[ThomPete]

Monitoring constantly in the background is exactly what people want, in fact its what society want and your doctor want, it's what humanity want.

The number of applications for this kind of data is infinite.

The concept of data donors will be a reality very soon.

[Balgair]

I agree entirely! I'd love to be able to track my bloodsugar all the time if I were a diabetic. Or my cortisol, so i know what triggers my stress better.

However, keeping this data private is terribly important. If it were made known that Jobs had cancer, or might have been looking to see if he did, then you can predict what the stock market would do. The privacy issue here cannot be understated

[ThomPete]

Data doesn't need to be private just anonymized :)

[r00fus]

De-anonymization is a real concern. (warning: pdf link) http://www.cs.pomona.edu/classes/cs190-2012/netflix_deanon.p...

[ThomPete]

Oh I don't doubt that. Just saying that the data is much more valuable if it's in use and anonymization is one way to do that.

[fidotron]

It certainly isn't what your doctor wants.

The stock objection to constant mass monitoring is that many people are living with the symptoms of serious diseases without the actual disease. Doctors are concerned there will be so many false leads it would lead to a sort of cried wolf situation, where when someone finally is actually ill they won't believe it.

That concern clearly isn't baseless, but it's also short term thinking.

[scott_karana]

Wouldn't a constant stream of data allow for more realistic baseline measurements to be set?

[ThomPete]

Which is why they should be proponents of this since it will allow them to confirm their objection :)