5 ms·

I get it but this is some scary stuff that pushes the bounds of ethics. I mean, on one hand we want to prevent insurance fraud because it impacts everyone. On t

I get it but this is some scary stuff that pushes the bounds of ethics. I mean, on one hand we want to prevent insurance fraud because it impacts everyone. On the other, where do we draw the line? Should we even have to consider that a pacemaker could be used to gather data about us before we consent to a pacemaker? It shouldn't. Now it is.

Avenger42 10y ago
> Should we even have to consider that a pacemaker could be used to gather data about us before we consent to a pacemaker? It shouldn't. Your pacemaker gathers that data (exertion history over time) so that your doctor can view it after the fact and ask you "what were you doing last Thursday afternoon? The pacemaker says it was running extra high between 3:30 and 4:30." I think most people would opt into such a device for their own health - in fact, many might wear it on their wrist and pair it with their phone.
burkaman 10y ago
I don't see why this is scary. I think it's somewhat comparable to the police examining his clothes, for example, and finding no traces of sweat or smoke, which would make his story not credible. Or what about looking at how many steps a Fitbit recorded? If the pacemaker had a GPS or something embedded in it, that would be egregious, but a pacemaker collecting data on the pace it's making is expected, and the police should be able to look at it with a warrant. Police can access medical records with a warrant, and this is basically just a very recent medical record.
- grayhatter 10y ago
  You don't need clothing to stay alive, nor a fitbit. And medical history can't really be used to indict someone. Where this clearly was. EDIT: can't be used to indict, only as addition evidence for a trial. It's an important distinction, but I'm not sure I think it's okay either.
  - burkaman 10y ago
    Why isn't it ok? The whole purpose of a warrant is to reveal private information when necessary. I get that medical history is especially sensitive, but I don't see why it should be completely off limits. What if, say, someone claimed to be out of the country for an extended period of time, but their medical history showed they actually required frequent treatment at a local hospital? Should that be inadmissible?
    - grayhatter 10y ago
      IMO, it's not okay because the strict alternative is the patient must choose death. Pace makers are very invasive. They're not generally installed unless absolutely needed. In this case, it's very similar to saying. "If you don't let us install this device that the government can use to know exactly what you were doing every hour of every day; you'll die." It's not quite the fact that it's medical history, but it's very detailed, personal medical history. "He had gout some time in the last few weeks/months" vs "He was running 14 times in the last 21 days, and heres' the exact minute he started and ended" > but their medical history showed they actually required frequent treatment at a local hospital? Should that be inadmissible? That they acquired treatment? Maybe. That they were treated for an STI? Yes, that should be inadmissible. Because as a medical person, I don't want you avoiding ANY treatment because you scared the information about the treatment would be used against you.
  - rhino369 10y ago
    You can't stay alive without blood, but we can use it to convict a person. The 4th amendment isn't there to make it hard to get a conviction. It is there to make sure you aren't harassed by searches.
    - grayhatter 10y ago
      It's not quite the same. I assume you mean donated blood, because otherwise your response doesn't make much sense. So if you are cut, and leave blood behind (yours and the donated blood?) The could be used to convict you because it's something you abandoned. Where in this case, the got a court order to take information from a device. Not to compare it to a sample they already had, but at a single point of evidence, that will be used to incriminate. Additionally, that same evidence could be used to prove innocence, where the pacemaker data couldn't be used as evidence to prove innocence. EDIT, Also, the 4th is protection from unreasonable searches... e.g. if the device I required to live needs extra data to do it's job. IMO, it is an unreasonable search to use that against me because I have no choice in wither or not, I create the data, or use the device. Because the alternative is I choose to die.
- kakarot 10y ago
  I'm sorry, what? A warrant for something intangible and inert inside of my body? Police will have access to the information I choose to store inside my own body when I am either dead, or heavily restrained and tranquilized, and not a moment before.
dublinben 10y ago
This is just one more inflammatory example of why free software is necessary, especially in medical devices. It should not be possible for your computing devices to be used against you without your consent. For more on this area specifically, please watch this excellent talk by Karen Sandler: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcWlD2Y6HNM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcWlD2Y6HNM
- burkaman 10y ago
  Why specifically computing devices? Everything else can be used against you without your consent. I mean obviously you should be allowed to encrypt your stuff if you want to, but I don't see what's so inflammatory about this example. This guy did give his consent when he got a pacemaker installed, presumably so his doctor could give him better treatment by analyzing its data.
- PeterisP 10y ago
  What would free software change in this scenario? Assuming that the free-software pacemaker had the same functionality (including storing historical data) the same warrant could and would be used to retrieve that data without consent of the suspect.
pedasmith 10y ago
Is it really that scary? Suppose there was a criminal who claimed that, with a broken leg, they couldn't possibly have committed some act. Isn't it reasonable to get a warrant for the person's XRays in order to get hard evidence that the person was or was not incapacitated? The scary part to me is the medical examiner. They are making a very advanced claim (that they can determine something definitive about what the person was or was not doing) based on the heart data. Given previous overreaches from forensic examiners, I'd want to see some actual research before chucking the person into jail.
- mickronome 10y ago
  When it comes to assistive technologies the current legal situation is scary, because data generated and stored by devices you need to use by medical reasons are treated the same way as devices ( and data ) you choose to use. The more information about you that is available the more likely it is that a spurious correlation, misremembered facts or inferenced made from the data will often make you seem less trustworthy than somebody you have less data about as long as both parties behave according to societal norms. If you have an actual impairment, especially cognitive, the situation is even worse.

Avenger42 10y ago

> Should we even have to consider that a pacemaker could be used to gather data about us before we consent to a pacemaker? It shouldn't. Your pacemaker gathers that data (exertion history over time) so that your doctor can view it after the fact and ask you "what were you doing last Thursday afternoon? The pacemaker says it was running extra high between 3:30 and 4:30." I think most people would opt into such a device for their own health - in fact, many might wear it on their wrist and pair it with their phone.

burkaman 10y ago

I don't see why this is scary. I think it's somewhat comparable to the police examining his clothes, for example, and finding no traces of sweat or smoke, which would make his story not credible. Or what about looking at how many steps a Fitbit recorded? If the pacemaker had a GPS or something embedded in it, that would be egregious, but a pacemaker collecting data on the pace it's making is expected, and the police should be able to look at it with a warrant. Police can access medical records with a warrant, and this is basically just a very recent medical record.

grayhatter 10y ago
You don't need clothing to stay alive, nor a fitbit. And medical history can't really be used to indict someone. Where this clearly was. EDIT: can't be used to indict, only as addition evidence for a trial. It's an important distinction, but I'm not sure I think it's okay either.
- burkaman 10y ago
  Why isn't it ok? The whole purpose of a warrant is to reveal private information when necessary. I get that medical history is especially sensitive, but I don't see why it should be completely off limits. What if, say, someone claimed to be out of the country for an extended period of time, but their medical history showed they actually required frequent treatment at a local hospital? Should that be inadmissible?
  - grayhatter 10y ago
    IMO, it's not okay because the strict alternative is the patient must choose death. Pace makers are very invasive. They're not generally installed unless absolutely needed. In this case, it's very similar to saying. "If you don't let us install this device that the government can use to know exactly what you were doing every hour of every day; you'll die." It's not quite the fact that it's medical history, but it's very detailed, personal medical history. "He had gout some time in the last few weeks/months" vs "He was running 14 times in the last 21 days, and heres' the exact minute he started and ended" > but their medical history showed they actually required frequent treatment at a local hospital? Should that be inadmissible? That they acquired treatment? Maybe. That they were treated for an STI? Yes, that should be inadmissible. Because as a medical person, I don't want you avoiding ANY treatment because you scared the information about the treatment would be used against you.
- rhino369 10y ago
  You can't stay alive without blood, but we can use it to convict a person. The 4th amendment isn't there to make it hard to get a conviction. It is there to make sure you aren't harassed by searches.
  - grayhatter 10y ago
    It's not quite the same. I assume you mean donated blood, because otherwise your response doesn't make much sense. So if you are cut, and leave blood behind (yours and the donated blood?) The could be used to convict you because it's something you abandoned. Where in this case, the got a court order to take information from a device. Not to compare it to a sample they already had, but at a single point of evidence, that will be used to incriminate. Additionally, that same evidence could be used to prove innocence, where the pacemaker data couldn't be used as evidence to prove innocence. EDIT, Also, the 4th is protection from unreasonable searches... e.g. if the device I required to live needs extra data to do it's job. IMO, it is an unreasonable search to use that against me because I have no choice in wither or not, I create the data, or use the device. Because the alternative is I choose to die.
kakarot 10y ago
I'm sorry, what? A warrant for something intangible and inert inside of my body? Police will have access to the information I choose to store inside my own body when I am either dead, or heavily restrained and tranquilized, and not a moment before.

dublinben 10y ago

This is just one more inflammatory example of why free software is necessary, especially in medical devices. It should not be possible for your computing devices to be used against you without your consent. For more on this area specifically, please watch this excellent talk by Karen Sandler: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcWlD2Y6HNM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcWlD2Y6HNM

burkaman 10y ago
Why specifically computing devices? Everything else can be used against you without your consent. I mean obviously you should be allowed to encrypt your stuff if you want to, but I don't see what's so inflammatory about this example. This guy did give his consent when he got a pacemaker installed, presumably so his doctor could give him better treatment by analyzing its data.
PeterisP 10y ago
What would free software change in this scenario? Assuming that the free-software pacemaker had the same functionality (including storing historical data) the same warrant could and would be used to retrieve that data without consent of the suspect.

pedasmith 10y ago

Is it really that scary? Suppose there was a criminal who claimed that, with a broken leg, they couldn't possibly have committed some act. Isn't it reasonable to get a warrant for the person's XRays in order to get hard evidence that the person was or was not incapacitated? The scary part to me is the medical examiner. They are making a very advanced claim (that they can determine something definitive about what the person was or was not doing) based on the heart data. Given previous overreaches from forensic examiners, I'd want to see some actual research before chucking the person into jail.

mickronome 10y ago
When it comes to assistive technologies the current legal situation is scary, because data generated and stored by devices you need to use by medical reasons are treated the same way as devices ( and data ) you choose to use. The more information about you that is available the more likely it is that a spurious correlation, misremembered facts or inferenced made from the data will often make you seem less trustworthy than somebody you have less data about as long as both parties behave according to societal norms. If you have an actual impairment, especially cognitive, the situation is even worse.