Smart scarves are wrapped in layers of ethics issues

As a smart watch owner since 2011, I’ve generally equated the word “wearable” with these devices. Indeed, only now — more than a decade since I wore that first Motorola MotoACTV watch — are we finally seeing wearables evolve. They now include smart clothing, advanced fitness trackers, more capable health monitors, and more.

So maybe it’s time to consider the implications of these new use cases along with data protection, privacy, and workplace rules.

I was reminded about this topic when we discussed the new Manchester City smart scarf on this week’s IoT Podcast. And trust me, as a die-hard, tattooed Liverpool FC fan, it was a challenge for me to talk about this!

If you missed the episode, the English football club developed a scarf with an embedded sensor from Emotibit. The idea is that fans will wear the blue-and-white, City-branded scarf (so, obviously not me) during a match.

However, unlike traditional wearable devices, fans won’t have access to their sensor data. Instead, the data about the fan’s temperature, heart rate, movement, and stress will be routed directly to the Manchester City organization. The plan is to find ways to incorporate all of the aggregated data into some type of “curated, customized experiences.”

If you buy and wear one of these, you likely know you’re getting a smart device. Hopefully, you also know what data it will collect. But you won’t know how that data will be used, whether it will be securely stored, or how long it will be saved. These are key questions that individuals should have answers to in advance.

Like I’ve said for years, once you give up your data, you’ve lost any control over it or how it will be used. What if you’re wearing the scarf around the house and find yourself in a stressful, agitating situation? Could the data find its way to authorities suggesting that you might be in a state that’s dangerous? The last thing I want is to have law enforcement show up at my doorstep to prevent a potential situation based on wearable data. Actually, that’s the second-to-last thing I want. The last thing is having to wear a Manchester City scarf at all.

Oftentimes a wearable device is targeted at a narrow, specific use case, such as for professional dancers. A recent wearable sensor system created at Curtis University is exactly that. And on the surface, I love the idea of it and what researchers have found from the data.

According to lead researcher Danica Henry, “Fifty out of the 52 dancers said they experienced pain, with 26 reporting that this pain impacted their training/performance. Our findings indicate that the dancers are often able to continue dancing when in pain, and do so by adapting their movements.”

I’m sure the dancers knew they were in some level of pain while dancing. That’s no surprise and they don’t need a wearable device to tell them that. The sensor simply provided raw data of how their pain changed their movements.

Again, there are important questions to be asked. Could a dancer be replaced in a recital because he or she was experiencing too much pain based on the sensor data? Might dancer selections in the future be based on who can dance well through the most pain?

This gets into workplace policies and regulations to a point. Perhaps more so when it comes to jobs where you’re expected to maintain a certain level of fitness.

In the U.S. military, soldiers are required to take and pass a Physical Fitness Test (PFT) on a regular basis. I have friends and family members in various military branches and I wonder how they pass these. I’m not being mean; they often tell me they don’t know how they pass them, either. Usually the officer testing them looks the other way if they’re a few sit-ups shy or finish their 1.5-mile run a little after the required time.

The test extends to all services under the purview of the Department of Defense. But it appears members of the U.S. Space Force won’t be asked to do their annual round of sit-ups anytime soon. In 2023, the traditional PFT will be abandoned in favor of smart wearable devices. So far, the Space Force has tested Garmin watches and Oura rings, although it hasn’t yet committed to specific devices.

Here’s the thing. While a service member might be capable of passing the old PFT test, that might not matter if other health metrics aren’t in line with what the Space Force expects. And some of these metrics could be well beyond the control of the service members.

I have a higher-than-average heart rate, for example, which isn’t new for me. But I’ve been able to complete four marathons, with one of them averaging 7:38 a mile. And at age 47, I was ranked 18th nationally in the U.S. indoor 400m, based on race times and age groups.

Granted, I do these things for fun and nobody can stop me from doing them. But someone in the Space Force with a similarly elevated heart rate could be booted from service, at least if that military branch is going to solely rely on 24×7 health tracking data. Is that fair or right when the individual might otherwise be fully capable of fulfilling their duties?

I would say no, it’s not. But what I say doesn’t matter. As a society, we need to ask these questions now and determine the “right” and “wrong” ways to use data from wearable devices. And the time for this conversation is sooner rather than later.