| 2:17 pm on Feb 21, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Too much information and privacy springs to mind here.
| 3:52 pm on Feb 21, 2008 (gmt 0)|
no way in h_ll. Unless, I have no choice of course.
| 3:59 pm on Feb 21, 2008 (gmt 0)|
What? Big Google watching more and more...
| 4:25 pm on Feb 21, 2008 (gmt 0)|
At least you don't live in the UK. Over here they just put your details on a CD and pop it in the post. The Post Office is so slow that this is actually a storage method. Indexing is a bit slow though...
| 4:27 pm on Feb 21, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Well, they better not put my information up or I will sue them. They better not put ANYONE'S up without their permission or I know there will be lawsuits to put it nicely.
| 4:38 pm on Feb 21, 2008 (gmt 0)|
They'll make no cash out of that then.... can you imagine the opt out from patients on that one... especially in the UK!
| 4:49 pm on Feb 21, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Wow, the reaction is amazing though I do understand it. Would you react differently if the name in the announcement was not Google?
| 4:53 pm on Feb 21, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I wouldn't care WHO did it, Google or not...I think it is dangerous either way. I guess those dumb enough to opt-in deserve what happens to them if the info is used in an improper way...it would be their fault. So as long as they don't do it WITHOUT specific permission from each and every person it'll be ok.
| 4:57 pm on Feb 21, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I second walkman's NO WAY IN H E L L.
I wouldn't care either WHO did it. It is bad in either case.
This information will be sold as data or as reports to insurance and drug companies, DO NOT DOUBT THAT IN A SECOND. Selling health data is a big serious business. Ugly too, because most of that data is used to figure out not how to cure diseases, but how to put people on drugs (i.e. continuous "treatment").
| 5:08 pm on Feb 21, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|will be protected by a password that's also required to use other Google services such as e-mail and personalized search tools. |
What are they thinking?
Of course, there is - at least currently - a way around this.
I have a half-dozen Google accounts. I'll bet there are some here with 10-20.
I like to keep this stuff in separate boxes.
Google doesn't encourage it. They don't encourage obvious, prudent separation of data with differing security requirements.
In fact, they encourage the opposite.
| 7:47 pm on Feb 21, 2008 (gmt 0)|
A horrible idea, what next Bank details, shows what can be dreamt up after a night on the beer by a few software engineers.
|joe in nantucket|
| 8:03 pm on Feb 21, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Did anyone read the whole thing?
"who volunteered to an electronic transfer of their personal health records so they can be retrieved through Google's new service, which won't be open to the general public."
This is an opt-in...not opt-out. Google's not going to add yours without your permission. Google may be trying to do new things here but getting sued into bankruptcy isn't one of them. Also, unless a senior executive overseeing this project decides to voluntarily release the information for whatever reason, I can't possibly imagine the personal data being obtained by a hacker or a group of them. Google's network is so incredibly powerful, it's ridiculous.
| 8:15 pm on Feb 21, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Um, how exactly is this any different from the dozens (if not hundreds or thousands) of other companies that store medical records information? Please people, drop the privacy paranoia just because the word Google is used! How many people even read the story? Nowhere does it say Google is going to take all the information and dump it into their public search results. It says quite clearly the opposite.
Rather than have hundreds or thousands of proprietary systems that don't talk to each other very well, it makes much more sense to have a standardized system (or one central system) that will allow doctors to access all medical information for patients under their care. And if it's going to be centralized, I would MUCH prefer a company like Google that has a more proven track record of maintaining privacy than any of the dozens of supposedly "secure" companies that have allowed hundreds of thousands of credit card numbers into the wild.
Personally, if I'm sitting in a hospital in critical condition, I would not be thrilled to have my doctor tell me I may not live because his hospital's system doesn't talk to my doctor's system and he can't find anyone at my doctor's offices to fax hard copies of my records to his office.
[edited by: LifeinAsia at 8:17 pm (utc) on Feb. 21, 2008]
| 8:19 pm on Feb 21, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|I can't possibly imagine the personal data being obtained by a hacker or a group of them. |
I can. Very easy. They just have to phish the user's Gmail password. How hard can that be?
It's a very simple problem to solve - use a separate Google account for this. But Google actively encourages people NOT to do that.
All they have to say is "we recommend that you set-up a separate Google account with a separate password, to help insure your privacy.
But they won't do that.
Instead, they encourage you to use the same account for medical record, Gmail, search, GoogleBar, Adwords, etc. etc. etc.
BTW, I see that PayPal offers hardware security keys for $5. Maybe they have been doing this for some time, but I just noticed. These are the portable devices you can put on your keyring where you enter a challenge and it displays a response that you must enter to a web page for access. It's appropriate technology for this kind of data.
But you won't see Google doing that. Would scare too many people off. It would make them think about the sensitivity of the data. Don't want that.
|Um, how exactly is this any different from the dozens (if not hundreds or thousands) of other companies that store medical records information? |
Because, apparently, HIPAA protections do not apply to this data, because Google is not a medical provider or insurer.
|Rather than have hundreds or thousands of proprietary systems that don't talk to each other very well, it makes much more sense to have a standardized system (or one central system) that will allow doctors to access all medical information for patients under their care. |
But that, apparently, isn't what this system does. The article is sketchy, but it appears that this is only for the patients themselves to access. (Along with the specific clinic that was selected for the trial.)
What happens if you go to another doctor? Do you give your doctor the password? Well, then, ou've just given your doctor the password for your email, browsing history, Adsense income....
See the problem?
| 9:02 pm on Feb 21, 2008 (gmt 0)|
jtara is right about the implementation.
This topic was of interest to me because I was approached by a medical group to build such a system. After I told them Google is working on something similar, they changed their mind :)
I was surprised that no one thought about the benefit. I've had a fair share of doctors over the years. Officially I'm supposed to be allowed to have access to my medical records. In reality, I've barely ever been given a thing. Doctors can be elitist sometimes. Thinking we don't need to see data that is actually very important to us. We like to do our own research even if it means asking inconvenient questions..
Having health records online gives power to the consumer.
I'm not thrilled to have Google behind it. They know way too much already.... It would be nice if there was a system to randomize usernames so that you have better protection.
But I was expecting a more balanced discussion of the pros and cons...which I thought would be possible when Google's name was removed from the equation.
There's a lot of smart folks here. Any way to tackle this so the patient can access all his records from the many doctor's he's had and still maintain a fair level of privacy? Be it Google or some other company?
| 9:17 pm on Feb 21, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|Any way to tackle this so the patient can access all his records from the many doctor's he's had and still maintain a fair level of privacy? |
A hardware device. Something like a Medic Alert bracelet with non-volatile memory, a keypad, and display. Integrates a challenge/response security device. Probably with a USB interface built-in. So, in the form of a USB key.
It could be read and updated at your doctor's office with prior approval. They'd be given a revocable key which would allow them to access the device without a password. Or, you could enter your PIN and then you or your doctor could enter the challenge/response. (That is, without prior approval.)
You could hand in your key when you check-in, and get it back when you check-out. Or do it yourself on a kiosk in the waiting room. (You might not get a complete record on the same visit, but in most cases today, this gets recorded on a computer while you are in the office. Might miss Doctor's comments that they may add during "desk time", but you'll get that on the next visit or through an online update.)
Emergency rooms might have special override keys. Of course, the use of such a key would be recorded in the device.
The device could sync-up to one or more online medical records systems over the Internet. Of course, with proper security - which means more than a simple user ID/password.
You would have control over which online systems it syncs up with, and what kind of data it exchanges.
Of course, there would be a way to backup your data securely, and you could have duplicate devices.
Google just wants the data. YOUR data.
It belongs in your pocket, not on Google's servers.
| 9:20 pm on Feb 21, 2008 (gmt 0)|
But you still have the internet component that way....
How are lab tests added to the record? Via the Dr. or via the lab itself?
| 10:02 pm on Feb 21, 2008 (gmt 0)|
A couple of things from someone who'se worked in a hospital.
For the vast majority of us having immediate access to all medical records immediately isn't that important. There are some things that would be cool to know before a patient comes rolling into the ER. Things that should transcend privacy.
Been outside the country lately?
Been around someone with TB or the flu?
It takes forever for new techniques to make there way from one part of the country to where it becomes common knowledge. Bill Everet would be paralyzed now if he played for the Chiefs.
Someone with good ears in a hospital cafeteria
could learn a lot more about your medical records than trying to hack a google database.
| 11:21 pm on Feb 21, 2008 (gmt 0)|
If you ask me, the whole idea is pretty shocking. Next thing you know, Google will be storing people's tax records online. Can you imagine TurboTax or TaxCut doing anything like that? :-)
| 11:54 pm on Feb 21, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|Can you imagine TurboTax or TaxCut doing anything like that? |
They don't do it using the same user ID/password that you use for your email.
Many people treat email security casually. Even more so, some of the other Google services. (logging-in to search, for example). Most people have these passwords set-up for automatic filling in their browser.
Anything financial, I do not let the browser save the password. I have to enter it manually. (Actually, I use Password Safe, but there are still some clicks.)
Now, what is the typical user going to do in this scenario? Most won't think to open a separate Google account, because Google discourages it - doesn't even suggest it as a good security measure.
So, pick one:
- Don't let your browser store your Google password. What a pain to access email.
- Let your browser store your Google password. Anyone with physical access to your machine can access your medical records.
A Hobson's choice.
I don't have a problem with Google being a service provider for medical records. I do have a problem with their casual treatment of passwords and accounts, and encouraging the use of a single account for multiple roles.
I also have a problem if they are ducking HIPPA requirements through some technicality. That needs to be stopped through legislation, immediately.
| 1:29 am on Feb 22, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Ho My God.
The worst (privacy wise) idea ever!
| 5:16 am on Feb 22, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|Privacy group sounds alarms over personal health records systems. |
Mediical data stored online may fall outside of HIPAA's privacy protections, report claims
|There are several problems that could result from the lack of privacy protections, Dixon said. For starters, she claimed, health records could lose their privileged status if a patient authorizes a doctor to send a copy of the information to a PHR system that isn't covered by the HIPAA mandates. |
"Many consumers have this deeply held belief that their health information, no matter where it travels, is protected in the same way as when you have a doctor/patient relationship," Dixon said. In reality, consenting to have data transmitted to a noncovered system likely would be viewed as an indication that you had waived your privacy privilege, she added.
Computer World article [computerworld.com]
[edited by: tedster at 6:07 am (utc) on Feb. 22, 2008]
[edit reason] fix side scroll [/edit]
| 5:36 am on Feb 22, 2008 (gmt 0)|
What I want to know is how Google can do this, on schedule, professionally, and with such a low cost to the userbase, when the UK's NHS home-spun version has cost 20 billion pound so far (>3 times the original budget), has been delayed by more than two years, and still has serious problems.