Your Surveillance Dossier
Suggests You're in "My Skip Bin"
Surveillance pricing incorporates large set of data harvested on an individual to price target him or her individually. For example, a price of a burger on your pay day would be higher exclusively for you because you are cash up and more willing to spend
or
From information about everywhere your car has driven, to every point in space that the Bluetooth radios on your phone and headphones have passed, to everything you've bought, to every website you've visited and every search you've performed. They also buy data that has been straight up stolen from you by spyware implanted (otherwise safely referred to as TikTok) on your phone
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Is Surveillance Pricing?
Surveillance pricing goes beyond traditional pricing models by using detailed personal data to target individuals with tailored prices. Instead of offering the same price for the same product or service to all customers, companies analyze data harvested from countless interactions - both online and offline - to calculate the maximum price each person might tolerate. This differs from established pricing tactics in industries such as airlines, where prices vary based on time of booking or market demand. Here, prices are targeted, taking into account individual behaviors, purchasing history, and even financial vulnerability.
Delta’s partnership with AI firm Fetcherr takes this concept to an alarming level by reportedly employing data from brokers and credit bureaus. This means that metrics ranging from where you’ve been to your financial standing could influence the ticket price you’re shown. The shift from conventional to AI-driven pricing signals a step deeper into the realm of personalization - albeit one shrouded in ethical concerns.
The Broader Trend of Data-Driven Exploitation
Surveillance pricing isn’t confined to airlines. Across industries, companies are integrating similar techniques to extract more value from their customers.
McDonald's and Paycheck-Based Pricing: McDonald's investment in AI startup Plexure demonstrates how surveillance pricing enters everyday life. The company has explored adjusting prices for regular customers based on factors like payday. When consumers theoretically have more disposable income, their favorite meal becomes more expensive, capitalizing on basic economic vulnerabilities.
Uber’s Wage Manipulation: On-demand apps such as Uber have used surveillance data to dynamically alter their payment structures. For example, Uber’s algorithms may analyze drivers’ debt levels to determine their desperation, offering lower pay rates to those less likely to decline.
Both examples demonstrate a fundamental shift in economic interactions. The tools designed to help companies better serve customers are now being deployed to exploit them. These practices, far from offering value or fairness, create a system where access and pricing are dictated by each individual’s perceived worth to the company.
From Indirect Price Discrimination to Direct Surveillance Pricing
We have moved on from the phase where companies used "price discrimination" strategies where customer, in-discriminatively of his personal circumstances, and the airline both shared benefits from the action i.e. late tickets sold for cheaper where customer got a discount and managed to get a flight he otherwise would not have and the airline lost less money by allowing this flight.
Surveillance pricing is first-degree direct price discrimination, with every late customer seeing a different price depending on the their levels of desperation, credit score and thousands of other factors affecting the live algorithm that spits out the price. This strategy is employed without any benefit to the consumers (unlike indirect price discrimination, which made many fliers better off because they were able to score cheaper tickets).
Ethical Concerns and Consumer Consequences
Surveillance pricing raises multiple ethical and social issues:
- Lack of Transparency: Many consumers may not even realize they are being charged more than others for the same product or service. Companies often obscure these practices under vague claims of personalization or convenience, leaving customers in the dark about the true motives of pricing strategies.
- Economic Discrimination: By targeting individuals based on financial data or personal circumstances, surveillance pricing has the potential to reinforce systemic inequalities. Those financially vulnerable may end up paying more simply because they lack the ability to shop around or negotiate.
- Erosion of Trust: When companies treat personal data as a tool to maximize short-term profits, rather than as a responsibility to their customers, it erodes consumer trust. What starts as price optimization may spiral into a broader rejection of corporate practices, damaging brand reputations.
- Loss of Market Efficiency: Unlike traditional price discrimination, which can enable airlines to fill unsold seats or restaurants to minimize waste, surveillance pricing eschews any consumer benefit. It siphons value upward into shareholders' pockets without improving availability, efficiency, or average costs for customers.
Should regulators get involved? Who will educate the redundant often obsolete old bureaucrats on much faster more fluid systems that are shaping our lives? And at whose cost?
Truly Yours,
Narghiza Ergashova
--> read more from Narghiza Ergashova here:
____________________________________________________
--->more about Narghiza Ergashova is here:
Narghiza Ergashova is a highly skilled finance executive based in Australia with extensive experience across industries like property, mining, chemicals, and infrastructure. She is recognized for her expertise in managing complex portfolios, building strong stakeholder relationships, and driving exceptional business performance.
As a thought leader, Narghiza regularly shares valuable insights on leadership, innovation, and personal growth. Through her Medium articles, she covers key topics such as employee engagement, effective leadership strategies, and overcoming business challenges. Her work resonates with professionals looking for actionable advice and inspiration to succeed in both their careers and personal lives.
To learn more about Narghiza Ergashova, you can explore her work on the Blogger, STCK.com or visit her Medium.com profile. Discover her expert insights and strategies for leadership, business growth, and navigating challenges in today’s fast-paced industries.
In May 2025 Narghiza Ergashova released her debut autobiography called Curly Clix Convictions . The book delves into Narghiza's journey as a professional, entrepreneur, and wife and a mother. You can visit her biography by clicking the link below.
About the Creator
Narghiza Ergashova
Within the League of My Own. I can never be everybody's cup of tea; I intend to stay so.
After all, some walk the path, others create it. I chose to be the latter.
Find out more about me here: https://www.linkedin.com/in/narghizaergashova/
Keep reading
More stories from Narghiza Ergashova and writers in Criminal and other communities.
Trailer Trash McMansions
Feeling poor? Sometimes it’s a matter of just not being able to land a job with a good pay cheque. Or sometimes it’s a matter of refusing to tolerate corporate bullshit even for a good pay cheque. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being poor.
By Narghiza Ergashova5 months ago in Critique
Minneapolis ICE Shooting Updates
In recent weeks, Minneapolis has found itself at the center of a growing legal and political controversy following a shooting involving Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. What initially appeared to be a straightforward federal use-of-force investigation has evolved into a broader dispute between state authorities and federal officials, raising serious questions about transparency, jurisdiction, and accountability. The most significant development so far is the state’s claim that it has been denied access to key evidence related to the incident. As public attention intensifies, the case is no longer just about what happened during the shooting. It is increasingly about who controls the facts, who gets to investigate them, and how justice is supposed to function when federal and state systems collide. What We Know About the Minneapolis ICE Shooting The shooting occurred during a federal immigration enforcement operation in Minneapolis. ICE agents were reportedly conducting official duties when gunfire erupted, resulting in injuries and immediate emergency response. Federal authorities confirmed the incident and stated that internal protocols were activated, including an automatic review by federal oversight bodies. From the beginning, details were limited. Officials cited the ongoing nature of the investigation and concerns about officer safety. This lack of information, while not unusual in federal cases, quickly became a point of friction for Minnesota state authorities, who argued that the public deserved clarity and that the state had a legal role to play in examining the incident. State Authorities Push for Transparency Minnesota state officials, including investigators and legal representatives, formally requested access to evidence connected to the shooting. This evidence reportedly includes body camera footage, surveillance recordings, forensic reports, and internal communication logs from the operation. According to state representatives, these requests were either delayed or denied outright. The state has since gone on record stating that it cannot independently assess the legality of the shooting without full access to the materials. This denial has fueled concerns that federal agencies are operating without sufficient external oversight, especially in incidents involving potential civilian harm. State leaders emphasized that their position is not adversarial by default. Rather, they argue that cooperation between federal and state agencies is essential to maintain public trust, particularly in communities already wary of immigration enforcement. Federal Response and Jurisdictional Limits Federal officials, for their part, maintain that the investigation falls squarely under federal jurisdiction. ICE operates as a federal agency, and shootings involving federal officers are typically reviewed internally and, when appropriate, by federal prosecutors or inspectors general. In statements released following the controversy, federal representatives cited legal restrictions that limit the sharing of evidence during an active investigation. They also stressed that premature disclosure could compromise witness testimony or investigative integrity. This explanation, while legally grounded, has done little to ease state frustrations. Critics argue that “ongoing investigation” has too often been used as a blanket justification for withholding information, even in cases where transparency could prevent misinformation and public unrest. Community Reaction and Public Trust The Minneapolis community has responded with a mix of concern, anger, and fatigue. For many residents, particularly in immigrant and marginalized communities, the shooting has reopened long-standing fears about aggressive enforcement tactics and lack of accountability. Community leaders and advocacy groups have called for the immediate release of non-sensitive evidence, arguing that transparency is a prerequisite for trust. Peaceful demonstrations and public forums have highlighted a broader demand: that no law enforcement agency, federal or otherwise, should be beyond scrutiny. Local officials echoed these concerns, noting that Minneapolis has spent years attempting to rebuild trust between residents and law enforcement. The perception that evidence is being withheld threatens to undermine that progress. Legal Implications of Denied Evidence From a legal standpoint, the state’s inability to access evidence raises complex questions. While federal agencies do have authority over their operations, states also have a responsibility to investigate deaths or injuries occurring within their borders. Legal experts suggest that this dispute could set a precedent. If states are routinely blocked from reviewing evidence in federal use-of-force cases, it may limit their ability to pursue independent inquiries or bring charges under state law when applicable. Some analysts believe the issue could ultimately be resolved in court, with judges determining whether the state has a legal right to access certain materials. Such a ruling could have national implications, influencing how future federal-state conflicts are handled. Political Dimensions of the Case The Minneapolis ICE shooting has also taken on a political dimension. Immigration enforcement remains a deeply divisive issue, and incidents like this tend to amplify existing ideological divides. State officials critical of federal immigration policies view the denial of evidence as symptomatic of a larger lack of accountability. Meanwhile, supporters of strict federal enforcement argue that state interference could hinder effective operations and put officers at risk. This political tension complicates the path forward. What might otherwise be a procedural disagreement risks becoming a symbolic battle over immigration, law enforcement authority, and states’ rights. What Happens Next? As of now, the investigation continues under federal oversight, while the state explores its legal options. Negotiations between state and federal officials have reportedly not been ruled out, suggesting that a compromise could still be reached. Potential next steps include limited evidence sharing under confidentiality agreements, congressional inquiries, or judicial review. Each option carries its own risks and consequences, both legally and politically. What remains clear is that public pressure is unlikely to fade. Minneapolis residents, like many Americans, are demanding clarity, fairness, and accountability in cases involving law enforcement use of force. A Broader Conversation About Accountability The Minneapolis ICE shooting is no longer just a single incident under investigation. It has become a lens through which broader issues are being examined: the balance of power between federal and state authorities, the limits of transparency, and the role of public oversight in a democratic society. Whether or not the state ultimately gains access to the evidence, the controversy has already sparked an important conversation. How that conversation translates into policy, practice, or reform remains to be seen, but its impact will likely extend far beyond Minneapolis. In the end, accountability is not only about assigning blame. It is about ensuring that systems function openly and fairly, especially when lives are affected. The outcome of this case may help determine how well those principles are upheld in the future.
By Saboor Brohi 3 days ago in Criminal
Sabrina Carpenter Accused of Copying Tiffany A♡ Luna’s Crown Logo—While Her Federal Plagiarism Case Spirals Into Further Career Ruin
Sabrina Carpenter’s pop princess image is crumbling under the weight of what is now being described as one of the most damaging plagiarism cases in music history. The Disney-born starlet is not only battling a brutal federal lawsuit over her song Espresso, but now faces new backlash after debuting a crown into her updated logo June 6, 2025 eerily similar to Tiffany A♡ Luna’s crown, which was quietly unveiled just weeks before — the same Tiffany A♡ Luna currently suing her in federal court.
By Dena Falken Esq7 days ago in Criminal
Violence Begets
"Any last words, cowboy?" "None you'd understand, sodbuster." "Funny. That's Marshall Sodbuster to you. But I meant some last nugget that would help us in the adjudication of the myriad offenses counted against you and your gang. I wasn't asking for penitence."
By Adam Diehl4 days ago in Fiction
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.