What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
94 Comments
- Bukowsky, on 04/20/2008, -8/+54As much as I like & use Google, I barely trust my own doctor with my medical records...
- HappyScrappy, on 04/20/2008, -9/+54No.
- kenvsryu, on 04/20/2008, -3/+30Do you know who has your records now?
- MrWhite7, on 04/20/2008, -1/+16As a former social worker, I'm laughing. 1/3 of this country doesnt know where their damn social security card is.
- inactive, on 04/20/2008, -2/+14Yeah, sure you can. The same way you can trust facebook to secure your personal info and pics.
I saw a recent torrent with 27 gigs of Facebook pics. - jcaino, on 04/20/2008, -3/+12Correct me if i'm wrong - but private corporations already have to comply with HIPAA. I've no doubts that Google would be able to keep the information as secure as any existing infrastructure...they run a pretty tight ship and have some excellent people there. Are you worried they'll target advertising based on your ailments? Would be pretty hard to see that fly and not knock them far off their pedestal.
- punkcat, on 04/20/2008, -0/+7how is it like 1984?
at what part in 1984 did a company offer you a choice in services that were kept private? - Darmichar, on 04/20/2008, -0/+7Do a Google search for 'offshoring medical transcription', then come back and tell me how confidential your medical records are.
- Micktion, on 04/20/2008, -1/+8It is with people who have sworn an oath to keep those records confidential and who would be disbarred from their profession if ever caught breaking that oath.
- RandoTheKing, on 04/20/2008, -2/+9I trust google with my life.
- cl2yp71c, on 04/20/2008, -2/+8The interwebz and personal information just don't mix.
- inactive, on 04/20/2008, -1/+7Dont tell your insurance company or HR person that last bit.
- Micktion, on 04/20/2008, -2/+8The difference between the two solutions is Microsoft offers systems that people can run on their own hardware. Whereas Google will want to hoarde all of that data on its servers so that they can work out ways to "Monetize" it.
The difference in the trust required is enormous.
Microsoft you have to trust they are not going to have backdoors or algorithms to copy data outside the secured network in which Microsoft's systems are installed. Trust required: NONE. Microsoft knows they simply can't get away with either of those activities. They would be caught, and they know they would be caught, being caught doing such things would ruin them. It would be suicide for them to attempt such a thing.
Google on the other hand... you not only need to trust that their present leadership will do the right thing by you, but all future leadership of that company will do the right thing by you. Google has absolute power over your data, once sent to their servers, it's out of your control. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I know 21st century health care comes at a cost, but I think the price you'll end up paying with Google is a little too high. - nonstopdoc1, on 04/20/2008, -0/+4You don't have to pay any fee. You just have to sign a form for release of medical records.
- byrdgang, on 04/20/2008, -0/+4I worked as a pharmacy technician for several years at a well known pharmacy chain in the United States, and from what I have seen personally, you should be more worried about how your pharmacy handles your information than Google. I won't mention how you could steal other people's medical information, but it's relatively easy and there aren't enough safeguards to prevent this from happening (if I get into details, I'd be giving people ideas, but at the same time, I want to be clear that there is a real concern).
I have also witnessed careless employees leave medical information on countertops that are easily accessible to the public. A former co-worker of mine would regularly print something out and immediately place it on a counter where someone could take anything she printed. Someone could take it while she looked away and, knowing this co-worker, there's a good chance she wouldn't even realize medical papers had been stolen. Don't blame the law here. The law specifically bars people like this former co-worker of mine from doing this but she does it anyway.
People love to create paranoia, but please stick with securing your medical records today instead of worrying about something Google might do. From Google's past actions, I would rather have it maintain my medical records than the very co-workers I have had, including pharmacists with many years of experience. - ronster72, on 04/20/2008, -1/+4Your psychiatry information would be removed at the request of Scientology
- gl77, on 04/20/2008, -0/+3i swear i have seen this exact story on digg before.
- stutimandal, on 04/20/2008, -1/+4Medical records should be a personal property. It shouldn't even be a property of the doctor.
E.g., I went to my dentist. He did full mouth/bitewing XRay and keeps the XRay slides/records with him. That almost ensures a monopoly, unless I go and pay a fee and get copies of the XRay slides. I mean I have already paid for it, it should belong to me. - jackalsclaw, on 04/20/2008, -0/+3they wouldn't give them to the public, and i would really like my doctors to have perfect access to any record they need to keep me healthy
- Altor92, on 10/06/2009, -6/+9Yes
- fuzzmeister, on 04/20/2008, -4/+7The idea isn't that the records would be public, it's that Google would help you manage them. Their business isn't limited to web search.
- DietMountainDew, on 04/20/2008, -7/+10I would trust Google with my first born child.
- ikrit2006, on 04/20/2008, -0/+3Remind me to buy Google stock if they do get this, could you imagine the ad revenue from doctors advertising on the site based on your medical history?
- forgiste, on 04/20/2008, -1/+4Personally I trust Google with everything. Maybe I fell for their Don't Be Evil persona, but I just don't think they're gonna be irresponsible, no matter what. Unless of course ***** take over the company.
- MashDaddy, on 08/22/2009, -1/+4Medical records are protected by authorities higher than Google, but that's not the issue. Google is getting their hands in more and more things to keep growing. Everything combined is what could make them dangerous in the future for privacy and could make them become more of a monopoly than they already have become.
Let's face it, Google has maxed out their saturation in search engine marketing and they are looking for other things to get involved in to keep the growth continuing. Just look at how their stock price has fallen since Jan 08 and it will back this up. - kwazyhulk, on 04/20/2008, -0/+3You are absolutely wrong. That was the main point of the article. Here is the snippet they provide which is from the New England Journal of Medicine article that originated the current discussion on privatization of medical records.
Microsoft and Google, the authors note, are not bound by the privacy restrictions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or Hipaa, the main law that regulates personal data handling and patient privacy. Hipaa, enacted in 1996, did not anticipate Web-based health records systems like the ones Microsoft and Google now offer.
There is no government oversight for private web-based medical records. In other words, it is not a crime for them to share your medical records! - SillyRabbits, on 04/20/2008, -0/+2Maybe you should amend that to say that, as a former social worker, 1/3 of the people you're used to dealing with don't know where their SS card is.... :)
- troye, on 04/20/2008, -0/+2Seriously, I trust Google with my email and calendar, but not my medical record.
- inactive, on 04/20/2008, -0/+2And Duponts was better living through chemicals.
Do no evil till OMEGA day when we implement our master plan. - kday, on 04/20/2008, -0/+2why?
- bullox, on 04/20/2008, -0/+2uh, what?
- newbill123, on 04/20/2008, -0/+2I'm not sure there is anyone, including the hospitals, that are safe to completely entrust with your records. There's a lot of leads to be found in medicine just by looking at the statistics so pooling data together en masse seems like a good way to do this.
But considering the aggressive and underhanded lengths insurance companies will go to in order to drop coverage of expensive customers before a claim is made, it seems like any large pool of medical data is just asking to be misused at some price point. - JasonsLan, on 04/20/2008, -0/+2if you're storing protected health information, then you are bound by HIPAA (any health care organization that contracts a with a company to store medical information will require the organization be bound by the HIPAA guidelines) and that includes physical warehouses as well. You go to the doctor in your town for a broken arm, your X-Rays are going to be stored on a PACS system that the vendor has full access to, and your transcription will probably be done in India or the Philippines. Your health information is already all over the place. if its on google servers, I trust that a hell of alot more than some ***** transcription company in Delhi ..
- inactive, on 04/20/2008, -1/+3If the probability of your doctor leaking the information is $a$ and google leaking the information is $b$. Even if $b < a$, the probability that your information is leaked will be $a+b$. Dumbass.
- troye, on 04/20/2008, -0/+1H4x?
- bariswheel, on 04/20/2008, -0/+1Do you trust credit card companies to keep tabs on everything and anything you buy? Do you trust them enough to give your mother's maiden name, your home address, your social, and then some to these companies who blatantly sell your private info to third party companies and try to rob you out of your money by tricking you into ridiculous high interest rates?
Unfortunately your answer is irrelevant if you already own a credit card.
Or would you rather have the ability to provide your doctor your xrays while you're in the emergency room on the verge of a stroke so he can make the decision he needs to in the next 3-5 minutes instead of having to scrounge around trying to find your medical records? - jcaino, on 04/20/2008, -0/+1I think that not making an addendum or new regulation would prevent support from the insurance companies. Too much liability and they're the ones that are going to have a big say in this...
- SillyRabbits, on 04/20/2008, -0/+1The only problem is that they don't lose their certification if they toss old records in the trash, surplus old computers without destroying the harddrives, connect computers storing records to the internet without any security, or any other number of careless security practices. The end result is the same as if they just started selling the information to whomever wanted it.
- troye, on 04/20/2008, -0/+1Got H4x?
- thecoolestguy, on 04/20/2008, -0/+1I don't see how this involves the government. This is between the patient and the company (e.g. google) that they make an agreement with. If the company violates that agreement, then the justice system will kick in, until then the government has no right to interfere with individuals' right to contract how they please.
- Arcueid01, on 04/20/2008, -0/+1THIS is a terrible thing!
- troye, on 04/20/2008, -0/+1Damn right. ***** NO. I DON'T TRUST GOOGLE WITH MY MEDICAL RECORD!!! I trust them with my emails, but not my medical record.
- sassip, on 04/20/2008, -0/+1Problem is you're thinking again!
- Justblaze, on 04/20/2008, -0/+1I agree. I'd rather have a copy of my records with me at all times... I'd feel a lil more secure in the end
- Darmichar, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1Take as much offense as you'd like, it wasn't directed at any individual. The simple truth is that there are hospitals and Physicians that are allowing their transcription work to be farmed out over seas, some with little to no control over whom has access to it.
- intense321, on 04/20/2008, -0/+1Oh come on guys. There are over 300 million people in this country. How often do you see their personal medical records "leaked" onto the internet? How about NEVER. I am a physician. I take patient confidentiality very seriously. Darmichar's comment is very insulting to me.
- OriginalReplica, on 04/20/2008, -0/+1So because other people are incompetent I shouldn't be in charge of my own medical records? Let's face it as a social worker the whole reason you were dealing with the people you helped is because they couldn't get their lives together on their own. I don't really want to be held down to that standard.
- 9thisisme, on 04/23/2008, -0/+1exactly.
- Solis, on 04/20/2008, -0/+1I couldn't care less who sees or knows the contents of my medical records? Seriously, wtf is the big deal?
- hotspot102, on 04/20/2008, -0/+1If you trust an insurance company, you can trust google. At least google wont deny you, service based on a pre existing condition.
-
Show 51 - 96 of 96 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is