4 ms·

I'm going to write something unpopular, but your data is probably safer from sale to insurers with Google than with a pre-acquisition Fitbit. Google already has

I'm going to write something unpopular, but your data is probably safer from sale to insurers with Google than with a pre-acquisition Fitbit. Google already has a fantastic revenue stream, and only has downsides from doing something "evil" for piddling revenue gain. In an alternate timeline, Fitbit could go out of business next year and then be up for sale. Also, I think Fitbit already makes money this way

lebca 6y ago
Aren’t Google and Fitbit one in the same now given the acquisition? Or are you implying that Fitbit will function independently and Google will sell it if Fitbit isn’t profitable?
- greesil 6y ago
  Edited my post. Alternate timeline, counterfactuals, interdimensional cable.
ksk 6y ago
Why would your personal data be safer with an advertising company? Google is amassing personal data so they can charge higher rates for their so-called targeted/personalized ads. With all your personal data residing with a single ad company, it will be far easier to offer discounts to certain people, in-effect introducing tiered insurance pricing. The health insurance companies just want to figure out a way to charge sick people more, and healthy people less so they can maximize their customer base. It won't happen overnight, but then again Google started with the mission of organizing the worlds information. Hah, how often do you hear about that from them? You can barely go past page 10 on search results from the "millions" of supposed results.
- eximius 6y ago
  Because Google doesn't sell the data, they only make targeting available from data (but not necessarily all data, specifically the health data being talked about here). If you don't purchase insurance by clicking on ads, then you're fine?
  - polyomino 6y ago
    Even if you click the ads, you're probably fine. Google isn't telling the advertiser what data they used to serve the ad.
    - lupire 6y ago
      The advertiser knows the targeting criteria they paid for.
  - wongarsu 6y ago
    >If you don't purchase insurance by clicking on ads, then you're fine? not if insurers make the default more expensive, then make advertisments for a "secret" cheaper plan targeted at fit people.
    - greesil 6y ago
      That's literally what insurers are doing with Fitbit + corporate wellness plans right now.
      - eximius 6y ago
        This is more likely and not quite the same. But I don't know anyone who is going to buy insurance from an ad. Almost everyone is getting insurance from work.
krono 6y ago
Google doesn't even seem to know why Google is doing the things Google does. Where your Fitbit data ends up and how it will be used is just as much of a question with Google as with any other random acquirer.
bmitc 6y ago
> Google already has a fantastic revenue stream, and only has downsides from doing something "evil" for piddling revenue gain. How can you have this opinion when they are already being sued by the government for doing this exact thing (in another area of their business)?
- greesil 6y ago
  There are a few lawsuits going in the USA. To which one are you referring?
  - bmitc 6y ago
    Does it matter to my point? My point is that Google has multiple times exceeded their bounds to do something evil to make extra money, so much so that they are being explicitly sued for just some of those now. Your point seemed to be why would they take the risk to do something evil and shady for extra money, when my point was that they already have a history of doing that exact thing. The lawsuit I had in mind was the one calling out their shady AMP practices.
    - greesil 6y ago
      Sure. The "don't be evil" motto seems like more of a guideline, really. But they're not selling data to 3rd parties here, and especially not something that is obviously personal like health data. Whereas in the AMP case the alleged shenanigans nobody really understands outside of the HN crowd, if even that. They're capable of it, any company is. I think they are much less likely to try and monetize that data source this way.
      - orestarod 6y ago
        Fun fact, "Don't be evil" is no longer officially part of Google's mission.
ashtonkem 6y ago
Google also has a long history of successfully monetizing consumer data without just handing it over. That's not ideal, but it's also far from the worst case scenario.
Abishek_Muthian 6y ago
I'm not telling Google will sell 'X person is/may suffer from Y disease' to the health insurers, they needn't even do that. The key term to note from my statements are - > Already discriminatory •I wouldn't be surprised if the health insurers are already getting email ids of those who land in medical sites by searching for an ailment, Aren't email ids are even visible to the website if they had just implemented 'Sign in' and the user had already signed in the browser? •I have reasons to believe that they are collecting patient data from the hospitals directly from my lengthy conversations with the people from insurance company. There is no HIPAA here. Any additional data from health-tech, even if indirectly to just target advertisements could be used as an ammunition for further discrimination by parallel construction bypassing anti-discriminatory guidelines/laws from the Govt.(like they're already doing). Of course insurers can collect health-tech data without direct access to the device through their own app, Say 'We need permission to access health data from X app for 5% discount in premium' would not invoke resistance from those who don't know that they are falling into a greater pit.
- henearkr 6y ago
  To reassure you on the point #1, no that would not make sense given the huge number of people browsing random ailments either by hypocondria or by mere curiosity. Honestly at this point I would have no more health cover whatsoever, as I am a big consumer of random bits of medical knowledge.
NightMKoder 6y ago
I'm not sure about that - if only because it gives a "large target" for insurers. Underwriting based on health conditions (something that is currently banned in the US for health insurance, but allowed for life/disability insurance) is all about the cost/benefit of searching for data. If a lot of people have data with Google, it might make sense to pay to look at it. Under US law at least, your health data isn't inaccessible to companies. It just requires your consent for release. That consent is basically baked into the process under a checkbox for the terms of whatever you're trying to buy. That said, this kind of data is probably uninteresting. Diagnoses & prescription drug fills are probably more indicative (and folks like https://www.rxhistories.com/ https://www.rxhistories.com/ helpfully aggregate and standardize the data).
rndgermandude 6y ago
I begrudgingly have to agree. Google will try to monetize the data somehow but not outright sell it, while Fitbit might have sold it directly if they stayed independent, especially if they struggled financially. But really, neither Google nor Fitbit are the biggest worry, the mere existence of such health tracking devices already is the problem. Health Insurers and even life Insurers will ask you to submit your data "voluntarily". Right now, there are plenty of insurers already who offer rebates on premiums if you wear a health tracker and submit data showing you meet some goals[1]. My guess is that in the future policies in many jurisdictions will become prohibitively expensive without the "rebate" you get for wearing health tracking devices, if this goes unregulated (or any such regulations are not enforced). Insurers might force you into "voluntarily" sharing your data this way, and may even force you into "voluntarily" sharing historical data when you apply for a policy. My German insurer offers to pitch in I think 90 EUR to buy a fitness/health tracking device. They cannot ask me or anybody for the data (yet) in return for rebates or amenities, due to regulation, which is good. However, I already dread the day when our politicians decide that to "help people stay fit" and "encourage people to stay healthy" and "help reduce insurance costs for regular(!) people(!)" the regulations need to change to allow such schemes. [1] e.g. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/09/25/an-insurance-company-wants-you-hand-over-your-fitbit-data-so-they-can-make-more-money-should-you/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/09/25/an-insura...

lebca 6y ago

Aren’t Google and Fitbit one in the same now given the acquisition? Or are you implying that Fitbit will function independently and Google will sell it if Fitbit isn’t profitable?

greesil 6y ago
Edited my post. Alternate timeline, counterfactuals, interdimensional cable.

ksk 6y ago

Why would your personal data be safer with an advertising company? Google is amassing personal data so they can charge higher rates for their so-called targeted/personalized ads. With all your personal data residing with a single ad company, it will be far easier to offer discounts to certain people, in-effect introducing tiered insurance pricing. The health insurance companies just want to figure out a way to charge sick people more, and healthy people less so they can maximize their customer base. It won't happen overnight, but then again Google started with the mission of organizing the worlds information. Hah, how often do you hear about that from them? You can barely go past page 10 on search results from the "millions" of supposed results.

eximius 6y ago
Because Google doesn't sell the data, they only make targeting available from data (but not necessarily all data, specifically the health data being talked about here). If you don't purchase insurance by clicking on ads, then you're fine?
- polyomino 6y ago
  Even if you click the ads, you're probably fine. Google isn't telling the advertiser what data they used to serve the ad.
  - lupire 6y ago
    The advertiser knows the targeting criteria they paid for.
- wongarsu 6y ago
  >If you don't purchase insurance by clicking on ads, then you're fine? not if insurers make the default more expensive, then make advertisments for a "secret" cheaper plan targeted at fit people.
  - greesil 6y ago
    That's literally what insurers are doing with Fitbit + corporate wellness plans right now.
    - eximius 6y ago
      This is more likely and not quite the same. But I don't know anyone who is going to buy insurance from an ad. Almost everyone is getting insurance from work.

krono 6y ago

Google doesn't even seem to know why Google is doing the things Google does. Where your Fitbit data ends up and how it will be used is just as much of a question with Google as with any other random acquirer.

bmitc 6y ago

> Google already has a fantastic revenue stream, and only has downsides from doing something "evil" for piddling revenue gain. How can you have this opinion when they are already being sued by the government for doing this exact thing (in another area of their business)?

greesil 6y ago
There are a few lawsuits going in the USA. To which one are you referring?
- bmitc 6y ago
  Does it matter to my point? My point is that Google has multiple times exceeded their bounds to do something evil to make extra money, so much so that they are being explicitly sued for just some of those now. Your point seemed to be why would they take the risk to do something evil and shady for extra money, when my point was that they already have a history of doing that exact thing. The lawsuit I had in mind was the one calling out their shady AMP practices.
  - greesil 6y ago
    Sure. The "don't be evil" motto seems like more of a guideline, really. But they're not selling data to 3rd parties here, and especially not something that is obviously personal like health data. Whereas in the AMP case the alleged shenanigans nobody really understands outside of the HN crowd, if even that. They're capable of it, any company is. I think they are much less likely to try and monetize that data source this way.
    - orestarod 6y ago
      Fun fact, "Don't be evil" is no longer officially part of Google's mission.

ashtonkem 6y ago

Google also has a long history of successfully monetizing consumer data without just handing it over. That's not ideal, but it's also far from the worst case scenario.

Abishek_Muthian 6y ago

I'm not telling Google will sell 'X person is/may suffer from Y disease' to the health insurers, they needn't even do that. The key term to note from my statements are - > Already discriminatory •I wouldn't be surprised if the health insurers are already getting email ids of those who land in medical sites by searching for an ailment, Aren't email ids are even visible to the website if they had just implemented 'Sign in' and the user had already signed in the browser? •I have reasons to believe that they are collecting patient data from the hospitals directly from my lengthy conversations with the people from insurance company. There is no HIPAA here. Any additional data from health-tech, even if indirectly to just target advertisements could be used as an ammunition for further discrimination by parallel construction bypassing anti-discriminatory guidelines/laws from the Govt.(like they're already doing). Of course insurers can collect health-tech data without direct access to the device through their own app, Say 'We need permission to access health data from X app for 5% discount in premium' would not invoke resistance from those who don't know that they are falling into a greater pit.

henearkr 6y ago
To reassure you on the point #1, no that would not make sense given the huge number of people browsing random ailments either by hypocondria or by mere curiosity. Honestly at this point I would have no more health cover whatsoever, as I am a big consumer of random bits of medical knowledge.

NightMKoder 6y ago

I'm not sure about that - if only because it gives a "large target" for insurers. Underwriting based on health conditions (something that is currently banned in the US for health insurance, but allowed for life/disability insurance) is all about the cost/benefit of searching for data. If a lot of people have data with Google, it might make sense to pay to look at it. Under US law at least, your health data isn't inaccessible to companies. It just requires your consent for release. That consent is basically baked into the process under a checkbox for the terms of whatever you're trying to buy. That said, this kind of data is probably uninteresting. Diagnoses & prescription drug fills are probably more indicative (and folks like https://www.rxhistories.com/ https://www.rxhistories.com/ helpfully aggregate and standardize the data).

rndgermandude 6y ago

I begrudgingly have to agree. Google will try to monetize the data somehow but not outright sell it, while Fitbit might have sold it directly if they stayed independent, especially if they struggled financially. But really, neither Google nor Fitbit are the biggest worry, the mere existence of such health tracking devices already is the problem. Health Insurers and even life Insurers will ask you to submit your data "voluntarily". Right now, there are plenty of insurers already who offer rebates on premiums if you wear a health tracker and submit data showing you meet some goals[1]. My guess is that in the future policies in many jurisdictions will become prohibitively expensive without the "rebate" you get for wearing health tracking devices, if this goes unregulated (or any such regulations are not enforced). Insurers might force you into "voluntarily" sharing your data this way, and may even force you into "voluntarily" sharing historical data when you apply for a policy. My German insurer offers to pitch in I think 90 EUR to buy a fitness/health tracking device. They cannot ask me or anybody for the data (yet) in return for rebates or amenities, due to regulation, which is good. However, I already dread the day when our politicians decide that to "help people stay fit" and "encourage people to stay healthy" and "help reduce insurance costs for regular(!) people(!)" the regulations need to change to allow such schemes. [1] e.g. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/09/25/an-insurance-company-wants-you-hand-over-your-fitbit-data-so-they-can-make-more-money-should-you/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/09/25/an-insura...