4 ms·

> No way in hell Google isn't going to use this for advertisement. There are ample ones: It's illegal, it's highly unethical, and you wouldn't be able to keep

> No way in hell Google isn't going to use this for advertisement. There are ample ones: It's illegal, it's highly unethical, and you wouldn't be able to keep something like that a secret. > Even if the intentions are benign now, there's no reason to trust they'll be so later, based on Google's track record and the typical tech mindset. What track record?

austhrow743 7y ago
>What track record? Tech company. Automation. Advertising. Do they need to be skinning puppies or something?
- joshuamorton 7y ago
  Right so how does "Tech company. Automation. Advertising." become "Google has a track record of collecting data totally unrelated to its core business and using it to inform advertising." If there's a track record of this, you can give other examples of how Google has done that, right? Where they've gone out and collected data under the guise of doing something benign and then used it for advertisements.
  - austhrow743 7y ago
    The track record is that of them being morally bankrupt. Not a track record of having applied their moral bankruptcy to this particular scenario as of yet.
    - joshuamorton 7y ago
      The how does "Tech company. Automation. Advertising." Imply morally bankrupt?
      - austhrow743 7y ago
        Tech company = making the world more digital. Perverting humanity. Moving us further away from our natural state. Ripping away any innate semblance of purpose we had. Automation = Removing the stand in sense of purpose people had found in the modern world. Increasing inequality. Increasing the needed level of education to be productive. Advertising = creates and reinforces wants. Makes people unhappy with what they already have. Causes them to then have to seek to be productive which is bad because of the previous two.
        bagacrap 7y ago
        One wonders what pleasure austhrow743 might derive from reading HN if not interested in tech.
        austhrow743 7y ago
        I am interested in tech. I don't believe it's morally good.
        shadowgovt 7y ago
        I sure do hate how technology moved me away from my natural state of... checks notes... dying in childbirth. I think the net this criticism casts is too wide.
        austhrow743 7y ago
        If you died in childbirth then you wouldn't be around to dwell upon it would you?
        shadowgovt 7y ago
        This would be a net negative for me. But then, if this technology weren't all here we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
rhizome 7y ago
Why do you say it's illegal? Google is not a covered entity under HIPAA as far as I can tell, is it something else?
- jrs95 7y ago
  I was under the impression that HIPAA applies to anyone in possession of private healthcare information (medical information tied to personally identifiable information)
  - Consultant32452 7y ago
    https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/covered-entities/index.html https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/covered-entities... It doesn't appear to be as broad as you (and I) imagined. Google might qualify as a "Health Care Clearinghouse" in this case, but it's far from clear.
    - judge2020 7y ago
      At least from the last time this came up on HN, it was about Google's software being used via a server actually owned by the partner hospital, and google's access was "only via a few employees"; IIRC it wasn't data stored on their servers, or it was only stored via Google Cloud Storage (and I doubt they'd compromise security on GCP buckets for advertising purposes).
    - nvrspyx 7y ago
      As that link states, HIPAA extends to "business associates". Google isn't a "covered entity" as that has a specific definition, but it is a business associate in relation to a covered entity (e.g. health care providers). The reason for the two different terms is because covered entities deal with patients directly, thus have certain rules that only apply to them in relation to interacting with said patients. Since Google is a business associate that does not directly interact with patients, only the rules specifically in relation to PHI and other business activities apply as others (e.g. patient interaction) are moot. Protected Health Information is protected under HIPAA for both covered entities and business associates alike. Otherwise, HIPAA would be pointless if covered entities could just pass the PHI to business associates or shell companies unfettered. Note: I would not consider myself a "HIPAA expert", but I'm a clinical researcher that has to ensure HIPAA compliance for my lab.
ocdtrekkie 7y ago
Wouldn't be the first time Google did something illegal or unethical or tried to keep it secret, like secretly trying to build a censored search for China, firing labor organizers, etc.

austhrow743 7y ago

>What track record? Tech company. Automation. Advertising. Do they need to be skinning puppies or something?

joshuamorton 7y ago
Right so how does "Tech company. Automation. Advertising." become "Google has a track record of collecting data totally unrelated to its core business and using it to inform advertising." If there's a track record of this, you can give other examples of how Google has done that, right? Where they've gone out and collected data under the guise of doing something benign and then used it for advertisements.
- austhrow743 7y ago
  The track record is that of them being morally bankrupt. Not a track record of having applied their moral bankruptcy to this particular scenario as of yet.
  - joshuamorton 7y ago
    The how does "Tech company. Automation. Advertising." Imply morally bankrupt?
    - austhrow743 7y ago
      Tech company = making the world more digital. Perverting humanity. Moving us further away from our natural state. Ripping away any innate semblance of purpose we had. Automation = Removing the stand in sense of purpose people had found in the modern world. Increasing inequality. Increasing the needed level of education to be productive. Advertising = creates and reinforces wants. Makes people unhappy with what they already have. Causes them to then have to seek to be productive which is bad because of the previous two.
      - bagacrap 7y ago
        One wonders what pleasure austhrow743 might derive from reading HN if not interested in tech.
        austhrow743 7y ago
        I am interested in tech. I don't believe it's morally good.
        shadowgovt 7y ago
        I sure do hate how technology moved me away from my natural state of... checks notes... dying in childbirth. I think the net this criticism casts is too wide.
        austhrow743 7y ago
        If you died in childbirth then you wouldn't be around to dwell upon it would you?
        shadowgovt 7y ago
        This would be a net negative for me. But then, if this technology weren't all here we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

rhizome 7y ago

Why do you say it's illegal? Google is not a covered entity under HIPAA as far as I can tell, is it something else?

jrs95 7y ago
I was under the impression that HIPAA applies to anyone in possession of private healthcare information (medical information tied to personally identifiable information)
- Consultant32452 7y ago
  https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/covered-entities/index.html https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/covered-entities... It doesn't appear to be as broad as you (and I) imagined. Google might qualify as a "Health Care Clearinghouse" in this case, but it's far from clear.
  - judge2020 7y ago
    At least from the last time this came up on HN, it was about Google's software being used via a server actually owned by the partner hospital, and google's access was "only via a few employees"; IIRC it wasn't data stored on their servers, or it was only stored via Google Cloud Storage (and I doubt they'd compromise security on GCP buckets for advertising purposes).
  - nvrspyx 7y ago
    As that link states, HIPAA extends to "business associates". Google isn't a "covered entity" as that has a specific definition, but it is a business associate in relation to a covered entity (e.g. health care providers). The reason for the two different terms is because covered entities deal with patients directly, thus have certain rules that only apply to them in relation to interacting with said patients. Since Google is a business associate that does not directly interact with patients, only the rules specifically in relation to PHI and other business activities apply as others (e.g. patient interaction) are moot. Protected Health Information is protected under HIPAA for both covered entities and business associates alike. Otherwise, HIPAA would be pointless if covered entities could just pass the PHI to business associates or shell companies unfettered. Note: I would not consider myself a "HIPAA expert", but I'm a clinical researcher that has to ensure HIPAA compliance for my lab.

ocdtrekkie 7y ago

Wouldn't be the first time Google did something illegal or unethical or tried to keep it secret, like secretly trying to build a censored search for China, firing labor organizers, etc.