3 ms·

This is a simply ridiculous response. Geolocation is the least intrusive data that is being discussed here. By far the bigger offense is tracking an individual'

This is a simply ridiculous response. Geolocation is the least intrusive data that is being discussed here. By far the bigger offense is tracking an individual's health to ensure that the employee is sufficiently "healthy." John Hancock may not be monitoring my location (although every mobile device already is) but by its own admission, it will be monitoring my activity levels, computing the number of steps I take (or whatever other health metric it plans to use e.g. heart rate) and applying some formula to penalize employees who are "underperforming" on their health "goals." Insurance is already an enormously intrusive industry and fitness tracking crosses the threshold of unacceptable conduct.

iratewizard 8y ago
The number of steps you take is more intrusive than where you've been? I'm supposed to believe John Hancock is going to bring about the boring dystopia you describe because you claim insurance is enormously intrusive? Was your first sentence a warning about the rest of your response?
- calgoo 8y ago
  And developers who refuse to see other people's points are the exact reason we get these issues. That does not mean that you are wrong or that the people here are wrong. Just because its not intrusive at the moment, it does not eliminate the slippery slope that it can cause. Because if we mandate fitness trackers today, tomorrow they might be used to monitor you during the workday, for "stress reasons". This is one of the main reasons why at least i dont like this. Another reason i personally dont like this, is that it allows the insurance company to build an even bigger profile on me, and my data. Then sooner or later, that data will get sold off, stolen, or just gifted away. Also, how do we know other apps on your phone wont start stealing the info? Maybe Facebook will add it to their increasing list of info it collects, or google will add is as part of usability improvements or some other bs excuse. edit: spelling
- nasalgoat 8y ago
  What if I simply don't want to wear a fitness tracker? You don't find forcing people to wear mandatory devices a little troubling?

iratewizard 8y ago

The number of steps you take is more intrusive than where you've been? I'm supposed to believe John Hancock is going to bring about the boring dystopia you describe because you claim insurance is enormously intrusive? Was your first sentence a warning about the rest of your response?

calgoo 8y ago
And developers who refuse to see other people's points are the exact reason we get these issues. That does not mean that you are wrong or that the people here are wrong. Just because its not intrusive at the moment, it does not eliminate the slippery slope that it can cause. Because if we mandate fitness trackers today, tomorrow they might be used to monitor you during the workday, for "stress reasons". This is one of the main reasons why at least i dont like this. Another reason i personally dont like this, is that it allows the insurance company to build an even bigger profile on me, and my data. Then sooner or later, that data will get sold off, stolen, or just gifted away. Also, how do we know other apps on your phone wont start stealing the info? Maybe Facebook will add it to their increasing list of info it collects, or google will add is as part of usability improvements or some other bs excuse. edit: spelling
nasalgoat 8y ago
What if I simply don't want to wear a fitness tracker? You don't find forcing people to wear mandatory devices a little troubling?