Google AI has access to huge haul of NHS patient data • Hacker News Board

Re: Google AI has access to huge haul of NHS patient data

#81

Post by aub3bhat » Tue, May 03, 2016, 3:54 AM UTC

superkamiguru wrote: post #80

There is no equivalent of HIPPA in the UK?

HIPPA stands for Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. The "Privacy" component of HIPPA is very limited in scope. Even with HIPPA the data being shared would be consistent with definition of "Limited" dataset.[0] At least in United States there is significant precedent for sharing such data, including even for marketing purposes as decided by Supreme Court case (IMS Health vs Sorrell).

[0]http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/institutional_review_board/hi...

Re: Google AI has access to huge haul of NHS patient data

#82

Post by throwanem » Tue, May 03, 2016, 2:08 PM UTC

petra wrote: post #76

throwanem wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you will either see the patient in there or in a death index Or you won't see any new information for the patient, because the patient is lost to followup. Or - worse - you'll see new information, but it'll be invisibly erroneous, because random GPs don't work to the standard that physicians administering examinations in clinical studies do. > 50M people will provide a lot of robustness that you wouldn't see in a 1…

>> Or - worse - you'll see new information, but it'll be invisibly erroneous, because random GPs don't work to the standard that physicians administering examinations in clinical studies do. So you will take this into account and emphasize the more reliable types of tests, like blood tests. Or you'll find ways of learning which doctors who do the tests more accurately(or train doctors to do so) and which people are m…

Even if it were - which is, for the aforementioned reasons, doubtful - it would not be worth turning over the medical records of 50M people to an unregulated private company without so much as a by-your-leave.

Re: Google AI has access to huge haul of NHS patient data

#83

Post by fweespee_ch » Tue, May 03, 2016, 3:44 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #75

fweespee_ch wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-16021240 > "All necessary safeguards would be in place to ensure protection of patients' details - the data will be anonymised and the process will be carefully and robustly regulated. > "Proper regulation and essential safeguards need to be in place when it comes to patients data," he said. "It cannot be done in a way where essential rules are threatened." The legality of these data sharin…

You've linked to a page about care.data This Google thing has fuck all to do with care.data - they're totally separate. I understand "the" NHS is complex, but it's pretty frustrating talking to someone who has very strong opinions and who clearly doesn't know what they're talking about. It's really weird to link to a document that talks about the severe legal penalties for anyone who attempts to de-anonymise the data…

> It's trivially easy for Google to do this already without the NHS data, and they don't face prison time for doing it. See all the pregnant teens outed by supermarket loyalty cards for other examples.

And how many members of the general population do you think are aware of this?

> I understand "the" NHS is complex, but it's pretty frustrating talking to someone who has very strong opinions and who clearly doesn't know what they're talking about.

It probably has something to do with the fact you are completely missing the point I'm discussing rather than the strength of my opinions.