3 ms·

"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 th

"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.
  - dragonwriter 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. Nope; contracts create enforceable expectations between parties but do not, except in exceptional cases where the law allows for this, override the requirements that exist in law.

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.
- dragonwriter 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. Nope; contracts create enforceable expectations between parties but do not, except in exceptional cases where the law allows for this, override the requirements that exist in law.