proof that gender discrimination is a valid factor before being allowed to set rates based on it.

Credit cards are not insurance. Spouses with joint accounts and similar credit history are being given cards with significantly lower limits for the woman even though everything is identical financially.

[Puupi]

Insurance is in the business of discrimination, putting people into different pools to determine rates because insurance is based on probabilities of rare events. It's still not clear if gender discrimination is a valid form of discrimination for all types of insurance. It's outlawed for some types, allowed for others, and some places need statistical proof that gender discrimination is a valid factor before being allowed to set rates based on it.

Credit cards are not insurance. Spouses with joint accounts and similar credit history are being given cards with significantly lower limits for the woman even though everything is identical financially.

But loaning money is risky business and apparently gender plays a big role in their risk assessment....statistically​.

[Monster Hunter]

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-50365609

I haven't seen anything on this. But I mainly have two questions:

1) Is it okay to discriminate like this, if its hidden behind the guise of "an algorithm" or "protecting the business?" I would say no, but talking to people about this at work, many are saying yes.

2) How is this any different than car insurance basing rates on gender or where you live, or anything else? Bank do the same for giving out loans.

Any other thoughts?

Car insurance based rating on gender are also illegal in a lot of country's.

Shela's wheels famously got done for trying that in the UK.

[Draco-Onis]

Can't dig up any stuff about it as it has been illegal for 7 years, but before that it surely was the case.

Well can't go back that far but let's be honest the only reason we are talking about this is because some rich fuck is upset his wife got a lower limit. This case pretty much shows how much power the rich have, regular people couldn't have gotten the government to act this fast.

[Nellise]

But loaning money is risky business and apparently gender plays a big role in their risk assessment....statistically​.

But that's exactly the question here, should it or is there bias in the data they've used? Can they prove it? You should have to prove why you're discriminating against women when nothing suggests they should be from other available data.

And actually the bank that's issuing this card says they're not discriminating purposely on gender anyway: "Our credit decisions are based on a customer's creditworthiness and not on factors like gender..."

[Sunseeker]

Well - you said and I quote "And no banks don't "do it" when giving out loans since it's ya know, illegal" end quote .. but they do as I pointed out. That is one example of it just recently happening. And again, in most states, its not illegal for car insurance companies to discriminate by gender.

Sex, at least male and female, is a federally protected status. So again it's illegal for insurance companies to do so regardless of one state or another has its own law against it.

Maybe you should, I dunno, read up on what is or isn't legal before saying what is or isn't legal yah?

[Dakhath]

Off-topic, but Apple is a shit card anyhow. I got one because how I liked how they looked, but the only thing it does or will ever do is pay my Netflix account each month. You can get MUCH better cards elsewhere, it's for people who are Apple crazy or like how it looks (guilty as charged).

[Ripster42]

So because a machine is inherently NOT biased (Unless programmed to be so), it can rapidly become biased by observing biases that already exist in our system. Police machine learning projects had similar problems, where machines started to see minorities as more likely to be criminals, because they had a larger pool of minority crimes to choose from. So our existing biases against minorities were learned by the machine, and continued. So just like raising a child, sometimes you have to be very careful exactly what they are learning, because sometimes they learn the bad stuff that you don't want to pass on.

Another instance of this happening: amazon's recruiting ai.

[zenkai]

Off-topic, but Apple is a shit card anyhow. I got one because how I liked how they looked, but the only thing it does or will ever do is pay my Netflix account each month. You can get MUCH better cards elsewhere, it's for people who are Apple crazy or like how it looks (guilty as charged).

I like my Amazon card, it has one of the best reward programs if you shop Amazon and my card is made from Aluminum, it's funny how many times cashiers have said "wow this card has some weight to it"

[Dakhath]

I like my Amazon card, it has one of the best reward programs if you shop Amazon and my card is made from Aluminum, it's funny how many times cashiers have said "wow this card has some weight to it"

Yeah, Amazon is fantastic if you use a lot of Amazon, which is the majority of people at this point I would think.

[Yadryonych]

So, even passionless and cold-minded computer DOES see the difference between men and women?

What a surprise, and yet another proof of objective facts being offensive and assaulting

[Orby]

Well if the credit card offered different credit limits for men and women then it deserves to be investigated... why equality seems to be a struggling issue in 2019 boggles my mind!

[Grimbold21]

The question is: why are people getting Apple credit cards?

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Car insurance based rating on gender are also illegal in a lot of country's.

Shela's wheels famously got done for trying that in the UK.

I have been made aware of that in this thread, but in the US, its only illegal is certain states as of now.

- - - Updated - - -

Insurance is in the business of discrimination, putting people into different pools to determine rates because insurance is based on probabilities of rare events. It's still not clear if gender discrimination is a valid form of discrimination for all types of insurance. It's outlawed for some types, allowed for others, and some places need statistical proof that gender discrimination is a valid factor before being allowed to set rates based on it.

Credit cards are not insurance. Spouses with joint accounts and similar credit history are being given cards with significantly lower limits for the woman even though everything is identical financially.

I feel like an argument can either be made in favor of none, or all. As in, "gender" is something that should be legal to discriminate against, or not. If its fine to charge men more for insurance, why not have lower credit limits for women? If statistics shows that men are more dangerous behind the wheel, couldn't statistics shows that women default on credit cards, or miss payments more often? I'm not saying that is true, but if insurance can successfully argue that, I don't see why a bank couldn't as well.

I would say its wrong to discriminate based on sex/gender, but thats just me.

- - - Updated - - -

Sex, at least male and female, is a federally protected status. So again it's illegal for insurance companies to do so regardless of one state or another has its own law against it.

Maybe you should, I dunno, read up on what is or isn't legal before saying what is or isn't legal yah?

I mean, its easy to research that it DOES occur, yah? Don't you think that maybe I did? Its fine to say that THIS or THAT shouldn't be legal, but "shouldn't" is wishful thinking.

[Spectral]

The question is: why are people getting Apple credit cards?

The cashback rates are decent if you're using Apple Pay for things. Obviously you can do a lot better with travel cards if that's your thing, but if you just want to swipe your phone and get 2% back, it's not a bad choice.

[Sunseeker]

I mean, its easy to research that it DOES occur, yah? Don't you think that maybe I did? Its fine to say that THIS or THAT shouldn't be legal, but "shouldn't" is wishful thinking.

People kill each other too yah? Still illegal.

I ain't talkin' about what shouldn't be illegal. It IS illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex.

Nah, I really don't think you looked into any of this.

[zenkai]

People kill each other too yah? Still illegal.

I ain't talkin' about what shouldn't be illegal. It IS illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex.

Nah, I really don't think you looked into any of this.

Depends, insurance companies have been getting away with it for years.

[BeepBoo]

Here's the thing. How far down the rabbit hole are we allowed to go?

"People from this country are more likely to do <x> when compared to other countries" - discrimination
"People from this state are more likely to exhibit <x> behavior when compared to other states" -discrimination
"People from this city are more likely to buy <x> product brand over people in other cities" -discrimination
"People of these socioeconomic circumstances are more likely to miss a payment than people in others" discrimination

List goes on. Statistics are statistics, and not letting companies have automatically deterministic algos and compensate for all these differences, even if it starts to show discrimination of a particular "protected" class of identity ("race", sex, etc), then you're forcing them to ignore what are statistically very real risks and distribute those risks onto everyone else who, statistically, shouldn't have to pay for them.

I'm all for companies being able to pick and choose their own customers, fully allowing discrimination of any kind. I'm also of the belief that we're in an era where social outrage culture will ultimately impact bottom lines enough when something is heinous enough to encourage companies to not be racist/sexist/ whatever. It's pretty obvious business is best when you don't actively hate on any part of humanity.

If it's something where enough people don't care and keep buying a good, even though the company is discriminating in a less-than-cool manner, then obviously it isn't something concerning enough to enough members of society, and thus I'd argue it doesn't matter. Society should be as free as possible to pick and choose the issues that concern it.