This is too vague to even discuss.
this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2023
31 points (75.4% liked)
Privacy
30843 readers
878 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
Chat rooms
-
[Matrix/Element]Dead
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Thank you. As much as I want more info, there's literally nothing to discuss unless they bring hard evidence.
That's been going on for a very long time. Way before they even acquired Fitbit for such info.
Bold of you to assume "we" have electronic patient records here in Germany, when they just introduced the e-doctors certificate and e-prescriptions a few months ago and it's already not working as intended.
So long as they're totally de-identified (not linkable to people), this is a good thing. Image a GPT that can diagnose you 10x as accurately as a human and 1000x faster. This can revolutionize medicine.
Generally, data science is evil and so is Google, but this needs to be done.
Dismounting soap box now.
That is a greater good argument, but who really benefits here? In a somewhat best case scenario, some big companies and their equity owners gain all the data and perhaps develop proprietary solutions only they can prescribe. We then sacrifice our collective health privacy for some people who might benefit if they pay an uncompetitive price for the treatment. In a worse case situation, no cures or treatments are ever found, but these companies benefit from the surveillance and knowing what existing drugs and treatments they should invest money in to profit from, allowing them to game the market.
If this data was held in the commons and the benefits such as cures or treatments were not patented, we might have some incentive to provide it. In this case, everything is privatized for the benefit of a few.
I believe there's potential for great benefit for everyone.
I also believe that if my records are used to innovate I should get a cut and get an opportunity to opt in or out. I should have agency. I don't like that I don't.
I still believe that this is, on balance, a good thing.
Notice that your if's are not part of this arrangement. You cannot opt out, and you do not get a cut of the opportunities created. The lawyers are Google ensure they get the benefit, and not us.
IBM did it first. It wasn't a secret. There was a Watson Health group dedicated to training ML models on medical records from large insurers and hospital networks. Among other things, the game plan was to have the system provide oversight for the notes of physicians and other medical practitioners - to spot poor quality/repetitive notes and alert the practitioner and/or their boss to the risk of malpractice/inability to bill for the encounter.