The concept of “surveillance pricing” is just one part of a much larger problem and business model: corporations maximizing their profits by invading our privacy. The all-too-common business model is to systematically harvest, collate, and store as much of our personal data as possible, and then monetize it through use and sale. When it comes to surveillance pricing, that looks like corporations offering the same product to two different people at two different prices, based on harvested personal information. That's why
EFF supports A.B. 2654
, authored by Assemblymember Chris Ward, which bans this harmful practice.
As an organization based in San Francisco, EFF was proud to learn that the San Francisco Board of Supervisors had also
introduced a resolution
to similarly support the legislation. However, we were disappointed to learn the San Francisco Board of Supervisors has since
stalled a vote
on the
resolution
stating their own support for
A.B. 2654
after receiving an email from the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce criticizing the bill using well-worn and debunked concerns. We’ve sent the Supervisors a
letter
asking them to reconsider.
Banning surveillance pricing would be good for consumers. The FTC has found that companies will set higher prices based on personal information. “For instance,”
the FTC found last year
, “if a consumer is profiled as a new parent, the consumer may intentionally be shown higher-priced baby thermometers on the first page of their in-app search results, based on their residential zip code and time of purchase.” Let's say that again: the U.S. government has found that companies may seek to use surveillance pricing to charge parents searching for a thermometer in the middle of the night
more money
in a time of need.
Privacy is a human right
, not something that people should understand as a currency to give away or protect based on how it will impact the price of groceries. EFF has
long
opposed
pay-for-privacy
… [more]
