Fitbit data used by authorities to solve sexual assault case

Fitbit accuracy put to the ultimate test
Fitbit data used to solve a case

Remember the Redditor who thought his wife's Fitbit was broken when she was actually pregnant? Well it looks like Fitbit is making the news with yet another non-fitness reason in Pennsylvania.

In a recent segment of Today, police turned to a woman's Fitbit to figure out whether her sexual assault claim was valid. Described as a "landmark case," the authorities were able to prove that the woman's claim was false.

When the district attorney was asked how critical the evidence on the Fitbit was, he replied: "It sealed the deal for us. We had other evidence but the Fitbit made all the difference."

Of course, just like any other personal items, a warrant is needed to investigate.

Up next: We read your wearable terms and conditions

Like something out of a television show, the segment then tested the accuracy of a Fitbit Surge essentially showing all the data your wearable records including GPS information and heart rate activity.

The district attorney then made it clear this won't be the last time they'll turn towards wearable devices and new gadgets to help solve cases: "When we have technology like Fitbit, we're going to take advantage of it."

While it was successful for this case, and showed just how accurate a fitness tracker can be, it's still an uneasy feeling knowing that a wearable and its wealth of data can be used against you.

Just like the case of Apple against the FBI, there are no easy solutions when it comes to the issues of personal privacy and public security.

Sign up for the Wareable newsletter

1 Comment

  • Skinz says:

    Surely, it should be what a great feeling that modern technology can be used to support delivering justice ... 

    Rather than the somewhat dubious concept suggested in the penultimate sentence above that somehow a digital evidence trail is maybe more worrying than any other one and that personal privacy outweighs establishing truth, delivering justice or someone else's individual freedoms or rights.

    And in this case why deliberately confuse access to already shared information to the principal under test in the Apple / FBI case ... Which to me is that there should be a clear open test to establish wether the State can get aided access to an individual's data, if it is possible.

    Sad to see a win painted as an issue by what appears to be someone either with a bit too much paranoia or too much to hide...

What do you think?

Connect with Facebook, Twitter, or just enter your email to sign in and comment.