Google’s DeepMind made ‘inexcusable’ errors handling UK health data, says report
1–10 of 72 posts
Re: Google’s DeepMind made ‘inexcusable’ errors handling UK health data, says report
#2Note: The errors are by people and business dealings, not in decisions made by AI while analyzing health data.
Re: Google’s DeepMind made ‘inexcusable’ errors handling UK health data, says report
#3> The data-sharing agreement — which was signed in 2015 and has since been superseded by a new contract — allows DeepMind access to medical records from 1.6 million patients attending London hospitals run by the NHS Royal Free Trust. Although at the time Google presented the deal as primarily about finding patients at risk from a condition known as acute kidney injury or AKI, the actual terms of the agreement, revealed in April 2016 by a New Scientist investigation, were more broad.
> The report notes that DeepMind was given access not only to relevant blood tests and diagnostics, but historical medical records dating back five years, including information on HIV diagnoses, drug overdoses, and abortions. The report also says the wording of the 2015 deal did not constrain the company from using AI analytical techniques on the data (something DeepMind disputes).
What's the legal status and overall vibe of something like this in the UK?
It's a bit different in the USA as we don't really have an NHS here with everybody's data and it'd be done directly with multiple insurers or medical providers. I'm guessing this would violate some type of patient privacy laws as well.
Given the option I bet many people, including your humble commenter, would opt-out too. (or just not opt-in if we're lucky).
Re: Google’s DeepMind made ‘inexcusable’ errors handling UK health data, says report
#4This has the whiff of what might kindly be called activist research, particularly given the track record of the author(s). There may be legitimate questions and concerns, but I'm inclined to trust the Wellcome representative's analysis of the situation.
Re: Google’s DeepMind made ‘inexcusable’ errors handling UK health data, says report
#5Errors in transparency and oversight. Fix the title please.
Still a very legitimate concern, especially in the age of privacy.
Re: Google’s DeepMind made ‘inexcusable’ errors handling UK health data, says report
#6> The data-sharing agreement — which was signed in 2015 and has since been superseded by a new contract — allows DeepMind access to medical records from 1.6 million patients attending London hospitals run by the NHS Royal Free Trust. Although at the time Google presented the deal as primarily about finding patients at risk from a condition known as acute kidney injury or AKI, the actual terms of the agreement, reveal…
https://www.mib.com/
> including your humble commenter, would opt-out too. (or just not opt-in if we're lucky).
At this moment, do you know what organizations own a copy of your medical records -- in whole or part -- and what laws apply to each of those partial records? If not, then how can you possibly hope to opt-out?
Re: Google’s DeepMind made ‘inexcusable’ errors handling UK health data, says report
#7Frankly these post-docs are engaging in outright witchhunt against DeepMind driven by nothing but pure political agenda.
The amount of data obtained is frankly tiny compared to that available regularly to researchers in USA. E.g. as part of my PhD research I have access to de-indentifed data on 40 Million patients spanning 5 years from several states.
Not to forget programs like CMS Qualified Entity which provide access to identifiable data on ALL Medicare enrolees to companies. Such arrangements have been in place for decades. The only reason Deep Mind is being persecuted is since they are a juicy target, and fear of AI sells very well these days in academic circles.
The report does not lists any specific cases where violations occured but rather makes broad hand waving claims about cabining or advertising.
For those interested here is the orginal paper, instead of verge article.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12553-017-0179-...
If they really had substantive argument (that indicated real malice on part of Deep Mind) it would have been easily published in Lancet, BMJ, even New England Journal of Medicine. Instead the fact its published in some subject specific Journal should tell you about concreteness of their "findings".
Re: Google’s DeepMind made ‘inexcusable’ errors handling UK health data, says report
#8> The data-sharing agreement — which was signed in 2015 and has since been superseded by a new contract — allows DeepMind access to medical records from 1.6 million patients attending London hospitals run by the NHS Royal Free Trust. Although at the time Google presented the deal as primarily about finding patients at risk from a condition known as acute kidney injury or AKI, the actual terms of the agreement, reveal…
https://www.mib.com/ > including your humble commenter, would opt-out too. (or just not opt-in if we're lucky). At this moment, do you know what organizations own a copy of your medical records -- in whole or part -- and what laws apply to each of those partial records? If not, then how can you possibly hope to opt-out?
> At this moment, do you know what organizations own a copy of your medical records -- in whole or part -- and what laws apply to each of those partial records? If not, then how can you possibly hope to opt-out?
I don't and that's partly why I prefixed that line with, "Given the option ..."
Re: Google’s DeepMind made ‘inexcusable’ errors handling UK health data, says report
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.mib.com/ > including your humble commenter, would opt-out too. (or just not opt-in if we're lucky). At this moment, do you know what organizations own a copy of your medical records -- in whole or part -- and what laws apply to each of those partial records? If not, then how can you possibly hope to opt-out?
> At this moment, do you know what organizations own a copy of your medical records -- in whole or part -- and what laws apply to each of those partial records? If not, then how can you possibly hope to opt-out? I don't and that's partly why I prefixed that line with, " Given the option ... "
I see, I thought you meant "give the option to opt-out". As in the option to opt-out is the missing thing, rather than knowing who you should even ask for an opt-out.
Re: Google’s DeepMind made ‘inexcusable’ errors handling UK health data, says report
#10I don't want my privacy invaded as much as the next person, but arguing about broadness of medical history in this context is pretty stupid.
The data needs to be broad if you are interested in finding out things you don't already know... that's why it's being fed into a machine learning algorithm in the first place - If you get selective then it's not going to be very useful - how do you limit history to what's relevant when you don't know whats relevant?
There is however an interesting difference here between most data mining on the web which is trying to sell advertising. In this instance it should be fully anonymisable, only the doctor should be allowed to see that patient ID e76f57a is John Smith.