Privacy Attitudes and Data Valuation Among Fitness Tracker Users

  • Jessica VitakEmail author
  • Yuting Liao
  • Priya Kumar
  • Michael Zimmer
  • Katherine Kritikos
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10766)


Fitness trackers are an increasingly popular tool for tracking one’s health and physical activity. While research has evaluated the potential benefits of these devices for health and well-being, few studies have empirically evaluated users’ behaviors when sharing personal fitness information (PFI) and the privacy concerns that stem from the collection, aggregation, and sharing of PFI. In this study, we present findings from a survey of Fitbit and Jawbone users (N = 361) to understand how concerns about privacy in general and user-generated data in particular affect users’ mental models of PFI privacy, tracking, and sharing. Findings highlight the complex relationship between users’ demographics, sharing behaviors, privacy concerns, and internet skills with how valuable and sensitive they rate their PFI. We conclude with a discussion of opportunities to increase user awareness of privacy and PFI.


Fitness tracking Privacy Fitbit Jawbone Quantified self Smartphones 


  1. 1.
    Acquisti, A., Gross, R.: Imagined communities: awareness, information sharing, and privacy on the Facebook. In: Danezis, G., Golle, P. (eds.) PET 2006. LNCS, vol. 4258, pp. 36–58. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ball, K., Di Domenico, M.L., Nunan, D.: Big data surveillance and the body-subject. Body Soc. 22(2), 58–81 (2016). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barnes, S.D.: A privacy paradox: social networking in the United States. First Monday 11(9) (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boyd, D., Crawford, K.: Critical questions for big data: provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon. Inf. Commun. Soc. 15(5), 662–679 (2012). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boyd, D., Hargittai, E.: Facebook privacy settings: who cares? First Monday 15(8) (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Christovich, M.: Why should we care what Fitbit shares: a proposed statutory solution to protect sensitive personal fitness information. Hastings Commun./Entertain. Law J. 38, 91–116 (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clawson, J., et al.: No longer wearing: investigating the abandonment of personal health-tracking technologies on Craigslist. In: Proceedings of UbiComp 2015, pp. 647–658. ACM, New York (2015).
  8. 8.
    Crawford, K., Lingel, J., Karppi, T.: Our metrics, ourselves: a hundred years of self-tracking from the weight scale to the wrist wearable device. Euro. J. Cult. Stud. 18(4–5), 479–496 (2015). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    De Mooy, M., Yuen, S.: Toward privacy aware research and development in wearable health. Center for Democracy and Technology, Washington (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Earp, J.B., Anton, A.I., Aiman-Smith, L., Stufflebeam, W.H.: Examining internet privacy policies within the context of user privacy values. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 52(2), 227–237 (2005). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    European Union: Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data. Off. J. Eur. Union 119, 1–88 (2016)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fitbit: Fitbit Privacy Policy (2016).
  13. 13.
    Fox, S., Duggan, M.: Tracking for Health. Pew Research Center, Washington (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fritz, T., Huang, E.M., Murphy, G.C., Zimmermann, T.: Persuasive technology in the real world: a study of long-term use of activity sensing devices for fitness. In: Proceedings of CHI 2014, pp. 487–496. ACM, New York (2014).
  15. 15.
    Gorm, N., Shklovski, I.: Sharing steps in the workplace: changing privacy concerns over time. In: Proceedings of CHI 2016, pp. 4315–4319. ACM, New York (2016).
  16. 16.
    Gorm, N., Shklovski, I.: Steps, choices and moral accounting: observations from a step-counting campaign in the workplace. In: Proceedings of CSCW 2016, pp. 148–159. ACM, New York (2016).
  17. 17.
    Hargittai, E., Hsieh, Y.P.: Succinct survey measures of web-use skills. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 30(1), 95–107 (2012). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hargittai, E., Marwick, A.: “What can I really do?” Explaining the privacy paradox with online apathy. Int. J. Commun. 10, 3737–3757 (2016)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ho, J.-J., Novick, S., Yeung, C.: A snapshot of data sharing by select health and fitness apps. Federal Trade Commission, Washington (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jawbone: Jawbone UP Privacy Policy (2014).
  21. 21.
    Klasnja, P., Consolvo, S., Choudhury, T., Beckwith, R., Hightower, J.: Exploring privacy concerns about personal sensing. In: Tokuda, H., Beigl, M., Friday, A., Brush, A.J.B., Tobe, Y. (eds.) Pervasive 2009. LNCS, vol. 5538, pp. 176–183. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kumar, P.: Privacy policies and their lack of clear disclosure regarding the life cycle of user information. In: FS-16–04, pp. 249–256. AAAI, Palo Alto (2016)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lupton, D.: The Quantified Self: A Sociology of Self-Tracking. Polity, Cambridge (2016)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    McDonald, A.M., Cranor, L.F.: The cost of reading privacy policies. ISJLP 4, 543–568 (2008)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Motti, V.G., Caine, K.: Users’ privacy concerns about wearables: impact of form factor, sensors and type of data collected. In: Brenner, M., Christin, N., Johnson, B., Rohloff, K. (eds.) FC 2015. LNCS, vol. 8976, pp. 231–244. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Patterson, H.: Contextual expectations of privacy in self-generated health information flows. In: TPRC 41, pp. 1–48. SSRN, Rochester (2013).
  27. 27.
    Peppet, S.R.: Regulating the internet of things: first steps toward managing discrimination, privacy, security and consent. Tex. Law Rev. 93, 85–178 (2014)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Raij, A., Ghosh, A., Kumar, S., Srivastava, M.: Privacy risks emerging from the adoption of innocuous wearable sensors in the mobile environment. In: Proceedings of CHI 2011, pp. 11–20. ACM, New York (2011).
  29. 29.
    Rooksby, J., Rost, M., Morrison, A., Chalmers, M.: Personal tracking as lived informatics. In: Proceedings of CHI 2014, pp. 1163–1172. ACM, New York (2014).
  30. 30.
    Shirer, M., Llamas, R., Ubrani, J.: IDC Forecasts Wearables Shipments to Reach 213.6 Million Units Worldwide in 2020. IDC (2016)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Taddicken, M.: The “privacy paradox” in the social web. J. Comput.-Mediat. Commun. 19, 248–273 (2014). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Vitak, J.: A digital path to happiness? In: Reinecke, L., Oliver, M.B. (eds.) Routledge Handbook of Media Use and Well-Being, pp. 274–287. Routledge, New York (2016)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Xu, H., Gupta, S., Rosson, M.B., Carroll, J.M.: Measuring mobile users’ concerns for information privacy. In: Proceedings of ICIS 2012, pp. 1–16. AIS, Atlanta (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  2. 2.University of Wisconsin—MilwaukeeMilwaukeeUSA

Personalised recommendations