<story><title>Our fridge just emailed us to say we opened its door too many times</title><url>https://twitter.com/hondanhon/status/1436027395115393024</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>caymanjim</author><text>I have a semi-related anecdote about surprises from devices.&lt;p&gt;I use a CPAP. After a year, I went back to the doctor for a followup, and was asked to bring the SD card so they could review the data it collects. The device records the times and duration of use, various settings, and some metrics on breathing (apnea events, etc). I knew it recorded this stuff on an SD card.&lt;p&gt;I brought the card to the appointment, but the doctor said &amp;quot;I don&amp;#x27;t need that, I have your data here.&amp;quot; It turns out that the CPAP contains a cellular modem, and it phones home and reports in real-time. I had no idea this thing was recording any data at all. It wasn&amp;#x27;t verbally disclosed to me by either the doctor or the equipment technicians. I imagine there&amp;#x27;s something buried in the fine print of the (long lost) documentation, possibly even in the fine print of some form I signed, but I was caught off guard and none too pleased.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;ve since done some research on this and discussed it with my new doctor when it came time to get a new CPAP. The doctor acted surprised by me having a problem with it. She immediately jumped to the defense of the manufacturer and insurance company, claiming that they &amp;quot;needed&amp;quot; that data. She said that if I disabled it, insurance would refuse coverage.&lt;p&gt;This is insanely invasive, even with disclosure, and ought to be illegal without explicit, obvious verbal and written disclosure. The insurance defense is complete bullshit. For one, I paid cash for the CPAP because I had a high-deductible insurance plan and would have had to pay out-of-pocket anyway (and never claimed it even for the deductible offset).&lt;p&gt;I realize a CPAP isn&amp;#x27;t a fridge, and there&amp;#x27;s at least a case to be made for insurance enforcing compliance (at least when insurance claims are involved). I don&amp;#x27;t agree with the undisclosed enforcement mechanism, nor do I agree that treatment should be contingent on monitoring (it is for some other treatments, but not for most; no one is monitoring diet, exercise, drug use, cigarette consumption, or other risky behaviors, and threatening to withhold treatment for non-compliance).&lt;p&gt;Anyway, I&amp;#x27;ve ranted enough, but there&amp;#x27;s a serious problem with the normalization of surveillance technology.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>horsawlarway</author><text>I agree that this is both invasive and a huge violation.&lt;p&gt;My wife had pretty severe sleep apnea in the third trimester of her pregnancy, two experiences that make me think this practice needs to be nuked from orbit.&lt;p&gt;1. We properly read the manual for the device and adjusted the pressure so that it didn&amp;#x27;t cause problems with burping&amp;#x2F;ingesting air during sleep.  Tissue gets softer in women as they near birth and the body releases a whole host of different hormones - one that gets softer is the pharynx which keeps air out of the stomach as you breathe.&lt;p&gt;After three days - They had the gall to call and inform us that they had noted the change and reset our settings.  We had been tracking sleep events on the device ourselves and they hadn&amp;#x27;t changed (still ~1 per hour while using, the same as the original pressure setting) so there was zero reason for them to do this.&lt;p&gt;2. After she gave birth, her sleep apnea essentially disappeared (at it&amp;#x27;s worst it was ~40 events an hour, 3 weeks after birth it was essentially just light snoring again).  Did not matter at all - They insisted she use the machine still.  Called repeatedly and harassed us.&lt;p&gt;---&lt;p&gt;It took written revocation of their rights to treat us, and then the threat of a lawsuit before the calls stopped.&lt;p&gt;This needs to be illegal - NOW.</text></comment>
<story><title>Our fridge just emailed us to say we opened its door too many times</title><url>https://twitter.com/hondanhon/status/1436027395115393024</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>caymanjim</author><text>I have a semi-related anecdote about surprises from devices.&lt;p&gt;I use a CPAP. After a year, I went back to the doctor for a followup, and was asked to bring the SD card so they could review the data it collects. The device records the times and duration of use, various settings, and some metrics on breathing (apnea events, etc). I knew it recorded this stuff on an SD card.&lt;p&gt;I brought the card to the appointment, but the doctor said &amp;quot;I don&amp;#x27;t need that, I have your data here.&amp;quot; It turns out that the CPAP contains a cellular modem, and it phones home and reports in real-time. I had no idea this thing was recording any data at all. It wasn&amp;#x27;t verbally disclosed to me by either the doctor or the equipment technicians. I imagine there&amp;#x27;s something buried in the fine print of the (long lost) documentation, possibly even in the fine print of some form I signed, but I was caught off guard and none too pleased.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;ve since done some research on this and discussed it with my new doctor when it came time to get a new CPAP. The doctor acted surprised by me having a problem with it. She immediately jumped to the defense of the manufacturer and insurance company, claiming that they &amp;quot;needed&amp;quot; that data. She said that if I disabled it, insurance would refuse coverage.&lt;p&gt;This is insanely invasive, even with disclosure, and ought to be illegal without explicit, obvious verbal and written disclosure. The insurance defense is complete bullshit. For one, I paid cash for the CPAP because I had a high-deductible insurance plan and would have had to pay out-of-pocket anyway (and never claimed it even for the deductible offset).&lt;p&gt;I realize a CPAP isn&amp;#x27;t a fridge, and there&amp;#x27;s at least a case to be made for insurance enforcing compliance (at least when insurance claims are involved). I don&amp;#x27;t agree with the undisclosed enforcement mechanism, nor do I agree that treatment should be contingent on monitoring (it is for some other treatments, but not for most; no one is monitoring diet, exercise, drug use, cigarette consumption, or other risky behaviors, and threatening to withhold treatment for non-compliance).&lt;p&gt;Anyway, I&amp;#x27;ve ranted enough, but there&amp;#x27;s a serious problem with the normalization of surveillance technology.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>ggsp</author><text>&amp;gt; no one is monitoring diet, exercise, drug use, cigarette consumption, or other risky behaviors, and threatening to withhold treatment for non-compliance&lt;p&gt;... yet.</text></comment>