I don't think "Google/Fitbit will monetise health data" requires the in-depth investigation to conclude.
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.
Example: https://support.google.com/adspolicy/answer/143465
"Advertisers can’t use personal hardship categories to target ads to users or to promote advertisers’ products or services. See below for specific examples of what we don't allow."
"Examples: Treatments for chronic health conditions like diabetes or arthritis, treatments for sexually transmitted diseases, counseling services for mental health issues like depression or anxiety, medical devices for sleep apnea like CPAP machines, over-the-counter medications for yeast infections, information about how to support your autistic child"
It is not "extraordinary claims require other similar extraordinary things to have happened in the past". That is not evidence for your claim.
The point is that "corporations will monetize data" isn't an extraordinary claim.
This company will monetize this data is also an ordinary claim (from history), but similarly needs evidence. "Companies have monetized similar in the past" is not evidence they'll do it in this case.
If you're a gambler, you should absolutely use that fact to inform your betting, but it's not evidence.
Like if you claimed "pine sap is sticky" I don't feel compelled to challenge you and demand to touch it myself before I believe you. I've encountered plenty of pine sap in my life, and it was all sticky. I _have_ evidence that pine sap is sticky generally, so I don't demand _extra_ evidence that a _specific_ portion of sap is sticky.
Complex things are, well, complex, and absolutely not all the same.
The extraordinary thing here is if they bought the data to /not/ monetize it. That requires the evidence. Not the overwhelmingly expected thing. They are mutually exclusive alternatives after all. Go with the overwhelmingly likely one until you've got a solid reason not to. We don't here.
I don't know for sure if this is their business model. I think it is, and it makes sense as a strategy.
That's the point, and you also don't know for sure what Google's business model with the health data will be either.
The GP post I was replying said that it was obvious Google was monetizing the data, and implying that it was therefore bad. My point is that if monetizing health data is inherently bad, then so is what Apple is doing.
Because monetize is a meaningless word here. Unless Google suddenly decides to go against their fiduciary responsibility and purposefully lose money, any use of the data is going to be somehow monetizing it.
They could of course change that, or sneakily exfil it. The first hasn't happened yet, and the second would destroy a vast amount of consumer trust well before all the lawsuits started.
So I do rather doubt it.
Apple Health data is stored in the cloud, why would you think otherwise? They don't store all of it but they do store some.
> They could of course change that, or sneakily exfil it. The first hasn't happened yet
It already happened, Apple Health data was always stored in the cloud.
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT209519
> If you're using iOS 12 or later and have turned on two-factor authentication for your Apple ID, health records are encrypted using end-to-end encryption through iCloud. This means only you can access this information, and only on devices where you’re signed in to iCloud. No one else, not even Apple, can access end-to-end encrypted information.
Because it wasn't the case in the past and I don't use Apple Health or backup to other people's machines, so I don't care enough to stay up to date on the particulars.
Prior to IOS 9 it did not store health data in the "cloud", except as an encrypted blob in a backup.
https://www.macobserver.com/tips/quick-tip/quick-tip-icloud-...