5 ms·

> 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 sel

> 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.
- throwaway729 10y ago
  > Again take a look at CMS Qualified Entity program which provides identifiable data From what I understand, this program has exactly the sort of contractual legal limits on use that the authors are asking for: "Qualified entities may use the information obtained under section 1874(e) of the Act for the sole purpose of evaluating the performance of providers of services and suppliers, and to generate specified public reports". > but completely dismissing existing standards to paint a picture of doom and gloom is ridiculous The authors don't dismiss existing standards, but rather explain how the DeepMind agreement was particularly troubling in light of standard data sharing agreements. And in any case, two wrongs don't make a right. If NHS hands health data over to private companies, there should be very strong legal protections governing the use of that data. PR statements and unenforceable promises are not enough. To the extent that it is common for private companies to get access to identifiable health information without agreeing to strong legal protections, the authors of this paper are completely validated re: their doom and gloom tone. And to the extent that this is not the case, the DeepMind agreement was exceptional and particularly troubling. In either case, you're just strengthening the paper's thesis.
  - killjoywashere 10y ago
    > If NHS hands health data over to private companies, there should be very strong legal protections governing the use of that data. NHS hands health data over to lots of private companies. Like any corporate entity, NHS would be expected to perform better when it outsources non-core work. The core work of the hospitals is patient care. The core work of the health care system is coordination, neither of which sounds like "algorithm development". Keep in mind there is a vast standing body of law and precedent around these issues in the US, Britain, and anywhere else that medical research is undertaken.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

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.

throwaway729 10y ago
> Again take a look at CMS Qualified Entity program which provides identifiable data From what I understand, this program has exactly the sort of contractual legal limits on use that the authors are asking for: "Qualified entities may use the information obtained under section 1874(e) of the Act for the sole purpose of evaluating the performance of providers of services and suppliers, and to generate specified public reports". > but completely dismissing existing standards to paint a picture of doom and gloom is ridiculous The authors don't dismiss existing standards, but rather explain how the DeepMind agreement was particularly troubling in light of standard data sharing agreements. And in any case, two wrongs don't make a right. If NHS hands health data over to private companies, there should be very strong legal protections governing the use of that data. PR statements and unenforceable promises are not enough. To the extent that it is common for private companies to get access to identifiable health information without agreeing to strong legal protections, the authors of this paper are completely validated re: their doom and gloom tone. And to the extent that this is not the case, the DeepMind agreement was exceptional and particularly troubling. In either case, you're just strengthening the paper's thesis.
- killjoywashere 10y ago
  > If NHS hands health data over to private companies, there should be very strong legal protections governing the use of that data. NHS hands health data over to lots of private companies. Like any corporate entity, NHS would be expected to perform better when it outsources non-core work. The core work of the hospitals is patient care. The core work of the health care system is coordination, neither of which sounds like "algorithm development". Keep in mind there is a vast standing body of law and precedent around these issues in the US, Britain, and anywhere else that medical research is undertaken.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]