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

81–90 of 156 posts

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

#81

Post by kodah »

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's also the good old argument that your argument has been used in respect to Google for decades and it has yeilded the exact sort of outcomes this paper is warning against.

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

#82

Post by alienfilesystem »

read_if_gay_ wrote: post #78
alienfilesystem wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 profit and then share it with them. Perhaps I'm a goody-two-shoes, but I'll accept it. I cannot fathom working a job where my existence is to bleed out as much profit from others without them knowing, or if they do know, them not having a voice or a way out short of not using the devices of modernity.

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

#83

Post by ilikepi »

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, and I have regrets about that choice, but I can't bring myself to replace our Roku hardware with Apple TV hardware given the latter is quite a bit more expensive, and then I'm left to decide whether to spend more money on a third-party remote or be stuck with the terrible one that comes in the box.

[1]: https://docs.roku.com/published/userprivacypolicy/en/us

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

#84

Post by shadowgovt »

kodah wrote: post #81
treis wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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's also the good old argument that your argument has been used in respect to Google for decades and it has yeilded the exact sort of outcomes this paper is warning against.

Can you give an example?

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

#86

Post by shadowgovt »

BurningFrog wrote: post #71
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…

Let me just point out that the root problem here is the broken US "health insurance" system. That targeted ads might cause these kinds of problems is a side effect of this.

I believe the article in question relates to a European Commission investigation.

In the US, this kind of data aggregation doesn't even make waves regarding antitrust. Google just has to comply with HIPAA and it's basically good to go (they already had "Google Health" as an app for self-reported data ages ago, which nobody stopped).

If Google started feeding this data to insurance companies, it'd be out of compliance with HIPAA.

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

#87

Post by shadowgovt »

frenchyatwork wrote: post #61
shadowgovt wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's click-fraud, and Google at least attempts to identify it (so they're not charging for false ad views). No idea if they share the "That click was fraud" signal with their clients for this kind of display ad.

I think that calling ad-sharing "click-fraud" is a little ridiculous. I can understand why someone would call an extension like AdNauseam click-fraud, but this would presumably be people legitimately clicking on the ad.

I'm using the industry technical term, in the sense that the algorithms that could protect an advertiser from screwing up their metrics already exist to protect Google from screwing up the payment model.

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

#88

Post by shadowgovt »

luckylion wrote: post #75
shadowgovt wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not in a way they reveals demographics; that JS is sandboxed and can't generally figure out why the ad was run. There's room for abuse, but Google will slap wrists of advertisers who try it.

You don't need to figure out why the ad was run if you target the ad to people who match the demographic you want to identify. It runs because it fits the match. I don't know whether Google will slap any wrists. It went so far that their ads hijacked the browser and redirected to scam sites. I've been on the debugging end on a few such attacks over the years, and it just happened once every other year or so on sites…

They allow the access because "good behaving" advertisers can use it to do animation and such without having to load high-bandwidth media files.

It is a feature of their display ads system that user privacy is protected and advertisers shouldn't be able to solve to a user when the ad is displayed (though they can, of course, begin a business arrangement with a user if the user clicks the ad; that's called a "conversion"). Scammers that abuse the JS layer fly under the radar because Google will ban their display ads account if they get caught abusing what the JS allows them to access (such as trying to data-scrape parameters off the user's machine to estimate whether they're seeing someone they've already seen).

"3 Ad Serving. (a) Customer will not provide Ads containing malware, spyware or any other malicious code or knowingly breach or circumvent any Program security measure." [https://support.google.com/adspolicy/answer/54818?hl=en]

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

#89

Post by shadowgovt »

Dirlewanger wrote: post #70
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…

>They're not claiming Google will hand out a user's biometrics to insurance companies or other parties. Make no mistake though: those days are coming. It's just a matter of how soon. And no government will give a shit to stop it.

That's an odd prediction, given how unpopular the idea is.

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

#90

Post by throwaway_pdp09 »

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 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 drawing a dividing line, so more dangers lurk.

Post reply on HN