61–70 of 82 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One wonders what pleasure austhrow743 might derive from reading HN if not interested in tech.
I am interested in tech. I don't believe it's morally good.
I think the net this criticism casts is too wide.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am interested in tech. I don't believe it's morally good.
I sure do hate how technology moved me away from my natural state of... checks notes ... dying in childbirth. I think the net this criticism casts is too wide.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I sure do hate how technology moved me away from my natural state of... checks notes ... dying in childbirth. I think the net this criticism casts is too wide.
If you died in childbirth then you wouldn't be around to dwell upon it would you?
Assuming Google has access to patient PII would this data be covered by the CCPA ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Consumer_Privacy_Ac... )? I couldn't find a Health Data option at https://takeout.google.com .
De-anonymzed (health) data likely isn't covered by HIPAA, and with a few still generic data points likely associated with the health data, such as health, gender, age, and location -- you could work backwards to reach an identity. There's likely a loophole for whole security of health data thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't have to believe it.
But we'll believe the rest of the article? By what criteria do we pick and choose?
Does it make sense for a tech giant employing lots of data scientists and existing health products (Google Fit) to expand further into Health? Yes.
Does it make sense for a company earning most of their money through advertising to keep health data they are processing completely separate from their core business? In the long run yes, but they can also make a lot of money in the short to medium term by breaking that commitment
So glad our corporate surveillance masters are teaming up to infiltrate every aspect of our existence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was under the impression that HIPAA applies to anyone in possession of private healthcare information (medical information tied to personally identifiable information)
https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/covered-entities... 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.
Protected Health Information is protected under HIPAA for both covered entities and business associates alike. Otherwise, HIPAA would be pointless if covered entities could just pass the PHI to business associates or shell companies unfettered.
Note: I would not consider myself a "HIPAA expert", but I'm a clinical researcher that has to ensure HIPAA compliance for my lab.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But we'll believe the rest of the article? By what criteria do we pick and choose?
Incentives. Does it make sense for a tech giant employing lots of data scientists and existing health products (Google Fit) to expand further into Health? Yes. Does it make sense for a company earning most of their money through advertising to keep health data they are processing completely separate from their core business? In the long run yes, but they can also make a lot of money in the short to medium term by bre…
I personally don't see an incentive for Google to make a quick buck by sacrificing the long term. I see it as quite the opposite, since Google has a lot of cash on hand. See [1]
[1] https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/alphabet-goo...