Paging Dr. Google: How the Tech Giant Is Laying Claim to Health Data
wsj.com
wsj.com
Disclosure: I work at Google, but my opinion is my own.
You’re just cutting the cord of falsifiability here. Because none of us can see 10 years into the future, you’ve made it impossible for anyone to disagree with you or even have a reasonable discussion. It’s an intellectually dishonest position to take.
But, I somehow am really unimpressed by Pichai. I know Pichai, Cook, Satya are the executive types, but of all 3 Pichai seems to have the lowest vision, in every interview he speaks, it's like he's being very careful, like no enthusiasm at all.
Well I don't know if even going with Amazon would be any better than going with Google since both of them will be prominent players in healthcare technology anytime soon. But it is more than clear that as Google obtains more health data via hospitals contracts, GCP customers, etc this helps their deep-learning systems learn more about you and despite releasing interesting papers about their achievements, they have closed up some of their methods which limits reproducible science and research.
Think very carefully about the sensitivity of this health data. Do we really want the likes of Google and Amazon analyzing this data for commercial purposes and later getting away with it? I neither trust that Amazon or Google will act in the best interests of whats good for healthcare, but I guess Cerner chose the lesser of two evils and went with a weaker devil.
>>> “If you believe me that all we are doing is organizing that information to make it easier for your doctor, I’m going to get a little paternalistic here: I’m never going to let that get opted out,” Dr. Feinberg says. “It’s going to screw up your treatment. We’re not going to be able to take care of you.”
Planet Money had an interview with Dr. Feinberg, the head of the Google health initiative. He was asked about people potentially opting out. His response was extremely paternalistic.
He said that he views everybody in the system as his patients, and he thinks this data aggregation and analysis from Google will improve care. So as "our" doctor he cannot morally allow any of his his patients to withdraw themselves from the program because, to him, that would be akin to giving you inferior care.
So this guy gets to unilaterally appoint himself as our doctor? I certainly didn't hire him.
>>> He boasts about his $5 Wal-Mart fleece jacket, and is an astrology enthusiast. “I’m positive,” Dr. Feinberg says to a reporter good naturedly, if inaccurately, “you’re Sagittarius.”
He's also heavily into astrology and was asking the interviewer his sign and trying to guess it. I certainly would never hire a doctor that was into astrology. How can I fire this guy?
How TF do you become a doctor that believes in astrology?
This is how you appoint yourself lord of all things.
Got a link?
(lol, that comment is back down to -1 again. Apparently you cannot say anything bad about astrology on HN either.)
https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/the-journal/why-google-is-pushi...
>Google pushed one medical-data manager not to share data with other companies, according to a person familiar with the pitch.
>As part of its huge offer for Cerner, whose software is embedded in doctors’ offices in 30 countries, Google used its size to its advantage. Google Cloud executives offered that other arms of the conglomerate would buy unspecified other services from Cerner, people familiar with the matter say.
>Cerner ultimately accepted a less generous offer from Amazon, in part because the company decided Amazon was more trustworthy on security, according to one of these people.
>Existing players in the health-care data market also fear that the tech giant will gain too much power in their industry. Some hospital and technology executives say they declined deals with Google lest it become a future competitor.
>“We could never pin down Google on what their true business model was,” says a Cerner executive involved in the discussions.
It seems like Google is using GCP as a venus fly trap and Cerner was right to avoid them. The lure is cheap bog standard cloud services, but only if you have a more all-encompassing partnership where your data helps them develop other Google products.
>Reiterating what Google has told lawmakers and industry executives in private meetings over the past two months, Dr. Feinberg says he operates on a personal directive from Mr. Schmidt: “Don’t worry about making money.”
This quote is extremely telling in my opinion, and it's just classic Google. The most generous interpretation of this is that Google has altruistic motivations to make advances in health and they shouldn't worry about how to monetize whatever they build. That of course is completely absurd and extremely dangerous because that is exactly how Google slides into evil (evil is banal). The less generous interpretation is that Dr. Feinberg is only there to provide a sheen of health industry credibility (key opinion leader) and he has no actual ownership of Google's health business at all.
And judging by this paragraph, I'm leaning to the latter:
>Outcry over the Ascension deal, including a federal inquiry and objections from patients, shocked executives inside Google, and opened fissures in its top ranks over how to proceed, according to people with knowledge of the discussions. The head of Google Health, Dr. Feinberg, pushed to tell the public more about his division’s operations, but met resistance from longtime staffers who cite the company’s tradition of keeping potential new products under wraps.
They're sitting in a firehose of cashflow. They waste more in a day than most people earn in a lifetime. I was working as a contractor there and the Occam's Razor hypothesis I formed to account for the massive waste I saw was that they have so much money that they can afford to sequester talent. (Meaning, they can hire a bunch of people just to keep them from working for competitors.)
I know that's not true, but it's less upsetting than admitting they're just that wasteful.
I think that's pretty true and partly explains why they respond so well to competing offers from other tech companies when you're negotiating salary
You either make money from your users or off your users.
I encourage you to have a broader perspective, since this statement isn't true.
E.g. let's examine what Dr Feinberg (who current leads Google Health), oversaw at his last job (see link below).
tl;dr - They gave free food to some people with diabetes, which was better and cheaper than giving them drugs. This was not just free PR, etc.
https://www.hcinnovationgroup.com/population-health-manageme...
Check 1798.145. Section 3 https://hq.services/blog/ccpa-full-text-with-amendments/
"The company says its intentions in health are unconnected with its advertising business".
I posted this exact comment elsewhere in the thread. You can search for a discussion on this page around it.
Does it make sense for a tech giant employing lots of data scientists and existing health products (Google Fit) to expand further into Health? Yes.
Does it make sense for a company earning most of their money through advertising to keep health data they are processing completely separate from their core business? In the long run yes, but they can also make a lot of money in the short to medium term by breaking that commitment
I personally don't see an incentive for Google to make a quick buck by sacrificing the long term. I see it as quite the opposite, since Google has a lot of cash on hand. See [1]
[1] https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/alphabet-goo...
You can use archive.is to read some paywalled content: http://archive.is/RcG5b
To remove AMP cruft:
curl http://web.archive.org/web/20200111193123/https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/paging-dr-google-how-the-tech-giant-is-laying-claim-to-health-data-11578719700 \
| sed -n '/./{/<p>By<.p>/,/<\/div>/p;/<title>/,/<\/title>/p;};/<p>By/!{/<p>/p;};/=.sub-head/p;/./{/<h1 /,/<.h1>/p;}' > a.html
firefox file://a.htmlCall it for what it is.
"The company says its intentions in health are unconnected with its advertising business".
There are things one could be critical of regarding their acquisition of data, etc. but I don't think it is in Google's best interest to use the data for advertising.
No way in hell Google isn't going to use this for advertisement. It's exactly the kind of huge free money that drives everyone else to collect data totally unrelated to their core business. 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.
Just imagine the kind of profiles you could build on people with medical data. Beyond targeted drug advertisement, medical devices, and the like, you know which people are sedentary, which play sports, who probably smokes, and I'd bet good money there are correlations between certain conditions and shopping habits, religious preference, and even political preferences. Just begging to be clustered with the latest hot neural net.
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?
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.
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.
Tech company. Automation. Advertising.
Do they need to be skinning puppies or something?
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.
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.
I think the net this criticism casts is too wide.
I have never heard of Google doing outright illegal things. They make very liberal interpretations of the law in their own favor, but patient data protection is very clear and well understood so there isn't much room to play there.
2. Do you really trust that the law is sufficiently protective? Do you believe it to be crafted for the novel dangers that come from mining aggregations of data and building individual profiles with next generation ML?
3. What stops Google from throwing it's weight around to lobby for changes to the law which allow it to make use of data in ways that laws protect against now, once it has the data?
Sure, that's a lot of what ifs. But this particular scenario is dangerous because it effects all of us, and it only takes one ambitious authoritarian to turn all of this adtech fun and games into the most comprehensive and fine grained surveillance apparatus that has ever existed. Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Pol Pot; just imagine the temptation of being just one "lawful" seizure away from such power...that's what slimy adtech companies are building, they don't care and the average person doesn't understand.
They could already do this with data from Android, Chrome, Google, Maps, or Youtube.
Not everyone uses Google websites.
Well, I can tell you that Google's advertising profile for me would already have a pretty good idea for all of those attributes you listed based on my search history, location history, google maps usage, youtube usage, etc.
The healthcare market is an ~8.5 Trillion market globally [1]. Advertising is ~ 1 trillion [2,3]. I admit that I don't know the exact quality of the data cited in these - but they do clearly demonstrate that healthcare is a huge industry. Given that Google wants another profit source besides advertising I think it just conspiratorial to suggest they would throw away the medical opportunity for some marginal advertising gains. Dragonfly leaked, employees are otherwise frustrated with certain things. If employees are talking about what you say then I'll listen to them. But you are just making senseless accusations.
1 - https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190625005862/en/11....
2 - http://towersofzeyron.com/the-advertising-industry-is-now-wo...
3 - https://www.statista.com/topics/990/global-advertising-marke...
So glad our corporate surveillance masters are teaming up to infiltrate every aspect of our existence.
Where is this firehose of health data is going to lead to?