I found Peterson’s title and reference to George Orwell’s 1984 both comical and clichéd. The reference to “Big Brother” is so commonly used when referring to big data because it is easily assumed that any corporation or government organization with hands on the data would automatically and instantly abuse the privilege and spy on the population. It is rarely realized that such a freedom is in fact a privilege and not a right. If us, as consumers, were so interested in privacy, we wouldn’t demand such tools.
Why is it that our Jawbone, Fitbit, Misfit, or whatever other device we use to track exercise and sleep HAS to link up with our iPhone? Obviously, the answer is shear convenience. How appealing would it be to download all of your daily data to a laptop or some other form of offline tracker? That would seem monotonous and excessive. Developers have found a way to incorporate something useful, a fitness and sleep tracker, and pair that with the thing that Americans interact with more than anything else on a daily basis, a smartphone.
All inventions come to improve or initiate efficiency in a particular activity. That is simply the nature of technology. Pederson’s idea of augmented memory also sounds extremely convenient (and dangerous, but that’s another conversation). Having the ability to remember everything I ever read, studied, or discussed would come with so many advantages. However, the fact that that information could be digitized and distribute would also frighten me. Again, such an invention would still only be optional in society, which is the beauty of a market economy. Unlike in Orwell’s dystopian society, we can control Big Brother’s market if we really desire. Unfortunately for those fearful of Big Brother’s eye, millions of fitness tracking users would agree that convenience is extremely important, thus fueling the spread of these big data mechanisms.
One possibility hinted at in Petersen’s BuzzFeed piece is that maybe these trackers won’t always be optional. What if, for example, a health insurer mandated that all of its insurees wore a fitness tracker. Or worse—what if a health insurer would only issue coverage after a possible customer has gone through a 90-day “trial” of wearing a tracker?Reference