While the collection and use of data collected by wearable technology is free speech protected by the First Amendment (see Freedom of Speech), the accumulation of one’s personal data can appear invasive. However, a study on data-driven marketing business found that the industry created over 675,000 jobs and contributed $156,000,000,000 toward the U.S. economy [1]. Wearables can also improve their utility by making use of user-collected data, like health and fitness devices creating a better profile of their user and providing better ads [2]. Over-regulation for the sake of user privacy could severely limit the industry of the market- including higher costs for consumers, small services, and start-ups, a decrease in the functionality of such services, and, according Adam Thierer of the Richmond Journal of Law and Technology, a “a decrease in America’s global competitive advantage in the digital economy” [3].
So the question arises: how does one strike a balance between the privacy of users and the ability of wearable producers to collect data? Thierer suggests rigorous self-regulation on the part of companies rather than government restriction. He cites FTC Commissioner Maureen Ohlhausen, who argues that self-regulation can be easily adapted to new developments in the advancement of technology without going through the legislation process, efficiently addresses minor consumer concerns so that the government is saved for more important cases, and makes it so that companies have to pay for regulation rather than the government [4]. Thierer states that proper use guidelines, transparency, the ability for users to control what aspects of their data are collected, and ongoing security updates will be necessary in wearable tech and the Internet of Things into the future if businesses want their new products to be profitable, as privacy is highly valued by consumers [3]. As wearables advance into the future, self-regulation will allow this technology to expand into different fields.
In cases where the client is a company that uses wearable technology as a means of surveillance, it will be that company- rather than the innovators and manufacturers behind the technology they use- that is responsible for possible privacy concerns. Even if a well-self-regulated company allows its clients to adjust what features they monitor with absolute transparency, businesses that use that company's products can take that control away from individual employees. Employers like the Cleveland Clinic use Garmin Health and Motion Connected wearables to monitor and maintain the fitness of their own employees [5], and subsequently increase their insurance premiums if their lifestyle habits were found to be possibly health-endangering [6]. Use of this kind of technology could increase as wearables continue to grow more efficient and accessible.
1. Business Information Industry Association, "The Value of Data: Consequences for Insight, Innovation and Efficiency in the U.S. Economy" (https://newsletter.biia.com/the-value-of-data-consequences-for-insight-innovation-and-efficiency-in-the-u-s-economy-2 ), 10/2/19
2. Thorin Klosowski, "Lots of Health Apps Are Selling Your Data: Here’s Why" (https://lifehacker.com/lots-of-health-apps-are-selling-your-data-heres-why-1574001899), 10/2/19
3. Adam Thierer, "The Internet of Things and Wearable Technology: Addressing Privacy and Security Concerns without Derailing Innovation" (Richmond Journal of Law and Technology, 2015), 1-119
4. Maureen Ohlhausen, "Success in Self-Regulation: Strategies to Bring to the Mobile and Global Era" (BBB Self-Regulation Conference, 6/24/14), 1-11
5. Garmin Ltd. "Cleveland Clinic Healthy Choice Program with Motion Connected" (https://www.garmin.com/en-US/blog/health/cleveland-clinic-healthy-choice-program-with-motion-connected/), 10/2/19
6. Suzanne McGee, "How employers tracking your health can cross the line and become Big Brother" (https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/us-money-blog/2015/may/01/employers-tracking-health-fitbit-apple-watch-big-brother ), 10/2/19