Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google/Fitbit will monetise health data and harm consumers

voxeu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 156 posts

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

#101

Post by nxc18 »

alienfilesystem wrote: post #82
read_if_gay_ wrote: post #78

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…

Do you work for a non-profit in the United States, Canada, the UK, France, or another western country and pay taxes?

Do your taxes contribute to murdering foreigners in a desert far away?

Are you evil?

This isn't a personal attack, I just really struggle when I see moral absolutism and binary thinking. The world isn't binary even though our work with computers and human systems often lead us to pretend that it is.

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

#102

Post by sulam »

shadowgovt wrote: post #41

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…

Google has specifically said it _won't_ do this sort of thing (health data will not be made available for advertising, either within Google or [obviously] externally).

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

#103

Post by ClumsyPilot »

shadowgovt wrote: post #41

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…

What i dont get is this: the purpose of insurance is to average out risks in life. The more insurance is 'tailored' and personalised, the more it defeats itself.

If an insurer could see the future, he would give me a policy that costs (cost of my future accidents + X% profit)/(my lifetime)

Essentially turning insurance into like bad savings account with negative interest rate.

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

#104

Post by hiddencost »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #103
shadowgovt wrote: post #41

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…

What i dont get is this: the purpose of insurance is to average out risks in life. The more insurance is 'tailored' and personalised, the more it defeats itself. If an insurer could see the future, he would give me a policy that costs (cost of my future accidents + X% profit)/(my lifetime) Essentially turning insurance into like bad savings account with negative interest rate.

That's not quite true. A pool has less variability than an individual.

My expected cost of future accidents might be N, with variance M >> N.

The insurance pool can absorb it if I have a catastrophic outcome, but I can't.

So it may be worth buying an insurance contract with a negative expected value to hedge risks.

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

#105

Post by uoaei »

treis wrote: post #76
shadowgovt wrote: post #41

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.

There are plenty of cases where plausible deniability allows bad actors to continue to exploit loopholes.

In this case, the health insurance industry could use statistical tricks to counter the allegation that they are discriminating at a significant level.

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

#106

Post by Bedon292 »

alienfilesystem wrote: post #68

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…

Would you consider something like the Shield TV open source? There are some proprietary drivers, for things like Dolby Vision I think, but probably as open as you can get. [1] Or you could certainly set up a Pi / NUC to run Linux and Plex to have more control.

[1] https://developer.nvidia.com/shield-open-source

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

#107

Post by jdmichal »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #103
shadowgovt wrote: post #41

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…

What i dont get is this: the purpose of insurance is to average out risks in life. The more insurance is 'tailored' and personalised, the more it defeats itself. If an insurer could see the future, he would give me a policy that costs (cost of my future accidents + X% profit)/(my lifetime) Essentially turning insurance into like bad savings account with negative interest rate.

> If an insurer could see the future, he would give me a policy that costs (cost of my future accidents + X% profit)/(my lifetime)

But what happens when (cost of my future accidents) is very high? Are you as an individual just uninsurable? Is that the best outcome?

Distribution of cumulative healthcare costs maybe looks something like a lognormal distribution. Most people fall into a "normal" range but then there are outliers who can cost far, far more. But even though their individual costs are high, their absolute numbers are low compared to the total pool. So everyone can pay something like a normal expected cost, plus a small fraction, plus the profit overhead, and thereby cover those outliers.

Large employers will negotiate pooled coverage like this for their employees. That's why the 21-year-old with zero health issues pays the same as the 60-year-old with dialysis. But, it's the fact that this is essentially a monopoly market on those employees that allows this. They can create a single pool because there's no alternative market. (At least functionally, because the costs of those external market players don't get the employer subsidizing the plan.)

Without that monopoly and subsidy, market forces come into play. For those people who have a high likelihood of lower costs, if an insurer can create a pool targeting people with those same signals, then they can offer that pool lower rates and capture business. However, that necessitates that the remaining pools become more expensive. This is a classic race to the bottom, but with the added complexity of a zero-sum game.

Your stated position is the logical end-game of this direction. But it's not the only functional solution. One could also switch instead to a single pool over the entire population -- aka, single payer.

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

#108

Post by LatteLazy »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #103
shadowgovt wrote: post #41

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…

What i dont get is this: the purpose of insurance is to average out risks in life. The more insurance is 'tailored' and personalised, the more it defeats itself. If an insurer could see the future, he would give me a policy that costs (cost of my future accidents + X% profit)/(my lifetime) Essentially turning insurance into like bad savings account with negative interest rate.

Insurance should pool random risks but it's not meant to pool all risk. You know your pool of 100 people all have 5% chance of a heart attacks. You don't know who will actually have a heart attack, that risk is pooled. But you don't pool people with a 1% or a 20% chance of a heart attack the same if you can avoid it.

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

#109

Post by krick »

walterbell wrote: post #33

You can sync Garmin (many devices) health tracker data locally via USB cable or wireless receiver, then parse/graph with OSS scripts: Code: https://github.com/tcgoetz/GarminDB & https://github.com/mrihtar/Garmin-FIT Wireless receiver: https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/p/10997 & https://www.thisisant.com/

Thanks, I guess I can make use of one. I was thinking there might be no more devices left that don't store your data on some shitty website you have to log into.

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

#110

Post by alienfilesystem »

throwaway_pdp09 wrote: post #90
alienfilesystem wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Do you eat meat? I don't, for moral reasons. If you do does that make you evil in my eyes? Are you in fact evil? I could do this all day. A clear and unambigious view of what's wrong and right is a risky thing - you will be compelled to fix it, without limits to your interference. That was provocative and I think you're a good person but I don't think it's so easy, or safe, to draw a dividing line. But that risks not…

Thank you for your comments. I agree with you that this can be taken to the nth degree and it benefits no one. I guess I could say that I do my best to avoid "grey" areas if at all possible. If I don't stand for something, I fall for anything.

As far as meat goes, I don't eat red meat. Fish, yes. Chicken, don't really care for it. I could easily get by on fish, rice, beans, salads, etc. I see your point. My eating fish would be evil to someone else since a life is lost in doing so. Beef is nasty to me because I hate even seeing fat on food. As an aside, to me, nothing is better than fried fish or a salad made from chilled chickpeas, lime juice, cilantro, diced Roma tomatoes, and red onion. Add Serrano or Jalapeno peppers if you like spicy.

Post reply on HN