Blog Post 10: Data, data, data. (Gabriel Choo)
Kate Crawfordâs article discusses the implications of wearable devices today by juxtaposing them with shared public weight scales of the past, particularly to explore how the evolution of such devices allows for the harvesting of information for entities to profit off. It also questions the loss of control of the individual users over the information shared, through the glorified advertisements of becoming oneâs best self â inspiring collective usage for more data that feeds data-driven capitalist interests.
The first thing that comes to mind upon reading this article was the sudden realisation of the ubiquity of fitness-tracking devices. It seemed like there was an explosion of such devices in my household â from the government, from insurance companies, etc. Reading this article has revealed to me that these devices are not as innocuous as they seem.
The government supposedly is encouraging a healthier, fitter population, rolling the fitness trackers out with the National Steps Challenge where clocking thousands of steps a day can help you earn vouchers. Social engineering is not uncommon, and at times even necessary at the national level â but it becomes a potential intrusion of privacy when the collective information is tracked by the government. The government may say they are to improve future national health programmes, but we should not forget the controversy over the conviction of a murderer through the use of TraceTogether when the government first vowed that data from it would not be used for any other purposes other than COVID containment.
The government also collaborated with FitBit to give out free fitness trackers that, unlike the no-brand ones provided by the government, had all the frills. However, there was a caveat â you are only eligible if you sign up for FitBit Premium which brings âpersonal insights to help you make smarter choices about your healthâ. FitBit needs the data, as Crawford mentioned, or data-points with which their algorithms are able to subtly guide individual choices. Free FitBit trackers do not sound as appealing when you will be handing over your personal health information over with no clue over where the information goes, how it will be used, and whether it will ever go away.
Finally, insurance companies are giving out such devices too, not because they are aligned with the governmentâs aim for a healthier population, but because it affects risk, premiums, and pay-offs. In short, the bottom line is their concern. This discrimination against people who are perceived to lead âless healthyâ lifestyles might not always be accurate â these devices are not fool-proof, and they have their fair share of glitches and ambiguity surrounding the accuracy of its information.
In short, I do agree with Crawfordâs main point about our increasing vulnerability to a growing trend of data-driven interests, whether by the government or private organisations. Without reliability, transparency, and knowledge of the value of our data, maybe we should not be too eager to jump on the next wearable bandwagon.














