41–50 of 94 posts
In fairness, is this any worse than what Palantir will do with the whole countries NHS records? And they're being paid by the government to do it!
yes
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I guess you can't imagine a free, open democratic state with rule of law either. Because when broad, independent, quality journalism with a wide audience is gone, all you'll have to worry about is that poor cat in a tree in Ottawa.
There isn't much difference between giving this data to 20,000 researchers all over the world and simply publishing the data on the web. I personally would like data like this to simply be published, together with a law that says using the data to make personalized decisions affecting those individuals is punishable with life in prison. Basically, this data is 'opensource', but not for use to decide insurance premium…
licensing it to researchers allows you to create, monitor, and enforce policies like the one you describe
stealing it does not
In fairness, is this any worse than what Palantir will do with the whole countries NHS records? And they're being paid by the government to do it!
There isn't much difference between giving this data to 20,000 researchers all over the world and simply publishing the data on the web. I personally would like data like this to simply be published, together with a law that says using the data to make personalized decisions affecting those individuals is punishable with life in prison. Basically, this data is 'opensource', but not for use to decide insurance premium…
As a researcher who regularly deals with such data there is a MASSIVE difference. Yes, I have access to the data but I am restricted on how it can be stored (no cloud), what I can and can't do with it, and for some of it I'm even mandated to destroy it once the research project is over. I have the informed consent of every participant, some of which withdrew halfway throughout the collection without any penalty to them. I also don't need a new law because I'm already bound by existing ones, by the contract I signed when I joined, and by the confidentiality agreement I signed when the project started. While I don't know that the leaker(s) will be identified, the existence of the data itself already calls for legal action while giving a starting point for investigation.
Your suggestion, on the other hand, seems to be "let's put this data out there without people's consent and make companies pinky promise that they won't use it in their black boxes in a way that's virtually impossible to detect or prosecute". Those two things are definitely not equivalent.
"Access this article for 1 day for: £50 / $60/ €56 (excludes VAT)" Man, the scientific publishing cartel is something else. Note that author will generally get exactly £0 / $0 / €0 for his text.
In fairness, is this any worse than what Palantir will do with the whole countries NHS records? And they're being paid by the government to do it!
Is allowing random malicious actors to buy health data worse than allowing NHS's own employees to interact with that data productively? yes
In fairness, is this any worse than what Palantir will do with the whole countries NHS records? And they're being paid by the government to do it!
Palantir develops database software.
[1] https://gizmodo.com/palantirs-billionaire-ceo-just-cant-stop...
In fairness, is this any worse than what Palantir will do with the whole countries NHS records? And they're being paid by the government to do it!
I don’t get this trend of seeing bad thing happen and then commenting that other bad thing exists and therefore “in fairness” we should downplay it.
Bad things are bad. Comparing them to other things we don’t like doesn’t make them less bad. I don’t like Palantir either but they’re not intentionally leaking health details so this comparison doesn’t even make any sense.