5 ms·

Do you life with something chronic? Something were not a lot of people are doing research and we're there was no real discovery in the last 20 years? Because I

Do you life with something chronic? Something were not a lot of people are doing research and we're there was no real discovery in the last 20 years? Because I do and you know how scattered the field of medicine is? There is one realistic way of getting more people with chronic issues new threatments and it's data. Lots and lots of it. IF someone can pull that of while protecting the individuals I believe it's alphabet. Together with deep mind and all the other research they do.

lamontcg 4y ago
I'd expect that Google would be more likely to sell your data on your chronic condition and make you unemployable and uninsurable. They are highly unlikely to worry about protecting individuals.
nicolapede 4y ago
> IF someone can pull that of while protecting the individuals I believe it's alphabet. Together with deep mind and all the other research they do. What makes you think they will protect the "individuals"? From a privacy persepctive, I would say they have no clear incentive in doing that, given individuals are the product they sell to companies that need to push ads into society.
- Gehlitio 4y ago
  Checkout their last Google Io. They know how they make their money and don't hide it. But they make you as an individual disappear. It's a much better compromise than from any other company and they drive this topic for years.
  - cupofpython 4y ago
    you dont disappear. you become embedded. they are metaphorically assigning you a number and stripping you of an identity. It is dehumanizing. At the end of the day, it's just you by a different name. Instead of owning it and claiming "we have this information on Gehlitio" they say things like "We have these generalizations about anybody who happens to use HN, speaks in English, bought X Y and Z, subscribes to A, <insert 100 more details that effectively fingerprint you>"
    - monetus 4y ago
      I wonder how this will play out in court when a neural net that underpins the tech of a company also can't properly handle health data. Start over? The right to be forgotten would have to be built into it all right from the get go, wouldn't it? Neural nets embed things, like you said. If Facebook pivoted towards being a hub for healthcare data as oracle seems want to do, could they use all of their facial recognition tech trained from profile pictures now that it is supposed to be detached from any one identity? I'm thinking of the equivalent of github's co-pilot spitting out comments alongside the code.
      - cupofpython 4y ago
        >I'm thinking of the equivalent of github's co-pilot spitting out comments alongside the code yes exactly. I am having trouble articulating my underlying point but this is along the lines of it. A facial recognition algorithm is ultimately saying "you look similar to this specific set of people". If the training set was 1 person, for example, then the algorithm would pretty much just be saying "you look like this photo of this 1 person". Scaling that up does not improve privacy - it only blends you into a population. Additionally, it is distilling out the things about you that separate you from that population (things that make you, you) since those distinguishing features are exactly what the model needs to use as the line to draw on whether or not new data points are similar to the population set or not.
    - Dudeman112 4y ago
      Have you lived with chronic pain, or expected to live the rest of your life disabled? Because privacy doesn't seem all that important once you actually are going through it. If you had to pick between being a cripple (say, with your arms or your legs useless) and forgoing your privacy are you really sure you'd give more value to privacy? Do actually consider what life is like under these circumstances before answering. I don't think there are many quadriplegic people out there who'd pick privacy over being healed. "X is more important than Y" isn't honest if you never lacked Y and can't even consider a future where you lack Y
      - 4y ago
spywaregorilla 4y ago
Free medicine, but we alter your gene code to put ads in your poop.
- beenHot400 4y ago
  Seems like a fair trade.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
BoxOfRain 4y ago
>Do you life with something chronic? Something were not a lot of people are doing research and we're there was no real discovery in the last 20 years? I do, but I can think of no more obvious examples of a Faustian pact than having Alphabet get involved in this field.
- Gehlitio 4y ago
  Easy for me: Facebook, apple, lots and lots of small and normal size companies without even any ethics committee or regulation bodies.
ciphol 4y ago
That's the possible upside. The possible downside is "if you ever search for a disease in Chrome, or on your Android device, or at google.com, we will notify your insurance company who will raise your rates".
- hackerfromthefu 4y ago
  not even if you search; if you searchED in the past!
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  If the goal is to have society subsidize a subgroup, then either government funding or laws requiring the exclusion of the subsidized criteria for purposes of insurance pricing are the better method. Like ACA did.
- edmundsauto 4y ago
  So higher insurance rates versus getting better research into life saving treatments? When you put it that way…
  - ciphol 4y ago
    Higher insurance rates seem likely, and significantly better research seems unlikely.
    - edmundsauto 4y ago
      Ah, I disagree. Google is a very good steward of personal data, IMO. And I’m pretty sure health care would be markedly improved if all the data were centralized. So I guess it boils down to a difference of opinion is all.
- mthmohan 4y ago
  So if one of my friends has Crohn's and I search for it to understand what I should be aware of, my rates would go up? HIPAA specifically prohibits the sharing of medical information unless needed for care. If there is any one here that we should be annoyed at it's the insurance companies. Hospitals are losing money and the insurance companies are posting record profits.

lamontcg 4y ago

I'd expect that Google would be more likely to sell your data on your chronic condition and make you unemployable and uninsurable. They are highly unlikely to worry about protecting individuals.

nicolapede 4y ago

> IF someone can pull that of while protecting the individuals I believe it's alphabet. Together with deep mind and all the other research they do. What makes you think they will protect the "individuals"? From a privacy persepctive, I would say they have no clear incentive in doing that, given individuals are the product they sell to companies that need to push ads into society.

Gehlitio 4y ago
Checkout their last Google Io. They know how they make their money and don't hide it. But they make you as an individual disappear. It's a much better compromise than from any other company and they drive this topic for years.
- cupofpython 4y ago
  you dont disappear. you become embedded. they are metaphorically assigning you a number and stripping you of an identity. It is dehumanizing. At the end of the day, it's just you by a different name. Instead of owning it and claiming "we have this information on Gehlitio" they say things like "We have these generalizations about anybody who happens to use HN, speaks in English, bought X Y and Z, subscribes to A, <insert 100 more details that effectively fingerprint you>"
  - monetus 4y ago
    I wonder how this will play out in court when a neural net that underpins the tech of a company also can't properly handle health data. Start over? The right to be forgotten would have to be built into it all right from the get go, wouldn't it? Neural nets embed things, like you said. If Facebook pivoted towards being a hub for healthcare data as oracle seems want to do, could they use all of their facial recognition tech trained from profile pictures now that it is supposed to be detached from any one identity? I'm thinking of the equivalent of github's co-pilot spitting out comments alongside the code.
    - cupofpython 4y ago
      >I'm thinking of the equivalent of github's co-pilot spitting out comments alongside the code yes exactly. I am having trouble articulating my underlying point but this is along the lines of it. A facial recognition algorithm is ultimately saying "you look similar to this specific set of people". If the training set was 1 person, for example, then the algorithm would pretty much just be saying "you look like this photo of this 1 person". Scaling that up does not improve privacy - it only blends you into a population. Additionally, it is distilling out the things about you that separate you from that population (things that make you, you) since those distinguishing features are exactly what the model needs to use as the line to draw on whether or not new data points are similar to the population set or not.
  - Dudeman112 4y ago
    Have you lived with chronic pain, or expected to live the rest of your life disabled? Because privacy doesn't seem all that important once you actually are going through it. If you had to pick between being a cripple (say, with your arms or your legs useless) and forgoing your privacy are you really sure you'd give more value to privacy? Do actually consider what life is like under these circumstances before answering. I don't think there are many quadriplegic people out there who'd pick privacy over being healed. "X is more important than Y" isn't honest if you never lacked Y and can't even consider a future where you lack Y
    - 4y ago

spywaregorilla 4y ago

Free medicine, but we alter your gene code to put ads in your poop.

beenHot400 4y ago
Seems like a fair trade.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

BoxOfRain 4y ago

>Do you life with something chronic? Something were not a lot of people are doing research and we're there was no real discovery in the last 20 years? I do, but I can think of no more obvious examples of a Faustian pact than having Alphabet get involved in this field.

Gehlitio 4y ago
Easy for me: Facebook, apple, lots and lots of small and normal size companies without even any ethics committee or regulation bodies.

ciphol 4y ago

That's the possible upside. The possible downside is "if you ever search for a disease in Chrome, or on your Android device, or at google.com, we will notify your insurance company who will raise your rates".

hackerfromthefu 4y ago
not even if you search; if you searchED in the past!
lotsofpulp 4y ago
If the goal is to have society subsidize a subgroup, then either government funding or laws requiring the exclusion of the subsidized criteria for purposes of insurance pricing are the better method. Like ACA did.
edmundsauto 4y ago
So higher insurance rates versus getting better research into life saving treatments? When you put it that way…
- ciphol 4y ago
  Higher insurance rates seem likely, and significantly better research seems unlikely.
  - edmundsauto 4y ago
    Ah, I disagree. Google is a very good steward of personal data, IMO. And I’m pretty sure health care would be markedly improved if all the data were centralized. So I guess it boils down to a difference of opinion is all.
mthmohan 4y ago
So if one of my friends has Crohn's and I search for it to understand what I should be aware of, my rates would go up? HIPAA specifically prohibits the sharing of medical information unless needed for care. If there is any one here that we should be annoyed at it's the insurance companies. Hospitals are losing money and the insurance companies are posting record profits.