Google to use patient data to develop healthcare algorithms for hospital chain
-
I hope they realize that they are then responsible for following HIPAA regulations as to all patient data, and can be severely fined (see below) for each record if any of that data is released. Greed knows no bounds. 'HIPAA violations are expensive. The penalties for noncompliance are based on the level of negligence and can range from $100 to $50,000 per violation (or per record), with a maximum penalty of $1.5 million per year for violations of an identical provision.'
-
You remove the Names, specific addresses, etc. Then it's just statistics.
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it. ― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
Correct. One would HOPE they do that. But someone, some group, or process has to remove or transpose the critical HIPAA data. It should be automated and randomized.
-
I hope they realize that they are then responsible for following HIPAA regulations as to all patient data, and can be severely fined (see below) for each record if any of that data is released. Greed knows no bounds. 'HIPAA violations are expensive. The penalties for noncompliance are based on the level of negligence and can range from $100 to $50,000 per violation (or per record), with a maximum penalty of $1.5 million per year for violations of an identical provision.'
Should you be accused of greed for trying to get a better job with more pay? A business has people to pay.
The difficult we do right away... ...the impossible takes slightly longer.
-
dandy72 wrote:
fallacy
Why is it a fallacy? What do we have to worry about? If the threat is real then you should be able to quantify it.
SeanChupas wrote:
What do we have to worry about?
Egads. Yeah, Google's the greatest company that has ever existed. Gotcha.
SeanChupas wrote:
If the threat is real then you should be able to quantify it.
Do your own research. This whole "nothing to hide/no worries" thing has been debated ad nauseam.
-
No, they are a data company. They make data useful. Yes, they also run ads. No, google is a corrupt company. Stop assuming things.
They'd make no money if they didn't do anything with that data. It's their selling of that data, to advertisers, that keeps Google in business. They're an advertising company, no matter what Kool-Aid you're apparently drinking. Here's an interesting (and relatively recent) article that a quick, ahem, google search came up with: https://blog.smei.org/google-search-engine-advertising-company/ SMEI calls itself a "worldwide professional association for sales & marketing". You'd think they'd choose their words in such an article rather carefully.
-
Google to use patient data to develop healthcare algorithms for hospital chain - The Verge[^] anonymous patient data.
-
Should you be accused of greed for trying to get a better job with more pay? A business has people to pay.
The difficult we do right away... ...the impossible takes slightly longer.
Better job, no. More pay, maybe. Where does it stop? That's why we have monopoly laws. See below. It's called greed. Google slammed for ‘monopoly power’ in new antitrust lawsuit from 35 states [^]
-
They'd make no money if they didn't do anything with that data. It's their selling of that data, to advertisers, that keeps Google in business. They're an advertising company, no matter what Kool-Aid you're apparently drinking. Here's an interesting (and relatively recent) article that a quick, ahem, google search came up with: https://blog.smei.org/google-search-engine-advertising-company/ SMEI calls itself a "worldwide professional association for sales & marketing". You'd think they'd choose their words in such an article rather carefully.
dandy72 wrote:
Kool-Aid you're apparently drinking.
:laugh: Right to the insults. :zzz:
-
SeanChupas wrote:
What do we have to worry about?
Egads. Yeah, Google's the greatest company that has ever existed. Gotcha.
SeanChupas wrote:
If the threat is real then you should be able to quantify it.
Do your own research. This whole "nothing to hide/no worries" thing has been debated ad nauseam.
dandy72 wrote:
This whole "nothing to hide/no worries" thing has been debated ad nauseam.
If that were true, then you should be able to list the dangers very quickly and succinctly. Well?
-
dandy72 wrote:
Kool-Aid you're apparently drinking.
:laugh: Right to the insults. :zzz:
-
dandy72 wrote:
This whole "nothing to hide/no worries" thing has been debated ad nauseam.
If that were true, then you should be able to list the dangers very quickly and succinctly. Well?
SeanChupas wrote:
If that were true,
You're suggesting it's not? You're the epitome of laziness are you? LMGTFY was created for you. [Let Me Google That For You](https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=nothing+to+hide+nothing+to+worry+about) Searching for that, you get page after page of relevant results. Christ, the very first entry is a Wikipedia page on the topic. Well?
-
SeanChupas wrote:
If that were true,
You're suggesting it's not? You're the epitome of laziness are you? LMGTFY was created for you. [Let Me Google That For You](https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=nothing+to+hide+nothing+to+worry+about) Searching for that, you get page after page of relevant results. Christ, the very first entry is a Wikipedia page on the topic. Well?
Why is it so hard for you to explain it? That tells me that you do not even understand what you think you believe. Otherwise, you could explain it. You have responded several times but yet still cannot explain it. Doesn't that tell you something?
-
So that was your trigger, huh? Sorry, I keep forgetting the world has mostly turned into a bunch of snowflakes. You can go lie down and come back to me after you've recovered.
dandy72 wrote:
trigger
I do not think that means what you think it means.
-
Why is it so hard for you to explain it? That tells me that you do not even understand what you think you believe. Otherwise, you could explain it. You have responded several times but yet still cannot explain it. Doesn't that tell you something?
-
dandy72 wrote:
trigger
I do not think that means what you think it means.
