What is Digg?93 Comments
- ZephyrNinety, on 02/24/2008, -7/+28You know, I love Google but it is very possible they could have a monopoly on the entire world sooner or later.
But like I said, I love Google. - MiDri, on 02/24/2008, -2/+19Google is a search engine, among other things, if you have info about you available on the internet it will find it -- I'm sorry, thats the nature of public information -- if you don't want it on Google, keep it over the internet.
- mvisa, on 02/24/2008, -3/+18Microsoft has already done this with Microsoft Healthvault.
- jgreene777, on 02/24/2008, -0/+15Google's stuff works and they haven't repeatedly screwed me yet. When/if they get like MS, then I'll hate them too.
- darkNiGHTS, on 02/24/2008, -1/+14That's searching the web. It doesn't search your calender or your GMail or anything. I'm guessing this would be private too.
- santaliqueur, on 02/24/2008, -3/+15Probably sold to marketing companies? Why not do some research and find out for yourself, before throwing Google under the bus.
- smacksaw, on 02/24/2008, -10/+21Better Google than gov't or the insurance industry.
- inactive, on 02/24/2008, -2/+12This is potentially very ***** in that it will make it harder for people with pre-existing conditions to get coverage. Doctors can demand that patients get Google accounts before being seen and can enter their findings in Google's database. Insurers can then demand that applicants submit their Google records for evaluation when deciding whether to offer coverage. Under the present system, a doctor who finds something wrong with you can keep his mouth shut and the insurer need never know. If the condition isn't glaring, you can pass the insurer's initial diagnostic screening, get coverage, and then go get your condition treated.
Yeah, you could say that this makes it harder to screw the system, but the system is already screwing us so bad that I don't really mind. A guy I know had a policy for three decades that included a provision requiring the insurer to cover any condition. When he needed triple-bypass surgery at age 60 the insurer covered it but jacked up his premiums TEN-fold! He went from paying $180/mo to $1800/mo - this after paying premiums for THIRTY YEARS. Needless to say he can no longer afford insurance. - skyshock1, on 02/24/2008, -1/+9Nothing available through using Google isn't available through other means - public records (Freedom of Information Act), address listings, stuff YOU YOURSELF put on the Internet. Google is just a means for indexing all that info. that's already publicly available and putting it online. And many items that are public records it doesn't archive. Police records for instance will probably not show up when you search for an individual.
- EXreaction, on 02/24/2008, -2/+10I don't know if I like the idea of Google storing it...but we definitely should have an online database doctors can access to get all of your information instantly. I would be willing to bet that health quality would go up quite a bit since doctors would be able to give you exactly what will work the best for you instead of just guessing.
- AlienMushroom, on 02/24/2008, -1/+8Looks like u got no idea how search engines work
- Uranium118, on 02/24/2008, -10/+17Google's strength is that it seems friendly, even I use it as my homepage, but Google is also the worst when it comes to privacy. Try to google your name just to see what it finds. Everything everyone search is stored and probably sold to marketing companies. Having all the eggs in one basket isn't a good idea.
- jimbruno, on 02/24/2008, -3/+9Oh this will end well.
- deathbyspatula, on 02/24/2008, -0/+5*types in name of ex in Google Health*
... Ah, so that's where I got that rash from. - rsh28630, on 02/24/2008, -7/+12Ask yourself the simplest question: Is an obscenely wealthy corporation's attempting to acquire every human being's medical record being done for altruistic reasons or profit? If you are unclear as to the real motivation you are either ignorant of how Google makes money or profoundly naive. Now consider Microsoft, WalMart and the former CEO of AOL are after the same personal information. You are very wise to realize 1984 is now 20 years in the past. The techniques used to manipulate you are only effective if you are lulled by a colorful logo and a public promise to "do no evil". Hitler and Stalin were minor league compared to Page and Brin.
- rsh28630, on 02/24/2008, -0/+5I suggest you actually read the law you allege will protect you. It has a hole a mile wide permitting commercial entities to traffic medical data. Here's a clue: drugstores do it all the time (they even brag about it in their commercials), so do insurance carriers (although they are a tad more discreet). So will Google, Microsoft, WalMart, Revolution Healthcare, etc. Why else do you think they are in the business of acquiring patient records? Medical offices are somewhat inconvenienced by HIPPA; as well they should be since some of the biggest mouth flappers of all time work as doctors, nurses and office staff. And as far as your "recognizing the voice" to which you disclose information, any attorney would own you for that absurd defense.
- mgromer, on 02/24/2008, -0/+4Read the article, the information is only released with the patient's approval.
- bbardlbradd, on 02/24/2008, -1/+5Microsoft and Google are a lot different my friend. What is the internet about? The internet is about information and intellectual freedom. Who is #1 on the internet? Who is the internet's mascot? Well, duh, it's Google.
Google is free and they allow easy access to information around the world.
Microsoft on the other hand sells what they make, and they lock down their information.
My last point is, that Google has the power to make the internet useful to everyone. Do you have any idea how much information they hold, just from running their service? The statistical information that Google has on their lap is priceless to big business and humanity/sociological studies. - stutimandal, on 02/24/2008, -1/+4With such a database, the insurance companies will deny coverage to anyone except those who are mostly healthy.
- EarlOfLade, on 02/24/2008, -1/+4Ehh no, they will not.
In my home country, this is highly illegal and they will NEVER be allowed to store such information. The data privacy laws are extremely though and nobody, not even regular companies can save customer data over longer time and they can not sell, trade or give away the information to anyone. Any company the wants to store personal data needs to get a license and it's highly regulated.
See http://www.datatilsynet.no/templates/Page____194.a ... - tim507, on 02/24/2008, -3/+6google.com/healthrecords
- LightSpeed4, on 02/24/2008, -6/+9overabundance of google fanboys. this is ***** ridiculous. If this was microsoft, there would be enough uproar on digg to bring down the internet. But as long as the logo at the top is in stupid colors, its ok.
- youssi45, on 02/24/2008, -1/+4...yet another nail in privacy's coffin.
- mgromer, on 02/24/2008, -2/+5For those that can't read:
"The Google personal health record, he said, is a solution to that problem, among others. A person can approve the transfer of information on, say, medical conditions, allergies, medications and laboratory results from the clinic’s computers to a Google personal health record — a series of secure Web pages."
No HIPPA issues. - sgiffy, on 02/24/2008, -0/+3HIPPA allows for disclosure if a patient consents. If I want to put my medical records in a database I am more than free to do that.
- BlueNine, on 02/24/2008, -1/+4I think it is human nature to at least unconsciously overlook negative characteristics, of an individual or entity, when there are positive characteristics that one likes. However, one needs to keep an eye on that and not allow their fondness to cloud their objectivity. Corporations are not people, and corporations are not deserving of the respect or trust or admiration that we give to people that we genuinely know.
We, as individuals and a society, really... REALLY... need to make every effort to maximize the compartmentalization of sensitive personal information. Putting patient health records under the control of Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, or the like is absolutely and totally insane. Many companies, including many companies that *already specialize in and limit themselves to* the maintenance of sensitive health records, can do the job. - locojones, on 02/24/2008, -1/+4You village idiots do realize that HIPPA doesn't apply to Google, right? So they are under no obligation whatsoever to protect your health records. ***** you people are stupid if you allow them to store your information.
- cadmiumpaint, on 02/24/2008, -0/+3they already do. I have a friend who has MS. she can't get any coverage....well unless she pays the equiv of a down payment on a car.
- EXreaction, on 02/24/2008, -0/+2Yes, but keeping track of your own medical records is near impossible if you have an emergency. What happens when you get in an automotive accident or get bitten/stung by something you are allergic to. You won't be able to wake up, drive home, grab your records, and get back to the hospital, and your records may hold critical data about allergies to medication and other things that are extremely important.
If your doctor has no records on you in a case like that and gives you something you are deathly allergic to, well, that would be a problem... - emmeron, on 02/24/2008, -0/+2Thank you, I'm too polite, but that's how I was feeling too. :D
- LightSpeed4, on 02/24/2008, -8/+10Here it is folks, a google fanboy. He will let his "beloved" corporation push him around and spy on his medical records, as long as they exist. Amazing...
overabundance of google fanboys. this is ***** ridiculous. If this was microsoft, there would be enough uproar on digg to bring down the internet. But as long as the logo at the top is in stupid colors, its ok. - chamberlanderic, on 02/24/2008, -4/+6it really is starting to get scary...the beast anyone ?
- hresult, on 02/24/2008, -0/+2Yeah, it's better if Brin & Co monitor your stuff instead. What a stupid thought
- skyshock1, on 02/24/2008, -2/+4Way back when I worked as a consultant for doctor's offices who wanted to implement electronic medical records systems, I would have welcomed something like this. There needs to be a format that is consistent and can be read by ALL systems so a patient's records can be obtained more easily by the doctors' offices and hospitals. And as much as I despise Bush, back in the pre-9/11 days when he first assumed office, he was pushing legislation which would require exactly that. It's a damn shame he got side-tracked from that effort and subsequently the legislation was dropped.
Looks like Google might be trying to pick up the slack? I certainly commend them because no one else has stepped up to the plate to address this. - EarlOfLade, on 02/24/2008, -1/+3Sure, as long as they have license to store the data, but they can not sell, give or in any way, transfer that data to anyone else.
- LMControl, on 02/24/2008, -3/+5Not mine they won't!
- CSharpSauce, on 02/25/2008, -0/+2which is still cheaper then if she didn't have insurance.... unfortuantely
- cadmiumpaint, on 02/24/2008, -1/+3there are Bennefits...imagine if you are on vacation on the other side of the country and you get into a bad car accident. A doctor can have all your medical records just like that...maybe save your life, or avoid a medication screw up...i think i would support something like this if google wasn't attached to it. Google is just tooo evil wanting to control every piece of information in the world. I don't trust them.
- emmeron, on 02/24/2008, -1/+2FYI -- all medical billing is done this way now anyways. Also, Bush has always been pro-government spying. He started his illegal spying before 9/11, in case that's been forgotten. Yeah, of COURSE he wanted full access to this kind of information. Never EVER trust someone who wants to take care of you. They don't, they just want power.
- siszam, on 02/24/2008, -1/+2This will end well.
- wastelander, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1Yep.. sounds like another case of tit-for-tat between Google and Microsoft
- rsh28630, on 02/24/2008, -2/+3"secure web pages"... that is known as an oxymoron, idiot.
- inactive, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1Yeah but Google's is gonna be so much better because... well.... it has google on it! And they know so much more about security ( rolls eyes).
- Jordan117, on 02/24/2008, -2/+3"Hitler and Stalin were minor league compared to Page and Brin."
You have got to be ***** kidding me. - drjekelmrhyde, on 02/24/2008, -1/+2Golf clap well done rsh28630
- emmeron, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1I'd be fine with that if there was some real security involved. I'd want to have an idea of just how secure it was though. IMO let patients be responsible for their records somewhat, in fact.. let them be a little more responsible for their health too. Getting sick of "let someone else keep track of everything and take care of me" mentality (not a personal attack, mind you -- just something I've been seeing that's bothering me). Heck, however, as long as we have a right to be "off the grid" so to speak and still can get seen...
- EnderMB, on 02/24/2008, -2/+3Buried for *****!
- adooga, on 02/24/2008, -2/+3ms logo has stupid colours too you know
- seks03, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1As long Google and the Government dont team up like AT&T has I will continue to love Google and the great things they are doing.... this would be great, my records are all over the place cause of the different doctors I have had
- nsanidy, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1I'm going to go out on a limb here and say...
too far Google? -
Show 51 - 91 of 91 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is