Privacy in consumer wearable technologies: a living systematic analysis of data policies across leading manufacturers
Abstract The widespread adoption of consumer wearable devices has enabled continuous biometric data collection at an unprecedented scale, raising important questions about data privacy, security, and user rights. In this study, we systematically evaluated the privacy policies of 17 leading wearable...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Nature Portfolio
2025-06-01
|
| Series: | npj Digital Medicine |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-025-01757-1 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850218532782997504 |
|---|---|
| author | Cailbhe Doherty Maximus Baldwin Rory Lambe Marco Altini Brian Caulfield |
| author_facet | Cailbhe Doherty Maximus Baldwin Rory Lambe Marco Altini Brian Caulfield |
| author_sort | Cailbhe Doherty |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract The widespread adoption of consumer wearable devices has enabled continuous biometric data collection at an unprecedented scale, raising important questions about data privacy, security, and user rights. In this study, we systematically evaluated the privacy policies of 17 leading wearable technology manufacturers using a novel rubric comprising 24 criteria across seven dimensions: transparency, data collection purposes, data minimization, user control and rights, third-party data sharing, data security, and breach notification. High Risk ratings were most frequent for transparency reporting (76%) and vulnerability disclosure (65%), while Low Risk ratings were common for identity policy (94%) and data access (71%). Xiaomi, Wyze, and Huawei had the highest cumulative risk scores, whereas Google, Apple, and Polar ranked lowest. Our findings highlight inconsistencies in data governance across the industry and underscore the need for stronger, sector-specific privacy standards. This living review will track ongoing policy changes and promote accountability in this rapidly evolving domain. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-69ae252e97f14d83b434c35f4e0f1283 |
| institution | OA Journals |
| issn | 2398-6352 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-06-01 |
| publisher | Nature Portfolio |
| record_format | Article |
| series | npj Digital Medicine |
| spelling | doaj-art-69ae252e97f14d83b434c35f4e0f12832025-08-20T02:07:41ZengNature Portfolionpj Digital Medicine2398-63522025-06-018111110.1038/s41746-025-01757-1Privacy in consumer wearable technologies: a living systematic analysis of data policies across leading manufacturersCailbhe Doherty0Maximus Baldwin1Rory Lambe2Marco Altini3Brian Caulfield4School of Public Health, Physiotherapy and Sports Science, University College DublinInsight Research Ireland Centre for Data Analytics, University College DublinSchool of Public Health, Physiotherapy and Sports Science, University College DublinDepartment of Human Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit AmsterdamSchool of Public Health, Physiotherapy and Sports Science, University College DublinAbstract The widespread adoption of consumer wearable devices has enabled continuous biometric data collection at an unprecedented scale, raising important questions about data privacy, security, and user rights. In this study, we systematically evaluated the privacy policies of 17 leading wearable technology manufacturers using a novel rubric comprising 24 criteria across seven dimensions: transparency, data collection purposes, data minimization, user control and rights, third-party data sharing, data security, and breach notification. High Risk ratings were most frequent for transparency reporting (76%) and vulnerability disclosure (65%), while Low Risk ratings were common for identity policy (94%) and data access (71%). Xiaomi, Wyze, and Huawei had the highest cumulative risk scores, whereas Google, Apple, and Polar ranked lowest. Our findings highlight inconsistencies in data governance across the industry and underscore the need for stronger, sector-specific privacy standards. This living review will track ongoing policy changes and promote accountability in this rapidly evolving domain.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-025-01757-1 |
| spellingShingle | Cailbhe Doherty Maximus Baldwin Rory Lambe Marco Altini Brian Caulfield Privacy in consumer wearable technologies: a living systematic analysis of data policies across leading manufacturers npj Digital Medicine |
| title | Privacy in consumer wearable technologies: a living systematic analysis of data policies across leading manufacturers |
| title_full | Privacy in consumer wearable technologies: a living systematic analysis of data policies across leading manufacturers |
| title_fullStr | Privacy in consumer wearable technologies: a living systematic analysis of data policies across leading manufacturers |
| title_full_unstemmed | Privacy in consumer wearable technologies: a living systematic analysis of data policies across leading manufacturers |
| title_short | Privacy in consumer wearable technologies: a living systematic analysis of data policies across leading manufacturers |
| title_sort | privacy in consumer wearable technologies a living systematic analysis of data policies across leading manufacturers |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-025-01757-1 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT cailbhedoherty privacyinconsumerwearabletechnologiesalivingsystematicanalysisofdatapoliciesacrossleadingmanufacturers AT maximusbaldwin privacyinconsumerwearabletechnologiesalivingsystematicanalysisofdatapoliciesacrossleadingmanufacturers AT rorylambe privacyinconsumerwearabletechnologiesalivingsystematicanalysisofdatapoliciesacrossleadingmanufacturers AT marcoaltini privacyinconsumerwearabletechnologiesalivingsystematicanalysisofdatapoliciesacrossleadingmanufacturers AT briancaulfield privacyinconsumerwearabletechnologiesalivingsystematicanalysisofdatapoliciesacrossleadingmanufacturers |