I still think there is a huge concern here that corporation is holding this information. Now this is not specifically a Google Issue as many companies do hold private medical information for users.
The clarification on an erroneous press release is useful however I think the overriding concern of corporate handling of medical information and records needs to be discussed in great detail.
Is it just me or is there a lot of comment-spam getting through the filters on the Google blogs lately? I replied to the Christmas post over at the Developer one, and after a few small replies, I'm suddenly getting 10 notifications a day of a new (invariably Indian) SEO person commenting and linking to their site. And I can't even unsubscribe as the links don't work!
You owe Consumer Watchdog Consumer Watchdog an apology. It is now clear from public records that Google was lobbying Congress relating to online personal health records in connection with the economic stimulus act. Google said our claim was "100 percent false and unfounded." What else could Google have been seeking except to be excluded from the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) provisions on privacy and forbidding sale of records? Please tell us.
Google's claim could be correct. They never claimed that they were not lobbying, only that they were not lobbying to sell our medical records. There seems to be a difference in verbage.
Google might very well be "lobbying Congress relating to online personal health records in connection with the economic stimulus act" but that does not mean that they intend to sell personal information.
But it is my understanding that they do comb through current systems such as Gmail for non-personal statistical data that they do sell to marketers.
There is a difference. As long as Google proves its claim to protect our privacy then we only need to decide if we will trade statistical data so that we can have the service for free.
It is good that the 'watchdogs' are watching on our behalf, but there seems to be a lot rhetoric out there.
What is important is who has the ownership rights to the data. Giving control to the government scares me more than Google does and the Obama plan might retain that control even if Google gets the contract.
Watchdogs should focus on ownership rights for the individual rather than more useless government laws like the ones that have failed to protect our private financial data from identity theft. With the ownership, we would have the right to claim damages when someone fails to protect our privacy.
I still think there is a huge concern here that corporation is holding this information. Now this is not specifically a Google Issue as many companies do hold private medical information for users.
ReplyDeleteThe clarification on an erroneous press release is useful however I think the overriding concern of corporate handling of medical information and records needs to be discussed in great detail.
Is it just me or is there a lot of comment-spam getting through the filters on the Google blogs lately? I replied to the Christmas post over at the Developer one, and after a few small replies, I'm suddenly getting 10 notifications a day of a new (invariably Indian) SEO person commenting and linking to their site. And I can't even unsubscribe as the links don't work!
ReplyDeleteGoogle:
ReplyDeleteYou owe Consumer Watchdog Consumer Watchdog an apology. It is now clear from public records that Google was lobbying Congress relating to online personal health records in connection with the economic stimulus act. Google said our claim was "100 percent false and unfounded." What else could Google have been seeking except to be excluded from the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) provisions on privacy and forbidding sale of records? Please tell us.
Read our letter to CEO Eric Schmidt.
Read Google's 1st quarter lobbying report.John M. Simpson
Consumer Advocate
Consumer Watchdog
Google's claim could be correct. They never claimed that they were not lobbying, only that they were not lobbying to sell our medical records. There seems to be a difference in verbage.
ReplyDeleteGoogle might very well be "lobbying Congress relating to online personal health records in connection with the economic stimulus act" but that does not mean that they intend to sell personal information.
But it is my understanding that they do comb through current systems such as Gmail for non-personal statistical data that they do sell to marketers.
There is a difference. As long as Google proves its claim to protect our privacy then we only need to decide if we will trade statistical data so that we can have the service for free.
It is good that the 'watchdogs' are watching on our behalf, but there seems to be a lot rhetoric out there.
What is important is who has the ownership rights to the data. Giving control to the government scares me more than Google does and the Obama plan might retain that control even if Google gets the contract.
Watchdogs should focus on ownership rights for the individual rather than more useless government laws like the ones that have failed to protect our private financial data from identity theft. With the ownership, we would have the right to claim damages when someone fails to protect our privacy.