When we ban prejudice we are saying (IMO) two things. (2)It is unfair to the point of being illegal to assume that because one is black (old, transexual..), one is unfit to do a job, attend a university or somesuch. (2) It is harmful to society when such prejudice is widespread. It alienates or devalues a group and perpetuates social features we don't like.
I think for insurance, loans and such there is a sort of special allowance because these industries need to be biased and their bias, being cold and calculated is not unfair. They also don't specifically discriminate on racial/gender/etc lines and so they were never part of any particular anti discrimination effort.
Insurance companies particularly can work around any specific restrictions by substituting banned variables for allowable ones.
By hiring one person and not another, you are always discriminating. This kind is clearly considered in the "fair" range since it's directly relevant to the thing you are selecting for.
Which kind of discrimination are insurance companies doing?
Anyway, algorithims are far more commonly used today so the "problem" is bigger. Also, I think they are the sort of leak in the anti-discimiation logic. I mean there might not be any political campaigns dedicated to the right of the 22-30ag.1-2yrsedu.PSTC.QXRT statistical cluster, but that cluster may is discriminated against. The discrimination is impactful. It may mean they pay higher interest or insurance fees. They may be denied a lease. Non trivial impacts.
Is it fair? As the title here points out, biases & prejudices seems like a nonsensical vocabulary to use when it is based on "facts."
This is all tricky stuff. Paypal identified me at some point as "high risk." They have frozen €35 and they have reversed transactions made by me. Not uncommon. It happened because I happened to share some characteristics with some fraudsters. They aren't race, but they are not any different (from a common sense morality perspective) then being the same race as a fraudster.
I'm not sure where I'm going with this. I don't really understand it, but I don't think the relationship to legally prohibited prejudice is nonsensical.