130 ms·
I'm actually still so struck how literally nobody seems to give a shit or even know that this happened. It's really sad.
by roddux 7y ago
I'm actually still so struck how literally nobody seems to give a shit or even know that this happened. It's really sad.
- nesky 7y agoWhy are you surprised? I can count on 1 hand the amount of people I know personally who care about data privacy or anything remotely close to the idea of data privacy. However, I do agree, it's really sad.
- DataWorker 7y agoDo those people use a credit card or cell phone? I think many people care, but not enough to stop participating in society, or even enough to stop posting on their favorite web forums. Modernity demands compromise; we abide.
- chongli 7y agoI’m surprised that people are still surprised by this, but then I’ve gotten pretty cynical at this point. This phenomenon goes way deeper than people not caring about privacy. It underlies everything from the bystander effect [1], to the Nuremberg defence [2], and everything in between. People just don’t want to organize, generally speaking. The people who do usually end up as part of the elite. The rest are just focused on their individual lives. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders
- TeMPOraL 7y agoYou could argue that it's not that people don't want to organize, it's that they can't, because of structural reasons. Scott Alexander wrote a lot of words going deep into this problem: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/.
- chongli 7y agoI’ve read that piece many times. It’s frustrating because I could point to it for all societal problems and it doesn’t offer any solutions.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago> People just don’t want to organize, generally speaking They used to far more. The eighties and nineties disassembled many of the places and means to organising. Disassembly of civic community, unions, restrictions on demos, decline of social societies such as Lions Clubs and others. Now we're all individuals, organising alone.
- acqq 7y agoRelated: https://splinternews.com/organized-labor-is-in-a-life-and-death-struggle-be-ver-1823353601 https://splinternews.com/organized-labor-is-in-a-life-and-de... "For an entire century, the corporate class in America has dreamed of destroying organized labor, which eats into their ability to amass endless profits. They’ve chipped away at unions for 40 years. Now, it is no exaggeration to say that they are two steps away from total victory." ... "This is a very scary time. Take it seriously."
- OnlineGladiator 7y agoWhen you have unions in the United States like the American Federation of Teachers, it's easy to celebrate the death of unions. That union is doing more damage to this country than just about anything else I can think of. I'd say a close second would be the Fraternal Order of Police. EDIT: I really fucking hate when people edit their comment after people have already replied to it.
- philliphaydon 7y agoI watched that doco, waiting for superman. Man the education system is crazy if it’s true.
- acqq 7y ago> EDIT: I really fucking hate when people edit their comment after people have already replied to it. My message is just a link and the quote from there and it was just that since the beginning, so do you really think I've edited anything that changed the meaning the message, or is that "edit" of yours unrelated to my message?
- VvR-Ox 7y agoThis is what I criticize about the increasing pseudo-individualism in the western world. If all of us want to be completely different from all the others we don't have many things in common anymore and there is no reason to unionize or fight for the same goals. Every little protest or group can then be shut down or silenced just by stating how they are just representing a really tiny minority of all the people. I know this could spark some debate but I think it is a point where Marx was right all along. It's about the things we have in common that help us to collaborate to tackle our problems and we are the strongest when working together. I've gotten cynical as well as I feel like constantly talking to the bus full of the people who are interested in their freedom which just doesn't arrive somewhere.
- y4mi 7y agoyou do realize that the bystander effect hasnt actually been observed in reality, right? i mean, just look and the examples in the article. every single one had people reporting it. and the fiasco that started that conjecture was `Kitty Genovese` murder, which was repeatedly reported as well. the police just didnt care enough to actually dispatch someone at that day. or are you insinuating that random people from the street should interfere if there is an armed perpetrator running around knifing people? or `Raymond Zack`, ...how do you expect random people to actually do something? he wanted to kill himself. if he wanted to get out of the water, he couldve done it within the 60 minutes he was just standing in the water. and after he collapsed someone even went in. despite the fact that its incredibly dangerous to try to help someone who is actively trying to kill himself. if that doesnt disprove the conjecture by itself, idk what could. each and every example is just showing that there are tragedies which the police arent able to handle. that doesn't mean that the bystander effect is actually real.
- oakmad 7y agoIt's an interesting issue. My start up is in the healthcare space, primarily in the USA although I'm currently based in London. Theres definitely a group here who think that NHS users just need to accept that their data is going be fed into models and its part of the price of universal coverage as it will help outcomes and costs etc. I'm still on the fence about it, but having seen some of the results that AI is catching out in the field I'm tending towards universal good over personal privacy - though I may regret that... Im thankfully that at least the data cant be used to adjust individual insurance premiums. As an aside, it is not just Deepmind/Google, all the players are trying to get all the EHR data around the world. The NHS is particularly attractive due to the volume of historical data of course. Its no secret IBM Watson is working with NHS Wales although I don't know what data sharing agreement is in place.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago> NHS users just need to accept that their data is going be fed into models That's fine so long as it goes nowhere else - it's perfectly reasonable for the NHS to have AI models to do their thing, just as the Met Office and others do. Remember years ago Google had a Search Appliance? A rack mount server to put in your business. The NHS should be doing the same with IBM, Deepmind and other models - figure a way to licence and use the technology without sharing any data back whatsoever. Data for training, helping IBM et al building better models should be 120 years old or more - guaranteed not to contain anyone alive. The restrictions on medical privacy are there for very good reasons, though I tend to the view they don't go nearly far enough for the modern world.
- bpfrh 7y agoSome things are genetic, so even if it is the data of your parents, it will still influence you. Only way is to completly anonymize data, which is way harder than it sounds.
- OnlineGladiator 7y ago> Only way is to completly anonymize data, which is way harder than it sounds. What's complicated about it? So long as it's not attached to a name, social security number, or some other personally identifiable marker - how would anybody know it's you? You're just an anonymous collection of data points. I understand whatever fingerprint they use for your data is almost definitely completely unique, but that doesn't mean it can be associated with the corresponding person unless you allow that to happen. I mean I get that it's obviously not trivial from a security perspective, but what's the main blockade here?
- asabjorn 7y agoAs Snowden said the problem isn't the data policies, but the data collection to begin with. Solve the latter and the former is irrelevant.
- 6ue7nNMEEbHcM 7y agoThis isn't really news, it was heavily reported on BBC at the time: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36191546 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36191546 (and multiple later articles). I'm not directly affected by this but at least at the time I recall this was well reported and I knew about this. On the other hand personally I wish my medical history could be scanned and screened for some preventable terminal diseases by some AI (with some form of consent though preferably).
- AdamHede 7y agoI'm not going to dispute that this is wrong (the ICO determined so), and that Google should be punished for breaking the law. That being said, I would also respect someone who said that it is nice to see Google aid in medical research and see some of the best minds of ML allowed to access high quality data to develop these solutions. This was not a Google ad network integrating medical records in order to target the sale of medicin... It was a medical research project. I'm going to get fired up once someone gets hurt. I know someone is going to call slippery slope, but until someone can prove harm (beyond the broken trust and principle of data sharing), I'm going to save my pitch fork for bigger problems.