Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook was in talks with hospitals about a proposal to share data

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 120 posts

Re: Facebook was in talks with hospitals about a proposal to share data

#51

Post by lovelearning »

downandout wrote: post #42
sveme wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deanonymization of medical data is actually pretty easy if you know a little about your target (age group, height, a set of pre-existing medical conditions limit the set of potential people considerably).

Just an aside...of the many things I have entered into Facebook over the years, I am 100% certain that I have never given them my height or pre-existing medical conditions.

The scary thing about data is that a lot of it can be inferred from other innocent data, such as photos. Height, can be inferred simply from the photos and videos you upload to social media.

[1]: https://graphics.ethz.ch/~edibra/Publications/HS-Nets%20-%20...

Re: Facebook was in talks with hospitals about a proposal to share data

#52

Post by RoyTyrell »

tjoff wrote: post #33
vinhboy wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds to me like the researcher wanted to use this data to identify at-risk groups and get them preventive care. I don't mean "identify" as in, de-anonymize them, but to use data to figure who may need help (or advertised to -- same difference really). This actually sounds like a good idea if that's the purpose. It's not any different than retailers identifying cohorts they can sell to. It also sounds very simila…

Sure, all I see is that insurance companies will be the ones with the most to gain (economically) from this information, and thus the ones that will pay the most for it.

Insurance companies already have tons of relevant medical data on their clients, there's no reason why whatever FB can provide them is going to be miraculously more telling than actual medical data such as their current and past diagnoses and medical conditions.

Re: Facebook was in talks with hospitals about a proposal to share data

#53

Post by ccccccccccccc »

craftyguy wrote: post #8
marcell wrote: post #6

The pile on continues... (1) This is probably a project by a small "research" group at Facebook. The goal of that group is probably to publish papers in a Psych journal or something like that about how they were able to correlate anonymized medical data with Facebook feed updates. Tech companies have these research groups for prestige, they are not central to the company mission. (2) According to the article, the pro…

I dislike/disagree with facebook more than most folks, but even I can smell a dead horse being beaten.

I find it funny how we complain so often of the news moving too fast and major stories becoming irrelevant in a day or two, yet when a something stays in the news for more than a week people gripe over how much attention we give the topic.

Re: Facebook was in talks with hospitals about a proposal to share data

#54

Post by camillomiller »

Joeboy wrote: post #44
blub wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook has been screwing with people's privacy for years, so it's only fair that they are now criticised for years on end. This has got to be a new Facebook apology meme: the pile-on. Until Facebook and privacy is regulated in the US, like GDPR does it for the EU, the pile-on should continue. Must continue, no matter how uncomfortable it is for the pro-Facebook, pro-ads or pro-spyware people.

For me, the result of having HN filled with these Facebook non-stories is that I'm going to stop taking an interest in them. As far as I can tell the situation with Facebook is substantially the same as it's been since it started. Users willfully broadcast information using Facebook, and sometimes Facebook uses that information in ways its users didn't intend or expect. Among the recent slew of dramatic stories I hav…

I don’t know why you’ve been downvoted, you actually posed a serious point. Two days ago, Facebook’s CTO admitted that the search-by-phone-number functionality has been used by bad actors all over to rake in public profile information from potentially all users. We all barely flinched.

Facebook PR strategy is now coming straight out of the Trump’s PR book.

Re: Facebook was in talks with hospitals about a proposal to share data

#55

Post by rainbowmverse »

Joeboy wrote: post #39
apotheothesomai wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For years privacy-minded people have complained about the lack of recognition of privacy issues among the masses. Suddenly, story after story about aspects of Facebook's anti-privacy practices are being read by the public. This will lead to more stories about other data mining entities as well. The more this keeps up, the more concrete privacy issues will be in the minds of many. And yet, HN is full of dismissals. I'…

> Given that you are not the target audience of these stories Isn't that an argument for not having HN filled with these articles?

Only if the subgroup "people who are tired of all this privacy stuff" is representative of HN's readership. There are more people reading than will ever comment. That's true of any community.

Re: Facebook was in talks with hospitals about a proposal to share data

#56

Post by jmull »

NamTaf wrote: post #9

FB seems to have (rightly) realised that this is one of those 'just because we can, doesn't mean we should' cases, especially given the current situation. It's a bit of a non-story, and if I squint I can see the possible academic value in it, but given how battered FB's reputation is right now it's definitely not the time to try something like this. I am sure that the privacy issues could be overcome with a properly…

HIPAA laws (which protect the privacy of patient health information) have some real teeth. If Facebook was not scared off by them, their partners -- the hospitals -- may well have been.

Re: Facebook was in talks with hospitals about a proposal to share data

#57

Post by Joeboy »

camillomiller wrote: post #54
Joeboy wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me, the result of having HN filled with these Facebook non-stories is that I'm going to stop taking an interest in them. As far as I can tell the situation with Facebook is substantially the same as it's been since it started. Users willfully broadcast information using Facebook, and sometimes Facebook uses that information in ways its users didn't intend or expect. Among the recent slew of dramatic stories I hav…

I don’t know why you’ve been downvoted, you actually posed a serious point. Two days ago, Facebook’s CTO admitted that the search-by-phone-number functionality has been used by bad actors all over to rake in public profile information from potentially all users. We all barely flinched. Facebook PR strategy is now coming straight out of the Trump’s PR book.

> I don’t know why you’ve been downvoted

I'm guessing for being a pro-Facebook shill and/or an anti-Facebook zealot.

Re: Facebook was in talks with hospitals about a proposal to share data

#58

Post by downandout »

IAmEveryone wrote: post #49
downandout wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quite telling that it has been 'put on hold'. That in itself is a story. It's been put on hold because Facebook PR knows that people don't read the details of stories. By and large, they read headlines - and many of those are misleading at best. The issue with CA, for example, wasn't a data breach - the data they had was collected in compliance with Facebook's rules at the time. Yet many headlines and soundbites have…

This again... "Data breach" means an unauthorised access or use of data. Cambridge Analytica was not authorised to access or use the users' data. Therefore, it's a data breach. It makes no difference if the breach uses a zero-day exploit to access FB's database, or if it uses social engineering to get someone at Facebook to send them a hard drive, or if it's some researcher being given access under false pretences. "…

>It makes no difference if the breach uses a zero-day exploit to access FB's database, or if it uses social engineering to get someone at Facebook to send them a hard drive

It makes an enormous difference because it affects what the public should reasonably be afraid of in the future.

Scenario 1 (what actually happened): Facebook used to have bad app policies that were too permissive, and political candidates like Obama and Trump abused data obtained under those policies. They were changed 4 years ago, and this behavior has not been possible since then.

Scenario 2 (what the media is implying to get clicks): Breach! Breach! We have a breach! Highly paid hackers are breaking into Facebook, stealing your data, and using it to brainwash you! Facebook is incapable of securing your information and therefore we must ensure that they never get any information about anyone ever again!

So, your personal definition of a “data breach” notwithstanding, it is both alarmist and inaccurate to use that term in describing the CA situation. Where news headlines are concerned, the most commonly accepted definition of that phrase, which is being intentionally used to conjure up false images of scenario 2 above, is the only thing that matters.

Re: Facebook was in talks with hospitals about a proposal to share data

#59

Post by ramphastidae »

appleflaxen wrote: post #47

In light of this news, the fact that Zuckerberg General Hospital exists is in some ways completely irrelevant/cosmetic, but is simultaneously kind of hideous.

I mean, I’m no FB fan at all, but why? Assuming it’s named that because he made a donation and he’s not using his leverage at the hospital inappropriately, isn’t it only fair to give him some credit when his surveillance money is used for good? Similar to Bill Gates.

Re: Facebook was in talks with hospitals about a proposal to share data

#60

Post by dwighttk »

soziawa wrote: post #18
marcell wrote: post #6

The pile on continues... (1) This is probably a project by a small "research" group at Facebook. The goal of that group is probably to publish papers in a Psych journal or something like that about how they were able to correlate anonymized medical data with Facebook feed updates. Tech companies have these research groups for prestige, they are not central to the company mission. (2) According to the article, the pro…

(1) Or it could have been just another way to add a little more data to your profile. And even if you are right, I don't think you are but if you were, do you really want a company to do psychological experiments with you without your knowledge? (2) Yeah, but it wasn't started because of the pile on. You can't give Facebook credit for not starting this.

>do you really want a company to do psychological experiments with you without your knowledge?

too late[1] (2014)

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/02/facebook-...

Post reply on HN