@paco My wife has a early-model Garmin Vivo fitness tracker that isn't too bad. It uses a watch battery so it doesn't have to be charged all the time like a Fitbit. I used to have one but lost it going through security at the airport, which was no fun. Otherwise, it's worth checking out.

@paco
Fitbit was a good lesson in owning your own data. No matter what tracker you use, if it dumps data into the cloud, that data will most likely end up in the wrong hands. Do any fitness trackers exist that avoid beaming data up to the cloud?

@pcrock You know what would be an interesting question? Look at all the breaches that go into something like haveibeenpwned and figure out how many of those were cloud and how many were on-prem. The problem with Fitbit would be IDENTICAL if Fitbit ran in data centres. Google has bought the data and now owns it no matter where it resides. My concern is not that it "lives in the cloud", but rather that it is owned by Google and can be used by them.

@paco
I think this is one of those situations where "cloud" means different things to different people. Now that I've thought about it, your definition is more technically correct than mine.

What I _meant_ to say is, fitness trackers that send data to third parties are still a problem even if you happen to trust that third party today. Essentially the same thing you are saying. πŸ˜€

@pcrock Yeah. I work for one of the clouds, so I have opinions. :) Having said that, I don't share my fitness data with these firms or my doorbell access, or my thermostat readings, or my lightbulb controls. For running "servers" and services, cloud is better than data centres. But the key question is what companies do with data and what control they grant their users over their data. That's controlled by the company running the app/service, whether they use cloud resources or not.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon.org.uk

General purpose mastodon instance