Live data from Hacker News

Google/Fitbit will monetise health data and harm consumers

voxeu.org

91–100 of 156 posts

Re: Google/Fitbit will monetise health data and harm consumers

#91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a philosophical sense yes, but there’s degrees to both of them, and once you consider practical issues your options will often be a mix of good and evil.

Thank you for your comment, but please clarify how a moral person can see "degrees" of evil and allow themselves to make money with a conscience, knowing full well they are not being lawful good (Sorry, my D&D youth)? As for myself, I work for non-profits largely because I want to do good for others. I cannot see taking advantage of another's data, for instance, without their consent (real or imagined) to make a prof…

So there's no nuance to anything people do, there are only good or evil people? That's quite an extreme view.

Re: Google/Fitbit will monetise health data and harm consumers

#92
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple will never have "enough" money and will do practically anything do get more money.

You're missing the point. Apple makes money by people buying their products, and Apple sells more products when people trust them. Therefore, they have a strong financial incentive to be trustworthy and at least appear to care about user privacy. The best way to appear to care about user privacy is to actually care about it: they make no money selling private information to 3rd parties, so there's no point in doing i…

Just like Apple keeps changing the App store rules when they decide they can get more money by taxing developers, Apple will reduce privacy when they decide they can get more money, because they never have enough money. And it won't hurt Apple sales, because their competition is no better.

You claim Apple sells more because people trust them. Unless people are going to stop using smart phones they have no choice to use Google or Apple devices, privacy violations and all.

Re: Google/Fitbit will monetise health data and harm consumers

#93

The argument they're making here is a little subtle, but it tracks. They're not claiming Google will hand out a user's biometrics to insurance companies or other parties. They're claiming Google will offer biometrically-based signal as an ad discrimination channel. At that point, they don't have to hand out the data to allow insurance companies to discriminate; insurance companies could set up targeted ads for Cadill…

Jokes on them, Fitbit hurts me[1] and being disabled insurance companies already discriminate against me[2].

On a serious note, Doesn't insurance companies already partner with fitness monitors? They claim to provide incentives for good health by offering discounts in premium but then again it could also mean higher premium if any health issues are detected by these fitness monitors irrespective of its accuracy.

[1]https://abishekmuthian.com/my-experience-with-fitbit-charge-...

[2]https://abishekmuthian.com/insurers-are-putting-the-lives-of...

Re: Google/Fitbit will monetise health data and harm consumers

#94
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple will never have "enough" money and will do practically anything do get more money.

You're missing the point. Apple makes money by people buying their products, and Apple sells more products when people trust them. Therefore, they have a strong financial incentive to be trustworthy and at least appear to care about user privacy. The best way to appear to care about user privacy is to actually care about it: they make no money selling private information to 3rd parties, so there's no point in doing i…

I agree that they have an incentive to care about privacy because they have so far been incompetent at using data for the benefit of their users. However, they still collect a lot of data in order to try to get better at providing user benefit. Consider that on iOS you cannot get your location without also giving your location to Apple or install an app without telling Apple. Competing platforms do not suffer from these privacy invading issues.

Re: Google/Fitbit will monetise health data and harm consumers

#95
post #76

The argument they're making here is a little subtle, but it tracks. They're not claiming Google will hand out a user's biometrics to insurance companies or other parties. They're claiming Google will offer biometrically-based signal as an ad discrimination channel. At that point, they don't have to hand out the data to allow insurance companies to discriminate; insurance companies could set up targeted ads for Cadill…

This argument rests on an undeseriable business practice. Essentially we don't want insurance companies to discriminate on the health of potential buyers so let's stop Google from acquiring that data. But if that's what we want it makes more sense to ban the thing we don't want to happen. Namely, don't allow insurance companies to discriminate on the health of buyers.

Health insurance only risk-pools as a side effect of its ignorance. In a high-information world, it risk-smooths but does not risk-pool.

It's completely bonkers that we insist on doing it this way.

Re: Google/Fitbit will monetise health data and harm consumers

#96

I'm going to come across here as an odd outlier, and that's OK. I accept it. Being in IT for 20 years has shown me that none of these companies can be trusted. Since I have to have a mobile phone, I chose Apple. I don't believe that there are "lesser evils". You're evil or you're not. Full stop. I do my best to use open source tools (save iPhone) in my house. Granted, there are no open source TVs, Roku's, etc, but th…

Mine is to be an opinion-only post but... > You're evil or you're not. Full stop. ... I'm afraid I can't agree.

At the individual level I agree that people are not 100% good or 100% evil. Corporations may have good people that work there and help with tasks that are mostly evil. But companies that are truly evil and offer no product, no benefit, no public good, no service, do not exist. A truly evil company offers nothing and expects everything in return. So from my perspective it's impossible for a company to be 100% evil. But some larger companies will get as close as they can.

Any for profit company that is sufficiently large enough will eventually behave in ways that are evil.

The problem here is corporate bylaws and shareholders. Many Corporate bylaws state the only purpose of the company is to pursue profits, everything else is secondary.

These things create a perverse incentive to continuously show growth.

It's not enough to be profitable as a company. The company is expected to continuously expand their market share.

If they own a relatively small market share they can innovate, improve their product, get better at marketing or sales and expand their share that way.

But eventually if they are already the dominant player in a market, to continue to grow they must snuff out competition with anti-competitive behavior and expand into to new markets often by buying companies already in those markets. And If a C level executive or board member refuses to put profits over people, they can be ousted by shareholders or sued for securities fraud.

This behavior pattern of infinite expansion of market share is the symptom created by the perverse incentives of shareholders and will eventually drive any for profit company that is large enough and has shareholders to behave in ways that we consider evil.

And while I am sure the solution is likely reclassification into B Corporations or non-profits, getting companies to reclassify is not going to be easy.

Re: Google/Fitbit will monetise health data and harm consumers

#97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mine is to be an opinion-only post but... > You're evil or you're not. Full stop. ... I'm afraid I can't agree.

I appreciate your comment, but let's be honest, good and evil are binary like night and day. I don't cotton to the idea that one's morals can be suspended in "twilight". There are ways to make tons of money and be completely moral.

I think the idea of morality being a spectrum is pretty self evident. There's good, great, bad, worse, and neutral (like the action of me sitting in a chair right now). The reason it's important is in avoiding "'perfect' is the enemy of 'better'" issues.

Re: Google/Fitbit will monetise health data and harm consumers

#98

The argument they're making here is a little subtle, but it tracks. They're not claiming Google will hand out a user's biometrics to insurance companies or other parties. They're claiming Google will offer biometrically-based signal as an ad discrimination channel. At that point, they don't have to hand out the data to allow insurance companies to discriminate; insurance companies could set up targeted ads for Cadill…

> They're not claiming Google will hand out a user's biometrics to insurance companies or other parties. They're claiming Google will offer biometrically-based signal as an ad discrimination channel.

This cuts to the heart of the common, disingenuous, privacy bromide of "we don't sell your personal information." Of course you don't – you sell sophisticated insights about me derived from it.

Re: Google/Fitbit will monetise health data and harm consumers

#99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mine is to be an opinion-only post but... > You're evil or you're not. Full stop. ... I'm afraid I can't agree.

I appreciate your comment, but let's be honest, good and evil are binary like night and day. I don't cotton to the idea that one's morals can be suspended in "twilight". There are ways to make tons of money and be completely moral.

> let's be honest, good and evil are binary like night and day.

Now why would you think that?

In fact I'm pretty sure you're wrong: good and evil are various shades of gray, never white nor black. In real life, there aren't entities (corporations or humans or whatever) that are "pure good", nor are there entities that are "pure evil".

Re: Google/Fitbit will monetise health data and harm consumers

#100

The argument they're making here is a little subtle, but it tracks. They're not claiming Google will hand out a user's biometrics to insurance companies or other parties. They're claiming Google will offer biometrically-based signal as an ad discrimination channel. At that point, they don't have to hand out the data to allow insurance companies to discriminate; insurance companies could set up targeted ads for Cadill…

> They're not claiming Google will hand out a user's biometrics to insurance companies or other parties. They're claiming Google will offer biometrically-based signal as an ad discrimination channel. This cuts to the heart of the common, disingenuous, privacy bromide of "we don't sell your personal information." Of course you don't – you sell sophisticated insights about me derived from it.

Sophisticated, anonymized insights.
Post reply on HN