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

Fitbit's 150B hours of heart data

finance.yahoo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 137 posts

Re: Fitbit's 150B hours of heart data

#101

Post by saagarjha »

sanlyx wrote: post #37
saagarjha wrote: post #4

> modern smartwatches and fitness bands can track your pulse continuously, day and night, for months. Imagine what you could learn if you collected all that data from tens of millions of people! Please no. Surely nobody thought collecting health data from all their users was a good idea, right? > That’s exactly what Fitbit (FIT) has done. It has now logged 150 billion hours’ worth of heart-rate data. From tens of mil…

I don't really care about Fitbit collecting all that data. If you don't want yours to be used, just buy another tracker from the tons out there. Privacy is all about choice, so it's not as bad as i.e. Google using your search data because the room for choice is smaller (at least for me, having tried out DuckDuckGo and others and switching back). Also I'd rather have my data harvested for science and medicine than for…

> If you don't want yours to be used, just buy another tracker from the tons out there.

I've already done this. But that doesn't mean I can't call out potential privacy violations in other products.

> Also I'd rather have my data harvested for science and medicine than for selling advertisements or whatnot

Can you prove this? Even if Fitbit isn't doing this now, what if they're acquired tomorrow by a company with more relaxed morals on what is permissible to do with health data?

Re: Fitbit's 150B hours of heart data

#102

Post by saagarjha »

brlewis wrote: post #66
daniel_iversen wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both right? You may not like it but which research wouldn’t benefit from a large useful dataset? And to the post above re: assuming consent, sure maybe they should make it crystal clear up front how they’ll use your data.

How would you suggest making it clear up front? Providing a link to a privacy policy and making people check a box saying they've read it?

Make it opt-in.

Re: Fitbit's 150B hours of heart data

#103

Post by executesorder66 »

todd8 wrote: post #69
executesorder66 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> health data like HR, weight etc is going to be used against me except for bad marketing practices You could pay more for health and life insurance.

One problem facing insurance companies is the asymmetric information between buyer and seller. Should we be able to keep our age secret when buying life insurance? How about sex or weight? My teenage son is in all likelihood a less safe driver than the average teenage woman, should a woman pay the same for her insurance as the generally more reckless man? With regard to our health information, should we be keeping in…

> should a woman pay the same for her insurance as the generally more reckless man

Already sexist. Why not say "should a woman pay the same for her insurance as a man"?

If you are going to be sexist and agist for the sake of calculating insurance risk factors, you might as well be racist too.

Re: Fitbit's 150B hours of heart data

#105

Post by saagarjha »

krisroadruck wrote: post #85
cecilpl2 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then determined that you actually are 80% more likely to have early stage heart disease based on a big data analysis tool, and then sold that information to an insurance company, which correlated it with other data they have (like strava's activity times) to uniquely identify you, and now wants to raise your premiums by 400% because you have a "increased likelihood of a pre-existing condition".

I never actually understood the objection to having people who are putting a greater draw on the insurance system, pay more into it. People who have more accidents also pay higher car insurance premiums. Why shouldn't this be the case for health insurance?

> People who have more accidents also pay higher car insurance premiums. Why shouldn't this be the case for health insurance?

If you have some sort of genetic condition, you're going to have to pay a premium. So while presumably you have some agency over how you drive, with health insurance you may be penalized for something that you have no control over.

Re: Fitbit's 150B hours of heart data

#106

Post by saagarjha »

wil421 wrote: post #73
saagarjha wrote: post #4

> modern smartwatches and fitness bands can track your pulse continuously, day and night, for months. Imagine what you could learn if you collected all that data from tens of millions of people! Please no. Surely nobody thought collecting health data from all their users was a good idea, right? > That’s exactly what Fitbit (FIT) has done. It has now logged 150 billion hours’ worth of heart-rate data. From tens of mil…

Why do you care so much? No one is forcing people to use FitBit. If you don’t agree with their practices or data collection then don’t use their products.

> If you don’t agree with their practices or data collection then don’t use their products.

I don't agree and don't use their products. Doesn't mean I can't call them out when they do something I don't agree with.

Re: Fitbit's 150B hours of heart data

#107

Post by kilo_bravo_3 »

cecilpl2 wrote: post #77
iDemonix wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heaven forbid a foreign company knew about my heart rate and age.

And then determined that you actually are 80% more likely to have early stage heart disease based on a big data analysis tool, and then sold that information to an insurance company, which correlated it with other data they have (like strava's activity times) to uniquely identify you, and now wants to raise your premiums by 400% because you have a "increased likelihood of a pre-existing condition".

>and now wants to raise your premiums by 400% because you have a "increased likelihood of a pre-existing condition".

https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/pre-existing-condition/

>A health problem, like asthma, diabetes, or cancer, you had before the date that new health coverage starts. Insurance companies can't refuse to cover treatment for your pre-existing condition or charge you more.

In the US at least, insurance companies can charge:

Up to 4x the standard rate, based on age, so that an 18 year old working a minimum wage job has lower premiums than a 55 year old.

Up to 1.5x the standard rate for smokers.

Everyone's nightmare scenario about insurance companies using Fitbit data to screw customers is only possible if the Affordable Care Act is allowed to die.

Everyone else worrying about genetic data should also know that it has been illegal for insurance companies to use genetic data to set rates for years now.

Re: Fitbit's 150B hours of heart data

#108

Post by e12e »

sanlyx wrote: post #37
saagarjha wrote: post #4

> modern smartwatches and fitness bands can track your pulse continuously, day and night, for months. Imagine what you could learn if you collected all that data from tens of millions of people! Please no. Surely nobody thought collecting health data from all their users was a good idea, right? > That’s exactly what Fitbit (FIT) has done. It has now logged 150 billion hours’ worth of heart-rate data. From tens of mil…

I don't really care about Fitbit collecting all that data. If you don't want yours to be used, just buy another tracker from the tons out there. Privacy is all about choice, so it's not as bad as i.e. Google using your search data because the room for choice is smaller (at least for me, having tried out DuckDuckGo and others and switching back). Also I'd rather have my data harvested for science and medicine than for…

Privacy is also about "herd immunity" - that geotagged photo posted from a party at my place affect my privacy, as does your fitbit tracking data if purchased cell tower data can be collerated to the point of assuming we went hiking together...

Not trying to argue, just pointing out that it's not quite so simple.

Re: Fitbit's 150B hours of heart data

#109

Post by e12e »

mscasts wrote: post #36

While I am a privacy advocate in most aspects, I fail to see how my basic health data like HR, weight etc is going to be used against me except for bad marketing practices. If I talk ill about some political ideologies and that gets stored until some evil dictator gets in power, that I can get. But who is going to put me in prison for having a high heart rate? The benefits in the other hand is great. I get to see and…

And when the company is is bought by a health insurer, credit institution - or major employer...?

Oh, let's not hire this guy - high risk of heart attack (ski accident, substance abuse) - let's prefer this similar candidate...

Re: Fitbit's 150B hours of heart data

#110

Post by trevorjon »

kilo_bravo_3 wrote: post #107
cecilpl2 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then determined that you actually are 80% more likely to have early stage heart disease based on a big data analysis tool, and then sold that information to an insurance company, which correlated it with other data they have (like strava's activity times) to uniquely identify you, and now wants to raise your premiums by 400% because you have a "increased likelihood of a pre-existing condition".

>and now wants to raise your premiums by 400% because you have a "increased likelihood of a pre-existing condition". https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/pre-existing-condition/ >A health problem, like asthma, diabetes, or cancer, you had before the date that new health coverage starts. Insurance companies can't refuse to cover treatment for your pre-existing condition or charge you more. In the US at least, insurance…

And let's be honest, in 10 years, some of these insurance companies will decide that they want to use this data for this, and will start lobbying, and eventually there will be made exceptions and new bills passed. And while it's not directly possible now, laws change, especially when giant companies stand to make a ton of money if they change
Post reply on HN