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

141–150 of 156 posts

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

#141

Post by techbio »

drevil-v2 wrote: post #129
NationalPark wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't it seem more likely that you - a person who is interested enough in Autocad that people email you videos about it - searched for something related to Autocad?

That is what made it so strange and surreal; I have never before or since searched for anything related to Autocad. Me and my friend have an interest in model aircrafts and drones and often spoke in person about building a new drone/airplane from scratch as fun project and this was the first time that Autocad was even mentioned in our discussion. Another data point we are both old school and would talk about this ove…

Did your friend search for Autocad, and are you linked by any social networks? I'm suggesting your experience may be related to other potential avenues of data convergence, much as it may have appeared on the surface exposed to your awareness to have been directly sourced from this email.

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

#142

Post by SquareWheel »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #44
actuator wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe that's what Google has been trying to do here with diversifying their revenue sources, similar to what they are attempting to do with GCP. Look at the amount of control they have been adding on Pixel phones on what apps and services can access, even Google's.

The difference is Google doesn't stop monetizing your data when they start selling premium hardware.

They don't monetize your data when you pay them (GSuite).

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

#143

Post by Abishek_Muthian »

rmtech wrote: post #116
Abishek_Muthian wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sorry, that's not it for me or many others who face the same issue. As I've mentioned in the blog, I've loosened it to the max with multiple fitbits and I always end up with pain; unless I switch off the heart rate monitor.

When the heart rate monitor is switched off, there is no pain/tingling even if I wear it tight and this has been corroborated by many others in fitbit/apple watch forums.

But since, most of these cases are due to wearing it tight (or the manufacturers want to project it that way) the heart rate monitor issue is not getting enough attention.

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

#144

Post by rmtech »

Abishek_Muthian wrote: post #143
rmtech wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Sorry, that's not it for me or many others who face the same issue. As I've mentioned in the blog, I've loosened it to the max with multiple fitbits and I always end up with pain; unless I switch off the heart rate monitor . When the heart rate monitor is switched off, there is no pain/tingling even if I wear it tight and this has been corroborated by many others in fitbit/apple watch forums. But since, most of these…

that is interesting.

I also switch from left to right. Maybe that makes a difference?

The other thing is that the two explanations are not mutually exclusive. Once you loosen it fully it moves around on your arm, which might move the harmful parts away from whatever is vulnerable.

Do we know what exactly causes the tingling? My left hand is still numb almost a week after I was first injured.

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

#145

Post by propogandist »

ilikepi wrote: post #83
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…

> Granted, there are no open source TVs, Roku's, etc, but they are not tracking me. Generally our views are broadly aligned, though the above sentence gave me pause. Are you suggesting specifically that Roku doesn't monitor ("track") what you watch? If so, you should really spend a little time with Roku's privacy policy[1] wherein they say quite explicitly that they do. I chose Roku pretty early on for our household,…

Just get pihole and put it on your network. Roku and Amazon Fire Stick are constantly calling home. Even every interaction with the remote is logged and sent back.

You can see it happening and block it. Roku also shuts down and stops you from using many apps if it can't call home for a long time.

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

#146

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

tqi wrote: post #134
rapind wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure it’s missing the point though. I think the specificity and scale that big tech brings can change the impact of these practices significantly. Some thing’s are not be a big risk to society until they get amplified.

Agree that is possible, but from what I've seen for the most part big data and predictive ML has been incremental (at best) to more naive methods.

Yup, yup. The real efficiencies in insurance come from data, not models. This is mostly true because the models which can be used are massively regulated, and must be explained to regulators (which sounds like a fun job).

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

#147

Post by propogandist »

alex_duf wrote: post #11

Is there any brand of wrist sensor that doesn't require you to upload your data to their servers by any chance? I love the fitbit sensor, but I wish I could opt out of the server side of the things

Mi Band. $25, weeks of battery life and data can be extracted locally.

They've tried to make usage of 3rd party apps harder with the latest version though (color display). It can still be done though; the old versions are excellent (Mi Band 3)

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

#148

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

jdmichal wrote: post #107
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So, what happens in less mental markets (like auto or home) is the following: - new source of data becomes available, Insurer A starts using it

- They price policies based on the new information, causing some customers rated as high risk to move to other insurers without access to this data.

- Insurer B realises that they are making less money (or more realistically, losing more) and invests in source of data.

- Higher risk customers end up paying more for insurance.

- Smaller competitor comes in and insures higher-risk customers (Quote Devil in the UK are a good example here), and offloads the risk to reinsurers. Additionally, because not all high risk customers will claim, smaller competitor can make money.

- New source of data becomes available, rinse and repeat.

Note that the difference between insurers having more granular data vs aggregated data is not less price discriminination, it's price discrimination based on coarser features (zip/post code, age, etc).

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

#149

Post by jdmichal »

disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #148
jdmichal wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

So, what happens in less mental markets (like auto or home) is the following: - new source of data becomes available, Insurer A starts using it - They price policies based on the new information, causing some customers rated as high risk to move to other insurers without access to this data. - Insurer B realises that they are making less money (or more realistically, losing more) and invests in source of data. - High…

Calling the home insurance market less mental to someone in Tampa Bay is laughable. The only reason I'll even be considered by insurance companies other than the public-run Citizens is because I'm not in a flood zone [0]. Most every other company won't cover Florida, because why include high-risk areas if you have a choice? Just exclude them and be done with it, right?

And that's the whole point behind my prior comment. As long as insurers can directly exclude individuals -- or indirectly exclude through price discrimination -- this is a completely sane way for them to behave. But it's not the only way to build the system, and this is definitely one of those times to ask, "Is this the best this society can do? Is this what our society actually wants?"

And I also have a feeling auto insurance is more sane in the UK due to the public healthcare being offloaded. In the US they severely cap medical payouts. We're talking like tens of thousands, which is laughably small here for anything serious. That will cover one ER visit. Instead, they give a big number for liability coverage of injury caused to others. So if the incident wasn't your fault, you're relying on that other person's liability coverage to make you whole, not your own insurance. Unless of course they were uninsured and you have uninsured motorist coverage. And if you're found at fault, then better hope you have some other way to cover that gap.

[0] But I still go with Citizens as long as they'll keep me. Because I'd rather pay directly into the public system than pay some for-profit company that's just going to beg for public bailouts when something big happens anyway.

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

#150

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

jdmichal wrote: post #149
disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, what happens in less mental markets (like auto or home) is the following: - new source of data becomes available, Insurer A starts using it - They price policies based on the new information, causing some customers rated as high risk to move to other insurers without access to this data. - Insurer B realises that they are making less money (or more realistically, losing more) and invests in source of data. - High…

Calling the home insurance market less mental to someone in Tampa Bay is laughable. The only reason I'll even be considered by insurance companies other than the public-run Citizens is because I'm not in a flood zone [0]. Most every other company won't cover Florida, because why include high-risk areas if you have a choice? Just exclude them and be done with it, right? And that's the whole point behind my prior comme…

Yeah, I worked in the industry for a while based in Europe, so that's the context of my comment. I deliberately avoided health insurance, both because I don't know a huge amount about it, and because it's so mental in the US.

I do agree with you in terms of the societal benefit piece, but was just trying to give some insight with respect to how the industry works now (without taking a position on how it should work).

My personal belief is that we should only allow individual level features to be considered, because otherwise you end up in a position where people living in richer areas both have more money and pay less for insurance (which is rational from an insurer perspective).

That being said, insurance doesn't really make any money, and is probably something that would be better provided by the state (especially for things like auto, which people are forced by the state to have).

Post reply on HN