Also, I think Fitbit already makes money this way
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...
That's not ideal, but it's also far from the worst case scenario.
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.
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.
Honestly at this point I would have no more health cover whatsoever, as I am a big consumer of random bits of medical knowledge.
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).
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)?
The lawsuit I had in mind was the one calling out their shady AMP practices.
If you don't purchase insurance by clicking on ads, then you're fine?
not if insurers make the default more expensive, then make advertisments for a "secret" cheaper plan targeted at fit people.
But I don't know anyone who is going to buy insurance from an ad. Almost everyone is getting insurance from work.