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

Google to Collect Data to Define Healthy Human

online.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 35 posts

Re: Google to Collect Data to Define Healthy Human

#21

Post by jkn »

jacquesm wrote: post #20
timothya wrote: post #13

This reminds me of something Larry Page said at TED this year: I say, wouldn't it be amazing if everyone's medical records were available anonymously to research doctors? And when someone accesses your medical record, a research doctor, they could see, you could see which doctor accessed it and why, and you could maybe learn about what conditions you have. I think if we just did that, we'd save 100,000 lives this yea…

I agree with Larry, at the same time google is one of the last companies on the planet that I would trust with that data. Much of this internet privacy backlash is aimed specifically at Google and Facebook (and of course the NSA, but let's assume that they don't have any problems getting to your medical data anyway).

Why is that? The data are anonymized.

But then even if they weren't anonymized, I think Google would be one of the company I would trust the most for that. They know what they're doing in terms of security and of all the companies that know a lot about me, they're the one who consistently delivered great value from the data they have. I'm thinking of things like search, Google Now and the maps interface for my location history. Plus I'm happy that the monetization of my data serves to fund great projects like this one. It didn't have to be so...

Re: Google to Collect Data to Define Healthy Human

#22

Post by CMCDragonkai »

eerpini wrote: post #17
walterbell wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A more mundane concern is insurance and financial (dis)incentives for behavior change, http://www.salon.com/2014/05/30/in_the_future_insurance_comp... "23andMe Is Terrifying, But Not for the Reasons the FDA Thinks", https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6811167 "23andme has suspended health-related genetic tests", https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6859732 "A problem with much statistical analysis is ignoring the fa…

That last link on the shortcomings of most predictions based on statistical analysis was a great read. Thanks for sharing.

Are humans deterministic machines, or do they impose their own freewill on to the environment? Predictions based on statistical analysis probably can't account for freewill.

Re: Google to Collect Data to Define Healthy Human

#23

Post by bitL »

thrush wrote: post #12

I'm excited to know which diets, exercises and lifestyle define a healthy human, which I'm hoping this information will give me (assuming the information will be released).

What if there is no such universal thing? What if our DNAs, tRNAs, upbringing etc. generate a very wide set of health requirements that aren't in sync between all humans but instead compete with each other? Some people eat bacon and trans fat every day and live up to 100 years. Some people die in their 30s on the same diet etc.

Are we going to end up with an average that doesn't fit anyone?

Re: Google to Collect Data to Define Healthy Human

#24

Post by jacquesm »

jkn wrote: post #21
jacquesm wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with Larry, at the same time google is one of the last companies on the planet that I would trust with that data. Much of this internet privacy backlash is aimed specifically at Google and Facebook (and of course the NSA, but let's assume that they don't have any problems getting to your medical data anyway).

Why is that? The data are anonymized. But then even if they weren't anonymized, I think Google would be one of the company I would trust the most for that. They know what they're doing in terms of security and of all the companies that know a lot about me, they're the one who consistently delivered great value from the data they have. I'm thinking of things like search, Google Now and the maps interface for my locati…

Anonymizing data is a lot harder than it seems at first glance. So far any large enough dataset that was deemed to be properly anonymized has been used to prove the opposite by identifying individuals.

The only way you can properly anonymize such data is by reducing it to aggregates but then most of the utility is lost.

Taking the combination of google search data and medical data it would not at all be hard to tie some of the searches (and thus identified users) to medical records. Especially not if the diseases / symptoms are rare.

Re: Google to Collect Data to Define Healthy Human

#25

Post by throwaway2048 »

jkn wrote: post #21
jacquesm wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with Larry, at the same time google is one of the last companies on the planet that I would trust with that data. Much of this internet privacy backlash is aimed specifically at Google and Facebook (and of course the NSA, but let's assume that they don't have any problems getting to your medical data anyway).

Why is that? The data are anonymized. But then even if they weren't anonymized, I think Google would be one of the company I would trust the most for that. They know what they're doing in terms of security and of all the companies that know a lot about me, they're the one who consistently delivered great value from the data they have. I'm thinking of things like search, Google Now and the maps interface for my locati…

Even anonimized data that seems very generic and nonspecific, when corolated with other data points paints a very precise and specific picture of an individual, including enough to accurately identify them. This is Google's entire business model.

Health data is very far from this idealized anonimization-friendly case. It is some of the most specific data avalible about you, and it can easily be abused to disadvantage you in ways you can do nothing about (insurance, job prospects, social standing, even as far as getting your life threatened by people who disagree with things like sexuality and abortion)

Im sure Google appreciates your faith in them. But you should carefully consider the consequnces. Once the information is out there, there is no getting it back.

Re: Google to Collect Data to Define Healthy Human

#26

Post by throwaway2048 »

bitL wrote: post #23
thrush wrote: post #12

I'm excited to know which diets, exercises and lifestyle define a healthy human, which I'm hoping this information will give me (assuming the information will be released).

What if there is no such universal thing? What if our DNAs, tRNAs, upbringing etc. generate a very wide set of health requirements that aren't in sync between all humans but instead compete with each other? Some people eat bacon and trans fat every day and live up to 100 years. Some people die in their 30s on the same diet etc. Are we going to end up with an average that doesn't fit anyone?

A sort of gmail interface redesign problem, but people's lives are on the line.

Google has shown itself to be driven by metrics to almost the sole exclusion of anything else, metrics often dont tell you what you think they do.

Re: Google to Collect Data to Define Healthy Human

#27

Post by Toenex »

thrush wrote: post #12

I'm excited to know which diets, exercises and lifestyle define a healthy human, which I'm hoping this information will give me (assuming the information will be released).

I work in medical imaging and if there is something I've learnt over the last 20 years it's that we understand 'normal' less than any other disease state.

Re: Google to Collect Data to Define Healthy Human

#28

Post by Dylan16807 »

CMCDragonkai wrote: post #22
eerpini wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That last link on the shortcomings of most predictions based on statistical analysis was a great read. Thanks for sharing.

Are humans deterministic machines, or do they impose their own freewill on to the environment? Predictions based on statistical analysis probably can't account for freewill.

Statistics can account for free will just as well as they account for other complex factors, which is poorly, with no ability to say what will happen in any particular case. There's no need to get metaphysical.

Re: Google to Collect Data to Define Healthy Human

#29

Post by jkn »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #25
jkn wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is that? The data are anonymized. But then even if they weren't anonymized, I think Google would be one of the company I would trust the most for that. They know what they're doing in terms of security and of all the companies that know a lot about me, they're the one who consistently delivered great value from the data they have. I'm thinking of things like search, Google Now and the maps interface for my locati…

Even anonimized data that seems very generic and nonspecific, when corolated with other data points paints a very precise and specific picture of an individual, including enough to accurately identify them. This is Google's entire business model. Health data is very far from this idealized anonimization-friendly case. It is some of the most specific data avalible about you, and it can easily be abused to disadvantage…

You're making a good point with the "there is no getting back". I kind of trust Google based on their track record but you can never be sure about the future[1]. But all in all what matters is not whether I can trust them perfectly, it's that to me the expected benefits are concrete and vastly outweigh the theoretical risks. I guess I'm in a privileged position such that I wouldn't even mind having most of these data made public to help with this kind of research[2]. To me it is more about progressivism vs. conservatism than about faith in a particular company (though I do worry that one company might concentrate too much power).

[1] Although Google's direction is arguably more stable than is usual for publicly traded companies, given the particular share structure designed to keep control in the hands of the founders.

[2] Mostly, being in generally good health and living in a country where basic health insurance is guaranteed and good enough, with premiums that don't depend on your health.

Re: Google to Collect Data to Define Healthy Human

#30

Post by mhw »

jkn wrote: post #21
jacquesm wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with Larry, at the same time google is one of the last companies on the planet that I would trust with that data. Much of this internet privacy backlash is aimed specifically at Google and Facebook (and of course the NSA, but let's assume that they don't have any problems getting to your medical data anyway).

Why is that? The data are anonymized. But then even if they weren't anonymized, I think Google would be one of the company I would trust the most for that. They know what they're doing in terms of security and of all the companies that know a lot about me, they're the one who consistently delivered great value from the data they have. I'm thinking of things like search, Google Now and the maps interface for my locati…

Others have pointed out the issues and difficulty of anonymizing the data, but I'd also be concerned about Google having that kind of data because of their existing business relationships. Google's current customer base is large and small corporate advertisers the world over. If they have a new set of data available internally, I find it difficult to believe that they would not try to sell some kind of service based on that data to their existing customer base. Without extremely strong corporate governance the temptation would be just too high for someone to say "I know - let's make some of our anonymized health records available to this existing large customer of ours."
Post reply on HN