Well, when I set my preference to "do not track" and not only do they ignore my request, but also take measures to side-skirt my privacy settings, I'd say the word unethical fits the bill.
I realize that they do not have to abide by my "do not track" request, I have made myself very clear about my wishes. (which they decided to ignore)
Well, when I set my preference to "do not track" and not only do they ignore my request, but also take measures to side-skirt my privacy settings, I'd say the word unethical fits the bill.
I realize that they do not have to abide by my "do not track" request, I have made myself very clear about my wishes. (which they decided to ignore)
Well, when I set my preference to "do not track" and not only do they ignore my request, but also take measures to side-skirt my privacy settings, I'd say the word unethical fits the bill.
I realize that they do not have to abide by my "do not track" request, I have made myself very clear about my wishes. (which they decided to ignore)
Oh, I get it now. It's okay to ignore my wishes not to be tracked simply because other companies ignore it. Yup, you are correct, that is ethical. Thanks for clearing that up.
At least we are in agreement that they all should respect do not track requests.
Are you referring to Yahoo, Bing and others or Google? I don't know anymore who honors Do Not Track and who doesn't other than what's claimed in blog articles or company statements. I know that Yahoo is one of those that says they ignore it. That was just a few weeks ago.
I lock my doors at night because it's my wish that strangers not wander through my home. Unethical people who really want to go through my stuff anyway, just come in through the window, regardless of my wishes.
I don't know anymore who honors Do Not Track and who doesn't other than what's claimed in blog articles or company statements. I know that Yahoo is one of those that says they ignore it. That was just a few weeks ago.
There is a difference between the browser sending a request header to the website for "Do not track" and a Safari setting that would not allow a third party cookie to be set unless the user specifically allowed it on a case by case basis such as clicking on submit for more information. What Google was doing was building a form using Javascript inside an invisible code block and then submitting the form itself also using Javascript, all without the user even being aware of what was going on or taking any action themselves. It was strictly a method to defeat a built in Safari security restriction. The feature in Safari was not based on an optional request header, it was a hard coded security restriction which Google circumvented. That is why they were fined. Not for ignoring a request in a header, but for actually attacking the users' computer.
GoogleGuy in here as usual defending his employer. Funny how we hardly see him in the countless other topics here on AI, yet when Google is mentioned he's out in full force ensuring nothing bad is said about Google without being "clarified" by GG.
Why isn't there a climate of mis-trust on Google's commitment to "features" that they implement for their services. Google used to have a health protocol / app in place... but killed it off. Now they want to do it again because their main competitor is? Seriously?
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.
I sympathize with this attitude, but you need to take it a step further. The person with the most interest in your well-being is yourself. Period, full-stop, end of story. It's always a good idea to include your health professionals in your decision-making processes, but they are human and make mistakes. They are also affected by various influences like money, status and institutional pressures around them every single day.
Consult with "living/breathing medical professionals", but remember the adage "trust but verify", and you will live a longer, healthier life. Do your own research, share with your physician(s), come to mutual decisions.
His comment was just a cop out comment, he knows Google sucks but wants to keep up the appearance of fairness, he doesn't want to say it. So I will Google Sucks!
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.
What are you gonna do when that doctor recommends that you get some fancy wearable to help him stay abreast of your status?
What are you gonna do when that doctor recommends that you get some fancy wearable to help him stay abreast of your status?
I will believe it when I see it. In this day and age I still have to fill out papers on contact, insurance and health information for every doctor a family member is referred to. Hell, even in the same office visit I can explain the issue and story multiple times for each nurse and doctor that steps into the room. "So what why are we here today?" Umm... I just explained it to the nurse a five minutes ago and the papers also explained the reason for the visit.
I will believe it when I see it. In this day and age I still have to fill out papers on contact, insurance and health information for every doctor a family member is referred to. Hell, even in the same office visit I can explain the issue and story multiple times for each nurse and doctor that steps into the room. "So what why are we here today?" Umm... I just explained it to the nurse a five minutes ago and the papers also explained the reason for the visit.
I know, right? But that's why the doctors want a solution. They don't like the antiquated system much more than we do.
Give it 5-10 years and I think that wearables will be a useful part of medical sensing/storage/transmission.
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.
If you only have one MD, (and no Dentist, no Ophthalmologist, no Pharmacist), you're a lucky guy, or under 25.
I'm now closer to retirement than HS graduation... I've had 6 primary care physicians, 4 dermatologists, 1 EMG MD, 3 Cardiologists,
I changed employers 5 times, I've had 6 insurance changes (one employer switched carriers, and they switched networks, and therefore my in network physician was out of network). 4 Medical records held by group practices, And at least 2 medical records held by private practice MDs.
Not including my family physician until I was 20 (he's still alive, but retired... my records are probably somewhere devoured by the corporation that bought his practice out).
I have at least 6 'current' medical records... but no 'complete' record.
I've been seen in 3 out of state urgent care facilities while consulting...
Unless you're the 'guy on the right', most people don't carry their medical record with them
All this said to say, if your ONE Doctor has your medical record... you're either lying or naive, and you're ill prepared for the next time you need to find a doctor 'in a hurry.' Or don't care about the care you're about to get.
I have been arguing for 20 years for a national medical record. One that _I_ own, and someone I trust is custodian of. Since HIPAA, I've asked for copies of all my most recent findings scanned them ,and they are encrypted in the cloud and on a flash drive. My living will and non-durable power of attorney letters (unencrypted) on the same flash drive in my wallet with waterproof instructions on how to get the decrypt key from my designee [who has the key, but not the password in my wallet] Not perfect, but better than nothing.
If you only have one MD, (and no Dentist, no Ophthalmologist, no Pharmacist), you're a lucky guy, or under 25.
I'm now closer to retirement than HS graduation... I've had 6 primary care physicians, 4 dermatologists, 1 EMG MD, 3 Cardiologists,
I changed employers 5 times, I've had 6 insurance changes (one employer switched carriers, and they switched networks, and therefore my in network physician was out of network). 4 Medical records held by group practices, And at least 2 medical records held by private practice MDs.
Not including my family physician until I was 20 (he's still alive, but retired... my records are probably somewhere devoured by the corporation that bought his practice out).
I have at least 6 'current' medical records... but no 'complete' record.
I've been seen in 3 out of state urgent care facilities while consulting...
Unless you're the 'guy on the right', most people don't carry their medical record with them
All this said to say, if your ONE Doctor has your medical record... you're either lying or naive, and you're ill prepared for the next time you need to find a doctor 'in a hurry.' Or don't care about the care you're about to get.
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 want nothing to do with this. In the eyes of Google, we are not their customer, we are their product.
Apple's priority is not mining our personal data, their data-driven services are designed to support the devices and services that they sell. Apple's revenue model is derived from selling actual stuff, not mining my data for ulterior uses.
yeah agree here -- no way would i want to give google my medical info.
Comments
How about?
Google Bowel Analytics
http://www.google.com/tisp/
How about "Soylent Green Harvesting Inc"?
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.
Well, when I set my preference to "do not track" and not only do they ignore my request, but also take measures to side-skirt my privacy settings, I'd say the word unethical fits the bill.
I realize that they do not have to abide by my "do not track" request, I have made myself very clear about my wishes. (which they decided to ignore)
Are you referring to Yahoo, Bing and others or Google? I don't know anymore who honors Do Not Track and who doesn't other than what's claimed in blog articles or company statements. I know that Yahoo is one of those that says they ignore it. That was just a few weeks ago.
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/05/yahoo-is-the-latest-company-ignoring-web-users-requests-for-privacy/
IMHO they all should honor it.
Well, when I set my preference to "do not track" and not only do they ignore my request, but also take measures to side-skirt my privacy settings, I'd say the word unethical fits the bill.
I realize that they do not have to abide by my "do not track" request, I have made myself very clear about my wishes. (which they decided to ignore)
Oh, I get it now. It's okay to ignore my wishes not to be tracked simply because other companies ignore it. Yup, you are correct, that is ethical. Thanks for clearing that up.
At least we are in agreement that they all should respect do not track requests.
Are you referring to Yahoo, Bing and others or Google? I don't know anymore who honors Do Not Track and who doesn't other than what's claimed in blog articles or company statements. I know that Yahoo is one of those that says they ignore it. That was just a few weeks ago.
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/05/yahoo-is-the-latest-company-ignoring-web-users-requests-for-privacy/
IMHO they all should honor it.
Do Not Track is silly to begin with.
1. It is a country specific (U.S.) feature while the Internet is global. Websites in the rest of the world have no obligation to follow it;
2. It is an honor system that can be easily ignored by websites. Websites and advertisers that are shady are never going to follow this anyways.
Lets be honest, Do Not Track is akin to everybody leaving their doors unlocked with some people having a sign saying "please do not steal anything".
I lock my doors at night because it's my wish that strangers not wander through my home. Unethical people who really want to go through my stuff anyway, just come in through the window, regardless of my wishes.
There is a difference between the browser sending a request header to the website for "Do not track" and a Safari setting that would not allow a third party cookie to be set unless the user specifically allowed it on a case by case basis such as clicking on submit for more information. What Google was doing was building a form using Javascript inside an invisible code block and then submitting the form itself also using Javascript, all without the user even being aware of what was going on or taking any action themselves. It was strictly a method to defeat a built in Safari security restriction. The feature in Safari was not based on an optional request header, it was a hard coded security restriction which Google circumvented. That is why they were fined. Not for ignoring a request in a header, but for actually attacking the users' computer.
Companies like Google and Facebook don't like personal privacy – their business model depends on it.
Actually companies like Google and Facebook don't like personal privacy unless it's theirs, then privacy is okay.
LOL.
GoogleGuy in here as usual defending his employer. Funny how we hardly see him in the countless other topics here on AI, yet when Google is mentioned he's out in full force ensuring nothing bad is said about Google without being "clarified" by GG.
Why isn't there a climate of mis-trust on Google's commitment to "features" that they implement for their services. Google used to have a health protocol / app in place... but killed it off. Now they want to do it again because their main competitor is? Seriously?
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.
I sympathize with this attitude, but you need to take it a step further. The person with the most interest in your well-being is yourself. Period, full-stop, end of story. It's always a good idea to include your health professionals in your decision-making processes, but they are human and make mistakes. They are also affected by various influences like money, status and institutional pressures around them every single day.
Consult with "living/breathing medical professionals", but remember the adage "trust but verify", and you will live a longer, healthier life. Do your own research, share with your physician(s), come to mutual decisions.
His comment was just a cop out comment, he knows Google sucks but wants to keep up the appearance of fairness, he doesn't want to say it. So I will Google Sucks!
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.
What are you gonna do when that doctor recommends that you get some fancy wearable to help him stay abreast of your status?
What are you gonna do when that doctor recommends that you get some fancy wearable to help him stay abreast of your status?
I will believe it when I see it. In this day and age I still have to fill out papers on contact, insurance and health information for every doctor a family member is referred to. Hell, even in the same office visit I can explain the issue and story multiple times for each nurse and doctor that steps into the room. "So what why are we here today?" Umm... I just explained it to the nurse a five minutes ago and the papers also explained the reason for the visit.
I will believe it when I see it. In this day and age I still have to fill out papers on contact, insurance and health information for every doctor a family member is referred to. Hell, even in the same office visit I can explain the issue and story multiple times for each nurse and doctor that steps into the room. "So what why are we here today?" Umm... I just explained it to the nurse a five minutes ago and the papers also explained the reason for the visit.
I know, right? But that's why the doctors want a solution. They don't like the antiquated system much more than we do.
Give it 5-10 years and I think that wearables will be a useful part of medical sensing/storage/transmission.
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.
If you only have one MD, (and no Dentist, no Ophthalmologist, no Pharmacist), you're a lucky guy, or under 25.
I'm now closer to retirement than HS graduation... I've had 6 primary care physicians, 4 dermatologists, 1 EMG MD, 3 Cardiologists,
I changed employers 5 times, I've had 6 insurance changes (one employer switched carriers, and they switched networks, and therefore my in network physician was out of network). 4 Medical records held by group practices, And at least 2 medical records held by private practice MDs.
Not including my family physician until I was 20 (he's still alive, but retired... my records are probably somewhere devoured by the corporation that bought his practice out).
I have at least 6 'current' medical records... but no 'complete' record.
I've been seen in 3 out of state urgent care facilities while consulting...
Unless you're the 'guy on the right', most people don't carry their medical record with them
All this said to say, if your ONE Doctor has your medical record... you're either lying or naive, and you're ill prepared for the next time you need to find a doctor 'in a hurry.' Or don't care about the care you're about to get.
I have been arguing for 20 years for a national medical record. One that _I_ own, and someone I trust is custodian of. Since HIPAA, I've asked for copies of all my most recent findings scanned them ,and they are encrypted in the cloud and on a flash drive. My living will and non-durable power of attorney letters (unencrypted) on the same flash drive in my wallet with waterproof instructions on how to get the decrypt key from my designee [who has the key, but not the password in my wallet] Not perfect, but better than nothing.
I'm hoping Apple comes up with a better way.
The LA NAACP honored Sterling once and was about to honor him again.
If you only have one MD, (and no Dentist, no Ophthalmologist, no Pharmacist), you're a lucky guy, or under 25.
I'm now closer to retirement than HS graduation... I've had 6 primary care physicians, 4 dermatologists, 1 EMG MD, 3 Cardiologists,
I changed employers 5 times, I've had 6 insurance changes (one employer switched carriers, and they switched networks, and therefore my in network physician was out of network). 4 Medical records held by group practices, And at least 2 medical records held by private practice MDs.
Not including my family physician until I was 20 (he's still alive, but retired... my records are probably somewhere devoured by the corporation that bought his practice out).
I have at least 6 'current' medical records... but no 'complete' record.
I've been seen in 3 out of state urgent care facilities while consulting...
Unless you're the 'guy on the right', most people don't carry their medical record with them
All this said to say, if your ONE Doctor has your medical record... you're either lying or naive, and you're ill prepared for the next time you need to find a doctor 'in a hurry.' Or don't care about the care you're about to get.
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 want nothing to do with this. In the eyes of Google, we are not their customer, we are their product.
Apple's priority is not mining our personal data, their data-driven services are designed to support the devices and services that they sell. Apple's revenue model is derived from selling actual stuff, not mining my data for ulterior uses.
yeah agree here -- no way would i want to give google my medical info.