Google/Fitbit will monetise health data and harm consumers [pdf]

Where your Fitbit data ends up and how it will be used is just as much of a question with Google as with any other random acquirer.

How can you have this opinion when they are already being sued by the government for doing this exact thing (in another area of their business)?

That's not ideal, but it's also far from the worst case scenario.

The key term to note from my statements are -

> Already discriminatory

•I wouldn't be surprised if the health insurers are already getting email ids of those who land in medical sites by searching for an ailment, Aren't email ids are even visible to the website if they had just implemented 'Sign in' and the user had already signed in the browser?

•I have reasons to believe that they are collecting patient data from the hospitals directly from my lengthy conversations with the people from insurance company. There is no HIPAA here.

Any additional data from health-tech, even if indirectly to just target advertisements could be used as an ammunition for further discrimination by parallel construction bypassing anti-discriminatory guidelines/laws from the Govt.(like they're already doing).

Of course insurers can collect health-tech data without direct access to the device through their own app, Say 'We need permission to access health data from X app for 5% discount in premium' would not invoke resistance from those who don't know that they are falling into a greater pit.

Under US law at least, your health data isn't inaccessible to companies. It just requires your consent for release. That consent is basically baked into the process under a checkbox for the terms of whatever you're trying to buy.

That said, this kind of data is probably uninteresting. Diagnoses & prescription drug fills are probably more indicative (and folks like https://www.rxhistories.com/ helpfully aggregate and standardize the data).

But really, neither Google nor Fitbit are the biggest worry, the mere existence of such health tracking devices already is the problem. Health Insurers and even life Insurers will ask you to submit your data "voluntarily". Right now, there are plenty of insurers already who offer rebates on premiums if you wear a health tracker and submit data showing you meet some goals[1].

My guess is that in the future policies in many jurisdictions will become prohibitively expensive without the "rebate" you get for wearing health tracking devices, if this goes unregulated (or any such regulations are not enforced). Insurers might force you into "voluntarily" sharing your data this way, and may even force you into "voluntarily" sharing historical data when you apply for a policy.

My German insurer offers to pitch in I think 90 EUR to buy a fitness/health tracking device. They cannot ask me or anybody for the data (yet) in return for rebates or amenities, due to regulation, which is good. However, I already dread the day when our politicians decide that to "help people stay fit" and "encourage people to stay healthy" and "help reduce insurance costs for regular(!) people(!)" the regulations need to change to allow such schemes.

[1] e.g. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/09/25/an-insura...

Consumers cannot exit the market for health services. So we will never get the benefits of a free-market economy.

A "free" market where consumers cannot exit will always trend towards becoming the most expensive the economy can bear.

I think the main reason this doesn't trend all the way towards this theoretical extreme is that people don't really get into healthcare just to make money.

It’s an option to the health insurance contract, so in a way they already have much more data than whatever would be provided (since they process far more sensitive medical data for reimbursement), but as I said it’s also structurally a subsidiary.

Here where I live there is an insurance company offering you points to walk miles and/or go to the gym, and then exchange your points for presents. To keep you healthy and thus profitable to them.

I feel like I can safely assume things like "a for-profit corporation will monetize resources available to it" without any specific evidence about the particular corporation or asset.

I'm serious though, what's the most nefarious thing you could do with that? My imagination is unimaginative.

They do.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewwilliams/2020/09/09/fitbi...

Also, the heart rate monitor from MyZone (https://www.myzone.org/) because it connects to my Assault Fitness AirRunner and I get to see my real time heart rate data on the control unit.

-ch4s3 in 1950

In my case, I found sometimes I'd start feeling really odd when I hadn't eaten much lately, and I discovered due to my Fitbit that my heart rate was spiking even while I was pretty much sedentary during those times. When my best description of the event prior was "feeling weird", having that info from my Fitbit is pretty nice if I want to explain to a doctor what's going on.

Is the sensor extremely precise on those figures? No. Is the general trend of being hooked up to them both during baseline living and during an unexpected medical event pretty useful? Absolutely.

They are not meant to.

> people don't necessarily wear them consistently

What are you basing this on ? Anecdotally, I and a few of my friends who are fully into Fitbit are wearing them dutifully. I was also somewhat skeptical but I figured it's not that much money to try. It completely changed my view on Fibit after trying it, and I've been very consistently wearing it.

> However, you could probably determine that yourself.

Not really. There's nothing like honest data and clear metrics to show how behind someone is. It also very successfully turned "fitness" into a game for me - clear, achievable goals and a way of tracking it easily did wonders to keep me motivated.

> The heart rate monitoring is good enough for monitoring the intensity of your own exercise but not good enough for anything diagnostic.

It's not meant to be a short-term diagnostics tool, and if you expect that, I think your expectation is completely misplaced. But it very clearly would be a useful data for the long-term baseline.

They say an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure - Fitbit is doing enough "nudge" to improve that prevention department for me, for a dirt cheap price. It's been an extremely useful and valuable tool and a service for me. I've never consistently tracked my weight, nor exercised consistently - and I have no doubt majority of people fall into a similar bucket. Not everyone would benefit as much, but clearly there's sizable population that would, and Fitbit, for that price, is doing a lot more to keep me motivated and exercise than gym memberships or private trainer or group exercise classes or most such things I've tried in the past. I actually wish Fitbit would allow us to share the exercise records with my primary care doctor - that would keep me even more honest, and would provide better insights and long-term trend data for my doctor.