3 ms·

That de-identification is probably the absolute minimum they have to do to achieve compliance, but don't mistake it and think that the data is actually anonymou

by mtgx 9y ago

That de-identification is probably the absolute minimum they have to do to achieve compliance, but don't mistake it and think that the data is actually anonymous. We've seen many studies show that 90%+ of the people can be re-identified from such datasets. Unless Google starts using fully homomorphic encryption or something similar, then you should consider that data non-anonymous. And until that happens, Google and national healthcare agencies should also require consent from the patients before giving the data to Google or any other company for such studies. Otherwise, I hope class action lawsuits will be started against both.

quickben 9y ago
I'm not sure why you are downvoted about this. I've went through 10 research papers on this very subject last week, all from 2016-2017, and this is a huge problem. Just because google does it, people assume it's infallible, where in reality there are bunch of methods to deanonymize data, from machine learning to pure mathematical models on binary vs categorical inputs and such. In this day and age, somebody will publish the deanonymized, cross-referenced (from voting registry or whatever) set online for free searching. Then again, most people are fine with this, as long as their names aren't on the list, so considering it's 200k sample out of 323M population, at most 0.7% will be really outraged. Which may explain the down votes he's receiving. 99.3% names aren't on the list, and from that set they want the scoop on the rest of their neighbors.
lalaland1125 9y ago
Homomorphic encryption currently doesn't exist in any useful sense. So you are asking for the impossible. If we followed your advice, medical record research would be impossible. All research comes with risks. Society is all about balancing those risks with there potential benefits. Come back with your criticisms when you have actual evidence of Google mishandling data or misleading the IRB boards.
- jnbiche 9y ago
  > All research comes with risks. And the core foundation of medical ethics is that the patient gets to decide if/how much of that risk to take.

by mtgx 9y ago

quickben 9y ago

I'm not sure why you are downvoted about this. I've went through 10 research papers on this very subject last week, all from 2016-2017, and this is a huge problem. Just because google does it, people assume it's infallible, where in reality there are bunch of methods to deanonymize data, from machine learning to pure mathematical models on binary vs categorical inputs and such. In this day and age, somebody will publish the deanonymized, cross-referenced (from voting registry or whatever) set online for free searching. Then again, most people are fine with this, as long as their names aren't on the list, so considering it's 200k sample out of 323M population, at most 0.7% will be really outraged. Which may explain the down votes he's receiving. 99.3% names aren't on the list, and from that set they want the scoop on the rest of their neighbors.

lalaland1125 9y ago

Homomorphic encryption currently doesn't exist in any useful sense. So you are asking for the impossible. If we followed your advice, medical record research would be impossible. All research comes with risks. Society is all about balancing those risks with there potential benefits. Come back with your criticisms when you have actual evidence of Google mishandling data or misleading the IRB boards.

jnbiche 9y ago
> All research comes with risks. And the core foundation of medical ethics is that the patient gets to decide if/how much of that risk to take.