Google/Fitbit will monetise health data and harm consumers • Hacker News Board

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

#111

Post by walterbell » Wed, Sep 30, 2020, 6:36 PM UTC

krick wrote: post #109

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.

Garmin has a user-data website too :) But their devices have been around long enough to enable self-managed biometric data.

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

#112

Post by vharuck » Wed, Sep 30, 2020, 6:50 PM UTC

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.

This is what insurers already do. Using whatever information they can get on all their anticipated customers, they make it so the expected value of your costs is less than the expected value of all your payments. Going purely by expected value, insurance is a losing game for the customer.

The reasons it's a great idea are (1) you don't get to borrow from your future savings account's balance, and (2) insurers often encourage not-totally-rational customers to practice better habits to reduce costs. The first point is what customers want: avoidance of bankruptcy.

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

#113

Post by adrianmonk » Wed, Sep 30, 2020, 6:52 PM UTC

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…

> argument they're making here is a little subtle, but it tracks. [ ... ] They're claiming Google will offer biometrically-based signal as an ad discrimination channel

It's not impossible that that would happen, but it would be a departure from current behavior. To some degree, Google is selective about what data does and doesn't feed into ad targeting.

Examples:

(1) Emails are sensitive, and Gmail messages are off limits: "Google does not use keywords or messages in your inbox to show you ads. Nobody reads your email in order to show you ads." (https://safety.google/privacy/ads-and-data/)

(2) Drive/Docs/Sheets/Slides (if I'm interpreting this right): "We will not use your content for marketing or promotional campaigns." (https://www.google.com/drive/terms-of-service/)

And they've already stated they don't use health data: "We do not show ads based on sensitive information or interests, such as those based on race, religion, sexual orientation, health, or sensitive financial categories." (https://support.google.com/admanager/answer/140378)

It is very reasonable to ask how your data might be used or misused. But the scenario here supposes that Google will change its general pattern of behavior and go against what it publicly said.

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

#114

Post by walterbell » Wed, Sep 30, 2020, 7:00 PM UTC

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…

> I'll admit I bought a flip phone for the purposes of avoiding any virus apps that may be required in future should that happen. I just want to stay off the radar and I have a right to do so.

iOS 13.7+ can track your location for Covid contact tracing, even if there is no "virus app" installed. There should be an opt-out setting.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/01/tech/apple-google-contact-tra...

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

#115

Post by vharuck » Wed, Sep 30, 2020, 7:01 PM UTC

mchusma wrote: post #63

Health privacy, while kind of important Ina vacuum, is maybe the most overrated issue of our day. Not only do I not care if my health data is out there but I wish it were. Right now healthcare is barely using data, it's absurd. Let's focus on making good diagnostic AI preventative medicine to let people live forever.

Health is a deeply personal thing to many people. It's not surprising why people want to keep it secret, and I don't feel right asking them to give that up because there might be other benefits. Health privacy is something the world won't suffer much for having.

And health care analytics don't need any more data. There's already a ton. It's held by hospital systems, insurers, and governments. But the data sucks for analytics because it's chosen, coded, and siloed for payments.

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

#116

Post by rmtech » Wed, Sep 30, 2020, 7:03 PM UTC

Abishek_Muthian wrote: post #93

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…

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]…

I had tingling pain with a fitbit and I have solved it. Loosen it fully at night and the tingling stops.

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

#117

Post by DrPhish » Wed, Sep 30, 2020, 7:06 PM UTC

Bedon292 wrote: post #106

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

As an anecdote, I previously tried to run Plex without any connections back to the mothership, and they were doing some super crazy stuff (server _and_ client side) to ensure that it wouldn't work if those servers/IPs were blocked.

If you really want to avoid external parties, you should probably be running Kodi, compiled yourself, and firewalled off from internet access for good measure. (This assumes you _are_ worried about tracking, and so only use offline media, and not Netflix etc)

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

#118

Post by gerash » Wed, Sep 30, 2020, 7:25 PM UTC

mchusma wrote: post #63

Health privacy, while kind of important Ina vacuum, is maybe the most overrated issue of our day. Not only do I not care if my health data is out there but I wish it were. Right now healthcare is barely using data, it's absurd. Let's focus on making good diagnostic AI preventative medicine to let people live forever.

100 times this. I know privacy is a good thing but the amount of FUD over health data privacy is unreasonable.

I feel this hysteric reaction to aggregating health related metrics is in fact an impediment to running good scientific experiments. The current sample sizes are always small and results inconclusive wasting thousands of man hours and government grants funded by our tax money

Only to gain what? Apple and Google not storing my step counts on their servers because otherwise in future they'll go rogue and show me cheeseburger ads when I'm getting fat? Give me break

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

#119

Post by gerash » Wed, Sep 30, 2020, 7:27 PM UTC

vharuck wrote: post #115

mchusma wrote: post #63

Health privacy, while kind of important Ina vacuum, is maybe the most overrated issue of our day. Not only do I not care if my health data is out there but I wish it were. Right now healthcare is barely using data, it's absurd. Let's focus on making good diagnostic AI preventative medicine to let people live forever.

Health is a deeply personal thing to many people. It's not surprising why people want to keep it secret, and I don't feel right asking them to give that up because there might be other benefits. Health privacy is something the world won't suffer much for having. And health care analytics don't need any more data. There's already a ton. It's held by hospital systems, insurers, and governments. But the data sucks for a…

I believe lots of regulation plays a part in making these health datasets not interoperable and hard to migrate to some common schema and database

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

#120

Post by foobarian » Wed, Sep 30, 2020, 7:32 PM UTC

adrianmonk wrote: post #113

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…

> argument they're making here is a little subtle, but it tracks. [ ... ] They're claiming Google will offer biometrically-based signal as an ad discrimination channel It's not impossible that that would happen, but it would be a departure from current behavior. To some degree, Google is selective about what data does and doesn't feed into ad targeting. Examples: (1) Emails are sensitive, and Gmail messages are off l…

Hah. I got a home screen notification to use Google's travel product minutes after I got a hotel booking confirmation email.

I'm sure you can come up with reasons this is not breaking T&C but it would have never happened if the two products were in separate companies.

And I'm sure they will "not use" the health data in a similar fashion.