131–140 of 156 posts
This is borderline sickening.
I think they could feasibly make the case for selling data to drug and research companies for the purposes of medical advancement ... but beyond that it's ridiculous.
I'm generally realpolitik about these kinds of issues, but even this to me feels evil.
The argument they're making here is a little subtle, but it tracks. They're not claiming Google will hand out a user's biometrics to insurance companies or other parties. They're claiming Google will offer biometrically-based signal as an ad discrimination channel. At that point, they don't have to hand out the data to allow insurance companies to discriminate; insurance companies could set up targeted ads for Cadill…
This is called risk selection, and is already a common practice [1] that doesn't require much in the way of "health data" [2]. I suspect that 80% of the effect can be achieved via "simple" methods like advertising on health and fitness related sites or keywords, partnering with gyms to advertise to members, etc. ACA has some provisions to help address these incentives [3], though it's unclear how effective they are.…
Some thing’s are not be a big risk to society until they get amplified.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'll admit I bought a flip phone for the purposes of avoiding any virus apps that may be required in future should that happen. I just want to stay off the radar and I have a right to do so. iOS 13.7+ can track your location for Covid contact tracing, even if there is no "virus app" installed. There should be an opt-out setting. https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/01/tech/apple-google-contact-tra...
Yes, mine is turned off. Look at some European countries now. England has QR codes at the entrances to all public spaces. Download and install the app or provide your details that they hold for 21 days. No, thank you. Will. Not. Comply.
We need all test statistics to be normalized, e.g. with transparency on PCR cycle threshold used by the test vendor and laboratory.
Given Bluetooth security weaknesses, it's only a matter of time before a legal challenge occurs against an iOS proximity assertion which has a large economic consequence, e.g. person returns to country B with PCR CT30 after being near a person in country A with PCR CT40 "positive" test result.
Should Person B be quarantined (e.g. they are expected to perform in a high-value sporting event) if they have no symptoms and there's a broad discrepancy in PCR cycle thresholds? Lawyers will sort this out after enough money is at stake to justify thorough collection of scientific evidence to challenge local policy assumptions syndicated by global iOS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is called risk selection, and is already a common practice [1] that doesn't require much in the way of "health data" [2]. I suspect that 80% of the effect can be achieved via "simple" methods like advertising on health and fitness related sites or keywords, partnering with gyms to advertise to members, etc. ACA has some provisions to help address these incentives [3], though it's unclear how effective they are.…
I’m not sure it’s missing the point though. I think the specificity and scale that big tech brings can change the impact of these practices significantly. Some thing’s are not be a big risk to society until they get amplified.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, mine is turned off. Look at some European countries now. England has QR codes at the entrances to all public spaces. Download and install the app or provide your details that they hold for 21 days. No, thank you. Will. Not. Comply.
Germany is introducing a fine for providing incorrect contact details to restaurants. Former East Germans have living experience with "papers please". We need all test statistics to be normalized, e.g. with transparency on PCR cycle threshold used by the test vendor and laboratory. Given Bluetooth security weaknesses, it's only a matter of time before a legal challenge occurs against an iOS proximity assertion which…
The older I get, the more true the adage "those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them" becomes to me.
Why is it that every few generations we have to repeat the mistakes of the past, in versions ever more vicious and horrific, in order to learn (for a couple of generations maybe) that it was a bad idea?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'll admit I bought a flip phone for the purposes of avoiding any virus apps that may be required in future should that happen. I just want to stay off the radar and I have a right to do so. iOS 13.7+ can track your location for Covid contact tracing, even if there is no "virus app" installed. There should be an opt-out setting. https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/01/tech/apple-google-contact-tra...
Yes, mine is turned off. Look at some European countries now. England has QR codes at the entrances to all public spaces. Download and install the app or provide your details that they hold for 21 days. No, thank you. Will. Not. Comply.
But it leaves me wanting more. I mean -- we know, to be blunt, we know that the vast, vast majority of people will never stand up and agree with you, even if some unidentified part of them wants to. The world is marching in lockstep toward authoritarianism again, and cheering it along the whole way.
Where does all this go? What can we do? Disappear into a countryside somewhere and live off the land? What's the endgame for those of us who don't want to play anymore?
I don't have an answer to this. And without an answer, symbolic acts of rebellion become meaningless to me and I suspect, is 99% of the reason nobody else stands up either. Without an alternative - there's no point in fighting back.
So how do we create an alternative? Not just advocate for one... create it. So that people flock to it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> let's be honest, good and evil are binary like night and day. Now why would you think that? In fact I'm pretty sure you're wrong: good and evil are various shades of gray, never white nor black. In real life, there aren't entities (corporations or humans or whatever) that are "pure good", nor are there entities that are "pure evil".
Furthermore by not differentiating between shades of gray there's no way to encourage good behavior from companies/people because they're all equally bad so you treat them the same even if one is making more efforts to do the right thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And when you can't get insurance coverage because said AI says you have a disqualifying condition?
Then solve the real underlying problem...insurance... NOT the segmentation of valuable health information that could help advance medical discoveries (with that data being handled properly)
I don't know if there's a way to solve that problem, even in principle. It seems like an intrinsic conflict of interest thing.
Until that's solved, that will remain a major and rational reason why people care about health data privacy.
There's no point saying "ignore health data privacy and fix the real problem" until people can fix the real problem. Which as I've said, might not be possible even in principle.
Meanwhile, the thing people can do for themselve is focus on privacy of their healthcare records and demanding that be maintained. Institutions and companies can incrementally develop improvements to aggregating data that don't simply discard that privacy, like differential privacy for smart data aggregation, and zero-knowledge systems like the Google/Apple coronavirus alert system.
Perhaps eventually we'll and up with a way to aggregate health data in ways that are more helpful for diagnostics and population-level understanding of diseases, while safeguarding individuals from harmful consequences.
The argument they're making here is a little subtle, but it tracks. They're not claiming Google will hand out a user's biometrics to insurance companies or other parties. They're claiming Google will offer biometrically-based signal as an ad discrimination channel. At that point, they don't have to hand out the data to allow insurance companies to discriminate; insurance companies could set up targeted ads for Cadill…
Personally I'm more worried about companies outside the healthcare markets getting access to health data more than insurance companies. But it seems like everyone is in agreement on that. I'd bet money that with consistent access to sleep cycles, heart rate, blood pressure, ecg, and body temperature combined with device analytics (screen time, content watched/listened to) you could easily come up with a behavioral mo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> argument they're making here is a little subtle, but it tracks. [ ... ] They're claiming Google will offer biometrically-based signal as an ad discrimination channel It's not impossible that that would happen, but it would be a departure from current behavior. To some degree, Google is selective about what data does and doesn't feed into ad targeting. Examples: (1) Emails are sensitive, and Gmail messages are off l…
(For the benefit of the doubt, I'm choosing my wording very carefully here): I'm not convinced that Google works in this way, which could be a signal that their systems are so vast even they aren't aware of how users' data moves through it and gets used. Of course, you could just as easily conclude that they're lying, but I find that harder to believe. Everyone has some stories about how Google drew a suspicious corr…
I can absolutely see this happening due to their sheer size losing control as everything is probably silo'd and confusing.
Due to a tax issue last year, I urgently needed a specific from a former GIANT company I worked for per my accountant.
It took over 6 days of calling, emailing and getting transferred around the bureaucracy because they had recently outsourced that HR function to another company and moved all the data and the Director of HR for that entire 1000 person department couldn't even get me the form and didn't know what to do! She and I had to put in a ticket together to the help desk and eventually someone at the outsourced help desk escalated it enough that we found out the physical forms were actually in transit to the east bay offsite location and had not been digitized yet which is why they were not able to provide the form until a 14-business day turnaround.
It was the most absurd and frustrating experience and definitely made me happy I'd moved to a more midsized org. We might not be an industry Titan but at least are small enough to be functional and not get entirely lost in bureaucracy.