Live data from Hacker News

Google Co-Founders on Healthcare: “Thanks, But No Thanks”

thehealthcareblog.com

21–30 of 149 posts

Re: Google Co-Founders on Healthcare: “Thanks, But No Thanks”

#21
post #4

Basically, he's saying that it's too heavily regulated for them to want to dip their toe in. Seems reasonable, it's the same reason I never bothered with the healthcare ideas I've been interested in. Too many landmines, and not enough latitude to try creative things.

The whole mining data on health has so many wonderful possibilities, but giving so much of my privacy it's a big no for me.

The data would be anonymised. No one would be connecting your records to _you._

Re: Google Co-Founders on Healthcare: “Thanks, But No Thanks”

#22
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Heavy regulation" doesn't just include HIPAA.

True, but that was the one specifically mentioned in the article so I figured I'd address it.

I think the most illuminating thing about HIPAA is the fact that it lays bare just how poorly doctors and lawyers and healthcare administrators actually understand logical security in the computer science sense. I will point to the use of fax machines as a superb example. The law essentially considers PGP and a fax machine to be security equivalents.

And I say that as a doctor.

Re: Google Co-Founders on Healthcare: “Thanks, But No Thanks”

#23
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The regulations more exist to keep you from getting people discriminated against. I mean, yes, we don't want folks to die. Nor do we want folks making bad decisions based on information they don't understand. However, to say that it is just "people could die" ignores the fact that they have technology entering in vehicles and whatnot.

The first time a Google car crashes and Google lawyers have to sit across from a now paralyzed child on the witness stand, Google will quickly think twice about the Vehicle market. This was a huge problem we faced in Automotive. All big automotive companies are VERY cautious about safety, to what would seem like absurd levels.

Like GM? http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/gm-recall/lawsuit-says-gm-h...

Re: Google Co-Founders on Healthcare: “Thanks, But No Thanks”

#24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole mining data on health has so many wonderful possibilities, but giving so much of my privacy it's a big no for me.

The data would be anonymised. No one would be connecting your records to _you._

According to who?

Re: Google Co-Founders on Healthcare: “Thanks, But No Thanks”

#26
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole mining data on health has so many wonderful possibilities, but giving so much of my privacy it's a big no for me.

Interesting. Is that an absolute position, or would you be more willing if the benefits (longevity, better health) were more apparent?

Absolute position. The benefits are not that appealing to me.

Re: Google Co-Founders on Healthcare: “Thanks, But No Thanks”

#27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole mining data on health has so many wonderful possibilities, but giving so much of my privacy it's a big no for me.

The data would be anonymised. No one would be connecting your records to _you._

The anonymization rules for PHI are strict enough that it would make a lot of the interesting mining you could do difficult if not impossible. Specifically the restrictions related to dates and locations.

Re: Google Co-Founders on Healthcare: “Thanks, But No Thanks”

#30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole mining data on health has so many wonderful possibilities, but giving so much of my privacy it's a big no for me.

The data would be anonymised. No one would be connecting your records to _you._

When "anonymization" is done poorly, it has consequences.

It was bad enough with Netflix recommendations getting de-anonymized; imagine what could happen with actual health records leaked.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/09/your-secrets-live...

Post reply on HN