Google AI has access to huge haul of NHS patient data

it did not. google own deepmind, but the restrictions on data usage are pretty tight.

> I expect a HN to understand how this is usually impossible. Correlating data may seem hard to the layman, but Google is experience at data analysis.

yes, but then again, i don't expect you to know what data it is that deepmind are working with, and what their primary motives are. whilst i don't know for certain, i heavily doubt the data is leaving deepmind.

> who are trying to find subtle correlations in the medical data

that is not what they are doing.

> That's not the only reason to not want your medical data spread around. A better reason might be not wanting your data in more places where it could be stolen or leaked.

oh please. i trust google far more than my own government for data protection; we're talking about an orginisation who leaves sensitive literally just lying around (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/7449927.stm).

> The "pathetic" part is the complete disregard for the people that generated that data. It doesn't matter if Google is talented at what they do, or if the data might be used for something that you might think is useful. I may even agree about the utility of the data, but if you aren't getting explicit informed consent from the people involved, you have a serious ethics problem.

an aside; it's funny that people are far more concerned about their medical data than they are their personal history. my medical data doesn't define me, but my actions do. if only such zeal existed for governments indiscriminate collection of personal data. oh well.

but back on topic, the data deepmind has (and i want to make that distinction that google does not have it, because they do not). it is anonymised sufficiently such that short of heavy analysis (which i concede is probably possible) very few inferences about the identity of the patient can be drawn. further, deepmind has absolutely no interest in correlating this data with people, and less than zero interest in targeting adverts to patients.

happy to address criticism

I have a small team that is working with leaders in the space[1] to help many of the major EMR vendors support an open-standards based approach to medical record sharing.

We'll be seeking public feedback when some of the preliminary work is ready, but are very excited to get input from the community as we make progress.

[1] https://dbmi.hms.harvard.edu/news/more-power-patients

DeepMind IS Google. Asserting that it isn't doesn't magically make them a separate legal entity.

> restrictions on data usage

I really don't care what the restrictions are today. The data exists under Google's control.

> i don't expect you to know

Arrogant insults are not a useful form of rhetoric. I read the actual agreement, and while it wasn't anywhere as detailed as I would have liked, it was fairly clear about the data that would be sent.

> primary motives

Again, this is irrelevant.

> that is not what they are doing

That's (part of) what DeepMind does.

> trust google

You may trust Google, but trust isn't transitive. You don't get to make that decision for other people.

> more concerned

You don't know that; you should really stop assuming you know what other people's opinions are.

> about their medical data than they are their personal history

Both of those are important. Where people place their concern will depend on their personal situation, which might or might not include medical data.

> my medical data doesn't define me

You're projecting your own situation on others. For someone with HIV (which is one of that data points being sent to Google), that medical fact may play a very defining role in their life.

> if only such zeal existed for governments

It does. Why would you think that someone that is against Google gathering more data is fine with the government doing the same? Both of those groups need to be defended against.

> an orginisation who leaves sensitive literally just lying around

Pointing to problems at other orginizations doesn't excuse making new problems.

> anonymised sufficiently

Then prove it; the agreement only listed [name (including initials0, address, NHS number, photographs or videos] as "identifying" information and [full postcode, date of birth, telephone number, e-mail address] as identifying in combination. It requires that those be sent encrypted (why not hashed? this means they can be decrypted).

> deepmind has absolutely no interest

Who cares what their interest is today. They may not have the choice, there interests can change, etc. The argument that everyone should "trust us, we're not greedy and have only good motives" has always been stupid, and Google themselves have a poor history of respecting user data.