REPOST: Fitness tracking goes under the security spotlight

The market visibility of fitness trackers has received exponential growth in recent years, much of it courtesy of consumers' increasing awareness about the importance of regular physical exercise as well as the improvements in the design of these pieces of technology. However, there is also a growing concern about these devices not being completely secure and accurate. For more information, click here.

Image source: cnet.com

The wearable market is currently estimated be worth around $14 billion and it's on the way up. According to AB Research, by 2018 over 485 million wearable devices will ship each year.

Fitness trackers are just one part of the market, but they're a high profile one and it's little surprise that they've fallen under Symantec's security microscope.

Symantec's whitepaper, "How safe is your quantified-self (PDF)", looks at the whole fitness tracking movement, from dedicated devices such as the Fitbit or the Jawbone, to apps that use a smartphone's inbuilt sensors, and through to programs that require a user to input information manually.

The report paints a picture of a new market segment that is in need of better information protection.

Symantec notes that the sort of information being collected by what it terms 'self-trackers' differs significantly from "traditional" personal information, such as name, date of birth or address. Self-tracking information can be as varied as weight, BPM, sleep times, location data, or even things as personal as sexual activity, emotional state, or drinking habits.

In terms of security issues, just some of the troublesome areas that report highlights include:

Vulnerable Location Tracking: Symantec found that all the current wearable fitness models were vulnerable to location tracking, but says that those using Bluetooth LE are particularly at risk.

The company used the Raspberry Pi PC to build a number of cheap Bluetooth scanners discovering that:

"By placing a number of scanning devices at various locations, it is possible to scan and locate a device by identifying the hardware address and measuring the relative signal strengths between scanners and the device, it is possible to get an approximate fix on the physical location of the device."

Poor password protection: A staggering 20 percent of apps transmitted their password data "in the clear" -- that is with no encryption at all. Given the evidence that many people use the same or similar passwords across multiple services, this is cause for concern.

Lack of privacy policy: Only 52 percent of the apps that Symantec examined made their privacy policies available to users.

Unintentional data leakage: Symantec's report gives a rather specific example of one app that shares some rather personal information:

"In one app that tracks sexual activity, the app makes specific requests to a certain analytics service URL at the start and end of each session. In its communication, the app passes a unique ID for the app instance and the app name itself as well as messages indicating start and stop of the tracked activity. Based on this information, the third party who receives the data would be able to know the sexual habits of the owner of the device, granted that the real identity of the device owner may not be associated with the ID."

Sadly, Symantec can't offer too many recommendations to users of tracking apps and devices, other than the usual "use strong passwords" and "be careful about social sharing".

Instead, the call seems more firmly in the court of the app developers and device manufacturers. Secure session management, following the best practices for passwords and better protocols for transmission of secure data are just some of the recommendations.

Data from AB Research says that in the first six months of 2014, there was a 62 percent growth in the use of health and fitness apps. This is a market experiencing some very rapid growth, and unless the devs and manufacturers jump on board soon we don't think this is the last time we'll be hearing about security issues with fitness trackers.

Need more news, tips, and links on nutrition? Check out this Facebook page for Annie Joubran.

REPOST: Fat, calories, sugar: Nutrition labels getting a makeover

The Food and Drug Administration's priority this year will be to update nutrition labels, which has remained the same for decades.  CNN has the report.

Image Source: www.cnn.com

(CNN) -- Choosing healthier snacks may soon be easier.

The Food and Drug Administration says that updating nutrition labels is a priority this year, although it's unclear when the labels will change.

The labels have remained pretty much the same for decades. It wasn't until the late 1960s that most food labels listed any nutrition information at all.

At the time, labels with calorie or sodium counts were mainly used on products the FDA considered to have "special dietary uses" -- for people with high blood pressure who were watching sodium, for instance.

Most people were making meals at home then, so there wasn't a huge demand for this information. That changed as more people started eating processed foods.

Noticing the trend, the White House pulled together a conference of nutritionists and food manufacturers in 1969. But it wasn't until 1972 that the FDA proposed regulations about what those nutrition labels should show.

Nutrition labeling was voluntary at first. It wasn't until 1990 that the FDA required nutrition labels for most prepared and packaged foods. Labels for raw produce and fish remains voluntary.

"It's time to update (labels) to make (them) easier for consumers to use," said Margo Wootan, director of nutrition policy for the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

The nonprofit organization advocates for better safety and nutrition information in the food industry.

"This is a chance to make (the labels) better and help make it easier for people to choose healthier options," Wootan said.

There's been a shift in shoppers' priorities as nutrition is better understood, and people now have a better idea of what they should watch on a label, the FDA said.

The focus has been on fat content; now nutritionists say calorie counting may be more important and should be broken down better for consumers.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest gave the FDA its wish list for these labels. It wants a label that will emphasize calorie counts, perhaps in a bigger or bolder font size or in a number highlighted in some way.

The organization would also like added sugar to get its own line on labels. Studies show many Americans eat more sugar than they realize. Our bodies don't need sugar to function, according to the American Heart Association.

Right now, it's hard to know what's natural sugar and what's added from reading a label. Manufactures are allowed to combine the two.

The heart association recommends you limit added sugar to no more than half of the daily discretionary calories you're supposed to have. That means for American men, about 150 calories a day or nine teaspoons. For women it's a smaller amount -- no more than 100 calories per day from added sugar, or about six teaspoons of sugar.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest would also like to limit the amount of math you now have to do when counting calories. If you have ever looked at a label and realize you've eaten twice the serving size, you'll appreciate that request.

The organization also hopes to make the ingredient lists larger with better spacing.
More Americans are interested in what's on these food labels. The U.S. Department of Agriculture noticed a statistically significant jump in a study it released this month.
The study showed 42% of working-age adults between 29 and 68 looked at these labels most of the time when shopping, or even said they always did. Some 57% of Americans older than 68 did as well.

In a 2007 USDA study, 34% of working-age adults looked at the label, and 51% of Americans older than 68 did.

The increase is good news as the United States struggles with an obesity epidemic. More than a third of all Americans are obese, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Some studies have shown that people who read labels eat healthier. One 2005 study of African-American shoppers in North Carolina found that to be true. A 2012 study of college students in Minnesota saw similar results.

Annie Joubran is a health and nutrition enthusiast.  Learn more about her career in this Facebook page.