10
Loading video...
By Ashissh Raichura
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
Every heartbeat recorded by a smartwatch, every night of sleep measured by a ring, and every symptom entered into an app adds to an expanding account of our bodies.
As artificial intelligence (AI) creates new possibilities for using that information, we should settle a question before sharing becomes harder to untangle.
Who should have meaningful control over the value created from our most personal data?
Read More on Leadership Insights
To me, the answer is obvious. Individuals should retain meaningful control over their body data and share in its commercial value when companies use it beyond providing the service they requested.
Otherwise, we risk building an AI economy in which people pay for devices, generate the essential input, and surrender much of the resulting bargaining power.
This is not an argument against wearables or AI. These tools can help people understand their health, while aggregated data may support research.
But convenience should not be mistaken for a fair bargain, particularly when consent is buried in lengthy terms, and future uses are difficult to anticipate.
Protection Matters
Legal protections are uneven. The Federal Trade Commission explains that many health apps and similar technologies fall outside HIPAA, which regulates the privacy and security of health information held by covered entities and their business associates.
Its amended Health Breach Notification Rule addresses breaches involving covered services, including unauthorized disclosures.
That protection matters, but the rule is focused on breach notification rather than giving individuals an ongoing right to control or share in the value of secondary commercial uses.
The concern extends beyond legal coverage. A 2025 study published in npj Digital Medicine evaluated privacy policies from 17 wearable manufacturers and identified shortcomings in transparency reporting and other protections.
The researchers assessed written policies, not actual data handling. Even that distinction matters. A reassuring policy cannot, by itself, tell someone where their information has gone.
At a Crossroads
We now find ourselves at a crossroads. Under the status quo, people may continue clicking "agree" while organizations determine how information is combined, retained, or repurposed.
My concern is that waiting could make this imbalance harder to reverse. Once secondary uses become routine business arrangements, giving individuals a meaningful choice may require undoing decisions they barely understood.
The better path would make AI development something people can knowingly participate in.
Every person should be able to see what body data exists, who has accessed it, for what purpose, and for how long. Permission should be specific and revocable for future optional uses.
Data should be portable, so leaving a platform does not mean losing one’s history.
An Economic Dimension
Control should also have an economic dimension. Imagine that a pharmaceutical developer needs data collected over several years from people with a particular condition.
A trusted intermediary could allow willing participants to authorize limited access collectively. The agreement could define the research, security requirements, duration, and compensation. Participants could receive a licensing payment under published terms.
Compensation is not appropriate for every use. Research, clinical care, and commercial development raise different ethical questions, and payment must never become coercion. Nor should payment excuse unsafe handling.
My proposal concerns optional secondary commercial uses, with safeguards that allow people to decline without losing essential services.
Otherwise, a supposed opportunity could become another pressure on those with fewer resources.
Make Choices Visible
There is a useful policy example in Europe. The European Commission explains that the European Health Data Space Regulation entered into force in March 2025, with key provisions applying from 2029.
It combines expanded individual control with regulated reuse of health data. It is not the compensation model proposed here, but its design suggests that access and accountability can be pursued together.
National lawmakers should now require consumer health platforms to provide standardized dashboards showing collection, access, and purpose, simple withdrawal from future optional uses, portable records, and independently auditable access logs.
They should also establish carefully supervised collective licensing pilots for secondary commercial use, with published payment terms and safeguards against discrimination.
Platforms should begin making these choices visible while legislation develops.
Waiting risks allowing commercial habits to settle questions that belong to the public. Acting now could give researchers clearer terms for access and individuals a stronger reason to participate.
AI and humans can work together, but that partnership should begin with permission people understand and choices they can exercise. Our role in that future should be a decision we make.
Ashissh Raichura is the founder and CEO of Scanbo, a Vancouver-based health technology company whose connected diagnostic devices and AI platforms collect and analyze clinical data.
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines