Discussion in 'other security issues & news' started by stapp, May 3, 2016.
They may indeed say it is anonymized, however lots of hospitals, including Moorfields Eye Hospital, are so backward in some aspects of IT that you have to wonder how on earth they get the info to Google.
It's not so much the advancement in health technology that people object to, it's the giving of information without permission and the fact that we don't really know how all of the info will be used.
The Health Service in general is so badly run technically that I don't think it would be a problem for someone to match up the anonymized info with the person via hospital records kept on these insecure systems.
I agree with that. I work for one of the biggest pharmacy chain in Canada, and all the pharmacies still uses fax to exchange these types of documents, because it's the only legal approved way to exchange these. Not online, but via fax. So we have to support hundreds of faxes and their lines in 2016. It's quite sad.
You'd have to be seriously naive to believe that.
The data isn't anonymised, it's merely encrypted when sent to Google. There's nothing stopping Google accessing the full data when they receive it - the data sharing agreement doesn't prevent it. The NHS need to respect patient confidentiality by automatically scrubbing all identifiable information they send out to google - not by relying on the goodwill of a third party with such a poor record for respecting privacy to do it for them.
Let me do your research for you:
I believe it, and I personally don't see anything wrong with that. I know this data will be used to develop technology to improve health and help prevent diseases, so it have my full support.
You can choose to believe whatever you like I suppose, but it's right there in the Information Sharing Agreement.
These things don't get worded that way by accident.
Full medical information on patients including names is sent to Google encrypted, and afterwards Google are able to do what they like with it. It might have your full support, but it's only really relevant if each of those 1.6 million patients give their informed consent to this.
Yup, great news indeed. Nice to see it finally being put to good use instead of the nonsense it's been used on so far, but I guess you need to start somewhere.
It's sad that people have a distrust for Google when they try to do good things, but it's Google's responsibility to earn trust.
DeepMind’s first NHS health app faces more regulatory bumps
Haha, and I missed Facebook Graph Search. By that, I mean literally was too much into privacy back then and never tried.
Google doing what it does best ................
Let's not jump the gun to push an agenda here, shall we:
A report criticising Google, made by a random 3rd party with absolutely no involvement in the entire process, contained major errors? I am shocked, shocked I tell you!
Google's DeepMind extends controversial Streams app
So much for the data protection act...
Google DeepMind's first deal with the NHS was illegal, UK data regulator rules
I wonder what will be effect of new GDPR on deals like this. I hope that it makes them invalid and new deals will have to be made, which would require explicit approval by patients and users.
UK report warns DeepMind Health could gain ‘excessive monopoly power’
June 15, 2018
UK's NHS will anonymize data to enable AI doctors
It's using an automated process strip identifying info from your records.
June 29, 2018
UK’s health data guardian sets a firm line for app development using patient data
August 23, 2019
Separate names with a comma.