3 ms·
If this is true, it paints a rather ugly picture of the future. "1984" comes to mind, but not in the sense that it's cruel - just in sense that humans don't hol
by amenod 9y ago
If this is true, it paints a rather ugly picture of the future. "1984" comes to mind, but not in the sense that it's cruel - just in sense that humans don't hold their destiny in their own hands. It looks like even a powerful government like UK can't protect their citizens against large corporations in a field which is deeply personal - health.
I must say I never thought about it before, but Deep Mind really doesn't seem trustworthy entity to me. Owned by an advertising agency and willing to pull deals like this? Not good.
- QAPereo 9y agoThe UK led by the Tories has been crushing the NHS and opening the way to privatization for quite a while. The UK, far from trying to protect their citizens, is trying to monetize them further.
- dazc 9y agoI can't be the only one here is getting tired of these political rants? If you need social proof of your views there are better places than here to obtain it.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- dang 9y agoPlease don't take HN into partisan flamewars. Even if you're right, this is just the sort of political flamebait that nothing good comes of here, and it's destructive to the purpose of this site.
- dontreact 9y ago“Can’t protect” is weird language to use when it wasn’t DeepMind who approached the other party. The article says it was the other way around. To me it looks like the NHS wasn’t really careful, threw a lot of data at DeepMind and they said yes. After getting burned like this I am willing to bet they will be a lot more careful in the future.
- mft_ 9y agoIndeed - the article refers to subsequent agreements between DeepMind and the NHS which did fulfil the necessary requirements. I don't think there's much of a story here apart from basic incompetence in a single instance - mostly on the part of the NHS trust (who really should have known better) in not understanding or applying the necessary governance, and partly DeepMind likewise. But of course, without the hand-wringing and links to Google and advertising, there's much less of a story to promote...
- chiefalchemist 9y agoAllow me to play devil's advocate for a second, please. I think it's worth asking: Is health really personal? That is, given the influence of environment, as well as societal (i.e., you conform to the behaviours around you) is it time to apply a more holistic lens? Furthermore, wouldn't prevention also benefit from supplementing the micro (individual) with the macro? The awareness and "counterattack" to obesity comes to mind.
- nvarsj 9y ago> I think it's worth asking: Is health really personal? No one asks that because the answer is obvious. I don't mind the government, or a non profit, using data (in an anonymous and transparent way) to benefit the health of everyone. But giving such personal data to a for-profit mega-corp, whose own processes are opaque and unaudited, is criminal.
- DennisAleynikov 9y agoWhat is the obvious answer? It's obvious to me that my ailments and sickness aren't unique to me and there is no point in claiming they are. While bad actors can cause social damage with leaking healthcare details that points more to the issue that healthcare is taboo in society. Security through obscurity is no way to live. Healthcare is obviously not personal, it's something we're all in together. Turning healthcare into a me vs them survival game isn't healthy but is the current capitalist solution.
- chiefalchemist 9y agoPersonal was in the comment I commented on.