Google CEO Larry Page on privacy issues:
I’m not trying to minimize the issues. For me, I’m so excited about the possibilities to improve things for people, my worry would be the opposite. We get so worried about these things that we don’t get the benefits. I think that’s what’s happened in health care. We’ve decided, through regulation largely, that data is so locked up that it can’t be used to benefit people very well.
Right now we don’t data-mine health care data. If we did we’d probably save 100,000 lives next year. I’m very worried that the media and governments will try to stoke the people’s fears and we’ll end up in a state where we could benefit a lot of people but we re not able to do that. That’s the likely outcome.
The problem is not that people aren’t open to the possible benefits from information gleamed from large piles of data. No, the problem is that both governments and companies alike have a history of abusing and/or leaking this data. In other words, the people’s skepticism is entirely the industry’s own fault.
Introspection, Mr. Page.
Lame
Yes, collecting lots of data for data-mining is great, but once you’ve collected it, no matter how altruistic your intentions are, you have created a shiny pile of data that bad guys would love to obtain a copy of.
You mean to tell me a billionaire, in this case one whose fortune depends directly on the reduced privacy of others, sees any reduction in privacy as a “good thing?” Shocking!
There is nothing “altruistic” about this guy’s supposed “concern.”
Edited 2014-06-26 23:30 UTC
But he does have a point on health care. There must be some way to mine that data without exposing patient details.
Yes, don’t collect patient details to begin with.
The problem is, there’s a historically poor track record of agencies that collect and store healthcare information where they do exactly that, and then proceed to leak or abuse it.
So if something has been done badly historically, let’s never try anything ever.
Can someone explain to me how letting corporations have the health-care data of patients could save 100,000 people a year?
All it would do is fill up spam filters.
Maybe I’m missing some vital part of awesomeness. I can only imagine a world where the pharmaceutical companies can sell directly to buyers, charging whatever they want.
Cancer patients as consumers. Pretty much what I see it amounting to.
It’s very simple:
Step 1. Pay a lot of our money to HMOs.
Step 2. Give lots of our data and information to Google.
Step 3. ?????
Step 4. Profit, errr… I mean “cure.”
Seriously, what’s not to get?
What about Watson, which can actually do something useful with the data but people like you refuse to even consider how something would work rather than “let’s never try because the solution isn’t obvious to me right now”.
By “people like me” you mean folks who have a working knowledge of how the Watson architecture works? Given your false extrapolation, I can assume you’re one of the “other guys” then…
In any case, people should have the right to control what information about them 3rd parties get to mine. Specially when it comes to private matters. Period.
Edited 2014-06-27 05:38 UTC
By “how something would work”, I was referring to a potential system of legal policies regarding access, retention and anonymization of data, not Watson itself. So “people like you” as I have ALREADY said, who refuse to consider possibilities about how to tackle the mining/privacy issue purely because you the solution isn’t immediately obvious.
I only mention Watson as a counter to your mention of Google, as though Google’s aimless search was the only possible way this data could be used.
I’m not disputing that. Period.
See this is the thing that you’re not grasping, and bears repeating: unlike you, I actually have some working knowledge on how Watson works. So for you to tell me that it’s people like me who are stalling progress is a fantastic exercise on projection from your part.
In any case, I’m not denying the role that expert systems have as medical tools. I’m just letting you know that the expectation of not having privacy leading somehow to cures is at best an exercise in “magical” thinking. We should not subsume common sense so easily.
Cheers.
Edited 2014-06-27 18:29 UTC
How’s the progress going with Watson? Has it managed to to find interesting correlations on arbitrary data sets without the need for defining custom Markov models?
I really should be following its development more closely…
Who said anything about letting corporations have health care data? The issue is about being able to mine the data. That does not mean corporations will necessarily be allowed to keep the raw data.
As for how that would help save lives? How about success/failure rates for treatments? How about (mis)diagnosis rates compared to symptoms etc?
Just because you can’t figure something out doesn’t mean it’s not useful.
If you want to mine the data you need to have the data.
If you want to mine the data succesfully you need to mine the data over and over again so you need to keep the data.
Once you have the data, you keep the data, especially if you are Google (they kept StreetView data that they collected illegally even after they were ordered to destroy it because of “oversights”)
Also, this is just a claim that “if you give us the data we will save a hundred thousand lives per year”…without anything to back up such a claim (100.000 per year with an average lifespan of 80 years on a population of 350.000.000 is roughly 2 percent of the population. If 2 percent of the population needs their lives saved in American hospitals by mining data I want to see some proof for that)
It is also a claim that says “I’m very worried that the media and governments will try to stoke the people’s fears”….so he uses this same media to “stoke the people’s hope”
I think he means well, but both Google and himself deserve to be watched VERY critically
There already are laws protecting health care data. There’s no reason why the laws can’t be updated to mandate that no raw data is kept by those who mine it. Or they could provide it as a federally controlled service that you’re allowed to submit mining algorithms to the system and you get the results back as long as no identifying information is revealed.
There are many possible ways to do this. Don’t confuse failure to imagine with reality.
Lots of things are possible, but we are specifically talking about Google here. And the way Google does things is by collecting them, keeping them, giving the results away for free so you will use them more and more and thus the circle continues. And the only reason Google is interested in this circle to continue is because somewhere in this circle there is the word internetadvertisement.
So if you want to discuss reality, start by thinking “what is in it for Google?”. That might be something as crazy as “If they keep 100.000 people alive a year longer that means 75.000 more users of there system”
But if they make a claim like this they need to provide supporting facts. Until then I see no reason to let Google have access to healthcare data
Edited 2014-06-27 16:20 UTC
I’m not. Even though this article is about Larry Page and Google, the implications do not belong to Google alone. So there is absolutely no sense to limit this to Google.
You can’t make a sensible understanding/decision without considering all parties.
“so if i chopped off 9 of my fingers playing Five Finger Fillet with a broad axe, why not try it again. i’m sure nothing wrong will come out of it as we shouldn’t learn from the mistakes we once made…”
alternatively, if something has been done historically and it went “badly”, yes it’s a really, really!!, great clue that you shouldn’t do it again unless you’ve actually understood what went wrong before, why it went wrong and you managed to address the cause of why it went wrong.
hint: we haven’t managed to address human corruption, greed, careleness and usage of blackmail as a weapon for nefarious purposes…
Edited 2014-06-27 08:48 UTC
Your example is stupid.
You may as well say humans should never have learnt how to use fire. Or steel. Or gunpowder. Or nuclear energy.
No one said never to learn from mistakes. The whole point of TRYING is to learn from mistakes. You’re advocating to NEVER EVEN try for fear of making mistakes.
actually you should try to read the comment better next time. what i said is that **after** you tried something a couple of times and it failed spectacularly it’s insane* to keep insisting on it without trying to understand what changed or at least changing it in a significant way.
having vast amounts of personal data in the hands of a corporation or a state has never yielded anything other than bad results and a shift of power from the “information providers” to the “information holders”. Why exactly would that be different now? what makes Google a better recipent and a health data a different set of data than those than preceded it?
* it’s actually the pure definition of insanity to try to do something all over again and expect a different outcome every time…
If you read my previous comments, I have decidedly said that you DON’T have to give them the data. You should try to read better in general every time.
I gave a few examples of how such a system might work that allows data mining, but no raw data is kept. There are many possible solutions to this that don’t involve handing data over to a corporation. How about read those comments?
Here’s a hint: the idea that
“We should explore ways to allow data mining”
Is NOT EQUIVALENT to:
“Let’s hand over all the data”.
So either learn some basic rules of logic and reasoning or stop using me as an opportunity to get on the soapbox and basically ignore anything I say.
Which would only lead to marginally better statistics, but wouldn’t help anyone running a severe health risk, because the data is anonymous.
I’ve no problem with my health data being mined if it will be used to save people’s lives. I don’t value my privacy so much that I’d be willing to sit by and let people die if its release could help, but this data can maintain all of its usefulness by removing my identity from it thus it’s not a tradeoff we need make.
Exactly. And once it can no longer be traced back to individual identities the data should be public domain and not possibly be ‘owned’ by a single private entity.
This stance about healthcare sounds a bit like “think about the children”.
And it is bullshit.
Maybe the problem in the USA is that healthcare is too much in the hands of private companies so maybe it is more difficult than elsewhere to gather statistical data about diseases. I don’t know.
Anyway, there are many studies everywhere in the world about cancers, allergies, pathogens… some last tens of years, and do it without Google. They use volunteers, data from doctors, hospitals…
Furthermore, doing real research and identifying eventual biases to the statistical data, asking questions to the patients about their life, and eventually doing double blind tests on new therapies is real work, not something that could be automatically churned by Google’s computers.
So, hell no, giving personal data to Google won’t save any life!
Edited 2014-06-27 00:28 UTC
The numbers of saved lives is inflated. This is about revenue streams. Lives will be saved when doctors are practiced in the art of medicine, not robotic algorithm followers (which is more often than you know). Doctors today want to be employees working a shift rather than professionals trained in the art of medicine. And if a good doctor takes on complex medical problems, they would be better of financially working a fast food job.
Next to privacy and abuse of power issues, the idea that companies like Google or Facebook shoud gather everything undermines the very principles of Internet which is about decentralisation, not dialup to a BBS (or a “Minitel”).
Every node in the network has the same role for TCP/IP, from a Google server to a low end smartphone.
I work in IT in the healthcare field, and let me tell you HIPPA is bullshit security theater. The answer is to make government and corporate activities as open and discoverable as our lives, but privacy is dead. It’s not a matter of preference or morality, it’s a matter of fact and reality. Get used to it.
andrewclunn,
I have as well, and I will back you up there. It’s a virtual free buffet of patient data to copy (or even to modify…) for those on the IT end.
I absolutely don’t want google to have free reign over private medical data. Maybe a not-for-profit existing for the sake of conducting public healthcare studies, but not google.
I remember google had a program to handle patient data in the past, but it turned out not to be very popular:
http://techcrunch.com/2011/06/24/google-shuts-down-medical-records-…
Edit: A centralized medical records database would be a security risk no matter who had it, it would be much safer if only aggregate / non-personal information was distributed. For example, for this surgery at this hospital, how many outcomes are positive? I can see how this could be valuable information for the public.
Edited 2014-06-27 02:06 UTC
No, you get used to it. Leave me out of this.
Privacy is dieing because you and your ilk keep shooting it. You can protect my privacy and still get all the benefits of data gathering.
If people know they are being watched they change their behavior. If people are being watched all the time their personality changes. Suddenly almost everyone is schizophrenic.
Man: “hello elephant, please watch out for the porcelain.”
Elephant: “don’t worry, I can use my trunk to beautifully polish… whoops. I hope that one wasn’t expensive.”
As an outsider I feel a large part of the problem is your insistence on private clinics and healthcare and handing even basic IT-tasks to privately-held companies.
Here in Finland we have government-controlled healthcare, they do collect all sorts of patient-data, but it’s all handled internally, we rarely have any leaks of data and even access to the data is controlled well; every time you wish to see a patient’s data you have to log in to the system so it gets logged and accessing the data of patients you’re not treating will net you sanctions, possibly even getting you fired.
Is data-mining patients a good idea? Sure, the more data you have the more likely it becomes you’ll find some correlation there between things, but I feel that handing out the data and the task of data-mining to entities that are doing it only for monetary reasons would undermine the whole reason for doing it in the first place.
WereCatf,
Well, IT personnel are often in a privileged position with regards to information access. Even in Finland this must be true, hospital IT staff, government IT staff, contractors, etc. Controls on top of a database were put in place by IT, and they can be removed by IT. The privacy of information in a database depends upon the trustworthiness of the IT staff who operate it.
I think a not-for-profit would be a much better idea, reports should be released to the public. No corporate strings.
As someone who works for a firm who looks after a lot of confidential information for governments and corporations I can tell you the levels of access are incredibly granular. As a server admin I theoretically have access to the database files but its all encrypted. I wouldn’t be able to read any of it.
frood,
I’m interested in hearing more about the setup, if you can talk about it.
The thing about encryption is that the decryption keys must be held _somewhere_ and at that point the system is vulnerable. He who implements the access controls can technically give himself full access.
Edited 2014-06-27 13:29 UTC
I think it would level the playing field and would be a major obstacle for big pharmaceuticals to patent medical research and outright fraudulent research publications.
The benefits outweigh the risks in my estimation.
Check out http://www.thegoodforyou.org. its a nonprofit organization I proposed last year and only recently launched. Mine data anonymously, even use your facebook and Google data, but keep everything anonymous.
We don’t data mine Health Data from USA and Global Citizens crows Googles CEO Larry Page, it would save thousands of lives, blah, blah, lie, lie, BS! Double BS!
I’ve worked over a span of many years in several Hospitals as well as multiple independent doctors. The HIPPA laws were seen and practices as legally binding and patients medical history as sacred as a confession to a ordained priest. Then along came the Obama Whitehouse thugs who don’t care about things like USA Laws and Bill of Rights much less some stinking HIPPA regulations to prevent his agents from not only seizing in mass citizens medical records but even worse streaming those to foreign nations databases.
Earlier this year a Canadian woman suspected of mental health issues because of her Canadian health records was denied entry by the USA TSA who now can instantly pull up domestic and international travelers health records. What Obama and his legions of thugs ran into was the many different kinds of medical records and databases that hospitals and medical providers use, can’t have that when they can force them to use only a few approved pieces of software which they’ve already backdoored, right Larry Page?
To remotely genuflect with Larry Page, I’ve never worked for a single CEO that would go to prison by telling Obama’s goons ‘Heck No, Never’ rather than Yes, Sure anything you and your goons want. 10yrs ago Google during the Bush-Cheney era allegedly told the NSA thugs NO and Talk to their corporate attorneys. This changed with Obama who likely added Blackmail along with multiple additional Threats.
The problem is Larry, once a corporation has climbed in bed with the NSA,FBI,Mossad and other foreign agencys, people do not trust them afterwards, you’ve lost creditability Larry. You are surrounded by a PoliceState regime who make a living on parasitic taxpayer revenues and appear to be serial liers while doing so.
What is truely troubling however Larry Page is the access by rather nefarious people in various organized mafia syndicates, Italian and Jewish Mafia as well as Drug Cartel syndicates who have thousands of domestic and global police, customs and nations agents on their payrolls. Those criminal enterprises can put in a request and have YOUR personal data including whatever medical records have been swept up by the Obama-Biden thugs within 24hrs. The same thing happened under Chicago’s Al Capone with City,State,Federal agents in the thousands on his payroll. Now Chicago’s Barack Obama has made it possible for a exponential increase of evil people with bad intentions able to obtain a great deal of personal information about you, your loved ones and family.
Kind of makes you wonder why the Obama Whitehouse after providing so much information about USA and foreign citizens to some really evil people and organizations want to disarm Americans. Wouldn’t that allow them to simply prey on those citizens with near impunity knowing they are unarmed and defense less.
Oh but the corrupt Obama administration doesn’t massively data mine USA citizens health data, right Larry? Yeah sure, do Curlie Fries come with that witless defense line?
… that the guy who talks about this, and the company that wants to do this are all in the U.S. where regulations regarding protection of users’ data is practically non-existent, and almost all companies are free to trade all kinds of gathered data to all other companies or the government, mostly without the users’ knowledge.
Otherwise, it’s a useful concept. Too bad it – at least currently – scares the hell out of everyone.
Larry Page
Yes, as well as take care of the children and fight terrorism. This is another of those well-intended pretty-looking mantras, “save lives”.
I have worked in the medical data space, it’s a joke. Everything is locked down, no one shares anything. The health of the patient is routinely ignored if you don’t own all the data needed. Just blame it on someone else and watch your stock price, as the US citizenry get less care for more money than ever before.
Not in the US & wondering how bad it is? 1 night in a hospital for observation, a CT scan, an MRI, and a dinner will cost you well over $10,000 if you are not insured. If you are insured, your deductible might be $10,000 so you are paying it anyway. The average income where I’m from is about $40,000/year. That’s 3 months salary for 1 night in hospital, with no surgery, no drugs, just tests and observation.
The medical data in the US is all siloed and the corporations that own it go through all sorts of processes to keep it that way. They protect their data at all costs, and HIPAA rules, which are routinely ignored in day to day practice, are used against parties looking to share or mine data by blocking, or suing them out of existence.
American health care is a very profitable collusion by the insurance companies, the feds, and the hospitals, propped up by overpaid doctors with huge med-school bills. If those doctors are independent of a major hospital, they also pay outrageous insurance rates to protect them from their own patients.
I voted for Obamacare partly to move this collusion into the public light and give the feds a bigger seat at the table. While I’m no fan of congress, I know we citizens have a better chance of improving our overall healthcare going through the democratic process as opposed to waiting for a private company to improve overall quality of life. Companies exist to sell things, not help. Governments exist to help, and can be helped if you pay your taxes and get involved in your democracy.
So it might take 10+ years to adjust to government healthcare and improve the overall situation, but there is the goal of improving the health of the citizenry. In the past system no one seemed to have that as a goal. Doctors would fix you if you were insured, or if you weren’t they would run up the bill knowing you will never pay it and someone else would. Insurance companies did nothing to encourage your health or preventive medicine. Which is why so many healthy americans just stopped buying insurance.
Google could be an amazing company if they dropped the advertising.
How much would you pay to get all of google’s services without any ads or mining of your personal data?
$10/month, $40/month, $100/month? All of Googles services – gmail, youtube, apps, android, search, maps, etc. etc. etc. all in private. I want “old-fashioned” way – pay them to use their products/services and trust them with it.
It should be an option. Use Google for free, get your data collected and harvested. Use it paid and they leave you alone. Too good to be true?
For that to happen Google would have to revamp their entire business model, so it ain’t going to happen.
People need to look at Google for what it is: a ginormous ad agency.
That is good and bad. Google is a good thing because they are huge and their profit depends on a web which is as open and extensive as possible, so they’re a good ally for certain things geeks care about. It is also bad, because trusting all your personal info to a company whose main profit opportunity comes from being able to resell that data, that’s a recipe for disaster.
Tools are good and bad, just because something is good for a certain application we should not just assume it’s beneficial for everything else.
Aww, how cute. After years of leading a company dealing with personal data he still managed to maintain his innocence.