Would you buy the new Microsoft Band?

[Tangled Metal]

My partner is dead against these trackers and signing on to a lot of other sites because of this. She was on facebook but deactivated it because of privacy issues and concerns.

I know all about the vacuuming up of data to sell on. It is how money is made one way or another. Selling data or selling the benefits that data can give. If you think it is not happening to you know in a very sophisticated way you are mistaken. I have become aware that with the General Election looming the main parties have access to data which allows not just determination of likely political leanings of the house but individuals in the house. Both my partner and I are not too far away politically but we are leaning to different parties. This has not been communicated to anyone apart from each other. I have not even admitted my political leanings and always try to keep them hidden. My partner has a good idea because she knows me well. My partner does not answer polls or leaves details on any site or questioner who knocks on the door. She has no lyalty cards but does use mine. She is not on any apps and is very concerned about her data security. However we are both being heavily targeted by the party we have a slight leaning towards. I can see no way how they can get information that can separate us but they have and done it correctly. As a result I believe my partner is going to vote with that party who is pestering her. I am a stubborn person and dislike this targeting. I dislike junk mail through the door but IMHO I think it is better for everyone to get leaflets sent to them by all standing in their consituencies than only getting the one that through bought data is most likely to swing your way. I get leaflets from UKIP (traditional through the door kind) and personally addressed envelopes containing leaflets from this other party. My partner is the same with the rival party. Personal letters based on data sources I have no access too or control over means I will be changing my vote purely because of this direct marketing approach based on harvested data.

I will however continue using apps and loyalty cards and all the other sources of this data. sucker for it really.

[RogerThat]

I think the unspoken contract with these companies is : we'll provide you with a service for free (email, picture hosting, social media, health monitoring) but in return we get to use (and sell) the data we harvest for profit, because basically that's the only way we can make money providing a free service. I'm aware moves are afoot to draw up a similar contract with the nhs, in return for free healthcare it'll be mandatory to sign up to trackers, health monitoring and likely health and well-being 'targets' in order to continue using the service free at the point of need. Health insurance and likely increased NI contributions will be the option for those who choose not to.

Health care is about to go hell for leather into the 21st century. The UK will simply have to keep up. The upside if this will be very early interventions and fast referral for treatment which may save your life. If the data is rigidly controlled within the nhs and not out sourced or sold to external agencies then I can't see a tangible problem with it.

By the way your 'fishing trip' party is probably using basic wealth and home ownership/value of house statistics to target your household. Nothing sinister, all available from the Land Register for a nominal fee.

[FarOeuf]

Health care is about to go hell for leather into the 21st century. The UK will simply have to keep up. The upside if this will be very early interventions and fast referral for treatment which may save your life. If the data is rigidly controlled within the nhs and not out sourced or sold to external agencies then I can't see a tangible problem with it.

But we know that it is human/corporate nature to exploit, as much as possible, for profit. There are very few instances where corporate initiatives have stopped at simply 'providing better care'. Drug companies role in the NHS is probably the biggest tragic scandal of our time, targetting profits with drugs regardless of their effectiveness.

We also know that no public (or corporate) service is rigidly controlled, time and time again this is proven the case. They are very far from controlled, let along rigidly controlled. But I guess the salient point is that it's not public services selling the data (though they already do that), it's the third parties gathering it and selling to the public services. Which means data that we own (Strava data, HRM data, etc) could actually be given by us (for free) directly to the NHS, or we could collect it into our own medical record and carry it with us. Now that might be useful.

[Tangled Metal]

By the way your 'fishing trip' party is probably using basic wealth and home ownership/value of house statistics to target your household. Nothing sinister, all available from the Land Register for a nominal fee.

I expect that is right about the sources but there must be something else going on too because how can you distinguish between two different voters so precisely just based on land registry details. Now there could be some other sources but since we are both in the similar level socio-economically there is little to specifically distinguish us purely on publicly available data I think. Perhaps gender is the difference.

[Tangled Metal]

The NHS had a recent information sharing system postponement due to lack of information being put to the public resulting in complaints that they were creating an opt out system on personal medical record sharing without putting this sufficiently into the mainstream attention. They postponed it which IMHO was a good thing.

AFAIK this system was basically that the bare information, suitably anonymized, gets shared with researchers and organizations who pass the NHS ethics requirements and process. BTW I know a little about this and it is not a walk over to get your research past the NHS ethics commitees so there are already checks and balances over who gets access to NHS for research purposes. On top of that no names will get passed on unless it is specifically passed by the ethics panel and I think the people invited to be involved. BTW that is already the case, you have to give permission for your details (name, age, etc.) to be used by researchers.

The opt out issue IMHO should have been made widely known. Indeed GPs should be made to put it to their patients face to face and help opt out if necesary.

I do not think there will be wholesale changes to data protection in the NHS. Not without legislation because at the moment it is a legal prescription that records are private unless permission is granted. There are already plenty of data use going on that has passed ethics approval so perhaps it has always been going on in some degree.

[RogerThat]

Excellent review of the Microsoft product here, not pretty, but ten sensors and apparently very accurate with GPS enabled tracking :

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2 ... ss-tracker

[Tangled Metal]

With these activity trackers and HRMs it is worth checking out the dcrainmaker.com site. Unfortunately he has not reviewed the Microsoft Band yet but there are some rivals out there and he has done in depth reviews on them. He makes a big deal about sending the units back and buying his own kit. I think he makes his expenses through links to amazon and a US online retailer of sporting goods to buy the parts checked out. The reviews are truly works of art and science. Fair but very much in depth. Seems he actually does a lot of running, swimming and cycling to get these reviews out. Often wearing a few different devices at the same time. I believe he uses a datalogger rather than just a smart phone so he can get the data out and analysed.

Here is a link to some tested items that you might be interested in.

http://www.dcrainmaker.com/product-comparison-calculator?comparison=yes&ids=39715,38428,42220,36503,38430,40558

[Tangled Metal]

Been reading up on the Microsoft Band and it is an interesting device but then so was the paper spec of Basis Peak. That was sold as the one device to perform as a day to day activity/sleep tracker but also as a sports watch/HRM when active. It turned out to be less than accurate when jogging or doing sport. That relegated it to an overpriced activity tracker whose real usefulness/functionality could be covered by a £40 tracker. It did have the paper specs with more sensors than anything else out there or close to being released.

I think part of the problem is the optical HRM. That needs a very good seal around it between the watch and the skin. Any extraneous light can affect it badly. The other thing is the way it copes with motion. Optical HRM works most accurately when the user is completely static, hence it's universal use in medical establishments (hospitals, GP surgeries with the equipment budget, etc.). Add in motion and you add in a lot of noise to detract from its accuracy. The way around this is couple it to a 3 axis accelerometer (BTW AFAIK the MS Band's gyroscope and accelerometer is one and the same so scrub one of the 10 sensors off). With clever algorithms (and this is where the real tech is) you can use the motion data to take out the optically recorded data that is not real HR data, Do this right and accuracy is as good or better than the old ECG quality chest strap HRM. An example is the Withins Pulse O2 which has been proven to be more accurate than chest straps but that is not a motion based HRM. Do this wrong and you can get completely inaccurate HR data as much as a few beats out. Not a big deal but with all the data interpretation the accompanying apps and programs bring these beats can end up with wrong calorie data, wrong data on recovery and many other errors that magnify the couple of beats inacccuracy or the HR drop offs or spikes.

If you can give a review of the MS band HR I would be interested. Perhaps try taking a good HRM chest strap and compare the HR trace. Also compare with a GPS running watch or GPS cycle computer for the MS band's GPS accuracy which obviously impacts the speed and distance. This is the sort of testing DCRainmaker does and why I will really only buy based on his reviews or something equivalent. A nice Guardian lifestyle article just does not go into it deep enough for me. It is a piece of fluff with no merit since it is pure opinion not testing in the truest sense.

[Psamathe]

The NHS had a recent information sharing system postponement due to lack of information being put to the public resulting in complaints that they were creating an opt out system on personal medical record sharing without putting this sufficiently into the mainstream attention. They postponed it which IMHO was a good thing.

AFAIK this system was basically that the bare information, suitably anonymized, gets shared with researchers and organizations who pass the NHS ethics requirements and process.

The previous system (that was "postponed") had far from "suitable anonymization".

It was to use a two stage "anonymization". Uploads included NHS numbers, date of birth, postcode, ethnicity and gender. Once you have my postcode any one of the other included data elements will uniquely identify me. Then, when they e.g. sold the data on to e.g. an insurance company (which was to be allowed), it is goes through pseudonymisation. This is not true anonymization. In many cases a jigsaw attack makes it possible to match the care.data records to a specified individual. It becomes a matter of how much you trust the commercial organisations (whose aims are to make a profit for their shareholders). Experts describe the pseudo-anonymization as making individuals "less identifiable".

And use of the data (i.e. the types of organisations that can get hold of the data) was incredibly broad.

Were the data to be restricted to within the NHS and UK not for profit research organisations then I would be happy for them to have my data. That care.data was intended to effectively be a sales operation for my data to companies whose only justification is increased profitability means I will not be allowing my data into the scheme.

However, care.data is not dead and is starting-up again though nobody seems to know much about it ... and one wonders why. My own GP practice is unsure how to opt me out of the scheme in it's new guise. They can see that I am opted-out of various data sharing schemes but can't tell if this includes the care.data.

Ian

Ian

[RogerThat]

Will certainly do side by side comparisons when it arrives next week.

Anonymity will have to be sacrificed somewhat if the general health of Britain is to improve. Like I said previously, moves are afoot to implement a social contract between patient and the nhs. Much like the unemployed now have a 'contract' in return for benefits. I expect data sharing will be a fundamental principle of this contract, in return for free care. Most countries can only afford to provide Universal health care by a combination of high taxes AND health insurance. It's only a matter of time before one or other (perhaps both) become inevitable in the UK.

The days of an 'all you can eat' nhs, free at the point of need without any personal responsibility for one's own condition or care are well and truly coming to a close.

I think the idea that whatever we do online, or upload is not monitored or used commercially or exploited somehow is 'optimistic' to say the least. The only way to avoid data capture and sharing now is to burn every electronic device you have, erase everything online and go and live in a cave in the Highlands!! Hundreds of thousands of US citizens data share everyday, especially their health and vital functions, for free. It'll soon become a norm, like posting 5000 pictures of your friends and family, the places you frequent the practical elements of your life that would allow anyone who wanted to, to track your every movement.

Snowden shone a light on all this. And probably a dim light, regarding the pervasiveness and scope of mass surveillance and data capture.

[Psamathe]

I think the idea that whatever we do online, or upload is not monitored or used commercially or exploited somehow is 'optimistic' to say the least. The only way to avoid data capture and sharing now is to burn every electronic device you have, erase everything online and go and live in a cave in the Highlands!!

There are easy way to stop your online activity from being monitored. Just that many people don't bother. And certainly there are many ways to avoid such monitoring without burning every electronic device, etc.

I don't expect people to open and real my post whilst it on en-route to me. So why should I accept the government doing the same on other forms of communications. No justification for doing it on electronic communications that does not apply to printed post.

Ian

[Psamathe]

Anonymity will have to be sacrificed somewhat if the general health of Britain is to improve.

Why ? It's a very bold statement with no reasons given. I can see many ways for the general health of people of Britain to improve without having to impact on our privacy and anonymity. e.g. legislation on processed foods (additives, salts, all those bad things), helping people be more active, efforts to reduce smoking and excessive drinking, etc., etc. and they don't mean sacrificing anonymity.

Ian

[RogerThat]

IBM to share Data with Apple in Watson's Health Cloud service:

'Each person will generate over 13 Terabytes of information from these devices"

http://m.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/news/2403909/ap ... ud-service


Can you see what it is yet?

[RogerThat]

Anonymity will have to be sacrificed somewhat if the general health of Britain is to improve.

Why ? It's a very bold statement with no reasons given. I can see many ways for the general health of people of Britain to improve without having to impact on our privacy and anonymity. e.g. legislation on processed foods (additives, salts, all those bad things), helping people be more active, efforts to reduce smoking and excessive drinking, etc., etc. and they don't mean sacrificing anonymity.

Ian

Privacy and anonymity are already anachronistic. Snowden in his revelations elegantly proved it. You probably have 150 to 200x more personal data stored (and shared) about you and your personal circumstances than your parents generation. The CTC probably has more stored information about you than the state held on your parents generation. People are much more willing to share data than ever before (see above Apple IBM Watson Health cloud), you need only look at how Facebook, Reddit and Google + are evolving to see that. Your idea that anonymity is still something to be cherished is interesting, but again anachronistic. Large shared data is already saving lives and will, in time help to eradicate many of the diseases and cancers which kill people prematurely now.

The future of shared data Healthcare:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HkEOJnn_zlg

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v6b7XgaOIxk

[Psamathe]

Anonymity will have to be sacrificed somewhat if the general health of Britain is to improve.

Why ? It's a very bold statement with no reasons given. I can see many ways for the general health of people of Britain to improve without having to impact on our privacy and anonymity. e.g. legislation on processed foods (additives, salts, all those bad things), helping people be more active, efforts to reduce smoking and excessive drinking, etc., etc. and they don't mean sacrificing anonymity.

Ian

Privacy and anonymity are already anachronistic. Snowden in his revelations elegantly proved it. You probably have 150 to 200x more personal data stored (and shared) about you and your personal circumstances than your parents generation. The CTC probably has more stored information about you than the state held on your parents generation. People are much more willing to share data than ever before (see above Apple IBM Watson Health cloud), you need only look at how Facebook, Reddit and Google + are evolving to see that. Your idea that anonymity is still something to be cherished is interesting, but again anachronistic. Large shared data is already saving lives and will, in time help to eradicate many of the diseases and cancers which kill people prematurely now.

The future of shared data Healthcare:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HkEOJnn_zlg

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v6b7XgaOIxk

But you still have not said why

Anonymity will have to be sacrificed somewhat if the general health of Britain is to improve.

And Facebook, Reddit, Google+, Apple/IBM Watson Health Cloud, etc. are not sharing any of my data. You seem to be assuming that because something has happened to some people sometimes it must happen to everybody and is unavoidable.

Ian