196 M Tanninen, T-K Lehtonen, and M Ruckenstein
specialist in her 40s, discusses personal choice as a precondition for the decision to adopt the technology. Acknowledging the fact that she had agreed
to data collection, she thinks that ‘it’s OK.’ Yet, ‘in a broader perspective,’
she does not view such practices as ‘a good idea,’ especially if it would be
‘mandatory and compulsory.’ That would be too ‘controlling’ and too ‘topdown.’ More generally, our informants tended to underline the importance
of smart policies and data tracking being voluntary: the data collection and
‘nudging’ policy features were considered acceptable if they were chosen by
the policyholders.
Although people might accept the current state of a policy that they
had taken out, similarly to Kaisa’s case above, they feel unease regarding
the smart policies’ abilities and potential effects. Those possible negative
effects were the subject of speculation in the focus groups, sometimes with
humorous and exaggerated overtones. For instance, informants shared
vivid visions of insurance companies’ monitoring their behaviours, movements, and similar parameters in real time, essentially becoming unwelcome guests or even stalkers. In these exaggerated narratives, insurers
would interrupt everyday situations ranging from relaxing on the sofa to
having a night out by giving not only unsolicited (health) advice but also
direct commands, scolding, and physically forcing the customers to return
to healthy habits.
Yet, importantly, the customers were not certain which of the forms of
surveillance were actually already taking place and which were only imaginary. The limits of data collection were unclear. For instance, people did not
know whether the insurers received their location information and generally lacked specific knowledge of what data was being collected. This uncertainty is attested by Antti, a bank clerk in his 30s:
Now I am not really sure which data is going there [to the insurance
company]; I have just accepted that the information is transferred and
which info is included. Are they [the insurance company] using just the
data on the activity points? Is that enough for them, or are they receiving something else as well?
As Antti’s example shows, uncertainty can exist and persist even when customers have signed an insurance contract and accepted its data policy. This
doubt might be related to the policies’ platform structure, as the mediation
provided by the data aggregator companies and eHealth service providers
complicates the data relationship. All these service providers have their own
data policies for customers to accept, which makes it hard for them to keep
track of who is collecting what data and all the purposes for which it is being
used (Draper & Turow 2019).
The interviews made it clear that customers want to feel certain that, even
if the insurance companies control the data, they would not accidentally
disclose it for inappropriate uses. Despite the uncertainty related to the
specialist in her 40s, discusses personal choice as a precondition for the decision to adopt the technology. Acknowledging the fact that she had agreed
to data collection, she thinks that ‘it’s OK.’ Yet, ‘in a broader perspective,’
she does not view such practices as ‘a good idea,’ especially if it would be
‘mandatory and compulsory.’ That would be too ‘controlling’ and too ‘topdown.’ More generally, our informants tended to underline the importance
of smart policies and data tracking being voluntary: the data collection and
‘nudging’ policy features were considered acceptable if they were chosen by
the policyholders.
Although people might accept the current state of a policy that they
had taken out, similarly to Kaisa’s case above, they feel unease regarding
the smart policies’ abilities and potential effects. Those possible negative
effects were the subject of speculation in the focus groups, sometimes with
humorous and exaggerated overtones. For instance, informants shared
vivid visions of insurance companies’ monitoring their behaviours, movements, and similar parameters in real time, essentially becoming unwelcome guests or even stalkers. In these exaggerated narratives, insurers
would interrupt everyday situations ranging from relaxing on the sofa to
having a night out by giving not only unsolicited (health) advice but also
direct commands, scolding, and physically forcing the customers to return
to healthy habits.
Yet, importantly, the customers were not certain which of the forms of
surveillance were actually already taking place and which were only imaginary. The limits of data collection were unclear. For instance, people did not
know whether the insurers received their location information and generally lacked specific knowledge of what data was being collected. This uncertainty is attested by Antti, a bank clerk in his 30s:
Now I am not really sure which data is going there [to the insurance
company]; I have just accepted that the information is transferred and
which info is included. Are they [the insurance company] using just the
data on the activity points? Is that enough for them, or are they receiving something else as well?
As Antti’s example shows, uncertainty can exist and persist even when customers have signed an insurance contract and accepted its data policy. This
doubt might be related to the policies’ platform structure, as the mediation
provided by the data aggregator companies and eHealth service providers
complicates the data relationship. All these service providers have their own
data policies for customers to accept, which makes it hard for them to keep
track of who is collecting what data and all the purposes for which it is being
used (Draper & Turow 2019).
The interviews made it clear that customers want to feel certain that, even
if the insurance companies control the data, they would not accidentally
disclose it for inappropriate uses. Despite the uncertainty related to the