"This article uses the case study of an insurance product linked to a health and wellbeing program—the Vitality scheme—as a lens to examine the limited regulation of collection and use of non-personal (de-identified/anonymised) information and the impacts it has on individuals, as well as society at large. Vitality is an incentive-based engagement program that mobilises online assessment tools, preventive health screening, and physical activity and wellness tracking through smart fitness technologies and apps. Vitality then uses the data generated through these activities, mainly in an aggregated, non-personal form, to make projections about changes in behaviour and future health outcomes, aiming at reducing risk in the context of health, life, and other insurance products. Non-personal data has been traditionally excluded from the scope of legal protections, and in particular privacy and data regimes, as it is thought not to contain information about specific, identifiable people, and thus its potential to affect individuals in any meaningful way has been understood to be minimal. However, digitalisation and ensuing ubiquitous data collection are proving these traditional assumptions wrong. We show how the response of the legal systems is limited in relation to non-personal information collection and use, and we argue that irrespective of the (possibly) beneficial nature of insurance innovation, the current lack of comprehensive regulation of non-personal data use potentially leads to individual, collective and societal data harms, as the example of the Vitality scheme illustrates."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364924001614
#Australia #HealthInsurance #Anonymization #Privacy #DataProtection #GDPR #Insurance
