They are not dumb, their own health data privacy is in stake too, after all.
By the past they have proven numerous time that they have a lot the sense of responsibilities -- as employees, as a whole.
Googlers go on strike if a juicy deal is made with China in exchange to some complacency to state-censorship. Or when it's an Defense contract with any country.
Wall Street sharks just pop Champaign bottles when these kind of contracts happen, that's the difference.
B = responsible
C = not responsible
D = again not responsible? or do you mean evil?
So, to reply to your argument:
When Google makes something not responsible, or, worse, evil, the numerous "responsible" people that have proven to be part of the staff in the past (see the examples) will make a fuss.
Shortly the misdeed would be made public, widely commented, the pressure would make the corporation take countermeasures to repair their image. That's what happened in these 2 examples, and this mechanism is still active.
I'm not saying that this will work every time. I'm just highlighting that at Google this mechanism is particularly strong (and so the hate towards Google less understandable).
Of course new laws would be even more convincing, if only for those corporations where the self-control is weaker.
Anyway... Thanks, and you the same.
I thought they posted messages on internal mailing lists and stuff like that.
https://gizmodo.com/google-employees-resign-in-protest-again...
And then 4,000 is a lot of people in some sense, but there's 100,000+ full timers.
If the project had been maintained, you probably would have seen further actions... it's just like in the civil society (I mean, in politics, residents opposing local projects, etc), there is a kind of escalation.
From what I see of Google and the past public outcries, the company would be more interested in developing medical characterization of illnesses etc. Like Apple watch used to diagnose heart problems. There is a lot of "money" to be made ethically this way.
So if any random set of employees at Google don't threaten to quit, that means that they're doing great? Also, why would any company sell the very thing that makes them money? :) They can make more money allowing companies to use the data by targeting certain users.
>By the past they have proven numerous time that they have a lot the sense of responsibilities -- as employees, as a whole.
What "sense of responsibility" does Google have? There is zero accountability here. They continue to spy on users and collect personal data, which now includes health data. A private company doing that for profit, makes it unethical in my view.
"By the past they have proven numerous time that they have a lot the sense of responsibilities -- as employees, as a whole." - arguable, but even if true companies and their cultures change. You cannot trust a company, especially a public one, as you can a human.
Ideally I would rather the amount I have to "trust" companies be reduced wherever possible and that's only achievable via regulations and enforcement of those regulations.
At some end of the spectrum you have Google, Tesla ... at the other end you can find Oracle, Exxon, Disney (relatively to how they treat property rights), etc...
"Corporate culture" is a thing.
It's nice that you can feel morally superior by working at Google (I assume you work there by how hard you are claiming they are good) but please realize that sentiment is not universally shared. _You_ can trust Google to do the right thing but the replies in these comments alone show that there's at least a noteworthy amount of people who are distrustful or at least would rather not have to be trustful of Google. And this also applies to other mega-corporations too.
You not having concerns doesn't invalidate other people's concerns. Trust does alleviate concerns but for some people trusting a corporation is a very tenuous emotion.
The company culture at Google was proven by the facts to be responsible not long ago (the refusal to negotiate with China, the refusal to make a contract with the Defense Department), and not enough time or not enough turnover has happened since to justify a change of mindset.
I agree that the culture of a company can change, but that only happens as a result when a lot of the staff change, and that they draw in different demographics for the newcomers (with different values, etc).
? This is satire ?
They could pass it off as 'anonimized' data and sell it to medical companies.
Or sell ads on the basis of information collect from the devices, which would still be ostensibly anonymous theoretically.
Finally, the notion that we would depend on the willingness of some Mega Corps employees to possibly risk their jobs and put up a fuss, is just a step too far.
We might need some regulation here.
Also: there are material opportunities for advancement of health by having this information shared, we should also recognize that and possibly allow these things to be used as medical devices if people want them to be i.e. for research.
The own health data of Google employees too is in danger if they do dumb things with it (as I suspect that, like anybody, these engineers enjoy health wearables), so it would absolutely not stay unchecked.
It would be difficult to unwind what has largely been accepted practice for years.
The DNA-box companies sell randomized data to drug companies, to help literally make cures for disease. Not do bad. And it's random, and there's buy in.
I can see G people going for that: it's random data from Android devices, people are opting in etc..
But then inch by inch it gets worse.
I see that in theory you could game this system to play on the type of ads URL you send to each category, and thus try to indirectly get information about the IPs that visit your site, but I'm not sure how it is a viable strategy, how much mitigation is already in place by Google against that (surely they have thought about it), and how many marketers are ready to go theses lengths or even if any has already done it (Cambridge Analytica did it on FB, but arguably that was an easier system to game).
Google should never be given access to this type of data. Never.
Your concern is legit, but then the whole concept of connected wearables should be avoided.
That's what pharmaceutical or medical ventures usually do, so that seems the sensible way to go.
Anyway this is probably not decided yet because it is very early, but Google would surely go the sane and rational way. Alphabet is already quite used to medical projects through Deepmind, and they do not breach accepted good practice guidelines.
They can and often do more responsible things than just what is required.
It is not true for every industry player, here again the corporate culture has its role, so yes a good set of laws would do a great good. Then again, that only comes from a responsible government/politics.