31–40 of 82 posts
I find it disingenuous that the article refers to Google as a “tech giant”. The implications are far more sinister if instead it was referred to as “advertising giant” as advertising is what is what is driving Google to acquire this data. Call it for what it is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think they have taken privacy enhancing steps, though public perception isn't easy to change. A lot of people (including HN users) still mistakenly think that Google sells user data, or medical history is being used for ads, etc. Disclosure: I work at Google, but my opinion is my own.
That might be true now, but who knows where your current employer will be in 10 years and if they by then even remotely match your current values. We are already seeing cracks forming and it makes difficult to trust them with our most sensitive data. It was easier 10-15 years ago, not so much these days.
I find it disingenuous that the article refers to Google as a “tech giant”. The implications are far more sinister if instead it was referred to as “advertising giant” as advertising is what is what is driving Google to acquire this data. Call it for what it is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would you trust a literal corporate mouthpiece? You think Zuckerberg cares about your privacy too? No way in hell Google isn't going to use this for advertisement. It's exactly the kind of huge free money that drives everyone else to collect data totally unrelated to their core business. Even if the intentions are benign now, there's no reason to trust they'll be so later, based on Google's track record and the t…
> Even if the intentions are benign now, there's no reason to trust they'll be so later, based on Google's track record and the typical tech mindset. I have never heard of Google doing outright illegal things. They make very liberal interpretations of the law in their own favor, but patient data protection is very clear and well understood so there isn't much room to play there.
2. Do you really trust that the law is sufficiently protective? Do you believe it to be crafted for the novel dangers that come from mining aggregations of data and building individual profiles with next generation ML?
3. What stops Google from throwing it's weight around to lobby for changes to the law which allow it to make use of data in ways that laws protect against now, once it has the data?
Sure, that's a lot of what ifs. But this particular scenario is dangerous because it effects all of us, and it only takes one ambitious authoritarian to turn all of this adtech fun and games into the most comprehensive and fine grained surveillance apparatus that has ever existed. Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Pol Pot; just imagine the temptation of being just one "lawful" seizure away from such power...that's what slimy adtech companies are building, they don't care and the average person doesn't understand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would you trust a literal corporate mouthpiece? You think Zuckerberg cares about your privacy too? No way in hell Google isn't going to use this for advertisement. It's exactly the kind of huge free money that drives everyone else to collect data totally unrelated to their core business. Even if the intentions are benign now, there's no reason to trust they'll be so later, based on Google's track record and the t…
> No way in hell Google isn't going to use this for advertisement. There are ample ones: It's illegal, it's highly unethical, and you wouldn't be able to keep something like that a secret. > Even if the intentions are benign now, there's no reason to trust they'll be so later, based on Google's track record and the typical tech mindset. What track record?
>As Google has moved to expand its data collection, some potential partners have been put off by what they viewed as the company’s aggressive maneuvers to acquire data without providing enough information on how it would be used. >Google pushed one medical-data manager not to share data with other companies, according to a person familiar with the pitch. >As part of its huge offer for Cerner, whose software is embedd…
> The most generous interpretation of this is that Google has altruistic motivations to make advances in health and they shouldn't worry about how to monetize whatever they build. You either make money from your users or off your users.
I encourage you to have a broader perspective, since this statement isn't true.
E.g. let's examine what Dr Feinberg (who current leads Google Health), oversaw at his last job (see link below).
tl;dr - They gave free food to some people with diabetes, which was better and cheaper than giving them drugs. This was not just free PR, etc.
https://www.hcinnovationgroup.com/population-health-manageme...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No way in hell Google isn't going to use this for advertisement. There are ample ones: It's illegal, it's highly unethical, and you wouldn't be able to keep something like that a secret. > Even if the intentions are benign now, there's no reason to trust they'll be so later, based on Google's track record and the typical tech mindset. What track record?
Why do you say it's illegal? Google is not a covered entity under HIPAA as far as I can tell, is it something else?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think they have taken privacy enhancing steps, though public perception isn't easy to change. A lot of people (including HN users) still mistakenly think that Google sells user data, or medical history is being used for ads, etc. Disclosure: I work at Google, but my opinion is my own.
That might be true now, but who knows where your current employer will be in 10 years and if they by then even remotely match your current values. We are already seeing cracks forming and it makes difficult to trust them with our most sensitive data. It was easier 10-15 years ago, not so much these days.
You’re just cutting the cord of falsifiability here. Because none of us can see 10 years into the future, you’ve made it impossible for anyone to disagree with you or even have a reasonable discussion. It’s an intellectually dishonest position to take.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you say it's illegal? Google is not a covered entity under HIPAA as far as I can tell, is it something else?
I was under the impression that HIPAA applies to anyone in possession of private healthcare information (medical information tied to personally identifiable information)
It doesn't appear to be as broad as you (and I) imagined. Google might qualify as a "Health Care Clearinghouse" in this case, but it's far from clear.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would you trust a literal corporate mouthpiece? You think Zuckerberg cares about your privacy too? No way in hell Google isn't going to use this for advertisement. It's exactly the kind of huge free money that drives everyone else to collect data totally unrelated to their core business. Even if the intentions are benign now, there's no reason to trust they'll be so later, based on Google's track record and the t…
> No way in hell Google isn't going to use this for advertisement. There are ample ones: It's illegal, it's highly unethical, and you wouldn't be able to keep something like that a secret. > Even if the intentions are benign now, there's no reason to trust they'll be so later, based on Google's track record and the typical tech mindset. What track record?
Tech company. Automation. Advertising.
Do they need to be skinning puppies or something?