Fitness Site Accidentally Shows Sexual Activity

smitty777 writes "FitBit is a wearable device created to track calorie usage based on activities. Unfortunately for some users, one of those is sexual activities. The information gained from the device is uploaded to the users online web account, which is searchable by Google. From the article: 'Yikes. Users of fitness and calorie tracker Fitbit may need to be more careful when creating a profile on the site. The sexual activity of many of the users of the company’s tracker and online platform can be found in Google Search results, meaning that these users’ profiles are public and searchable.'" It's just a matter of time before a line gets crossed and a relationship gets ruined by trying to post the largest Fitbit numbers for the evening.

Comments

Problem

[cgeys]

Problem isn't the sexual activity. Problem is the mindset that people have about it, teached by religions for hundreds of years. When people can finally put that past them and accept that, just like for them, sexual activity is a normal human function there is no need to worry about stuff like this. Then it would be the same as posting on your Facebook wall how good your breakfast was. People would just be bored about it.

Re:Problem

[ccguy]

Well, I can see a problem with sexual activity if my wife's FitBit's numbers aren't equal or a subset or mine. And I'm not religious.

Re:Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Is monogamy in a relationship a strictly religious concept? I don't think it really is.

Re:Problem

[wjousts]

No, it's about trust. I'm an atheist and I don't cheat on my wife.

Re:Problem

[rufty_tufty]

What has trust got to do with sexual activity(anymore than it has to do with any other activity in a relationship)?
Why not have sexual activity with other people as long as both parties are happy with it and are honest about it? If they are not, then that is probably as a result of social memes not because of honesty and trust.
I'm not saying that is wrong, but it is what it is.

Re:Problem

[mcvos]

That doesn't mean they can't be faithful.

Re:Problem

[iceperson]

Taking a dump is a normal human function too. I'm not sure that I'd like people to be able to google my every bowel movement.

Just because something is "normal" doesn't mean it should be done in public.

Re:Problem

[jellomizer]

Besides religion there are other good reasons why you don't want that information to be public. Sexual activity is a private thing, and should be kept that way.
1. Showing that you have too much or two little says things about your private life that you may not want to be public. Eg. You got onto an argument that day, or get other worried that your relationship is failing.

2. If you are trying to have children, you may not want to let the public know this until it is fact. As this could effect ones personal career.

3. It makes it unconfortable for those who are not getting some.

Re:Problem

[ElectricTurtle]

I agree completely. Relationships, even marriage, should neither be about nor founded on sex. My own wife and I have an 'open' marriage, and it has worked very well for years. The key is real trust, not acting in bad faith or hiding anything.

People really need to question more *why* they believe what they believe. I think if more people really took an honest look at their positions they would see how much of it is social construction and learned behavior.

Re:Problem

[ildon]

If I make a really great pie and give it to you, then you make me promise not to make that pie for anyone else so it can be special between just you and me, and (importantly) I agree to this arrangement, then you have every right to get pissed off if you catch me secretly making this pie for other people.

When two people enter an agreement based on trust, it doesn't matter what the arrangement is. It's wrong for one of them to violate the agreement. And exclusivity in sexual partner selection (and the anger and jealousy created by violating that exclusivity) has a lot of history and biology behind it that is not based on religion at all.

Re:Problem

[__aamnbm3774]

Nah, I think you are taking it too far.

Humans, even in pre-civilized times would migrate around in small family units. It's more biological than you are giving it credit for.

Re:Problem

[David Chappell]

But is it not religious memes that make you have this problem?

So you are saying that a person whose mate has been unfaithful is upset simply because he has learned that his mate is a sinner? By your logic, persons together in a long-term sexual relationship but unmarried should not feel jelousy because they each already know that they are both fornicators.

While religous and cultural theories of sexuality have a huge impact, I don't think they can explain something as viceral as sexual jelously. People feel jelously because sexual intercourse is an intense shared experience of extrordinary intimacy. I don't think we need to look furthure to understand why many wish to share it with only one special friend.

I do not buy the free love retoric which tells us that we are monogamous because priests told us that to do otherwise is a sin or the family solicitor told us that otherwise probahttp://idle.slashdot.org/story/11/07/08/128216/Fitness-Site-Accidentally-Shows-Sexual-Activity#ting our will would be messy. (I have actually seen the last seriously suggested.)

Re:Problem

[jamesh]

But is it not religious memes that make you have this problem?

It's only in the last century or two that vaguely successful methods of STD prevention have been developed. Prior to that, if you had a lot of sex with a lot of different people the chances are you were going to get some disease that would kill you, or at least hurt you lots.

Then there was also the problem of pregnancy... if you go around having sex with a lot of different people someone's going to get pregnant to someone who isn't really that interested in raising a child with them. And pregnancy is dangerous.

The only widely used and vaguely effective barrier to disease is the condom, and it's not a lot of fun to use, and isn't completely safe anyway. Contraception is kind of a solved problem except that the methods are either permanent, not completely effective and/or mess with your body a lot. There's abortion too, which is much safer than actually having a baby but still not something you'd want to plan for.

So apart from all the emotional attachment to monagomy (i'm not religious), I want my wife to remain faithful to me so I don't catch some nasty disease. Don't get me wrong, I do somewhat envy people who seem quite able to separate the emotional parts of sex and love to the point that an open relationship works for them, but it's not for me - as fun as it would be it just wouldn't work for us.

Re:Problem

[Lumpy]

No they dont. it is ASSUMED and not written out clearly.

"Do you, dave, promise to not have sex with other people even though your wife permits it?" I dont remember those words at any wedding....

You do realize that social monogamy is not commonplace. Most Muslim countries allow a man to have multiple wives. In fact it was highly common for a man to have multiple wives for MOST of history.

Monogamy, no matter how much it is sanctioned legally or socially, or how righteous it is portrayed religiously, was never originated from the Scriptures, and has never been set as the only standard for marriage by God. It originated from the pagan Romans.

Re:Problem

[AlecC]

The human mind was built in pre-contraception days, when sex meant babies. And we are strongly conditioned by evolution to care for our genetic descendants, and not for another man's. Sexual jealousy is built into humans, particularly males, for Darwinian reasons.

it is my view that most religious practice is a rationalization of built-in human motives - ascribing to God motivations we have that we do not understand why we have. Essentially, religion is a coat of paint used to justify what we were going to do anyway. And in this case, "God's law" of monogamy is just the law we would like - for our spouses at least. Men because they don't want to raise another man's child, women because they don'e want to share the man's resources with another woman's child or, even worse, have her run off with him.

This is, of course, much less relevant in the days of modern contraception (though less so from the woman's point of view), but our brains are still those of hunter gatherers.

Re:Problem

[Abstrackt]

I believe that in those circumstances, marriage is a way of saying that despite what happens outside the relationship they'll always return to their spouse. I'm just guessing, mind you. I'm in a closed marriage myself, been locked in for many years but still getting a good interest rate!

Re:Problem

[wintercolby]

No! The problem I have with the thought of my wife cheating is that it could mean that I would have to take care of someone else's kids, financially and emotionally.

Re:Problem

[operagost]

No, the problem is privacy, Captain Red Herring. Would you like everyone to know when you defecate or menstruate, too?

Re:Problem

[Lumpy]

Correct, the propelr place for that is on Twitter..

http://twitter.com/#!/search/i%20have%20to%20poop

Re:Problem

[somersault]

If you think about it, it really is no different from other activity.

Why is having sex with other people different from other activies, like for example mount climbing?

Bullshit. The pregnancy part is a pretty big indicator. Think about it in evolutionary terms. We want to propagate our own genes, not help to propagate the genes of our wife's "mountain climbing" buddy. We have contraception now, but we also still have natural feelings of love for our wife and our own kids, jealousy of anyone who tries to edge in on our family, etc.

Have you ever had sex with anyone? As another commenter said, there is a lot of associated biochemical crap going on in that situation, especially if it's not just a one night stand. You're not going to be able to help feeling upset if you find out someone was cheating on you, unless you both agreed to an open relationship. Even if you both agreed, it won't always be easy unless you're a sociopath.

Re:Problem

[Rob the Bold]

Why not have sexual activity with other people as long as both parties are happy with it and are honest about it? If they are not, then that is probably as a result of social memes not because of honesty and trust.

Emphasis mine.

Dude, this is exactly what everyone is trying to tell you. If two people choose to have a monogamous relationship -- and there are a lot of people who do regardless of their religion or lack thereof -- then they won't be happy about a breach of monogamy even if the partner is honest about it. The fact that some peoples' religions teach monogamy is unimportant. They don't have to base their decision on a religious teaching if they don't want to. They can just agree to the rules of the relationship, can't they? Trusting a partner to abide by the sexual boundaries -- or any other boundaries -- is all about trust.

And the emphasis is on "Sexual Activity" here is because that's what the article is about. If it were an article about selling other peoples' stuff on eBay, then we'd perhaps be talking about trusting spouses not to fence our belongings. And it wouldn't be simply because many religions forbid stealing.

And anyway, my point, and I do have one, is: if I don't want to tell the world about my sex life, I don't need to justify that to anybody. If I don't want my exercise meter uploading that, then I just don't. You can tell me all day long that it's perfectly natural, etc., etc. Fine. It's natural, OK? OK? I said it, sex is natural. But it's also perfectly natural to choose to divulge what I wish to divulge and not divulge what I don't wish.

Re:Problem

[operagost]

I have an uptight, Puritan (straw man, BTW) view on STDs and unwanted pregnancies.

Re:Problem

[ElectricTurtle]

There are so many misconceptions in this I don't know where to start. In the first place there is sociological evidence that a preoccupation with genetic primacy is not common to all males or all societies. The ancient Romans for example were particularly keen on adoption, and IIRC Roman law dictated that adopted sons could never be disowned where biological ones could be.

Secondly, making the assumption that your use of 'God' means Yahweh, there was no divine mandate for monogamy before Christ and/or the Apostle Paul. Most of the Biblical patriarchs had many wives and even more concubines which themselves were usually prizes from the battlefield whose lives were only granted at the price of systemic rape at any time. Got to love that old time religious morality.

Re:Problem

[ElectricTurtle]

Holy crap, dawg. Study some anthropology. Damn near every ancient society was polygynistic. Most of Asia was even into the beginning of the 20th century, and some in Africa still are. That's about as far from 'human nature' as it gets.

Re:Problem

[Archangel Michael]

Bingo. Sexual Freedom has consequences that none of the "Sexual taboos are all religious" people love to ignore. Sexual taboos keep people safer than wonton sexuality.

Tell a kid that they are sleeping with Susie slut who has five kinds of VD and they'll think twice about Susie's slut activities. Or if you look at the long term consequences of such activities you'll see a long line of idiots who can't keep their dick in their pants living in cars because the slept around on their wife and the wife (and kid) got all the communal property.

Problem is, I can make a thousand excuses as to why wonton sexual activity is not good, and none of them are religious. In fact, I'd say, part of religion's responsibility is to make known the consequences of such activity, and put it into terms that even idiots can understand. People like the GP post don't like to be reminded that they might get dead because of their activity, as it ruins their "fun".

Oh, and never mind the objectification of women as sexual objects to be desired and collected like gold coins that is inevitable. When was the last time you looked at Megan Fox and thought, "boy she is smart"? Yeah, I didn't think so.

Re:Problem

[ElectricTurtle]

First, according to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, of 1231 societies studied, only 186 were monogomous, 453 practiced some polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 were polyandrous. In fact, ethologists now believe that only one to two percent of all species may be monogamous (Tucker, William In press National Review: All in the Family. New York: National Review Press). None of the simian species are strictly monogamous; our closest relatives, the chimpanzees, practice a form of group marriage. Among the 849 human societies examined by the anthropologist Murdock (1957: American Anthropologist: World Ethnographic Sample. 59: 664-687.), 75% practiced polygyny.

Those are just the first three things I came up with in a five minute search. There have been hundreds, even thousands, of scholarly papers written on this subject. It is so common, so fundamental to sociology and anthropology that I have no reservations on calling you out. You probably never knew anything about the subject to forget.

Re:Problem

[ArsonSmith]

"Your tone suggests that you think your opinion has a deeper truth behind it. I hate it when people take that kind of superior attitude."

Ohh, the irony.

Re:Problem

[Lumpy]

"I have attended included the line "forsaking all others...""

Hmmm...

Definition of FORSAKE
transitive verb, to renounce or turn away from entirely

What a horrible thing to promise. you shall forsake all others so you need to renounce your family, and turn away from your children in need.

Wow, Weddings have become brutal!

Re:Problem

[TheCarp]

Though little about this actually helps answer whether this is a learned trait or not.

I am in an open marriage myself, and have known/been with other people in similar boats. I can tell you, there are plenty of us out there who do not have these responses. Though, I find i still expect them in others. I remember the first time that I hung out with a firned of mine and her bf after the first time we hooked up, I found myself instinctively checking his expressions when things came up that indicated she had been with other men, or me.... it was completely natural for him, no response visible.

I think it comes down to security and expectation. If the expectation on sex or intimacy is that having it outside of the primary relationship is "cheating" and means a potential end to the relationship.... then threat makes sense. Other men ARE a threat. However, I have had the opposite experience, I have watched her, on several occasions, drop other people just to spend time with me. I have no fear whatsoever that she isn't coming home.... I have played cards with some a lover of hers, invite him to parties... no threat.

Thats not to say its never been an issue but, I think its the relation towards sexuality and promiscuity that leads to the fear reaction.

Re:Problem

[__aamnbm3774]

off topic. I said anthropology of pre-civilized behavior.

Rich people always get what they want. If I was Bill Gates, I'd probably have 4 wives myself. But that doesn't mean the women are genuinely OK with it. They stay that way because of my ridiculous power/money influence over them.

I'm sure it happened back in caveman days too, but don't tell me the other cavewoman didn't feel betrayed, ashamed, embarrassed, etc. It isn't all religion like you guys are trying to make it seem. There is more biology to it.

Re:Problem

[radtea]

Can I have sex with your girlfriend? Is that alright man? I think she likes me.

Why are you asking him?

Why aren't you asking her?

Here's how it works, in my case at least: you want to have sex with my g/f, you ask her. She and I will talk about it, and what we say to each other is none of your damned business. After that conversation, she may say yes to you, she may say no. Either way, she'll have her reasons, which are also none of your damned business.

Re:Problem

[TheCarp]

However, if people really wanted and preferred total monogamy then.... why would the cultures that inist on monogamy seem to have to have so many rules and so much insistence on it. You never find rules saying you must eat when hungry. Rules only tend to be made about things that people don't naturally want to do. If people really preferred it, we wouldn't need the ceremonies and rules.

I wont say that jealousy isn't natural or isn't present in people in open relationships, I am in one, and I can say yes, I have felt jealous but...its not usually about just sex. It seldom has to do simply with the fact of my spouse being with someone else, or wanting to be, Its usually more of the "damnit I have nothing to do tonight now" feeling sorry for myself variety.... which I tend to relate to as an internal failing of my own, rather than to put on her.

So no I don't think jealousy is unnatural, but I think many of its triggers and how we relate to it is learned. I know many people who are not put off by their spouse being with others.

Re:Problem

[rufty_tufty]

For me (when I was in an open relationship) we didn't use the term cheating. Having sex with someone else was not cheating as long as we told the other person about it (we were also allowed to vito the other person's choices if we felt the need). Now if she had lied to me about sex with someone or i had said "Look I'm not happy with you keeping seeing him whilst I'm away on business" and she had done it anyway then that would have been cheating and been a serious problem; but simply having sex was not cheating because it wasn't against the rules/agreement. So yes I would have had a massive problem with her cheating but cheating for us had a different definition. There were also rules about contraception that you had to trust the other person to follow that would have made it obvious if she was not following the rules, therefore I'd have known that they'd have been someone else's kids just as much as if this had been a normal relationship.

Re:Problem

[geminidomino]

I'm sure it happened back in caveman days too, but don't tell me the other cavewoman didn't spend the downtime while it was happening getting plowed in the next cave over by Gronk instead

FTFY. See? I can make completely BS statements about cavemen, too.

There's more compelling evidence falling on the side of homo sapiens being an inherently non-monogamous species, in physiology and developmentally.

The instinct to fight over a mate (what we have since diluted down into the self-denigrating wangst-fest we call 'jealousy') isn't limited to monogamous species, either. In fact, it's one of the cornerstones of the selection process: You want Ugg's mate, prove you're stronger than Ugg.

For my thinking, it occurred to me that probably the best support for the idea that human monogamy is "unnatural" (which is to say, not an element of human instinctive behaviors) is the fact that we need so many "thou shalt nots" against it. If humans were monogamous by nature, it would be a very small problem, with only deviants(again, in terms of evolution) being the ones "stepping out."

Re:Problem

[couchslug]

I just had a colonoscopy to ensure nothing was wrong. I think I surprised the staff by asking the monitor be turned my way. (There is no need for much if any anesthesia, BTW.) Watched them zap a polyp, no big deal.

I have friends who are too uptight to get a colonoscopy because it's "embarrassing", as if an ostomy is less so!

Shitting in public only matters if one has a taboo against it We must shit somewhere, but taboos are a choice. Military latrines were once "open bay" (easier to ventilate and clean) and the solution to shared shitting space was not to care about that.

  Indifference is the best way to kill taboos, superstitions, and other nonsense.

Re:Problem

[photogchris]

"and forsaking all other remain true to him/her as long as you both shall live?"

I guess it just depends on the vows you choose, be sure to read and fully understand the EULA.

Re:Problem

[ElectricTurtle]

Never did I say that people should all draw the same conclusion as me, or any abstract single conclusion. However my experience with society at large is that most people do use a simplistic morality that they inherit from some other source. This is obviously a generalization, so when people say 'but I'm an exception!' That doesn't demonstrate it false, especially in a community which is does not, by and large, represent a typical cross section of "normal" society.

There is a huge portion of society where if you ask them straight up, 'where does your morality come from?' They will answer without hesitation: 'God/Allah/Bible/Quran'. Further there are many in that number that fundamentally believe that morality outside of a divine source is impossible or false. In Asia the same attitude exists but the source becomes 'society/parents/family/culture'. As disappointing as it may be, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that this is the attitude of the majority of humans living today.

Re:Problem

[anagama]

That's what they'd have you believe, but the truth seems far from that up to the point of the development of agriculture. This book is a very interesting read:

http://www.sexatdawn.com/

Ryan and Jetha show that our ancestors lived in egalitarian groups that shared food, child care, and often, sexual partners. Weaving together convergent, often overlooked evidence from anthropology, archeology, primatology, anatomy, and psychosexuality, the authors show how far from human nature sexual monogamy really is. They expose the ancient roots of human sexuality while pointing toward a more optimistic future illuminated by our innate capacities for love, cooperation, and generosity.

Re:Problem

[anagama]

Your concept of evolution is individualistic while evolution may be much more "concerned" with a species rather than an individual. You also put human sexual practices in line with distant relatives like Elk rather than nearer relatives like Bonobos.

Think about the advantages a child would have multiple fathers. Not possible? In many pre-agricultural societies, there was the concept of partable parenthood which meant that any child had multiple biological fathers, which even if a misunderstanding of biology, is very adaptive. If something happens to one dad, the other feels obliged to step in.

Here's an example:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-11/uom-mfp111010.php

Fitness Site Accidentally Shows Sexual Activity

[shoehornjob]

There's a HUGE difference between "showing" sexual activity as the article suggests and "tracking" it. Correct me if I'm wrong as I had trouble opening the site but was there a video of someone getting it on or just graphs and stuff.

Re:Fitness Site Accidentally Shows Sexual Activity

[Haedrian]

Sexual Activity: Active Vigorous Effort started 2pm. Duration 4 hours 15 minutes 347 Calories.

Looks like 'tracking' to me/

Re:Fitness Site Accidentally Shows Sexual Activity

[jovius]

That's desperate.

The user should try the other hand.

Re:Fitness Site Accidentally Shows Sexual Activity

[cygnwolf]

What gets me, from reading the article and from reading through FitBit's website, it doesn't "know" you're involved in sexual activity, you have to TELL it. So, to me, telling your fitbit profile that you had sex is the same damn thing as telling your facebook profile that you had sex, and if your profile is public, well gee. You could always just put it down as 'vigerous physical activity' and let other people's dirty little minds interpret it as they wish.

Re:Fitness Site Accidentally Shows Sexual Activity

[rtfa-troll]

No, what gets me is that even the article tries to take the blame away from FitBits.

When you create a profile, the default privacy setting allows profiles to be found in search results (Google, Bing, etc). If you don’t unclick this setting, it will obviously make your profile public for anyone to find.

Safe defaults is the most important part of computer security and is exactly the bit Microsoft took years to learn (and still hasn't got completely). FitBits should default this to off and then turn it on gradually as they are convinced the user has understood the implications. They (along with FaceBook etc.) are 100% to blame.

Re:Fitness Site Accidentally Shows Sexual Activity

[asylumx]

Hmm if it lasts more than four hours, call a doctor.

Talk about Stamina

[ThinkWeak]

I love that the graphic used in the article shows that Jeff had 4 hours and 15 minutes of sexual activity. So maybe those that are away of this searching ability will "pump their numbers" a little bit in the hopes that someone special might see?

Fitbit's fault

[maxwell demon]

From the article:

So why are Fitbit users’ profiles able to be searchable in Google? It’s not really Fitbit’s fault. When you create a profile, the default privacy setting allows profiles to be found in search results (Google, Bing, etc). If you don’t unclick this setting, it will obviously make your profile public for anyone to find.

It is very clearly Fitbit's fault. This option should be unchecked by default, so that users who don't notice it don't accidentally make their profiles public.

child support

[sourcerror]

It's all fine and dandy until you have to pay child support.

True story:

[MMC Monster]

I am a cardiologist.

A young male patient goes to his female primary care doc and tells her that he gets palpitations sporadically. To rule out a suptraventricular tachycardia, she places him on a 24 hour home telemetry monitor. The monitor shows a (normal) fast heart rate at 11pm, so she sends him to me.

I ask him what he was doing. Apparently his girlfriend thought that the monitor was "hot", so they did it with the monitor on. The patient was too embarrased to tell his primary care, so he was sent to me.

I wrote in my letter to the primary care that the increased rate was due to "normal physiologic activity".

Fitbit already closed access

[Gefion]

Fitbit already turned off all public "sexual activity" information and killed the Google search capability as far as I can tell. Not a bad response of the order of 30 minutes from a corporate point of view. FWIW.