Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Fitness Site Accidentally Shows Sexual Activity

samzenpus posted about 3 years ago | from the private-numbers dept.

Privacy 297

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.

cancel ×

297 comments

Problem (4, Insightful)

cgeys (2240696) | about 3 years ago | (#36693776)

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 (4, Funny)

ccguy (1116865) | about 3 years ago | (#36693816)

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 (0)

rufty_tufty (888596) | about 3 years ago | (#36693842)

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

Re:Problem (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36693882)

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

Re:Problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36693884)

No. It is a natural and completely positive emotion to feel jealous when your mate is unfaithful. No religion needed to explain it.

Re:Problem (1, Insightful)

rufty_tufty (888596) | about 3 years ago | (#36694006)

I disagree it is positive to feel jealous about their sexual activity. I might as well be jealous of the social life that they have that I don't.
Consider an alternate society where it was considered unfaithful for your wife to have male friends. You might then feel jealous when you realise she is friends with her boss. I don't see the difference between that situation and the current one in our society re: sex; it's just a matter of where you draw the line.

Re:Problem (0, Troll)

cgeys (2240696) | about 3 years ago | (#36694162)

Exactly. The idea behind having sex with other people is bad is put there by the religions disapproval of premarital sex. If you think about it, it really is no different from other activity. Now, religions did have a good reason to put that into peoples mind. After all, religion was pre-modern way to control people so that they didn't behave in destructing way. There are all the pregnancy and possible disease issues that needed to be controlled before. But in modern times they can be handled in other ways. But the religions already had put the mindset that sex == bad in to peoples mind. It's lifting off little by little, like people don't feel bad about premarital sex anymore. However, there still are those trust and faithful things people go about without proper reason. Just saying "faithful" is not a reasoning. Why is having sex with other people different from other activies, like for example mount climbing?

Re:Problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36694268)

sex does create a strong empathy bond between people, like other activities, you may say, but stronger and kinda psychologically different.

that's why I won't, for example, buy an house with a girl if we're in a open relationship. she could just get a stronger bond with another man and leave me with a ton of unresolved money problems.

the core concept of faithfulness is not only dictated by religion, and you're just ignoring tons of other issues. sex does have a strong impact on human mind, we're just programmed that way.

that's why you have sex crimes and not mount climbing crimes, citing your example.

Re:Problem (3, Insightful)

berwiki (989827) | about 3 years ago | (#36694272)

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 (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | about 3 years ago | (#36694416)

Frequently polygynous family units. Men could have multiple women because they were stronger. You'll find that biology isn't all that interested in equality, fairness, or morality.

Re:Problem (2)

AlecC (512609) | about 3 years ago | (#36694384)

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 (2)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | about 3 years ago | (#36694560)

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 (4, Funny)

somersault (912633) | about 3 years ago | (#36694474)

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 (2)

wintercolby (1117427) | about 3 years ago | (#36694436)

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 (1)

speculatrix (678524) | about 3 years ago | (#36694596)

I would have to take care of someone else's kids, financially

we all do that already, but indirectly, through taxation payments which end up in welfare/social security payments to parents unable/unwilling to provide for their own children.

Re:Problem (2)

wjousts (1529427) | about 3 years ago | (#36693886)

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

Re:Problem (3, Insightful)

rufty_tufty (888596) | about 3 years ago | (#36693950)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36694082)

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.

Because most marriages include a voluntary agreement to limit sexual activity exclusively to one's spouse.

Re:Problem (2)

Lumpy (12016) | about 3 years ago | (#36694372)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36694086)

Some people just don't feel comfortable being with someone who has multiple current partners. I don't care one way or another, but whether it is due to societal pressure or not it is their choice.

Besides, why is there an argument about this on Slashdot? You know that anyone here is GRATEFUL to have a single partner. You could never have multiple. That would go against the stereotype of the people who frequent this site.

Insecurity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36694106)

It's actually mainly about insecurity or jealousy that your partner is going to have a lot of fun without you and end up abandoning you.

Compared to my previous relationship, where my partner was constantly jealous of anyone who looked at me (or vice versa), my current relationship where we're free to look or touch is a lot more stress-free. The funny part is that neither of us is doing anything outside our relationship, but the freedom eliminates the potential for jealousy or worry as we are secure in our relationship.

Re:Problem (2, Interesting)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | about 3 years ago | (#36694110)

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 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36694590)

Hey, your position is also based on learned behavior! Everyone's opinions are based on what they have learned. 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.

The funny thing is, you acctually agree that trust is a big part of a relationship. Which means that you know how damaging betrayal is to a relationship. The ONLY difference is you don't consider it a betrayal for your spouse to go out with other people, as long as they let you know. Personally that would make me uncomfortable. I guess that's your queue to stick up your nose and tell me how much of a sheep I am. Hypocrite.

Re:Problem (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36694672)

Well when I fuck a girl, they become madly, obsessively in love with fucking me again and again. My wife and I tried to have an open relationship, but she was unable to orgasm with anyone but me. It became very irritating for her to be constantly bombarded by other women expecting my time and my cock when she was my wife. There were constantly people showing up at my door, calling me, and threatening my wife.

This is one of many reasons why "open" marriages don't work.

How do you, ElectricTurtle, deal with these issues? How do you avoid them?

Re:Problem (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36694112)

> If they are not, then that is probably as a result of social memes

Or genetic reproductive strategies that have been evolving long before there were humans. Just because you think something is unnatural doesn't make it a social meme. It makes sense to be jealous of your partner sexually because then they're either diverting resources to another's spawn or tricking you into raising not your genetic material. It's generally good sexual strategy to cheat, not get caught, and not let your partner do it.

Re:Problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36694502)

Finally someone making sense!

Re:Problem (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36694124)

You are then not husband and wife as it is commonly understood, you are fckbuddies - a valid choice for many, but if so, what was the point of getting officially married?

Re:Problem (2)

Abstrackt (609015) | about 3 years ago | (#36694402)

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 (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 3 years ago | (#36694430)

you are a backward hillbilly that cant think. IT's obvious you dont understand marriage let alone even human relations and sexuality.
Come on back when you can talk like an adult and not be a coward that is too much of a pussy to post under your own account.

child support (2)

sourcerror (1718066) | about 3 years ago | (#36694218)

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

Re:Problem (1)

gtbritishskull (1435843) | about 3 years ago | (#36694450)

I disagree. If you want to have an open relationship and are fine with it, then more power to you. But jealousy related to non-monogamous partners is not a "social meme". And most marriage ceremonies (or similar human bonding rituals) include a promise to be monogamous. So, in general, sexual activity is very closely related to honesty and trust.

There are many reasons why humans would have evolved to prefer a monogamous relationship, and, from the fact that almost all cultures enforce monogamous relationships, it can be concluded that social norms were created due to human nature, rather than human behavior being molded by social norms (at least in this instance). So, unless you have any cite-able proof that jealousy is a learned behavior and not a natural emotion, then I am going to have to say that your argument is wrong.

Re:Problem (2)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | about 3 years ago | (#36694636)

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 (1)

ajzimm3rman (1695434) | about 3 years ago | (#36694490)

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

Re:Problem (1)

operagost (62405) | about 3 years ago | (#36694494)

Are you really this stupid? Obviously, from the GP poster's response monogamy is expected in his relationship. Thus, having another sexual partner IS A BREACH OF THAT TRUST, the same as in your outdated "free love" scenario if all the parties involved were not notified so they could be aware of the pregnancy and STD risks.

Re:Problem (2)

Rob the Bold (788862) | about 3 years ago | (#36694496)

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 (1)

Ambvai (1106941) | about 3 years ago | (#36694520)

Because most (a guess on that part) people enter into a relationship either with an explicit or assumed agreement that it's exclusive. In that case, it's perfectly reasonable to be annoyed that the other person failed to uphold the deal. On the other hand, if it's NOT exclusive, then there's no grounds for complaint (and you're probably not exclusive either, though hypocrisy is common enough). It is ultimately a matter of trust... just like any other activity. I can't be the only person who was going to watch a movie with the sig and was disappointed to learn that they got impatient and watched half of it first.

Re:Problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36694534)

Trust is paramount. Even ignoring the overwhelmingly important implications of pregnancy, sex puts its participants in an extremely vulnerable position both legally, socially, psychologically, neurochemically, and pathenogenically. People who enter into it with no regard to trust are risk-takers, either out of a disregard for themselves or a disregard for others.

Re:Problem (1)

jomama717 (779243) | about 3 years ago | (#36694660)

It's biological/instinctive, particularly for men I think - when you choose a mate (i.e. get married) in 99% of cases there is an implicit understanding that you and your mate will be exclusive sexual partners. For a man this means that if your partner becomes pregnant you can rest assured that it is *your* genes that have been passed on the offspring, which is arguably the entire purpose for our existence from a biological standpoint.

Interestingly the motivation is slightly different for women, they have no reason to be insecure about their own genes being passed along as they are the carrier of the offspring - they are only interested in making sure that they have found the very best male contributor possible. I even read somewhere [citation needed...too lazy to google it] that the fact that a majority of offspring resemble the mother rather than the father is a built-in advantage for females of species that mate for life, as they can more easily hide their infidelity. All the more reason for the males to be insecure.

Re:Problem (1)

Riceballsan (816702) | about 3 years ago | (#36694172)

Seconded, there are extremely few cultures or societies of any religion that do not have marriage as a key structure in society, and in almost all cases that involves commitment and monogamy, and the rules seem to be more or less the same regardless of whether the culture believes in the judeo christian god, Allah, Buddha and yes even atheists. That being said I don't think it's fair to blame the service on any relationship failing, A relationship based on your partner not finding something out, is the security by obscurity equivalent, if your spouse isn't going to trip over it by accident, suspect it her/himself, there's about 500 other ways it will eventually be known and tripped over, rather then blaming the 500 ways to get busted, perhaps if you aren't able to honor a committed relationship, you shouldn't be in one. Plenty of ways to get in an open relationship if that's how you want to go.

Re:Problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36694664)

A Buddha is an enlightened being that has transcended the wheel of samsara. Every sentient being is a potential Buddha.

Sorry but you can't use "Budhha" for the name of a monotheistic deity such as "God", "Yahweh", "Allah" etc.

Just sayin'

capture: shrugs

Re:Problem (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 3 years ago | (#36694242)

Cheating means doing it without permission.

You are not cheating if she gives her blessing. As in Polyamory Relationships, Swingers, etc....

Not everyone has a uptight puritan view on sex and relationships...

Re:Problem (2)

operagost (62405) | about 3 years ago | (#36694546)

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

Re:Problem (1)

Ephemeriis (315124) | about 3 years ago | (#36694516)

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

Your statement makes my head hurt.

You say it's about trust... But, if you really trusted your wife (or your wife trusted you, or whatever), then some weird numbers showing up on a website wouldn't be an issue. The assumption would be that she was masturbating, or the device was malfunctioning, or something like that. It only becomes a problem when you don't trust your wife and the assumption is that she's cheating on you. Or, I suppose, when she actually does cheat on you.

But... If we set aside your statement of trust... The fact of the matter is that, regardless of whether you're an atheist or not, our cultural stereotype of monogamous marriage is largely based on Christian teaching. You and your wife have entered into a monogamous relationship - which means sexual exclusivity. But there are plenty of people out there who are not in such a relationship - in which case seeing differing numbers for sexual activity in FitBit wouldn't be a cause for concern.

So the original assertion that the underlying problem is, in fact, the mindset regarding sexual activity is 100% accurate.

Re:Problem (2)

ildon (413912) | about 3 years ago | (#36694186)

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 (2)

David Chappell (671429) | about 3 years ago | (#36694280)

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 (2)

jamesh (87723) | about 3 years ago | (#36694310)

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 (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36693854)

Women are not property you misogynist patriarchal cockbag!

Re:Problem (2)

mcvos (645701) | about 3 years ago | (#36693980)

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

Re:Problem (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 3 years ago | (#36694448)

Yet that is the basis of all Christian and Muslim Marriages.

Re:Problem (0)

TheCarp (96830) | about 3 years ago | (#36693860)

Well, don't go snooping for information that you don't want to know.

Traditional marriage is traditionally held together by a careful eye for avoiding notice of each others indiscretions. Hell we are all human, how the hell could you live for 50+ years with another person without the ability to overlook various details about them and their activities. Its impolite not to.

Re:Problem (1)

flibbidyfloo (451053) | about 3 years ago | (#36693862)

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.

What if hers are a super-set of yours because she masturbates more than you? Is that a problem? I mean, besides reflecting poorly on your skills as a lover.

Re:Problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36693932)

What if hers are a super-set of yours because she masturbates more than you? Is that a problem? I mean, besides reflecting poorly on your skills as a lover.

As a girl, I will say that this is just complete bullshit, by the way. Why and when I masturbate has nothing to do with how well my husband is doing. It might help your insecurity to tell others otherwise, but it's just not true.

Re:Problem (1)

Inda (580031) | about 3 years ago | (#36694210)

And yet the reverse is true. Your husband wanks himself silly in the shower because he's not getting enough action in the bedroom.

Food for thought.

Yeah, I know. AC being female on /. is...

Re:Problem (1)

DanTheStone (1212500) | about 3 years ago | (#36693986)

According to an article I read on this, there is no category on the site for going it solo. I guess they don't think it can be active enough to count.

Re:Problem (1)

flibbidyfloo (451053) | about 3 years ago | (#36694586)

I doubt the device could tell the difference for some people. Maybe it's just included in the same numbers?

Re:Problem (1)

Abstrackt (609015) | about 3 years ago | (#36693930)

It just means she likes to "work out" more than you. ;)

Re:Problem (1)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | about 3 years ago | (#36694084)

Exactly. It isn't hard to imagine why someone would prefer this stay private. What if a minor is using FitBit? What if it is being used by someone who lives in a repressive religious community? A prospective employer could check it out, and they wouldn't even have to use it to screen applicants: would you want your boss knowing how frequently you have sex, and how many calories you burn while doing it? Some might find it threatening, especially if that info is used to sexually harass an employee or co-worker. But all of this is moot. The real problem is the "totally open and public by default" attitude some social networking sites seem to feel is just fine.

Re:Problem (1)

rgviza (1303161) | about 3 years ago | (#36694212)

your wife may burn a different number of calories than you since one partner may be doing more work than the other depending on sexual position.

Re:Problem (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | about 3 years ago | (#36693904)

If you'll pardon the expression, amen. Though I think we're going to have to wait at least until the Millennials replace the Boomers, probably longer, before we see pervasive social change.

It's rather ironic actually, a lot of Millennials grew up in stereotypical picket fence households where parents went out of their way to keep anything remotely sexual away from their children. Now that generation is, to some degree, hiding their sexuality from their parents but less so from each other. I only hope they learn their lesson and are equally as open with subsequent generations.

Re:Problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36694200)

You need to take globalisation into account though. At around the same time the Millennials take over, the vast populations of the Middle East will be really getting into the internet thing, and India will be finishing it's own transition. People who are far, far, far more sexually repressed and repressive than even the boomers.

Re:Problem (5, Insightful)

iceperson (582205) | about 3 years ago | (#36694046)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36694178)

Dude - I wish I had some mod points. Finally, the voice of reason.

Re:Problem (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36694282)

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.

Some might disagree. [penny-arcade.com]

Re:Problem (3, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | about 3 years ago | (#36694064)

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 (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | about 3 years ago | (#36694326)

I find these reasons rather hollow. Privacy isn't really much of a choice if society punishes voluntary public exposure.

Further, problems professionally with having children are not an argument for privacy but characterize a fundamental flaw with society that needs to be fixed. Yes, pregnancy is bad for business, but every company that talks out of both sides of its mouth needs to be taught a lesson. Either come out and just say 'we don't support working mothers because we are selfish assholes' and deal with the backlash from customers who withdraw their support (funny, that), or make it a policy to be supportive of working mothers. It would even be possible in the latter case to try to get more customers through publicizing that positive aspect.

Lastly, the jealousy of strangers is the dumbest reason not to do something. I know some people are jealous of my house and income, does that mean I should live in a tenement and only take minimum wage? That's idiocy. If my being happy makes other people depressed, fuck them, they need therapy. I don't need to stop being happy to make them happy.

Re:Problem (1)

ildon (413912) | about 3 years ago | (#36694142)

No. the problem is when someone is cheating and they input it into their device to track their fitness and their significant other finds out about it through Google. Even without religious hangups or whatever, once you've made a commitment to one person it's wrong to break that commitment.

Re:Problem (1)

Eraesr (1629799) | about 3 years ago | (#36694190)

I think if all taboos surrounding sexuality are gone, it's not as much fun anymore.

Re:Problem (0)

AmazinglySmooth (1668735) | about 3 years ago | (#36694230)

Check with Solomon on how sexual "freedom" worked out for him. Or ask many of the HIV/AIDS patients. Or pregnant teens. I think you will find that sexual "freedom" doesn't quite work out the way you want.

Re:Problem (2)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about 3 years ago | (#36694668)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36694394)

Then it would be the same as posting on your Facebook wall how good your breakfast was. People would just be bored about it.

Thank God for religion!

Re:Problem (2)

operagost (62405) | about 3 years ago | (#36694462)

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

Re:Problem (1)

dtjohnson (102237) | about 3 years ago | (#36694608)

"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.

You could say the same about murder, child labor, infanticide, and denial of comfort to the suffering. The problem is not 'mindset' but that those things are wrong. Sexual activity showing up on FitBit violates privacy and offends dignity but is not otherwise necessarily immoral. However, the alleged sexual activity seems questionable. From TFA: "the Fitbit Tracker is an compact wearable device that clips onto clothing or slips into a pocket..." How exactly is this device functioning as an accelerometer when the user is partially or completely naked (a common state for much sexual activity)?

Re:Problem (1)

sorak (246725) | about 3 years ago | (#36694666)

Agreed, but from the company's perspective, it is easier to change your product than to change the mindset of millions* of potential customers.

* There are billions of people in the world, but I am assuming that the number of people who could afford, and would be interested in, purchasing a device that posts your workout information to a social networking site is significantly lower.

You are all such prudes! (2)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | about 3 years ago | (#36693838)

Abolish the family! For women's liberation through socialist revolution!

Fitness Site Accidentally Shows Sexual Activity (2)

shoehornjob (1632387) | about 3 years ago | (#36693876)

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 (2)

Haedrian (1676506) | about 3 years ago | (#36693946)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36694050)

Looks like 'whacking' to me/

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Fitness Site Accidentally Shows Sexual Activity (3, Funny)

jovius (974690) | about 3 years ago | (#36694066)

That's desperate.

The user should try the other hand.

Re:Fitness Site Accidentally Shows Sexual Activity (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about 3 years ago | (#36694524)

Yes because we all know it's better than telling the truth which is Active Vigourous Effort started 2pm. Slept at 2:15pm and woke up at 6:15pm and logged the activity.

Re:Fitness Site Accidentally Shows Sexual Activity (2)

cygnwolf (601176) | about 3 years ago | (#36694352)

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.

BodyMedia Fit (1)

Sectoid_Dev (232963) | about 3 years ago | (#36694022)

I use the BodyMedia device, which is similar to FitBit in that it estimates calories burned by measuring various things: Galvanic skin response, skin temperature, body heat and has an accelerometer. I like it a lot, although there is a subscription required.
The only data I enter manually are my food logs, which can be a pain but it helps keep you honest and focused. I wouldn't want to also have to enter my 'activities' each day. It's interesting enough to just see a bar graph of calories/minute and a total number. If that data did become searchable, only I would know what that sudden spike on last Saturday afternoon was. But you would find out I am a Taco Bell junkie.

4 hours and 15 minutes? (1)

mcvos (645701) | about 3 years ago | (#36694036)

Did that guy from the screenshot in TFA have sexual activity for 4 hours and 15 minutes? FitBit is really good for your stamina, apparently.

Re:4 hours and 15 minutes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36694328)

Good for your mom too.

Oh yeah, I went there!

Talk about Stamina (2)

ThinkWeak (958195) | about 3 years ago | (#36694048)

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?

Re:Talk about Stamina (1)

RivenAleem (1590553) | about 3 years ago | (#36694386)

Clearly this is a Streisand Effect / Slashvertisement of epic Cunningness.

By reporting this people will be attracted to the site where they hear about Jeff, a user of FitBit, gets Vigorous sex for over 4 hours. People will be queueing to join.

Fitbit's fault (2, Insightful)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 3 years ago | (#36694056)

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.

Re:Fitbit's fault (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36694338)

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.

It extremely clearly isn't Fitbit's fault. So there! As long as these options are made easy to locate and change, it's the stupid user who is at fault.

Coming to your signature: countable numbers are a subset of real numbers, and therefore, are real numbers.

Re:Fitbit's fault (1)

Byzantine (85549) | about 3 years ago | (#36694454)

I own a Fitbit. It was Fitbit's fault. Apparently, though, nobody at Slashdot thought to actually look at Fitbit's site [fitbit.com] :

We take the privacy of all Fitbit users very seriously. To address some recent concerns about logged activities of Fitbit users showing up in search engine results, we have taken several immediate steps.

Some quick background:

  • As you know, Fitbit users can decide voluntarily to log their physical activities. You must do this manually and this information is not collected automatically.
  • When setting up their profiles, users have had the option to make their profile activity records private, though the default setting has been to make this information public.

As of Sunday [July 3], we have taken the following steps to protect our users’ privacy:

  • All activity records on Fitbit.com were hidden from view from both other users and search engines, no matter what the user’s current privacy setting. We have also updated our default settings for new users for activity sharing to “private.”
  • We submitted requests to Google and Yahoo/Bing to remove any indexed user profile pages from their search engines. As a result, user profile pages and their activity records have already disappeared from Google and should disappear within several days at other search engines. Once removed, previously indexed activity records should not be accessible to the public at all from that search engine.
  • For now, we have removed other personally identifiable information from users’ Fitbit profile pages regardless of privacy settings.

We are dedicated to making this the best fitness platform possible with users in full control of their data. For many people, sharing information is an important motivator for them to achieve their fitness goals. We will be in touch with our users about new choices they will have when they want to share information.

James Park

CEO, Co-Founder, Fitbit

Re:Fitbit's fault (1)

CarsonChittom (2025388) | about 3 years ago | (#36694478)

Whoops, accidentally logged in and commented under my old, now-unused account. Posting as the new me to remove any temptation to moderate.

not Fitbit’s fault? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36694080)

"It’s not really Fitbit’s fault ... the default privacy setting allows profiles to be found in search results"

And who's fault is such a default setting that makes such information public?

It's the user's fault. The default setting clearly stated that they wanted to signed up for spam, publish sexual information, and support the Irish Republican Army.

why online in the first place? (1)

leuk_he (194174) | about 3 years ago | (#36694368)

If you choose to store the data on the website, then you have done this to share this data.

from the first page of fitlib site: "Walk within 15ft of the provided basestation and your data will be automatically uploaded to the Fitbit website."

But it is easier to blame the technology. Somthing could be tagged wrong, or should not have been made public.

Calories burned in sex or duration of sex do not seem to indicate quality i would say.

...it can be attached to the wrist? (1)

stepdown (1352479) | about 3 years ago | (#36694126)

Sounds like it was designed with Slashdot's most common form of sexual activity in mind!

So, ummm... (1)

Deadstick (535032) | about 3 years ago | (#36694192)

...Where do you attach this accelerometer-based apparatus when you're boinking?

rj

Re:So, ummm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36694296)

Yeah that was definitely my question. Maybe I don't understand how the device works. And unless the users are deliberately selecting a "Sexual Activity" option from a pulldown menu to willingly classify the detected activity, an accelerometer could really only make such a determination as a best guess, right?

Jane Fonda (1)

rgviza (1303161) | about 3 years ago | (#36694232)

You know you want to do the Jane Fonda.

slashvertisement (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36694420)

slashvertisement? reads like an attempt to raise publicity

Duration (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36694452)

4 hours 15 minutes. Yeah. Sure.

Blocked by Google? (1)

bradgoodman (964302) | about 3 years ago | (#36694640)

I just tried the search indicated in the article. Google returned no search results. Did Google block or scrub it somehow?

True story: (3, Funny)

MMC Monster (602931) | about 3 years ago | (#36694674)

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".

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...