Fitness Tracking Technologies: Data Privacy Doesn’t Matter? The (Un)Concerns of Users, Former Users, and Non-Users

Abstract

To be concerned about data privacy in the fitness tracking world is apparently not the question of age or fitness level. It also does not necessarily influence the actual use of fitness tracking technologies. In this empirical study, 590 participants from the EU and USA, who are current users, former users or non-users of fitness tracking applications, were surveyed (online) on their sensitivity perception of several data pieces collected with fitness trackers as well as their data privacy concerns. Furthermore, subgroups of different fitness tracking users were detected based on their different privacy unconcerns.

My data, my choice?! The difference between fitness and stress data monitoring on employees’ perception of privacy

“…Analogue to the aforementioned monitoring cases, existing research provides a comparison between data types relevant to this study, which differ in perceived sensitivity [32,58]. Based on the findings by Fietkiewicz and Ilhan [32], who discovered the highest sensitivity towards GPS data, followed by blood pressure and pulse, we synthesize our second proposition P2: The data type impacts perceived PRC of employees leading to highest perceived PRC towards GPS data and lowest perceived PRC towards steps and PA data.…”

“…Fitness monitoring tracks employees' physical activity (PA), so they can make better choices about their health, positively influencing identity and wellbeing [2]. Amongst others, employers require the recording of GPS data, steps and PA, pulse, and blood pressure serving the monitoring case of fitness [32]. For example, steps and PA can be accurately measured with sensors integrated in wearables, such as accelerometers and gyroscopes, without using complex physiological systems [33].…”

“…Despite both being subclasses of health monitoring, recording stress and fitness data differ in the implementation, the associated data types, and thereby employees' acceptance [8,32]. Recent articles already discover the impact of the monitoring case on the perceived PRC, for example a higher sensitivity towards stress and detailed health information [54,55] or a relatively lower sensitivity towards fitness tracking [56] in a private context.…”

Opportunities and challenges of self‐tracking technologies: Understanding information, technology, and users through the lens of information science

“…Privacy officers from different EU member states believed that with the new General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which came into force in 2018, these issues will be adequately resolved (Fietkiewicz & Henkel, 2018). It appears, however, that users are not always aware of (new) features enabling them to manage their data within an application and/or are not inclined to go the extra mile, when it comes to responsible health information management (Fietkiewicz & Ilhan, 2020). Resting upon her recent research, Fietkiewicz will discuss why establishing adequate legislation is not enough to achieve a sustainable data privacy environment within the selftracking domain.…”

Data privacy-related behavior and concerns of activity tracking technology users from Germany and the USA

“…time of retention and location of storage apart from the device itself). Moreover, users of activity and fitness wearables perceive some of the personal, health and fitness data pieces as sensitive (Fietkiewicz and Ilhan, 2020a;. As convenient and easy the tracking and collection of health and fitness data work for users, possible consequences (i.e.…”