That they may have had a lapse or three in some folks opinion doesn't make them unethical.
Wow, what a legit list. Why am I NOT shocked to see Apple notably absent, but we have the likes of:
Adobe Systems Incorporated USA Microsoft Corporation USA Symantec USA Teradata Corporation USA Wipro Limited India salesforce.com, inc. Dell Inc. USA Hitachi Data Systems USA Intel Corporation USA -
Adobe? Salesforce? Symantec? Dell? Microsoft? We're supposed to believe these companies are all more "ethical" than Apple? What's stunning is looking at the "criteria" page:
Ethics and Compliance Program (25%)
Reputation, Leadership and Innovation (20%)
Governance (10%)
Corporate Citizenship and Responsibility (25%)
Culture of Ethics (20%)
So these companies have superior reputations, leadership, and innovation than Apple? Better governance? Corporate Citizenship?
We're talking about the same APple that invited media into their suppliers factories, the ONLY tech company to do so? The same Apple that has 100% of its data centers and most of its HQ running on renewable energy? The same Apple that has just built the biggest solar farm in the US? The same Apple that has hired 3rd party auditors to report on their factories in China and publicize the reports- the only company to do so? The same Apple that has a CEO who most people can agree cares deeply about ethics, and aggressively went off on an investor who was worried about the bottom line in context of this? The same Apple that seems to care more about users privacy than other major tech company out there? The same Apple that has incredibly high standards for labor, human rights, health and safety, the environment, and accountability?
Apple does not deserve to be on this list yet Dell, Microsoft, and Google do, as well as what looks to be 300 other companies? This doesnt strike you as odd, and you dont question the objectivity of this list? Howbout the fact that historically Apple doesnt participate in these "pay to play" bullshit lists, and instead actually does the hard work of of trying to be more responsible on all fronts? Instead you tout this as evidence of Google ethics?
How much are you being paid for your blatant shilling and mental gymnastics required to defend Google at every opportunity?
It's clear your comment and attitude as well as the others that tried to quote mine with some snark stupidity took my comment way too literally. Of course I don't have just one doctor; of course you should never blindly follow what a doctor tells you simply because he has a degree. You seem to go on a tangent about records. The person in charge of YOUR records is YOU. If you're worried about some corporation still having them or not...you're doing it wrong. If I ever have to switch doctors (and I have) the first thing I do is gather everything I have to date prior to carry forward. It's a bit annoying, but not hard, just have to be proactive. All of this is a silly sideshow to the point.
The real point is no one should be looking to mega consumer tech companies to solve their health problems, either by storage or devices. It's a solution looking for a problem they largely don't understand. Healthcare is a complex mess of regulation. We're happy our phones can find us on a map accurately most of the time. Most of the time doesn't cut it in health, you can't say oops. version 1.1.2 of X device will be more accurate with that next time. Perhaps I'm biased by being required for full workups annually, running EMS and fire calls for the 20 something years outside my day job and seeing situations first hand. I'll end with this, about a month ago we arrived a lady's house (early 50s) for complaint of typical low blood sugar symptoms. She swore up and down it was something she ate and not because her diabetes since all of her glucose meter readings were normal. Well guess what, that meter was shot. If she had waited much longer to call, I can't say what could have happened. Over reliance on the technology and not common sense. Again, I could be paranoid pessimistic and biased, but nothing is more important than your health. Take it seriously.
I understand your point of view, of course we all could do those things, but these are humans we are talking about...let's face it, many do not not have the time, intelligence etc to do these things. That's why the technology was created(in theory). So, playing devils advocate... is saying to 300 million people... have your medical paper records compiled for the last 10, 20,30,40,50,60,70,80,... And now 90 and100 years realistic? And have them handy?
Would you prefer this lady self diagnosis by symptom, versus read a meter? Obviously she should be able to do it, but for how many people, thousands of people has this technology accurately allowed self diagnosis and prevented calls to an emt or worse? What if this lady was unconscious, does medic alert (ie record) help the EMT diagnose, perhaps do a quick blood check themselves? Yes, technology is not perfect, but does it help and not hurt more than no tech at all? Personally I'm a pessimist on all this tech stuff in the very end, but so far that has been tempered by experience.
Google is not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, neither is Apple. So how do they monetize their health platform? Apple does it by selling devices. Google, by selling You. Only the stupid or ignorant would entrust their health information to Google.
That was incorrect. Google's fine was for giving wrong instructions to Safari users on how to avoid tracking. It was not the tracking itself that was at issue. Heck that's done by thousands of companies even today. Setting your preference right now to "Do Not Track" won't prevent a couple dozen trackers from gleaning data from your use of AI's forums as you read this.
Here's the real explanation for the fine. Had Google not offered instructions on opting out of tracking there would not have been any fine whatsoever.The fine was because they placed a tracking cookie after inaccurately telling Safari users how they could avoid it Unfortunately it's not illegal to ignore Do Not Track and probably never will be.
Thanks for pointing this out; it's even worse than I originally thought.
Quote:
Google Inc. has agreed to pay a record $22.5 million civil penalty to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it misrepresented to users of Apple Inc.’s Safari Internet browser that it would not place tracking “cookies” or serve targeted ads to those users, violating an earlier privacy settlement between the company and the FTC.
The settlement is part of the FTC’s ongoing efforts make sure companies live up to the privacy promises they make to consumers, and is the largest penalty the agency has ever obtained for a violation of a Commission order. In addition to the civil penalty, the order also requires Google to disable all the tracking cookies it had said it would not place on consumers’ computers.
So they said they wouldn't do something, then they did it anyway.
So they lied, basically.
What if they said they wouldn't sell my private data, then did it anyway?
What if they said they won't pass my tracked medical data to insurance companies, then did it anyway?
How far does this 'misrepresentation' go?
Again, thanks for correcting my mistake, but I think I'll pass on 'Google Health' anyway. It's clear that the company cannot be trusted to do what they say the will do.
Then you'd better make sure that your hospital doesn't use Google Apps.
Very true.
But what's worse is Google having access to your eating habits, sleeping habits, exercise regime, organ monitoring data gathered over time . . .
Your medical records only get updated when you go to your doctor, and people only do that when they're sick.
How much would the insurance companies pay to historical medical data that ran from when you bought your GoogleWatch, right up until the point you make a claim?
Actually I don't think Google directly copied Apple, many hospitals have been using Google's Search Appliance with custom versions of software like Google Scholar to track, search and then store patient data into databases for a while now. Even though Google introduced Google Health in 2008 and was canceled in 2011, they still continued to offer custom solutions to hospitals based on the project. Also the use of Google as a medical diagnosis tool is used by a large majority of doctors and hospitals, again with custom search interfaces being offered through Google Enterprise and third party developers. So I really don't think this current Google venture was recently started for the sole reason of catching up to Apple but has been in the works for a while now, however their announcement timing is probably linked to Apples. What would you say if Google's conference happen to take place before Apple's WWDC and this project was announced then. would you be saying Apple copied Google, no of course not .
In no way am I trying to down play Apples venture as I think their solution will be very elegant and probably better but saying Google copied Apple out right is just conjecture. I think the same thing can be said about Samsung's venture as they too have been working on medical related projects ever since they bought a hospital in SEOL back in 1994. Since then Samsung has created a medical division and are manufacturing medical and scientific equipment, as well as EMR software. There is also of course Microsoft Health Vault and Windows based tablets were used years before their was an EMR program on the iPad or even an iPad for that matter, however the iPad is defiantly the defacto tablet in hospitals now.
I'm just giving an opinion, on a further note I really hope these patient records will be stored on some sort of central data center that is governed by a regulatory body. No corporation should ever be allowed to store such information, Google, Apple or otherwise but I'm sure to start out any data these solutions access or store will be on the clients servers.
Thanks for pointing this out; it's even worse than I originally thought.
So they said they wouldn't do something, then they did it anyway.
Yup, pretty much. Google claims it was an inadvertant result of some coding. I remian unconvinced. In any event there wasn't anything that would have been deemed "fine-able" if Google hadn't specifically stated that Safari users didn't need to do anything beyond opting out of cookies. That's why some others can still get away with it.
I'm actually surprised that nobody has tried to jump back on the DDR (Dance Dance Revolution) bandwagon and actually make better versions of this that also incorporate wii-balance-board type of technology) seems like something Apple could do with iTunes quite easily. Would probably sell well in Japan and Korea... not too sure about America.
Here are a couple of interesting searches and what they suggest, but we know Google does no wrong[IMG]
We've had Android and iOS devices in our home since they first hit the market. After about 12 devices flowing through the home, we still have had no malware on either, and 3/5 of our users are kids. Maybe there is more malware on Android, but it's hardly a "thing," as I have developed on both platforms, and worked with many customers, and nobody has ever once mentioned anything about malware on a mobile device -- I only see it in the media and in forum posts from people parroting what they read elsewhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe
I will only be trusting one source for my health. My doctor. Not Apple, Not Google, Not Microsoft, Not wikipedia, Not WebMD, not some fancy 'wearable'. A trained living/breathing medical professional.
El fin.
Does your doctor not use data? These types of devices actually can be useful. When I go in with a problem, my Dr. starts asking me questions, and the answers... are data. Automating the recording of data can be a huge help, like recording sleep hours, for instance.
We've had Android and iOS devices in our home since they first hit the market. After about 12 devices flowing through the home, we still have had no malware on either, and 3/5 of our users are kids. Maybe there is more malware on Android, but it's hardly a "thing," as I have developed on both platforms, and worked with many customers, and nobody has ever once mentioned anything about malware on a mobile device -- I only see it in the media and in forum posts from people parroting what they read
How do you know? Have you constantly done scans of all your devices. Google admits the problem often but downplays and surpresses it in searches as I showed in my post. There have been several large wide dispersed exploits that Google didn't know was on their store for almost a year.
How do you know? Have you constantly done scans of all your devices. Google admits the problem often but downplays and surpresses it in searches as I showed in my post. There have been several large wide dispersed exploits that Google didn't know was on their store for almost a year.
How do you know? Have you constantly done scans of all your devices.
Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by genovelle
Google admits the problem often but downplays and surpresses it in searches as I showed in my post.
If I type "android malware" and I get "android market" until I get to the "l," then I get malware suggested. If I hit down and "Enter" at that point, I get sites discussing Android malware. They're clearly hiding something
Quote:
Originally Posted by genovelle
There have been several large wide dispersed exploits that Google didn't know was on their store for almost a year.
We don't install ridiculous apps, nor follow ridiculous links from ridiculous sources. It's pretty straightforward.
I do, have a malware detection app that only runs when something is downloaded or installed. I have never had a malware on any of my devices, though I only install apps from reputable sources and directly from the Google Play Store. There might have been a problem in the past but Android 4.3.3 is as secure as iOS, that is, if you don't side load pirated apps, even then though, both the Play Store and malware detector will still run a check. Androids security concerns have been grossly exaggerated on this forum.
Comments
IMHO Google does have high ethical standards.
http://ethisphere.com/worlds-most-ethical/wme-honorees/
That they may have had a lapse or three in some folks opinion doesn't make them unethical.
Wow, what a legit list. Why am I NOT shocked to see Apple notably absent, but we have the likes of:
Adobe Systems Incorporated
USA Microsoft Corporation 
USA Symantec 
USA Teradata Corporation 
USA Wipro Limited 
India salesforce.com, inc. Dell Inc. 
USA Hitachi Data Systems 
USA Intel Corporation 
USA -
Adobe? Salesforce? Symantec? Dell? Microsoft? We're supposed to believe these companies are all more "ethical" than Apple? What's stunning is looking at the "criteria" page:
Ethics and Compliance Program (25%)
Reputation, Leadership and Innovation (20%)
Governance (10%)
Corporate Citizenship and Responsibility (25%)
Culture of Ethics (20%)
So these companies have superior reputations, leadership, and innovation than Apple? Better governance? Corporate Citizenship?
We're talking about the same APple that invited media into their suppliers factories, the ONLY tech company to do so? The same Apple that has 100% of its data centers and most of its HQ running on renewable energy? The same Apple that has just built the biggest solar farm in the US? The same Apple that has hired 3rd party auditors to report on their factories in China and publicize the reports- the only company to do so? The same Apple that has a CEO who most people can agree cares deeply about ethics, and aggressively went off on an investor who was worried about the bottom line in context of this? The same Apple that seems to care more about users privacy than other major tech company out there? The same Apple that has incredibly high standards for labor, human rights, health and safety, the environment, and accountability?
Apple does not deserve to be on this list yet Dell, Microsoft, and Google do, as well as what looks to be 300 other companies? This doesnt strike you as odd, and you dont question the objectivity of this list? Howbout the fact that historically Apple doesnt participate in these "pay to play" bullshit lists, and instead actually does the hard work of of trying to be more responsible on all fronts? Instead you tout this as evidence of Google ethics?
How much are you being paid for your blatant shilling and mental gymnastics required to defend Google at every opportunity?
I understand your point of view, of course we all could do those things, but these are humans we are talking about...let's face it, many do not not have the time, intelligence etc to do these things. That's why the technology was created(in theory). So, playing devils advocate... is saying to 300 million people... have your medical paper records compiled for the last 10, 20,30,40,50,60,70,80,... And now 90 and100 years realistic? And have them handy?
Would you prefer this lady self diagnosis by symptom, versus read a meter? Obviously she should be able to do it, but for how many people, thousands of people has this technology accurately allowed self diagnosis and prevented calls to an emt or worse? What if this lady was unconscious, does medic alert (ie record) help the EMT diagnose, perhaps do a quick blood check themselves? Yes, technology is not perfect, but does it help and not hurt more than no tech at all? Personally I'm a pessimist on all this tech stuff in the very end, but so far that has been tempered by experience.
The word 'privacy' is not in Google's dictionary.
Google is not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, neither is Apple. So how do they monetize their health platform? Apple does it by selling devices. Google, by selling You. Only the stupid or ignorant would entrust their health information to Google.
Sorry, Googs. You are getting no way near my medical records.
Then you'd better make sure that your hospital doesn't use Google Apps.
That was incorrect. Google's fine was for giving wrong instructions to Safari users on how to avoid tracking. It was not the tracking itself that was at issue. Heck that's done by thousands of companies even today. Setting your preference right now to "Do Not Track" won't prevent a couple dozen trackers from gleaning data from your use of AI's forums as you read this.
Here's the real explanation for the fine. Had Google not offered instructions on opting out of tracking there would not have been any fine whatsoever.The fine was because they placed a tracking cookie after inaccurately telling Safari users how they could avoid it Unfortunately it's not illegal to ignore Do Not Track and probably never will be.
http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2012/08/google-will-pay-225-million-settle-ftc-charges-it-misrepresented
Thanks for pointing this out; it's even worse than I originally thought.
Google Inc. has agreed to pay a record $22.5 million civil penalty to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it misrepresented to users of Apple Inc.’s Safari Internet browser that it would not place tracking “cookies” or serve targeted ads to those users, violating an earlier privacy settlement between the company and the FTC.
The settlement is part of the FTC’s ongoing efforts make sure companies live up to the privacy promises they make to consumers, and is the largest penalty the agency has ever obtained for a violation of a Commission order. In addition to the civil penalty, the order also requires Google to disable all the tracking cookies it had said it would not place on consumers’ computers.
So they said they wouldn't do something, then they did it anyway.
So they lied, basically.
What if they said they wouldn't sell my private data, then did it anyway?
What if they said they won't pass my tracked medical data to insurance companies, then did it anyway?
How far does this 'misrepresentation' go?
Again, thanks for correcting my mistake, but I think I'll pass on 'Google Health' anyway. It's clear that the company cannot be trusted to do what they say the will do.
Then you'd better make sure that your hospital doesn't use Google Apps.
Very true.
But what's worse is Google having access to your eating habits, sleeping habits, exercise regime, organ monitoring data gathered over time . . .
Your medical records only get updated when you go to your doctor, and people only do that when they're sick.
How much would the insurance companies pay to historical medical data that ran from when you bought your GoogleWatch, right up until the point you make a claim?
So Google is going to copy Apple? INCONCEIVABLE!
Actually I don't think Google directly copied Apple, many hospitals have been using Google's Search Appliance with custom versions of software like Google Scholar to track, search and then store patient data into databases for a while now. Even though Google introduced Google Health in 2008 and was canceled in 2011, they still continued to offer custom solutions to hospitals based on the project. Also the use of Google as a medical diagnosis tool is used by a large majority of doctors and hospitals, again with custom search interfaces being offered through Google Enterprise and third party developers. So I really don't think this current Google venture was recently started for the sole reason of catching up to Apple but has been in the works for a while now, however their announcement timing is probably linked to Apples. What would you say if Google's conference happen to take place before Apple's WWDC and this project was announced then. would you be saying Apple copied Google, no of course not .
In no way am I trying to down play Apples venture as I think their solution will be very elegant and probably better but saying Google copied Apple out right is just conjecture. I think the same thing can be said about Samsung's venture as they too have been working on medical related projects ever since they bought a hospital in SEOL back in 1994. Since then Samsung has created a medical division and are manufacturing medical and scientific equipment, as well as EMR software. There is also of course Microsoft Health Vault and Windows based tablets were used years before their was an EMR program on the iPad or even an iPad for that matter, however the iPad is defiantly the defacto tablet in hospitals now.
I'm just giving an opinion, on a further note I really hope these patient records will be stored on some sort of central data center that is governed by a regulatory body. No corporation should ever be allowed to store such information, Google, Apple or otherwise but I'm sure to start out any data these solutions access or store will be on the clients servers.
Just so you know: he has sworn an oath of fealty to defend Google against all criticism.
A Google bannerman.
Haha!
every website I visit will have strategically inserted ads about said blood pressure.
Here are a couple of interesting searches and what they suggest, but we know Google does no wrong[IMG]
We've had Android and iOS devices in our home since they first hit the market. After about 12 devices flowing through the home, we still have had no malware on either, and 3/5 of our users are kids. Maybe there is more malware on Android, but it's hardly a "thing," as I have developed on both platforms, and worked with many customers, and nobody has ever once mentioned anything about malware on a mobile device -- I only see it in the media and in forum posts from people parroting what they read elsewhere.
I will only be trusting one source for my health. My doctor. Not Apple, Not Google, Not Microsoft, Not wikipedia, Not WebMD, not some fancy 'wearable'. A trained living/breathing medical professional.
El fin.
Does your doctor not use data? These types of devices actually can be useful. When I go in with a problem, my Dr. starts asking me questions, and the answers... are data. Automating the recording of data can be a huge help, like recording sleep hours, for instance.
Then you'd better make sure that your hospital doesn't use Google Apps.
Or ANY of your service providers use Gmail.
https://www.google.com/search?q=google+fine&oq=google+fine&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.3093j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8
Then try adding an "s" to fine:
https://www.google.com/search?q=google+fine&oq=google+fine&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.3093j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=google+fines
Yeah, it's so obvious that they're hiding results that cast Google in a less than desirable light. :rolleyes:
How do you know? Have you constantly done scans of all your devices.
Yes.
Quote:
Google admits the problem often but downplays and surpresses it in searches as I showed in my post.
Quote:
There have been several large wide dispersed exploits that Google didn't know was on their store for almost a year.