"no opt-out for patients who do not wish to share their data."
Google has decided to wipe people’s medical records from its search results - just as its AI branch DeepMind extends its grips on UK patients’ medical records. The Chocolate Factory added an extra line to its removal policies page on June 23, which lists “confidential, personal medical records of private people” as information …
I have to question the legality of this.
Here in the states, it would be a direct violation of HIPPA.
If anyone knows of Google doing this or anyone doing this without the direct consent of any and all patients involved... its a lawsuit.
The combination of this data with any other data set that further violates or erodes the protections granted by HIPPA or any other privacy statute would also be an actionable offense.
Strewth. It's like nobody even cares what Deepmind and the Trust are *actually* doing.
By all means. Block Google from processing your medical data. Tell Google directly. They will agree. That will confuse the hell out of you.
"DeepMind has consistently said that patients’ data is safe, and will not be shared with its parent company, as well as emphasising the benefits Streams has for patients."
Something you never read: "As a way of showing their trust in its security and use, all of DeepMind's executives have added their own personal medical history into the system."
"but no comment about removing it from the profile that is built about you to help google target you with more adverts."
Ack. and don't forget every question you ever typed in for WebMD or some similar web site to see if you want to bother going to a doctor, or to inform yourself ahead of time to avoid unnecessary "whatever".
Or you could always have fun and look up a bunch of rare female diseases (if you're a male), or rare male diseases/conditions (if you're a female), and flood their metadata with useless nonsense. Then sit back and watch the funny ads, with beer and popcorn.
that's right ladies, penis enlargement ads! JUST for YOU! Men can get plenty of information about menopause and vaginal yeast infections sent to them, and maybe some sample feminine hygiene products on top of it...
Is it my imagination, or is this trying to make a scare story out of two things that are agreed by all involved to be A Good Thing?
There's a lot of referencing and self-referencing 'alleged to', 'was reported to' and 'people say was'. There's a feedback loop here that's not healthy for the Zeitgeist considering the below:
If you check, you find that the Deepmind growl by the regulator was about the paperwork - users data-consented only for treatment, but the app was officially only for non-treatment testing, but the doctors *were* using it for treatment, so .. ?
It's a bad thing that it wasn't there from the very beginning. It's a bad thing now because they're not thinking about these things thoroughly or methodically, it's all done piece meal according to whatever the latest publicity about privacy is. It's a bad thing because it's still all about getting hold of more data for themselves, and using it to make more money.
I hope the NHS is damn well charging them a fortune for access to the data, or have placed audited embargoes on using the data for anything other than medical research. And since when did Google become a medical research institute? Have they suddenly stopped being an ad broker?
"And since when did Google become a medical research institute?"
*migraine*... Almost nothing you just said they're doing, they're doing. You didn't even get their name right. And you got upvoted.
Deepmind, the chess player, has a set of anonymised eye scans. It checks for a condition, and gives the result to the doctor, the only one who can de-anonymise it.
Point at the bit that is evil, or the bit I got wrong. And if you tell me that the evil is actually silently hiding over there in the shadows where nobody can disprove it exists, I swear to Murphy I will cry.
And since when did Google become a medical research institute?
The idea was there since its inception. Google early tech ORIGINATED in medical genetics data analysis. Google at the top is inseparable from an interest in health and medical applications.
It was not actioned upon for two reasons.
1. A bit awkward to compete with your wife.
2. Google's top (actually now that is Alphabet) was nowhere near as optimistic as Anne Wojcicki in the idea that you can run a company disregarding the health regulator (her optimism had to undergo forced "surgical" correction by the FDA). They also understand very well that in order to play in that field they need to be in the 800 lb gorilla category. They are now in that category so they rather unsurprisingly entering the field in full force.
...that decisions are made based upon that data that can effect the patient and their offspring.
Oh you smoked, drank, went abroad, flew on planes, contracted HIV, lived next to a busy road , suffered from mental problem, did a stressful job (basically anything that might effect your health) therefore you are immediately at risk of associated health problems and your premiums have to go up to offset your recklessness such that you and your children may find work hard to get or be excluded from treatment.
Health history is supposed to be private and should come under statatory regulations so you cannot sign it away when you are vulnerable.
If people did not want to know about your health history then there would not be a market for it, since their is a market and you have no idea who is making decisions about you based upon self incrimination then it should not be allowed at all.
Just because one of your parents may have had health problems should not mean that you and your children should be punished for it.
Quick profit no matter the cost is always far more expensive that the majority of people understand
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019