logo
RFK Jr. Wants Every American To Wear A Health-Tracking Device, And Security Experts Have Serious Concerns

RFK Jr. Wants Every American To Wear A Health-Tracking Device, And Security Experts Have Serious Concerns

Yahoo9 hours ago

If you don't yet wear a smartwatch or smart ring to monitor your health and fitness, you may soon be encouraged to do so by some of the highest-ranking members of the government.
During a House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee hearing, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said he'd like all Americans to use wearable health products, such as Fitbits, Apple Watches, Oura Rings, WHOOP and glucose monitors, to 'control' their health and 'take responsibility' for it.
According to Poltico, Kennedy said people can use wearables to track 'what food is doing to their glucose levels, their heart rates and a number of other metrics as they eat it, and they can begin to make good judgments about their diet, about their physical activity, about the way that they live their lives.'
While this remains just a suggestion and not a mandate, it's been announced that the Department of Health and Human Services will launch a campaign to encourage Americans to wear these devices.
Wearables can track your heart rate, menstrual cycle, fitness regimen, blood sugar levels, sleep patterns, location and more. They're a great way to understand your health (for example, the Oura Ring lets you know when it thinks you're getting sick) and to stick to a workout regimen (the Apple Watch is both loved and hated for its 'close your rings' reminders).
While they can be helpful for the average person, these devices store lots and lots of our data — is it safe for all of this information to be out there? And what happens if this data ends up in the wrong hands — including the government's? Experts weigh in.
First, know that no one has said the government will actually collect this health data.
Related: It Turns Out That Most People Wipe Their Butts Completely Wrong, But This Doctor Is Here To Teach Us The Right Way
There is a major difference between the government having access to health data and the government simply encouraging folks to use wearables for their own health tracking, said Alex Hamerstone, the advisory solutions director for TrustedSec, an ethical hacking company.
'Those are obviously two very different questions, and there's no indication at this point that they're looking to have the government have access to that data,' he noted.
The government does, though, already have access to lots of health data. 'If you look at the percent of people who receive health care through Medicare and Medicaid and state programs, and so on and so forth, they already have a lot of very detailed information,' Hamerstone noted.
'I know there are guardrails around it and things like that, but not to get into any kind of political thing, but a lot of those guardrails seem to be falling down,' he noted.
You should also understand that no matter who is privy to it, health data is very valuable.
You've probably heard the phrase 'data is the new currency,' meaning your personal data has inherent value to companies. It's how they sell you ads and understand your needs.
But 'health data is just kind of a different category of data,' said Hamerstone.
Having your credit card hacked is temporarily annoying, but you're not liable, and typically, after some phone calls and logistics, your life will go back to normal.
'But if someone gets access to your private health care data, that's much different. It's a different kind of data,' Hamerstone said.
'So, somebody knowing how many steps you take is one thing, but if you start to get into things like glucose levels or very detailed medical information, those things could start to affect other parts of your life,' he added.
This could impact insurance rates and insurance options, Hamerstone said.
Some experts are worried about the government's ability to protect health data because of past breaches.
Related: Older Women Are Revealing Their Biggest "Life Regrets," And Every Young Person Needs To Hear This
Kevin Johnson, the CEO of Secure Ideas, a security testing and consulting company, has concerns about the government's ability to protect any data that is gathered through the use of wearables.
For instance, in 2018, there was a major security breach involving the Strava fitness app and the U.S. government in which soldiers' locations at military bases were shared via Strava.
'So, the idea that the government is saying we're going to encourage ... wearing of these when the government had a significant security problem due to this, that's one of the concerns that I just don't understand how we forgot that happened,' said Johnson.
Overall, Johnson said, there are 'significant security issues with wearable devices.'
'My company and other companies have tested these devices. We've found vulnerabilities. We have found ways that the wearable technology gives an attacker access to your data because of security lapses in the hardware and software. We've seen multiple cases where attackers are able to gain access to things that are unrelated to the health care data because of security problems,' Johnson said.
There have also been privacy violations when data brokers get access to this data, whether they gain access illegitimately or legitimately, Johnson said.
(And the companies collecting the data from wearables do often sell your data to data brokers, Johnson noted.)
You may not care if someone has your heart rate data from your smartwatch, but it's so much more than 'just' that.
'There are always security concerns when it comes to connected technology,' said Dave Chronister, the CEO of Parameter Security.
And your wearable device is most likely connected to your smartphone — meaning it has access to lots of your personal data, according to Johnson.
'No device or platform is completely secure,' Chronister noted. 'Attackers often target the backend systems, such as cloud servers, via compromised employee credentials or software vulnerabilities.'
'Devices that rely on Bluetooth or Wi-Fi can also be exploited, and if the device supports messaging or sync features, phishing or spoofing attacks are possible,' noted Chronister.
These devices can also get stolen or lost, which also puts your data at risk, Chronister added.
Johnson said he's often heard people say things like, 'Oh, it's just my heart rate data, that's not a big deal,' but it's actually so much more than that.
'The issue is, we're not just talking about heartbeat. We're not just talking about your sleep schedule. We're talking about your location. We're talking about most of these apps tie into your contacts so that you can invite friends,' said Johnson.
More, it also may include your reproductive health data, glucose levels or heart irregularities, Chronister said.
'These can paint a sensitive, personal portrait of someone's health and behavior,' Chronister added.
Health data from wearables isn't protected like your medical records.
'It's important to understand that data from wearables is not protected under HIPAA like your medical records are,' said Chronister. HIPAA protects patient health records from things like doctor's appointments.
'Instead, it is governed by the company's terms of service ... which often include loopholes that allow for data sharing or sale, especially in the event of a merger or acquisition,' Chronister explained.
This is true even if the company says they'll never sell your data. 'That promise can be overridden by fine print or future policy changes,' he added.
'Consumers should be aware that once their data is out there, they may lose control over how it is used,' Chronister said.
What can you do to protect your security if you use wearables?
'Almost all of these types of devices have some level of privacy controls in them that you're able to select what data you give,' said Johnson.
If you decide to get a wearable, make sure you check your privacy settings and adjust them accordingly, he noted.
'And this is very important — regularly go in and validate that the privacy settings are still set the way you want them to be,' Johnson added.
This is really the most you can do to protect your data, and it certainly won't totally protect you from data breaches or data brokers.
'Unfortunately, individual users have very limited control. You are largely at the mercy of the device manufacturer and app provider,' Chronister noted.
While you can follow privacy precautions, such as by 'turning off unnecessary Bluetooth connections, using strong account passwords, and checking app permissions ... those measures only go so far,' Chronister said.
'The real issue is how companies store, share and protect your data behind the scenes,' Chronister noted.
Chronister stressed that 'it's critical to understand the long-term implications of voluntarily handing over personal health data to private companies. This information can be sold to marketers, shared with third parties, or exposed in a breach.'
He voiced specific concern about how this data can be combined via different apps and companies over time to build 'incredibly detailed personal health profiles.'
So while it may not be a big deal if one company has your sleep data and another has your activity levels, these companies can be acquired, or data can be combined to create a fuller picture of your private health information.
'And AI is really a wild card. Going forward, it will increasingly be able to draw conclusions and make predictions about your current and future health. This raises serious questions about how such insights could affect things like insurance eligibility, premium rates, or even creditworthiness,' Chronister said.
When it comes to health data (and data of any sort), 'the risks are inherent even with the government not involved,' Hamerstone said.
Once that data exists, it's at risk of being lost or stolen by bad actors, he added.
Keep that in mind before you start using wearable health technology, and if you're already a user, it's important to be aware of the risks so you can make informed decisions and do what you can to protect your privacy.This article originally appeared on HuffPost.
Also in Goodful: This Woman Is Going Viral For Begging Women Not To Get Married Right Now, And Personally, I Couldn't Agree More
Also in Goodful: People Are Sharing Their Biggest "How Doesn't Everyone Know This?" Facts, And I'm Honestly Embarrassed I Never Realized Some Of These
Also in Goodful: "I Can't Wait For This To Go Out Of Style": People Are Sharing Popular Modern Trends That Are Actually Pretty Toxic

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Bologna Products Recall Sparks Nationwide Warning to Customers
Bologna Products Recall Sparks Nationwide Warning to Customers

Newsweek

time2 hours ago

  • Newsweek

Bologna Products Recall Sparks Nationwide Warning to Customers

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Gaiser's European Style Provisions Inc. is recalling over 143,000 pounds of ready-to-eat bologna products due to "misbranding," according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) on Friday. Newsweek reached out to the company via email for comment. Why It Matters Numerous recalls have been initiated in 2025 due to the potential of damaged products, foodborne illness, contamination and undeclared food allergens. Millions of Americans experience food sensitivities or allergies every year. According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the nine "major" food allergens in the U.S. are eggs, milk, fish, wheat, soybeans, Crustacean shellfish, sesame, tree nuts and peanuts. What To Know In the alert, the FSIS warns that the recalled bologna products contain "meat or poultry source materials" not noted on the product's labels. The goods were produced from March 20, 2025, to June 20, 2025. The alert has photos of the various products' labels and below is a list of the impacted products, according to the FSIS: Vacuum-packed packages of "FAMILY TREE BOLOGNA VEAL" containing undeclared pork. Plastic-wrapped packages of "BABUSHKA'S RECIPE CHICKEN BOLOGNA" containing undeclared pork. Plastic-wrapped packages of "FANCY BOLOGNA" labeled with pork as an ingredient but containing undeclared beef and chicken. Vacuum-packed packages of "GAISER'S RUSSIAN BRAND DOKTORSKAYA BOLOGNA" containing undeclared beef. Plastic-wrapped packages of "GAISER'S BOLOGNA VEAL" containing undeclared chicken and pork. Plastic-wrapped packages of "GAISER'S TURKEY BOLOGNA" containing undeclared chicken and pork. Plastic-wrapped packages of "CHICKEN BOLOGNA KYPOYKA PABA" containing undeclared pork. The FSIS warns that these products were distributed to retailers and wholesalers across the country and have an establishment number of "EST. 5385" inside the U.S. Department of Agriculture inspection mark. "Some products would have been weighed, wrapped, and labeled in retail store locations at the time of purchase," the FSIS says, adding later that the department is concerned people may have the recalled products in their freezers or refrigerators. Gaiser's Russian Brand Doktorskaya Bologna can be seen related to a recall on June 27. (Photo from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service.) Gaiser's Russian Brand Doktorskaya Bologna can be seen related to a recall on June 27. (Photo from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service.) What People Are Saying The FSIS in the alert, in part: "The problem was discovered when FSIS was notified by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of a complaint received through the OIG's hotline. FSIS investigated the complaint and determined that the products contained source materials that were not declared on the label. "Although FSIS does not expect any adverse health effects for Class III recalled products and there have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products, anyone concerned about an illness should contact a healthcare provider." What Happens Next Customers who have purchased the recalled products should not consume them; either throw them away or return the goods to the original place of purchase, the FSIS says.

‘I'm Not Quite Sure How to Respond to This Presentation'
‘I'm Not Quite Sure How to Respond to This Presentation'

Atlantic

time4 hours ago

  • Atlantic

‘I'm Not Quite Sure How to Respond to This Presentation'

The past three weeks have been auspicious for the anti-vaxxers. On June 9, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. purged the nation's most important panel of vaccine experts: All 17 voting members of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which sets recommendations for the use of vaccines and determines which ones must be covered through insurance and provided free of charge to children on Medicaid, were abruptly fired. The small, ragtag crew of replacements that Kennedy appointed two days later met this week for the first time, amid lots of empty chairs in a conference room in Atlanta. They had come to talk about the safety of vaccines: to raise concerns about the data, to float hypotheses of harm, to issue findings. The resulting spectacle was set against a backdrop of accelerating action from the secretary. On Wednesday, Kennedy terminated more than $1 billion in U.S. funding for Gavi, a global-health initiative that supports the vaccination of more than 65 million children every year. Lyn Redwood, a nurse practitioner and the former president of Children's Health Defense, the anti-vaccine organization that Kennedy used to chair, was just hired as a special government employee. (She presented at the ACIP meeting yesterday.) A recently posted scientific document on the ACIP website that underscored the safety of thimerosal, an ingredient in a small proportion of the nation's flu vaccines, had been taken down, a committee member said, because the document 'was not authorized by the office of the secretary.' (A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services told me in an email that this document was provided to the ACIP members in their meeting briefing packets.) What's clear enough is that, 61 years after ACIP's founding, America's vaccination policy is about to be recooked. Now we've had a glimpse inside the kitchen. The meeting started with complaints. 'Some media outlets have been very harsh on the new members of this committee,' said Martin Kulldorff, a rangy Swedish biostatistician and noted COVID contrarian who is now ACIP's chair. (Kuldorff was one of the lead authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, a controversial proposal from the fall of 2020 to isolate seniors and other vulnerable people while reopening the rest of society.) In suggesting that he and Kennedy's other appointees are opposed to vaccination, Kulldorff said, journalists were misleading the public, weakening trust in public health, and fanning 'the flames of vaccine hesitancy.' This was, in fact, the most pugnacious comment of the two-day meeting, which otherwise unfolded in a tone of fearmongering gentility. Robert Malone, a doctor and an infectious-diseases researcher who has embraced the 'anti-vaccine' label and published a conspiracy-theory-laden book that details government psyops against the American people, was unfailingly polite in his frequent intimations about the safety of vaccines, often thanking CDC staff for their hard work and lucid presentations. With his thick white beard, calm affect, and soldierly diction—Malone ended many of his comments by saying, 'Over' into the microphone—he presented less as a firebrand than as, say, the commanding officer of a submarine. When Malone alluded to the worry, for example, that spike proteins from the mRNA-based COVID vaccines linger in the body following injection, he did so in respectful, even deferential, language, suggesting that the public would benefit from greater study of possible 'delayed effects' of immune-system activation. The CDC's traditional approach—its 'world-leading, rigorous' one, he clarified—might be improved by examining this question. A subject-matter expert responded that the CDC has been keeping tabs on real-world safety data on those vaccines for nearly five years, and has not detected any signs of long-term harm. Later, Malone implied that COVID or its treatments might have, through some unspecified, bank-shot mechanism, left the U.S. population more susceptible to other illnesses. There was a 'paradoxical, sudden decrease' in flu cases in 2020 and 2021, he noted, followed by a trend of worsening harm. A CDC staffer pointed out that the decrease in flu during those years was not, in fact, a paradox; well-documented shifts in people's health behavior had temporarily reduced the load of many respiratory illnesses during that same period. But Malone pressed on: 'Some members of the scientific community have concern that they're coming out of the COVID pandemic—exposure to the virus, exposure to various countermeasures—there may be a pattern of broad-based, uh, energy,' he said, his eyes darting up for a moment as he said the word, 'that might contribute to increased severity of influenza disease.' He encouraged the agency to 'be sensitive to that hypothesis.' Throughout these and other questions from the committee members, the CDC's subject-matter experts did their best to explain their work and respond to scattershot technical and conceptual concerns. 'The CDC staff is still attempting to operate as an evidence-based organization,' Laura Morris, a professor at the University of Missouri School of Medicine, who has attended dozens of ACIP meetings in the past and attended this one as a nonvoting liaison to the committee from the American Academy of Family Physicians, told me. 'There was some tension in terms of the capacity of the committee to ask and understand the appropriate methodological questions. The CDC was trying to hold it down.' That task became more difficult as the meeting progressed. 'The new ACIP is an independent body composed of experienced medical and public health experts who evaluate evidence, ask hard questions, and make decisions based on scientific integrity,' the HHS spokesperson told me. 'Bottom line: this process reflects open scientific inquiry and robust debate, not a pre-scripted narrative.' The most vocal questioner among the new recruits—and the one who seemed least beholden to a script—was the MIT business-school professor Retsef Levi, a lesser-known committee appointee who sat across the table from Malone. A scruffy former Israel Defense Forces intelligence officer with a ponytail that reached halfway down his back, Levi's academic background is in data modeling, risk management, and organizational logistics. He approached the proceedings with a swaggering incredulity, challenging the staffers' efforts and pointing out the risks of systematic errors in their thinking. (In a pinned post on his X profile, Levi writes that 'the evidence is mounting and indisputable that mRNA vaccines cause serious harm including death'—a position entirely at odds with copious data presented at the meeting.) Shortly before the committee's vote to recommend a new, FDA-approved monoclonal antibody for preventing RSV in infants, Levi noted that he'd spent some time reviewing the relevant clinical-trial data for the drug and another like it, and found some worrying patterns in the statistics surrounding infant deaths. 'Should we not be concerned that maybe there are some potential safety signals?' he asked. But these very data had already been reviewed, at great length, in multiple settings: by the FDA, in the course of drug approval, and by the dozens of members of ACIP's relevant work group for RSV, which had, per the committee's standard practice, conducted its own staged analysis of the new treatment before the meeting and reached consensus that its benefits outweighed its risks. Levi was uncowed by any reference to this prior work. 'I'm a scientist, but I'm also a father of six kids,' he told the group; speaking as a father, he said, he personally would be concerned about the risk of harm from this new antibody for RSV. In the end, Levi voted against recommending the antibody, as did Vicky Pebsworth, who is on the board of an anti-vaccine organization and holds a Ph.D. in public health and nursing. The five other members voted yes. That 5–2 vote aside, the most contentious issue on the meeting's schedule concerned the flu shots in America that contain thimerosal, which has been an obsession of the anti-vaccine movement for the past few decades. Despite extensive study, vaccines with thimerosal have not been found to be associated with any known harm in human patients, yet an unspecified vote regarding their use was slipped into the meeting's agenda in the absence of any work-group study or presentation from the CDC's staff scientists. What facts there were came almost exclusively from Redwood, the nurse who used to run Kennedy's anti-vaccine organization. Earlier this week, Reuters reported that at least one citation from her posted slides had been invented. That reference was removed before she spoke yesterday. (HHS did not address a request for comment on this issue in its response to me.) The only one of Kennedy's appointees who had ever previously served on the committee—the pediatrician Cody Meissner—seemed perplexed, even pained, by the proceedings. 'I'm not quite sure how to respond to this presentation,' he said when Redwood finished. He went on to sum up his concerns: 'ACIP makes recommendations based on scientific evidence as much as possible. And there is no scientific evidence that thimerosal has caused a problem.' Alas, Meissner's warnings were for nought. Throughout the meeting, he came off as the committee's last remaining, classic 'expert'—a vaccine scientist clinging to ACIP's old ways—but his frequent protestations were often bulldozed over or ignored. In the end, his was the only vote against the resolutions on thimerosal. Throughout the two-day meeting, Kuldorff kept returning to a favorite phrase: evidence-based medicine. 'Secretary Kennedy has given this committee a clear mandate to use evidence-based medicine,' he said on Wednesday morning; 'The purpose of this committee is to follow evidence-based medicine,' he said on Wednesday afternoon; 'What is important is using evidence-based medicine,' he said again when the meeting reached its end. All told, I heard him say evidence-based at least 10 times during the meeting. (To be fair, critics of Kuldorff and his colleagues also love this phrase.) But the committee was erratic in its posture toward the evidence from the very start; it cast doubt on CDC analyses and substituted lay advice and intuition for ACIP's normal methods of assessing and producing expert consensus. 'Decisons were made based on feelings and preferences rather than evidence,' Morris told me after the meeting. 'That's a dangerous way to make public-health policy.'

California will see ‘devastating' healthcare cuts under GOP bill, Newsom says
California will see ‘devastating' healthcare cuts under GOP bill, Newsom says

Los Angeles Times

time4 hours ago

  • Los Angeles Times

California will see ‘devastating' healthcare cuts under GOP bill, Newsom says

As many as 3.4 million Californians could lose their state Medi-Cal health insurance under the budget bill making its way through the U.S. Senate, Gov. Gavin Newsom said Friday. Newsom said the proposed cuts to healthcare in the 'one big, beautiful bill,' a cornerstone of President Trump's second-term agenda, could force the closure of struggling rural hospitals, reduce government food assistance for those in need and drive up premiums for people who rely on Covered California, the state's Affordable Care Act health insurance marketplace. 'This is devastating,' Newsom said. 'I know that word is often overused in this line of work, but this is, in many ways, an understatement of how reckless and cruel and damaging this is.' Medicaid provides health insurance for about 1 in 5 Americans and generally uses income, rather than employment, as a condition for enrollment. Roughly 15 million Californians, more than a third of the state, are on Medi-Cal, the state's version of Medicaid, with some of the highest percentages in rural counties that supported Trump in the November election. More than half of California children receive healthcare coverage through Medi-Cal. The Senate is still debating its version of the bill. But the current version would require many Medicaid recipients to prove every six months that they work, volunteer or attend school at least 80 hours per month. States would be required to set up their work eligibility verification systems by the end of 2026, just after the midterm elections. States that do not set up those systems could lose federal Medicaid funding. Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters last month that the aim of the policy was to encourage poor Americans to contribute and 'return the dignity of work to young men who need to be out working instead of playing video games all day.' The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated this month that the requirements would cut about $344 billion in Medicaid spending over a decade and leave 4.8 million more people uninsured. Health policy experts warn that work requirements can lead to people who are eligible, but can't prove it, losing their benefits. Newsom said 5.1 million people in California would need to go through the work verification progress and about one-third would 'likely' meet the requirements. The other two-thirds would 'go through the labyrinth of manual verification,' Newsom said. He said 3 million people in California could lose coverage through the new Medicaid work requirements, and 400,000 more could lose their insurance if they were required to re-verify their eligibility every six months. Newsom said that the state's estimate was based on the number of people who dropped off Medicaid in New Hampshire and Arkansas after those states briefly implemented their own work requirements. Last year, California became the first state in the nation to offer healthcare to low-income undocumented immigrants. The expansion, approved by Newsom and the Democratic-led Legislature, has cost the state billions and drawn sharp criticism from Republicans. Assembly Minority Leader James Gallagher (R-Yuba City), who has previously called on Newsom to walk back that coverage, said on social media Friday that Newsom and Democratic legislative leaders had 'obliterated' the healthcare system. Newsom's budget proposal in May proposed substantial cuts to the healthcare program for undocumented immigrants, including freezing new enrollment in 2026, requiring adults to pay $100 monthly premiums and cutting full dental coverage. Lawmakers ultimately agreed to require undocumented immigrant adults ages 19 to 59 to pay $30 monthly premiums beginning July 2027. Their plan adopts Newsom's enrollment cap but gives people three months to reapply if their coverage lapses instead of immediately cutting off their eligibility. Democrats agreed to cut full dental coverage for adult immigrants who are undocumented, but delayed the change until July 1, 2026. In Congress, the GOP bill could also pose a serious threat to 16 struggling hospitals in 14 rural counties, which received a $300-million lifeline in interest-free loans in 2023, Newsom said. He said the Republican members of Congress in California who supported the bill and represent rural parts of California, including Central Valley Rep. David Valadao (R-Hanford) and Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin), are 'gutting an already vulnerable system.' Some senators are pushing to change a requirement that would require states to freeze and cut by half the tax they impose on Medicaid providers, slashing a key source of funding for rural hospitals. Michelle Baass, the director of the California Department of Health Care Services, said that change could be 'fatal for the many rural and critical-access hospitals that are already financially strained.' Newsom said in aggregate, the cuts could threaten California's progress in reducing the share of residents without health insurance, which stands at about 6.4%.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store