7 ms·

Frankly these post-docs are engaging in outright witchhunt against DeepMind driven by nothing but pure political agenda. The amount of data obtained is frankly

Frankly these post-docs are engaging in outright witchhunt against DeepMind driven by nothing but pure political agenda. The amount of data obtained is frankly tiny compared to that available regularly to researchers in USA. E.g. as part of my PhD research I have access to de-indentifed data on 40 Million patients spanning 5 years from several states. Not to forget programs like CMS Qualified Entity which provide access to identifiable data on ALL Medicare enrolees to companies. Such arrangements have been in place for decades. The only reason Deep Mind is being persecuted is since they are a juicy target, and fear of AI sells very well these days in academic circles. The report does not lists any specific cases where violations occured but rather makes broad hand waving claims about cabining or advertising. For those interested here is the orginal paper, instead of verge article. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12553-017-0179-1 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12553-017-0179-... If they really had substantive argument (that indicated real malice on part of Deep Mind) it would have been easily published in Lancet, BMJ, even New England Journal of Medicine. Instead the fact its published in some subject specific Journal should tell you about concreteness of their "findings".

stuaxo 10y ago
This sort of thing is important in a context where more and more NHS services are getting sold off to private entities. Arrangements that have been in the place for decades in the US are not necessarily relevant to the UK.
- aub3bhat 10y ago
  "What sort of thing?" The report essentially says Google owns Deep Mind and Google has advertising business, ipso facto, some magical standrard dreamt up by the authors were not met. The reason for mentioning US agreements is that several nations, researchers and comapnies have developed procedures around sharing this data. And such sharing is not entirely unprecedented.
  - Silhouette 10y ago
    You're downplaying valid concerns. The ability to de-anonymise large data sets that we have today is unprecedented. The degree to which systems with access to that data are accessible remotely and potentially vulnerable to security problems is unprecedented. The degree to which powerful organisations like employers and insurers are attempting to profile potential employees and customers is unprecedented. However, neither major breaches involving huge amounts of potentially sensitive personal data nor scope creep in how data is used by large organisations once acquired are unprecedented. None of this is good for the individuals whose data is potentially at risk, and it's perfectly fair and reasonable to ask whether some of the most sensitive data there is about individuals is being properly handled by those entrusted with it given the implications of modern technology. There might be a lot of potential good in big data analysis for improving healthcare outcomes, but there is also a lot of potential harm if people stop, say, being confident in discussing potentially limiting conditions with their doctors, or reaching out for help with mental health issues because they're worried about confidentiality.
    - aub3bhat 10y ago
      De-anonymization has NOTHING to do with the current scenario. When legal contracts are in place, they dictate the rquirements & restriction on using the data. Today you can go and purchase de-identified but NOT de-anonymized data from US government as long as you sign and abide by contract to use it for purpose of aggregate statistical reporting and research. Regarding your second point, yes all these issues have been considered in depth by policymakers in US government and NHS. And current rules/contracts already incorporate legal protections to prevent misuse in form of both civil and criminal penalties. If DeepMind had done something truly unusual or nefarious they would have been already prosecuted. But having failed to find any evidence of explicit misuse the authors of the original paper have shifted the goalpost into territory of vague arguments.
      - throwaway729 10y ago
        > De-anonymization has NOTHING to do with the current scenario It does, though. Legal contracts aren't magical spells. Audit-ability is important when data sets are particularly sensitive and extensive. Which is why the new agreement includes provisions for auditing. edit: NVM, I see down-thread what you mean.
mtgx 10y ago
1) UK is not the US, and the EU has much stricter privacy laws 2) There is not such thing as "anonymized data" that is gathered by companies. There are several studies out there that show that with only 4 data points you can pinpoint someone in an "anonymized database" with 90% accuracy. Even Apple's differential privacy can probably be reverse engineered to find people. Just because you don't care to do that, doesn't mean others wouldn't do that either.
- throwaway729 10y ago
  > Just because you don't care to do that, doesn't mean others wouldn't do that either. More to the point, author almost certainly operated under a heavily and independently vetted IRB protocol that would have made such a purposeful re-identification a criminal or at least very serious civil offense.
  - aub3bhat 10y ago
    True in fact the very disks that are used to distribute this data have printed warning that its misuse is a felony offense.
    - throwaway729 10y ago
      So, do you believe that the sticker was appropriate? Or would a PR statement from your university's press office have been more appropriate? Ultimately, the lack of a legally binding contractual obligation with sufficient audit-ability is primarily what Julia Powles & Hal Hodson are criticizing.
      - aub3bhat 10y ago
        >> lack of legally binding From the verge article: "The data-sharing agreement — which was signed in 2015" There was a legally binding contractual agreement between the two parties Deep Mind & Royal Free. Here is the one that I and thousands (I am NOT exaggerating) of other researchers regularly sign to get access to data. https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/team/NationwideDUA.jsp https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/team/NationwideDUA.jsp
throwaway729 10y ago
> driven by nothing but pure political agenda Do you mean personal or political? Because you insinuate personal motive with no evidence ("...and fear of AI sells very well in these types of academic circles..."). However, I don't see anything particularly wrong with researchers being motivated by politics. Personal privacy is political. Climate change is political. Human rights are political. Researchers should not feel an obligation to shy away from politically charged topics. At least, not if we want science to be anything except a tool for moneyed interests to batter the rest of us into submission. Shaming researchers for publishing politically relevant findings is its own form of witch-hunt. > E.g. as part of my PhD research I have access to de-indentifed data on 40 Million patients spanning 5 years from several states. De-identified is a rather extraordinary caveat! It's the difference between "aub3bhat has cancer/AIDs/depression" and "entry 143048 has cancer/AIDs/depression". Or, for that matter, "aub3bhat says..." and "<insert your name> says..." In short, the situations are nothing alike. > The report does not lists any specific cases where violations occured but rather makes broad hand waving claims about cabining or advertising. If companies are willing to open-source their analysis tools and provide a mechanism for me to audit how my data is used, then I'm happy to not assume malice.+ Otherwise, I'll assume that they do everything that's legally permissible. Absence of sufficient contractual protections is enough justification for deep concern, IMO. IANAL, but I imagine you'd be hard-pressed to find a competent lawyer giving a corporate client literally any other piece of advice. For example. > The only reason Deep Mind is being persecuted is since they are a juicy target You say this as if it's unreasonable. Google's very explicit raison d'etre is to collect and organize the world's information for profit. Explain to me again why I should trust them with my health records. -- + To DeepMind's credit, the article indicates that they're planning on doing something like this, and an improved contract has already been signed. And I don't fault Google or DeepMind in any of this. The fault is entirely with NHS.
- aub3bhat 10y ago
  Again take a look at CMS Qualified Entity program which provides identifiable data. In fact most State government health agencies have a special board which routinely meets to discuss identifiable data requests. Finally their is nothing wrong in writing a paper about a politically charged topic, but completely dismissing existing standards to paint a picture of doom and gloom is ridiculous. E.g. just look at the references cited by that paper.
snackai 10y ago
> de-indentifed data on 40 Million patients This is not how this works. You can't really ensure anonymity with data like this.
- aub3bhat 10y ago
  You are absolutely correct. That's why the term used is de-identified. Here is more information about the dataset, they themselves are aware of it. https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/tech_assist/tutorials.jsp https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/tech_assist/tutorials.jsp In fact one of the major goals of my research is building an online plaform that ensures such large datasets no longer have to be distributed, as they are today.

stuaxo 10y ago

This sort of thing is important in a context where more and more NHS services are getting sold off to private entities. Arrangements that have been in the place for decades in the US are not necessarily relevant to the UK.

aub3bhat 10y ago
"What sort of thing?" The report essentially says Google owns Deep Mind and Google has advertising business, ipso facto, some magical standrard dreamt up by the authors were not met. The reason for mentioning US agreements is that several nations, researchers and comapnies have developed procedures around sharing this data. And such sharing is not entirely unprecedented.
- Silhouette 10y ago
  You're downplaying valid concerns. The ability to de-anonymise large data sets that we have today is unprecedented. The degree to which systems with access to that data are accessible remotely and potentially vulnerable to security problems is unprecedented. The degree to which powerful organisations like employers and insurers are attempting to profile potential employees and customers is unprecedented. However, neither major breaches involving huge amounts of potentially sensitive personal data nor scope creep in how data is used by large organisations once acquired are unprecedented. None of this is good for the individuals whose data is potentially at risk, and it's perfectly fair and reasonable to ask whether some of the most sensitive data there is about individuals is being properly handled by those entrusted with it given the implications of modern technology. There might be a lot of potential good in big data analysis for improving healthcare outcomes, but there is also a lot of potential harm if people stop, say, being confident in discussing potentially limiting conditions with their doctors, or reaching out for help with mental health issues because they're worried about confidentiality.
  - aub3bhat 10y ago
    De-anonymization has NOTHING to do with the current scenario. When legal contracts are in place, they dictate the rquirements & restriction on using the data. Today you can go and purchase de-identified but NOT de-anonymized data from US government as long as you sign and abide by contract to use it for purpose of aggregate statistical reporting and research. Regarding your second point, yes all these issues have been considered in depth by policymakers in US government and NHS. And current rules/contracts already incorporate legal protections to prevent misuse in form of both civil and criminal penalties. If DeepMind had done something truly unusual or nefarious they would have been already prosecuted. But having failed to find any evidence of explicit misuse the authors of the original paper have shifted the goalpost into territory of vague arguments.
    - throwaway729 10y ago
      > De-anonymization has NOTHING to do with the current scenario It does, though. Legal contracts aren't magical spells. Audit-ability is important when data sets are particularly sensitive and extensive. Which is why the new agreement includes provisions for auditing. edit: NVM, I see down-thread what you mean.

mtgx 10y ago

1) UK is not the US, and the EU has much stricter privacy laws 2) There is not such thing as "anonymized data" that is gathered by companies. There are several studies out there that show that with only 4 data points you can pinpoint someone in an "anonymized database" with 90% accuracy. Even Apple's differential privacy can probably be reverse engineered to find people. Just because you don't care to do that, doesn't mean others wouldn't do that either.

throwaway729 10y ago
> Just because you don't care to do that, doesn't mean others wouldn't do that either. More to the point, author almost certainly operated under a heavily and independently vetted IRB protocol that would have made such a purposeful re-identification a criminal or at least very serious civil offense.
- aub3bhat 10y ago
  True in fact the very disks that are used to distribute this data have printed warning that its misuse is a felony offense.
  - throwaway729 10y ago
    So, do you believe that the sticker was appropriate? Or would a PR statement from your university's press office have been more appropriate? Ultimately, the lack of a legally binding contractual obligation with sufficient audit-ability is primarily what Julia Powles & Hal Hodson are criticizing.
    - aub3bhat 10y ago
      >> lack of legally binding From the verge article: "The data-sharing agreement — which was signed in 2015" There was a legally binding contractual agreement between the two parties Deep Mind & Royal Free. Here is the one that I and thousands (I am NOT exaggerating) of other researchers regularly sign to get access to data. https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/team/NationwideDUA.jsp https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/team/NationwideDUA.jsp

throwaway729 10y ago

> driven by nothing but pure political agenda Do you mean personal or political? Because you insinuate personal motive with no evidence ("...and fear of AI sells very well in these types of academic circles..."). However, I don't see anything particularly wrong with researchers being motivated by politics. Personal privacy is political. Climate change is political. Human rights are political. Researchers should not feel an obligation to shy away from politically charged topics. At least, not if we want science to be anything except a tool for moneyed interests to batter the rest of us into submission. Shaming researchers for publishing politically relevant findings is its own form of witch-hunt. > E.g. as part of my PhD research I have access to de-indentifed data on 40 Million patients spanning 5 years from several states. De-identified is a rather extraordinary caveat! It's the difference between "aub3bhat has cancer/AIDs/depression" and "entry 143048 has cancer/AIDs/depression". Or, for that matter, "aub3bhat says..." and "<insert your name> says..." In short, the situations are nothing alike. > The report does not lists any specific cases where violations occured but rather makes broad hand waving claims about cabining or advertising. If companies are willing to open-source their analysis tools and provide a mechanism for me to audit how my data is used, then I'm happy to not assume malice.+ Otherwise, I'll assume that they do everything that's legally permissible. Absence of sufficient contractual protections is enough justification for deep concern, IMO. IANAL, but I imagine you'd be hard-pressed to find a competent lawyer giving a corporate client literally any other piece of advice. For example. > The only reason Deep Mind is being persecuted is since they are a juicy target You say this as if it's unreasonable. Google's very explicit raison d'etre is to collect and organize the world's information for profit. Explain to me again why I should trust them with my health records. -- + To DeepMind's credit, the article indicates that they're planning on doing something like this, and an improved contract has already been signed. And I don't fault Google or DeepMind in any of this. The fault is entirely with NHS.

aub3bhat 10y ago
Again take a look at CMS Qualified Entity program which provides identifiable data. In fact most State government health agencies have a special board which routinely meets to discuss identifiable data requests. Finally their is nothing wrong in writing a paper about a politically charged topic, but completely dismissing existing standards to paint a picture of doom and gloom is ridiculous. E.g. just look at the references cited by that paper.

snackai 10y ago

> de-indentifed data on 40 Million patients This is not how this works. You can't really ensure anonymity with data like this.

aub3bhat 10y ago
You are absolutely correct. That's why the term used is de-identified. Here is more information about the dataset, they themselves are aware of it. https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/tech_assist/tutorials.jsp https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/tech_assist/tutorials.jsp In fact one of the major goals of my research is building an online plaform that ensures such large datasets no longer have to be distributed, as they are today.