Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Fitbit: employer penalties for not using.
Replies
-
CipherZero wrote: »I would start looking for a new job if my employer thinks they can micro-manage my life like this.
this. i live in canada where things are actually (please groke) fairly different from the states. i've also been privileged to have worked for 20 years without being 'an employee' for more than five - the last time was 15 years ago apart from a very short-lived aberration this year. so i guess my perspective is a bit different. i frequently find myself really bemused about which personal rights and freedoms americans cling to, and which ones they don't seem to care about in the least.
it's not so much the penalty thing, to me. it just sort of staggers me how people could be okay about this. how can that be okay? to me, when i sign a work contract i agree to sell them a predefined chunk of my time every week. and that's it. i'm an adult and an individual citizen. they don't buy my life, my beliefs, my social time, my personal info, my politics, or anything else. outside of their walls and things they actually need in order for me to fulfill my statement of work, nothing about me is any business of theirs. i can't get my head around how it could be okay for a corporation to follow you home and keep tabs how many hours you're asleep.
3 -
canadianlbs wrote: »CipherZero wrote: »I would start looking for a new job if my employer thinks they can micro-manage my life like this.
i can't get my head around how it could be okay for a corporation to follow you home and keep tabs how many hours you're asleep.
As I've told one boss, "You do not own me - you rent forty hours of my time a week. Choose them wisely."5 -
canadianlbs wrote: »CipherZero wrote: »I would start looking for a new job if my employer thinks they can micro-manage my life like this.
this. i live in canada where things are actually (please groke) fairly different from the states. i've also been privileged to have worked for 20 years without being 'an employee' for more than five - the last time was 15 years ago apart from a very short-lived aberration this year. so i guess my perspective is a bit different. i frequently find myself really bemused about which personal rights and freedoms americans cling to, and which ones they don't seem to care about in the least.
it's not so much the penalty thing, to me. it just sort of staggers me how people could be okay about this. how can that be okay? to me, when i sign a work contract i agree to sell them a predefined chunk of my time every week. and that's it. i'm an adult and an individual citizen. they don't buy my life, my beliefs, my social time, my personal info, my politics, or anything else. outside of their walls and things they actually need in order for me to fulfill my statement of work, nothing about me is any business of theirs. i can't get my head around how it could be okay for a corporation to follow you home and keep tabs how many hours you're asleep.
Because we don't have health care as a human right or tax scheme; it's provided at the whim of employers, historically, and now sort of half-heartedly mandated to be provided by employers, or at least most employers. Healthcare is therefore perceived to be a labor cost, and rates are higher for unhealthy populations.
Other countries separate employment and health care, so it isn't a concern of the employer that you be healthy unless your job performance is impaired.1 -
canadianlbs wrote: »CipherZero wrote: »I would start looking for a new job if my employer thinks they can micro-manage my life like this.
this. i live in canada where things are actually (please groke) fairly different from the states. i've also been privileged to have worked for 20 years without being 'an employee' for more than five - the last time was 15 years ago apart from a very short-lived aberration this year. so i guess my perspective is a bit different. i frequently find myself really bemused about which personal rights and freedoms americans cling to, and which ones they don't seem to care about in the least.
it's not so much the penalty thing, to me. it just sort of staggers me how people could be okay about this. how can that be okay? to me, when i sign a work contract i agree to sell them a predefined chunk of my time every week. and that's it. i'm an adult and an individual citizen. they don't buy my life, my beliefs, my social time, my personal info, my politics, or anything else. outside of their walls and things they actually need in order for me to fulfill my statement of work, nothing about me is any business of theirs. i can't get my head around how it could be okay for a corporation to follow you home and keep tabs how many hours you're asleep.
But some of us want these things. When I'm briefed on company benefits, I pay as much attention to sports and game leagues, employee resource groups and mentorship programs, walking paths and whether they have a gym on site, as I do retirement benefits. These programs are optional and are not present in every single American company, and no individual is forced to participate. However if no one offered them, then those of us who appreciate our employers making those activities available would not have the option of doing them at work or with colleagues. There's also the team building aspect - why not get healthier while figuring out a way to improve our working relationships. I, for one, applaud these companies for using their considerable influence to attempt, in whatever way they can, to improve the health of their employees4 -
canadianlbs wrote: »it's not so much the penalty thing, to me. it just sort of staggers me how people could be okay about this. how can that be okay? to me, when i sign a work contract i agree to sell them a predefined chunk of my time every week. and that's it.
...
i can't get my head around how it could be okay for a corporation to follow you home and keep tabs how many hours you're asleep.
My job told me they would buy me a Fitbit and pay me to use it, because that reduced our insurance rates. Nobody followed me home. Nobody asked me how many hours I slept.
There was nothing to object to!4 -
canadianlbs wrote: »CipherZero wrote: »I would start looking for a new job if my employer thinks they can micro-manage my life like this.
this. i live in canada where things are actually (please groke) fairly different from the states. i've also been privileged to have worked for 20 years without being 'an employee' for more than five - the last time was 15 years ago apart from a very short-lived aberration this year. so i guess my perspective is a bit different. i frequently find myself really bemused about which personal rights and freedoms americans cling to, and which ones they don't seem to care about in the least.
it's not so much the penalty thing, to me. it just sort of staggers me how people could be okay about this. how can that be okay? to me, when i sign a work contract i agree to sell them a predefined chunk of my time every week. and that's it. i'm an adult and an individual citizen. they don't buy my life, my beliefs, my social time, my personal info, my politics, or anything else. outside of their walls and things they actually need in order for me to fulfill my statement of work, nothing about me is any business of theirs. i can't get my head around how it could be okay for a corporation to follow you home and keep tabs how many hours you're asleep.
But some of us want these things. When I'm briefed on company benefits, I pay as much attention to sports and game leagues, employee resource groups and mentorship programs, walking paths and whether they have a gym on site, as I do retirement benefits. These programs are optional and are not present in every single American company, and no individual is forced to participate. However if no one offered them, then those of us who appreciate our employers making those activities available would not have the option of doing them at work or with colleagues. There's also the team building aspect - why not get healthier while figuring out a way to improve our working relationships. I, for one, applaud these companies for using their considerable influence to attempt, in whatever way they can, to improve the health of their employees
YES!! Me and my work teammates all bought our own Fitbits and challenge each other. We have a group on the Fitbit site. We have a lot of fun, are all getting healthier, and have a really tight team at work. Our employer has free yoga classes at lunch that we attend. We are doing all this because we want to...I don't see how it could be a bad thing.
4 -
But see, encouraging employees to improve their health and providing resources is not the same thing as penalizing employees when they don't meet certain standards. The program my employer provides is third party meaning my employer doesn't have access to my personal data. We get rewarded for fitbit steps, nightly hours of sleep, clicking on healthy habit cards and other health-awareness activities. Nobody gets penalized for not participating. If my employer based any of my compensation on any of these activities I would be gone yesterday.1
-
But see, encouraging employees to improve their health and providing resources is not the same thing as penalizing employees when they don't meet certain standards. The program my employer provides is third party meaning my employer doesn't have access to my personal data. We get rewarded for fitbit steps, nightly hours of sleep, clicking on healthy habit cards and other health-awareness activities. Nobody gets penalized for not participating. If my employer based any of my compensation on any of these activities I would be gone yesterday.
My employer uses the same program. It's easy to get the maximum award ($250) each year if you just sync an activity tracker and go about your normal day. If you do the cards and habits, actually walk 7000+ steps per day, log your sleep and track your food you can get the max award each quarter within the first month or so. Your spouse can also join so that's $500 each year you can make in cash, gifts or gift cards without really trying.
If someone chooses not to participate that's a prerogative but I don't know why anyone would want to leave $500 on the table for minimum effort. I agree that if it were mandatory I might feel differently about it but I do these things anyway so it's literally a non-issue for me.3 -
I just don't believe that giving a discount for good behavior is a penalty for those who opt out. You have the ability to get the discount. Most companies (medium and large, and to a lesser extent small) self insure. Meaning that while your health insurance card has the name of the typical health insurance provider, the health insurance provider only executes the plan. The company foots the entire bill. The more you exercise, sleep, eat a healthful diet, etc., the less likely you are to have large medical bills. Of course there are exceptions to this rule, but in general, if you lead a healthy lifestyle, you tend to be more healthy. If you have fewer medical bills, the less out of pocket your company pays. So really they are just passing some of the savings to you. If you chose to not exercise (or share the data with the company or third party), then you just don't get a piece of the savings. Remember, health insurance is provided as a benefit to you. You don't have to take it.4
-
But see, encouraging employees to improve their health and providing resources is not the same thing as penalizing employees when they don't meet certain standards. The program my employer provides is third party meaning my employer doesn't have access to my personal data. We get rewarded for fitbit steps, nightly hours of sleep, clicking on healthy habit cards and other health-awareness activities. Nobody gets penalized for not participating. If my employer based any of my compensation on any of these activities I would be gone yesterday.
I don't think anyone has suggested that employers are basing compensation on that stuff, have they? No employers are to have access to health data, also.
The health penalty (usually subsidy, but it's really the same thing) is not really from the employer as employer, but employer as administer of the health insurance policy. It's basically like how in a free market the insurance company would charge you more or less based on certain things (or -- and this is the reason the market is not free, in part -- refuse to insure you).
I do personally hate that our system intertwines insurance and employers like this.1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »My job told me they would buy me a Fitbit and pay me to use it, because that reduced our insurance rates. Nobody followed me home. Nobody asked me how many hours I slept.
There was nothing to object to!
fair enough . . . sort of. what set me off about that particular thing was the person who did say their brother/someone had had their sleep hours reported or monitored. that isn't nanny to me; it's big-brotherish.
but even without that . . . surely, if your company is making the payment directly, someone in your organization would have access to at least broad information about how you live if they wanted it. the payroll people, for instance. they'd be able to know you get x bucks and joe gets xy, and therefore if they know the broad categories they'd know more than you'd ever told them out loud about you.
if it turns out there's an absolute cut-off where even the cheques are cut by some third party, that would make me feel better, i guess. or it would make more sense to me . . . still, maybe i'm thinking in canadian terms, and in our currency 500 a year is really not much. it would feel like i was selling something you can never get back once it's out there, for literally less than the price of a basic gas-station coffee per day.
for context though, i work in information technology, and i kind of gravitate towards 'big data' things. so i've worked on quite a few contracts where there was no way around me and my teammates looking up specific details of specific records on specific, identifiable people in databases. i signed privacy and disclosure documents out the wazoo every time, and i take them seriously. but the fact is there are citizens of this city where if i ever got introduced to them at a cocktail party i'd know things about them that they would never, ever, ever elect to tell me themselves. that makes me uncomfortable even now and i don't think it's unreasonable to think it would make them very uncomfortable too.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »But see, encouraging employees to improve their health and providing resources is not the same thing as penalizing employees when they don't meet certain standards. The program my employer provides is third party meaning my employer doesn't have access to my personal data. We get rewarded for fitbit steps, nightly hours of sleep, clicking on healthy habit cards and other health-awareness activities. Nobody gets penalized for not participating. If my employer based any of my compensation on any of these activities I would be gone yesterday.
I don't think anyone has suggested that employers are basing compensation on that stuff, have they? No employers are to have access to health data, also.
The health penalty (usually subsidy, but it's really the same thing) is not really from the employer as employer, but employer as administer of the health insurance policy. It's basically like how in a free market the insurance company would charge you more or less based on certain things (or -- and this is the reason the market is not free, in part -- refuse to insure you).
I do personally hate that our system intertwines insurance and employers like this.
Oh I was responding in general to the thread title and a couple of early posts. I absolutely agree with your observations - I've been trying to think how to word this thought and you've made it so much clearer than what was running through my head.0 -
canadianlbs wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »My job told me they would buy me a Fitbit and pay me to use it, because that reduced our insurance rates. Nobody followed me home. Nobody asked me how many hours I slept.
There was nothing to object to!
fair enough . . . sort of. what set me off about that particular thing was the person who did say their brother/someone had had their sleep hours reported or monitored. that isn't nanny to me; it's big-brotherish.
but even without that . . . surely, if your company is making the payment directly, someone in your organization would have access to at least broad information about how you live if they wanted it. the payroll people, for instance. they'd be able to know you get x bucks and joe gets xy, and therefore if they know the broad categories they'd know more than you'd ever told them out loud about you.
if it turns out there's an absolute cut-off where even the cheques are cut by some third party, that would make me feel better, i guess. or it would make more sense to me . . . still, maybe i'm thinking in canadian terms, and in our currency 500 a year is really not much. it would feel like i was selling something you can never get back once it's out there, for literally less than the price of a basic gas-station coffee per day.
for context though, i work in information technology, and i kind of gravitate towards 'big data' things. so i've worked on quite a few contracts where there was no way around me and my teammates looking up specific details of specific records on specific, identifiable people in databases. i signed privacy and disclosure documents out the wazoo every time, and i take them seriously. but the fact is there are citizens of this city where if i ever got introduced to them at a cocktail party i'd know things about them that they would never, ever, ever elect to tell me themselves. that makes me uncomfortable even now and i don't think it's unreasonable to think it would make them very uncomfortable too.
Well. When it comes to healthcare, the USA is already drowning in admin fees and billing specialists, so why not add one more layer to handle the Fitbit benefits administration!
Seriously, though, for me the big brother ship sailed some years ago. If you use a work computer for anything other than work, or have a company profile installed on your phone, surely you know the organization has access to more information than you might walk up to a stranger and share. So many companies have access to, and profit off of our private information, that I'd almost welcome the opportunity to make some money off of it, too, or at least attempt to get just a bit healthier0 -
Seriously, though, for me the big brother ship sailed some years ago. If you use a work computer for anything other than work, or have a company profile installed on your phone
maybe my issue is simple as that. their computer is theirs. my body is mine, and so is my life once i'm not in their space. in fact a great deal of me is still mine even when i'm on their turf. so i don't mind them knowing what i do with their computer while i'm in their space and on their dime, but nothing about me is their property. i'll sell them my time, in a limited way, but nothing else seems to be right to me.
i can see the implications of medical/employment being entwined, i suppose. it's actually the same thing in canada, if you're an employee in that legal sense. we have a mandatory (but not premium-free) medical plan through the government, which covers primary medical costs. so that's a pretty solid cut-out, but it's only for stuff that actually takes place in a doctor's office, a lab or a hospital afaik. so it costs you nothing to show your problem to your doctor, but doing anything about it often does take you into the same third-party turf. i pay for what i need medically out of personal cash, but i realise that just being able to do that is a privilege.So many companies have access to, and profit off of our private information, that I'd almost welcome the opportunity to make some money off of it, too, or at least attempt to get just a bit healthier
i guess . . . ? it's individual call anyway and just a matter of opinions. nobody's right off the grid, but i think i'm less on it than most people are. i'm almost starting to feel like it's the pollution/greenhouse issue, only about where that was 40 years ago when people were merrily tossing garbage and spritzing their pits without realising where it was going to end up.2 -
canadianlbs wrote: »but even without that . . . surely, if your company is making the payment directly, someone in your organization would have access to at least broad information about how you live if they wanted it. the payroll people, for instance. they'd be able to know you get x bucks and joe gets xy, and therefore if they know the broad categories they'd know more than you'd ever told them out loud about you.
I don't understand your objection. Taking fitbit out of the picture, my company keeps records of what it pays each of us. All companies do. Management still knows whether I make more or less than Joe, and they expect more or less of me because of it.
If you mean that people in my company might learn which employees are more or less physically active ... well, I send out photos at work every Monday from my weekend hike or scenic bike ride. This week's was about a ride I did in the eastern mountains, we have a deciduous conifer that's turning right now, I urged everyone else to go see. Part of most of these wellness plans usually involves an employee competition, to see who can log the most activity, so it's not like this is a secret.
Also, whether people are active or sedentary isn't highly personal information like whether you have an STD or what your credit card number is.1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »canadianlbs wrote: »but even without that . . . surely, if your company is making the payment directly, someone in your organization would have access to at least broad information about how you live if they wanted it. the payroll people, for instance. they'd be able to know you get x bucks and joe gets xy, and therefore if they know the broad categories they'd know more than you'd ever told them out loud about you.
I don't understand your objection. Taking fitbit out of the picture, my company keeps records of what it pays each of us. All companies do. Management still knows whether I make more or less than Joe, and they expect more or less of me because of it.
If you mean that people in my company might learn which employees are more or less physically active ... well, I send out photos at work every Monday from my weekend hike or scenic bike ride. This week's was about a ride I did in the eastern mountains, we have a deciduous conifer that's turning right now, I urged everyone else to go see. Part of most of these wellness plans usually involves an employee competition, to see who can log the most activity, so it's not like this is a secret.
Also, whether people are active or sedentary isn't highly personal information like whether you have an STD or what your credit card number is.
Yes, my co-workers know I'm trying to be active too. But even then, it might be that the 3rd party company only provides overall data. X number of employees participated and receive $Y. My company doesn't have this type of program, but we have an Employee Assistance Program (EAP) administered by a 3rd party company with various benefits. The HR people here don't know that Midwesterner85 called about psychological counseling or legal advice, or whatever... they just know how many employees used the service. Overall usage data without personally identifiable information doesn't really tell HR anything about me, but just tells them whether the service is getting enough use to continue providing for employees.2 -
canadianlbs wrote: »but even without that . . . surely, if your company is making the payment directly, someone in your organization would have access to at least broad information about how you live if they wanted it. the payroll people, for instance. they'd be able to know you get x bucks and joe gets xy, and therefore if they know the broad categories they'd know more than you'd ever told them out loud about you.
No, this isn't how it works. They know if you get insurance or not, but not how much you or your family cost the insurance company. What the company knows is the pool costs went up or down. Also, one change in the new system is that for smaller companies they will be able to tag on to larger (or community-wide) pools.
The idea with employer-based or community-based insurance is that the company can't individually underwrite, as they otherwise would. I am not sure who would know if people participate in options that result in discounts, as we don't do that, but the rules I cited above are supposed to protect personal health and medical information from employers.2 -
canadianlbs wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »My job told me they would buy me a Fitbit and pay me to use it, because that reduced our insurance rates. Nobody followed me home. Nobody asked me how many hours I slept.
There was nothing to object to!
fair enough . . . sort of. what set me off about that particular thing was the person who did say their brother/someone had had their sleep hours reported or monitored. that isn't nanny to me; it's big-brotherish.
but even without that . . . surely, if your company is making the payment directly, someone in your organization would have access to at least broad information about how you live if they wanted it. the payroll people, for instance. they'd be able to know you get x bucks and joe gets xy, and therefore if they know the broad categories they'd know more than you'd ever told them out loud about you.
if it turns out there's an absolute cut-off where even the cheques are cut by some third party, that would make me feel better, i guess. or it would make more sense to me . . . still, maybe i'm thinking in canadian terms, and in our currency 500 a year is really not much. it would feel like i was selling something you can never get back once it's out there, for literally less than the price of a basic gas-station coffee per day.
for context though, i work in information technology, and i kind of gravitate towards 'big data' things. so i've worked on quite a few contracts where there was no way around me and my teammates looking up specific details of specific records on specific, identifiable people in databases. i signed privacy and disclosure documents out the wazoo every time, and i take them seriously. but the fact is there are citizens of this city where if i ever got introduced to them at a cocktail party i'd know things about them that they would never, ever, ever elect to tell me themselves. that makes me uncomfortable even now and i don't think it's unreasonable to think it would make them very uncomfortable too.
Well. When it comes to healthcare, the USA is already drowning in admin fees and billing specialists, so why not add one more layer to handle the Fitbit benefits administration!
Seriously, though, for me the big brother ship sailed some years ago. If you use a work computer for anything other than work, or have a company profile installed on your phone, surely you know the organization has access to more information than you might walk up to a stranger and share. So many companies have access to, and profit off of our private information, that I'd almost welcome the opportunity to make some money off of it, too, or at least attempt to get just a bit healthier
Once again, I totally agree with you. Anything from the Fitbit is probably something they already know...or don't care about. How active you are? That's easy to tell from observation. How many hours you sleep? They don't care. Some people need more sleep than others. I've recently gotten off of all my blood pressure meds -- the Fitbit just records my resting heart rate...that hasn't changed. And there is no way from the Fitbit info for them to tell whatever illnesses/conditions I have or don't have. I would appreciate my employer trying to lower health care rates (and paying me, at that) because if the rates go up...you can bet they will be charging me more, too. It's all good. As a side note, I understand people being cautious: once I was mentioning to a friend that I'd like to get my DNA profile so I really knew what my ancestry is...but I didn't want anyone to have my DNA on file. My friend pointed out to me that I work for the government, they routinely do investigations for my security clearance, and have taken my fingerprints many times...the cat is out of the bag, as he said. 3 -
I would love it if my employer would do something like this - they are a very large company and you would think it might be something a big company would be interested in. But since we have a hard time even getting the proper ppe at times I don't think it will happen.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »I am not sure who would know if people participate in options that result in discounts, as we don't do that, but the rules I cited above are supposed to protect personal health and medical information from employers.
i think i'm familiar with that . . . i didn't last through the 3-month probation when i recently tried to be an employee again, but i did spend a lot of time while i was there just trying to figure out how all that stuff worked.As a side note, I understand people being cautious: once I was mentioning to a friend that I'd like to get my DNA profile so I really knew what my ancestry is...but I didn't want anyone to have my DNA on file. My friend pointed out to me that I work for the government, they routinely do investigations for my security clearance, and have taken my fingerprints many times...the cat is out of the bag, as he said.
sure - sort of? i don't know who does dna profiling or where that new data would live. if you'd be getting it from the government then it's already on file and i see why it's kind of a non-subject. if it's some other entity, then personally i'd still have reservations. just because the government knows [fill in the blank] about me, doesn't seem like i'd just shrug and let everyone else know as well.NorthCascades wrote: »I don't understand your objection. Taking fitbit out of the picture, my company keeps records of what it pays each of us. All companies do. Management still knows whether I make more or less than Joe, and they expect more or less of me because of it.
sure. but those records are all about something that i guess i see as fair game. they paid me x last month because i worked x hours at the agreed-upon rate. so it's data relating to that transactional 'relationship' with them that i've already talked about. [there's actually a cut-out there in my working life too since i invoice a recruiter who does the billing/collecting and pays me, but never mind].
this is different info though. it's not about my skills or their market value or that original contract with them. it doesn't relate to anything about me which i originally said i would trade for dollars with them. idk if that helps any to show the distinction - although it might make no difference to how you see it yourself. i guess my own stance is as simple as: i don't think i would trade that other info for dollars, myself.Also, whether people are active or sedentary isn't highly personal information like whether you have an STD or what your credit card number is.
true, i guess - at the moment. is that likely to change? if it isn't personal now, why isn't it? serious-interest question, not a challenge. what does make one thing 'personal' enough to you that you wouldn't trade it for the price of a cheap cup of coffee per day over the course of a year? what if they did say something like 'we'll give you a discount if you keep us informed who your sexual partners are every month and what you do with them, because stds are a thing'? like, not just your overall relationship status, but the actual per-act granularity level.
i guess i find it all interesting because i'm from pre-internet days. so it has purely sociological interest to me. i do think this represents shift. i happen to be on the downside of thinking it's perfectly fine, but it's not like i'm unaware of that fact.1 -
Well, there's a huge difference between knowing if you walk a lot and knowing every time you have sex, with whom, and what specifically you did.
People have been blackmailed over one of those things but not the other.1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Well, there's a huge difference between knowing if you walk a lot and knowing every time you have sex, with whom, and what specifically you did.
People have been blackmailed over one of those things but not the other.
Right - plus, Fitbit and other trackers make it easy to measure one thing. But to ask me to obtain information about everyone I have sex with?! And then you have to define "sex" to understand what that means. And then there is the other factor, which is how comfortable people will be with even providing that information. Depending on how you define "sex," sometimes it is actually safer NOT to exchange full names.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Well, there's a huge difference between knowing if you walk a lot and knowing every time you have sex, with whom, and what specifically you did.
People have been blackmailed over one of those things but not the other.
well, kind of exactly. i'm wondering what lies behind the difference. how come one is blackmail-worthy and the other isn't. it's about collective social values, isn't it? i don't think i'm on the winning edge of this shift, but i do think that this represents a concrete attitude shift. people are comfortable these days with a whole different pattern of data distribution, compared with even ten years ago.
last night it occurred to me i don't even know if it's possible to have a fitbit and keep whatever it generates strictly local. i don't own one, but i'm betting that their default settings take it for granted you won't.
0 -
Fact of the matter is if you leave a digital footprint, someone, if they really want to can get a *kitten* ton of data on you.1
-
canadianlbs wrote: »last night it occurred to me i don't even know if it's possible to have a fitbit and keep whatever it generates strictly local. i don't own one, but i'm betting that their default settings take it for granted you won't.
It is, but the Fitbit will be less valuable as a tool this way.
A Fitbit doesn't have internet access, but it has the capability to talk to your phone, and to reach the internet through your phone. You could buy a Fitbit, never pair it with your phone, and the data it collects on you will never leave the device. That means you'll have to use its screen to check your numbers, and if any kind of trending is important to you, you'll have to use a paper and pencil or an Excel sheet and do it yourself.
Fitbits are fairly limited in what they'll collect. I'm a cyclist, so things like power are more important to me than how much I walked. I have a Garmin watch instead of a Fitbit. My watch also keeps tabs on how much I walk, though, because (as you can see) that data is becoming important to people, and it's very cheap to collect. Anyway, my Garmin has similar automatic features where it will use my phone or a wifi network to send my exercise data to the cloud on my behalf, if I let it. It also makes the data available over USB so I can analyze it locally if I choose to.
I had a Mio Fuse for a while which was an HRM and an activity tracker. It had no way to send its activity tracking data anywhere. It stayed local to the unit because there was no infrastructure for it to go anywhere else; this is a huge reason it was not successful as an activity tracker.
Here's an example of the type of data my Garmin collects.
https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/1416278990
https://www.relive.cc/view/7542553040 -
snowflake930 wrote: »My employer purchased fitbits for all of the office employees about a year and a half ago. At the time, I already had had a fitbit for 2 years. It was not tied to any discounts on insurance premiums, but we did have fun incentive competitions with in the office. That has pretty much gone away now, and most of my co-workers no longer use their fitbits. We do have an annual health screening coming up in November. If we pass 5 bio markers, we do receive discounted health insurance premiums. When we began the annual health screening in Oct 2011, I was morbidly obese. Failed all but one of my biomarkers (cholesterol, thankfully good genes). March 2012 found MFP. Feb 2013 got a fitbit. For the past 2 health screenings. Passed all 5 bio markers. Still have my fitbit. Still use it everyday. It is the greatest motivator I have to get me moving more. Thanks to MFP & Fitbit, I am approaching my 3rd anniversary of maintenance. Love my Charge HR.
I don't think step tracking devices should be tied to health insurance premiums. Health care costs are out of control, but this will not fix it. Obama Care did not fix it. Corporate greed. Big business as usual.
That sounds like a nightmare. Everyone and their mom would be tying their fitbit to their dogs and just letting them loose for the day, lol.
1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »
It is, but the Fitbit will be less valuable as a tool this way.
A Fitbit doesn't have internet access, but it has the capability to talk to your phone, and to reach the internet through your phone.
ah, okay. that's kind of what i figured. sounds like there's only one meaningful front-end and it's the one that they host.
so my perspective - just as a realist who has no expectation of such a thing happening - is that in my world, an ethical, genuinely non-invested thing for them to do would be to ask you where you want the data to be stored/processed/presented to you. on the purely technical level, it doesn't have to go out there to their giant data hive, it doesn't have to be viewed through the web. i thought there might be just a slim chance you could also set up some kind of sync-to-your-local-pc thing, and they'd provide some locally-installable gui for looking at it. but seems like they're not interested in providing utility in that mode, if i'm understanding it right. it isn't a monster surprise.
i'm unimpressed with most companies that give you something and say 'this is useful - but only if you use it our way' and then that way forces you into the para-public domain. at the very least i kind of stop and ask myself if the 'usefulness' really makes that exposure and that kind of monopoly worthwhile to me. and most of the time it doesn't, and this is a great example of it. a fitbit sounds to me like it's not conceptually much different from an electronic bracelet - same format, just different inputs and usage/presentation parameters. and you basically have to 'wear' it in public.
i can see that social notions of privacy have been turning themselves inside out for the last decade or so, and this definitely fits in with that. it's pretty strange - western culture has been so much about individuality and privacy and the idea of having a wall that your personal life happens behind, and all that. but i bet in another five years someone like me will be listed in the dsm as a 'technical agoraphobe'.0 -
@canadianlbs
Please keep in mind that when Fitbit and other companies set up a server farm and a front end with reports and whatnot, that takes a lot of work. Designers and programmers and testers and technical writers can spend months or years building a system like the ones we're talking about.
Now, these things require web servers, which most people don't have at home. When you program a web application you tie it to a specific web server. Also, I'll go out on a limb and bet Fitbit's software requires a database server on the backend, which, again, most people don't have at home.
So you can't just copy the software from Fitbit.com and run it at home if you don't want to run your data through their software.
Fitbit could spend millions of dollars building a second UI for people who don't want to do things the same way as everybody else. And then who knows how much more supporting it? I wouldn't if I were in their shoes, it's just not useful or worth the effort.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Fitbit could spend millions of dollars building a second UI for people who don't want to do things the same way as everybody else. And then who knows how much more supporting it? I wouldn't if I were in their shoes, it's just not useful or worth the effort.
sure, i already said i know it's not going to happen. i'm one of those software people myself and i don't think you'll ever convince me that's because it's not doable. it's because there's no material incentive for them to do it, that's all. you're right that people don't like to work on that stuff. it feels like being stuck in the broom closet while the cool kids get to do all the cool stuff. but in niches where the market requires it, it's done and it's recognized as a requirement of doing business in that particular niche. so it comes down to what people accept and what people demand. this isn't an area where it's in demand, and i think i've made it clear all along that i'm well aware of the fact.
it just occurred to me while i was in the shower that i've lived long enough to see knitting get trendy again
oh yeah, and marriage. so probably if i just wait till about 70, privacy and autonomy will come back into fashion as well.
0 -
Fitbit doesn't work with older devices. Is your employer buying you a new cell phone too?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions