Sign in / up

back to article Google DeepMind inks 5-year agreement with NHS for 'Streams' app

DeepMind Health, the healthcare arm of the artificial intelligence business owned by Google, has signed a deal with the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust to provide an app called Streams. The deal, which establishes a five-year partnership between the organisations, builds on DeepMind Health's pilot project with the Trust …

COMMENTS

Post your comment
House rules Send corrections
Add to 'My topics' unstar *
  1. Uberseehandel

    This project is being crawled all over by the paranoid, the conspiracy theorists, Chicken-Lickin', fanticists, and the deeply, deeply concerned looking for yet another topic to worry to death.

    It is in nobody's interests that there be a breach of privacy. Everybody involved knows this. Far better than all the people getting on their hind legs and screaming about it. One has to wonder are they really concerned about people's privacy, or do they just imagine they are? Is protest what they really want to do, do they just to wreck a big project regardless of its potential benefits?

    Some quite bright people get involved in this kind of research, patient confidentiality is one of their overarching principles, they know a great deal more about how to do that than the people protesting.

    2 20 Reply
    1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge
      Reply Icon

      "It is in nobody's interests that there be a breach of privacy."

      Did you leave out the sarcasm tag? Data is valuable these days. A breach of privacy would undoubtedly be in someone's interest. Maybe not those closely associated with the project but that doesn't justify such an open-ended statement.

      10 1 Reply
    2. inmypjs Silver badge
      Reply Icon

      "It is in nobody's interests that there be a breach of privacy"

      Giving personal information to any part of google is a breach of privacy.

      8 1 Reply
      1. Uberseehandel
        Reply Icon

        Who says Google is being given any personal information? It is normal practice to substitute meaningless identifiers, so that once the data sets have been processed, any individual cases of interest may be identified for further investigation by the appropriate clinicians.

        0 3 Reply
        1. tiggity Silver badge
          Reply Icon

          pseudo anonymous

          The pseudo anonymity methods are not infallible.

          For any level of meaningful analysis need plenty of other data such as age (even if approximate), gender, potentiality some medical history (illnesses, drugs rescribed etc), potentially some "approximate" location data it (be related to patients addressees(es), GPs, hospitals etc thy have visited), May even include approximated employment information (some jobs can make certain conditions more likely)

          All these nuggets of data mean that, with varying degrees of effort depending on what data available (quite amazing what data people spill on social media ), it is possible to accurately identify most patients, or at least match to a small subset of individuals.

          Even if age, gender, location removed, then the episodes of care info will narrow it down massively (even if they have a bit of date randomization).

          As an aside would be interesting to know if the data was at least k-anonymized.

          It is a catch 22 - if data is really anonymous to such an extent that effort cannot pin it down to a small subset of people then chances are it will be of little use in terms of useful analysis in terms of reducing occurrences / improving outcomes.

          Disclosure: I briefly worked with anonymized NHS data back in the day.

          4 0 Reply
        2. Halfmad
          Reply Icon

          Unfortunately what also tends to happen is more than one dataset is sent to the same supplier and they can join up the dots.

          substitution/anonymisation is only as good as the people managing it afterwards.

          0 0 Reply
    3. Daggerchild Silver badge
      Reply Icon

      Look upon your people and know despair.

      Look at your downvotes. It really doesn't matter if you're right and what you say is true, or if it will save lives, does it.

      Nobody cares.

      Google are actually possibly the best in handling, protecting and segregating user data, to the point their own employees can't get at it, while the users can.

      And none of that matters.

      The one eyed man in the land of the blind scares the s**t out of the public and ends up dead, not king.

      1 2 Reply
  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    ownership of data

    "the extent of Royal Free's meaningful control over what DeepMind is doing"

    Thats the thing - I don't see too much wrong with this as long as DeepMind are operating on the basis of being contracted to deliver a piece of functionality, and that the NHS retains ownership and full control over the data (being treated as highly confidential) being supplied for DeepMind to built its solution around.

    However, big money being involved, the ability of NHS contract managers and who DeepMind's parent company is leave me less than confident that this would really be the case.

    8 1 Reply
  3. Daggerchild Silver badge
    Childcatcher

    Comparative context

    IBM's Watson, with 300 million patient's recordsets = 5 comments.

    1 1 Reply
    1. Teiwaz
      Reply Icon

      Re: Comparative context

      IBM's Watson, with 300 million patient's recordsets = 5 comments.

      But then IBM are not in the Business of collecting information primarily for mining for Advertising purposes in quite the same way Google are.

      9 0 Reply
      1. Daggerchild Silver badge
        Reply Icon

        Re: Comparative context

        But then IBM are not in the Business of collecting information primarily for mining for Advertising purposes in quite the same way Google are.

        Do you understand this makes Google an expert in segregating valuable data from people who would pay money for it or steal it, including their own employees? How often has Google's data leaked?

        The first thing IBM did with the power of their AI, was put on a display by crushing humans on Jeopardy at their own game of comprehension and general knowledge, and then disappearing from public view. Who do you think they were displaying to? Who do you think they worked for then? What are they capable of now, years later?

        0 1 Reply
      2. Daggerchild Silver badge
        Reply Icon

        Re: Comparative context

        But then IBM are not in the Business of collecting information primarily for mining for Advertising purposes in quite the same way Google are.

        You sure IBM can resist that siren call? Doesn't look like it to me...

        Kenny says that what Watson is not just being used to cure cancer, “but to just recommend what you should watch next” and even to recommend “what ad you you should watch next.”

        He says the game-changing thing about Watson is its ability to “get to know you personally and know what you need next. It comes from what we learned in medicine.”

        http://www.businessinsider.co.id/how-ibm-watson-helped-cure-a-womans-cancer-2016-12/

        0 0 Reply
    2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge
      Reply Icon

      Re: Comparative context

      US vs UK sensitivities?

      1 0 Reply
  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Ben Laurie

    A very impressive Fig Leaf.

    0 0 Reply
    1. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Take the Red Pill Ben.

      0 0 Reply
  5. Dan 55 Silver badge
    WTF?

    Did I read the article right?

    Not only are the Royal Free hospitals giving Google patent data, they're paying them to take it too. Does their management think it's some kind of burden or something? Google PR dept must be wetting themselves laughing every time they release a press release about this.

    8 1 Reply
  6. conscience
    Stop

    The whole idea of private, for-profit businesses getting any confidential NHS patient data stinks and needs making totally illegal immediately.

    And no, it doesn't really matter whether it is Google, IBM or anyone else doing the snooping (before the PR shills start moaning about fairness). I don't even think the NHS itself should necessarily be allowed to use patient data in this way.

    1 0 Reply

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

Forgotten password ?

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like