Now I'm sure that the good people at Google have no intention of harming a soul with their brand new product Google Health, a free online medical record storage facility.
However, before you plunge into another commitment to supply or store personal details on the world wide web, think of the implications of storing your most personal details out there in hyperspace.
Robert Merkl commenting at Core Economics last Tuesday gave us one scenario:
I’d have to strongly disagree with your statement that there’s no extra privacy implications.
If your doctor gets broken into, maybe a few hundred medical records get stolen. If Google Health gets hacked, millions of health records get stolen.
Furthermore, because it’s all electronic, it’s in a much more easily searchable form.
Here’s a for-instance. Say you’re an intelligence agency, looking for somebody in a large organization to blackmail. With the old system, there’s no way in the world you could burgle every doctor every member in that organization has visited.
Now, let’s rerun our hypothetical with everybody’s medical records on Google Health. Your crack team of hackers breaks in and gets you full access. You do a search for STDs, abortions, mental illnesses, etc. etc. etc on the entire organization, until you find somebody to blackmail.
And, yes, in this case it is entirely plausible to imagine such a technically-adept attacker as an intelligence agency.
Back when I was in the CS department at Melbourne, there were some people doing work on computer security. You might want to consider having a chat to some of them at some point. You may never use internet banking again…
Google Health's own privacy policy also gives pause for thought as it does not completely rule out selling-on some medical data from the site and handing personal data on to law enforcement agencies or third-parties etc:
Google will not sell, rent, or share your information (identified or de-identified) without your explicit consent, except in the limited situations described in the Google Privacy Policy, such as when Google believes it is required to do so by law.
The current Google Health medical advisory board has some interesting CVs on it as well.
I'm not sure that having a history with RAND or Wal-mart, or indeed being a super accountant, is going to make me feel confident in this product.
One of the first entities to 'utilise' this new site will probably be that digital superspy, Server in the Sky.
Saturday 24 May 2008
Six months on from election of the Rudd Government and Cynthia is no longer willing to sleep on the wet patch
As today marks six months since the November 24 election brought the Rudd Government to power, this piece serves as a gentle reminder that all is not well with Kevin On Earth's agenda.
Cynthia Flobberbutton (in New Matilda) think it's time that the Federal Labor honeymoon was officially declared to be over and done with.
Oh come now, I hear you gasp. It's only been six months; it's a bit fanciful to expect a new government - especially one that has been out of office for more than a decade - to right all wrongs in six months.
To a certain extent these sentiments are true. Labor may have wrested control of the ship but it will take time to prise off all the nasty barnacles that burgeoned under the previous administration, let alone to reorient the vessel. But this is not an issue of petulance regarding changes not yet enacted. Rather, it's a call to question the course that has already begun to be charted.
Me-too-isms aside, the election of the ALP arose predominantly from the distinction the Party was able to establish between itself and the incumbent. In addition to his Fresh Approach for Working Families, Rudd himself was put forward as the anthropomorphic representation of the future: shinier, sprightlier, more culturally sensitive, more compassionate, more intellectually rigorous, and less likely to be swayed by xenophobic populism.
But now in office, the ALP is arguably working hard to subdue those elements of civil society that risk exposing the reality that it will not herald anything close to a social democratic utopia. In days gone by, these tactics were referred to as co-option. Under Rudd they have been shrewdly repackaged as the 2020 Summit.
In addition to offering the chance for delegates to be considered one of the New Labor Government's 1000 most trusted confidants, the 2020 Summit cemented the elitist idea that hand-picked "experts" should drive public policy. Tripping over egos in the rush to be anointed as among "Australia's best and brightest", the foundation was neatly laid for the influential class's support for the "Kevin Again in 2010 (Three Years is not Nearly Enough)" campaign.
Summit delegates were not only conveniently encouraged to ignore the pivotal role of broad-based, grassroots social movements in delivering electoral success for the ALP, but to forget how those movements managed to stave off some of the worst excesses of the Howard government, even when it controlled the Senate.
All this is by no means an effort to downplay the significance of some of the Federal Government's policy announcements. An apology to our Indigenous people, abolition of temporary protection visas for refugees, repealing (parts of) WorkChoices and a commitment to withdrawing (some) troops from Iraq are important shifts in rhetoric and practice. But for those of us who have grown used to fighting for the crumbs hurled in our direction, it is tempting to mistake ALP initiatives as dramatic steps forward rather than an amelioration of policies that should never have been countenanced in the first place.
It would be a mistake to unquestioningly accept these initiatives as sufficient compensation for failing to actually move public policy in a progressive direction, or as balance for new regressive measures. An apparently greater willingness to talk with advocacy organisations should not be confused with a commitment to meaningful consultation - and action.
Ultimately, the Federal Government must be judged on the strength of its policies, not on how they compare to the policies of the previous administration, or to hypothetical horror scenarios imagining 15 years under Howard.
So while there may still be some reluctance to call an end to our starry-eyed rebound affair with Rudd, it's time for those of us who are committed to creating a truly just and sustainable Australia to begin pointing out that we're no longer willing to sleep on the wet patch.
Oh come now, I hear you gasp. It's only been six months; it's a bit fanciful to expect a new government - especially one that has been out of office for more than a decade - to right all wrongs in six months.
To a certain extent these sentiments are true. Labor may have wrested control of the ship but it will take time to prise off all the nasty barnacles that burgeoned under the previous administration, let alone to reorient the vessel. But this is not an issue of petulance regarding changes not yet enacted. Rather, it's a call to question the course that has already begun to be charted.
Me-too-isms aside, the election of the ALP arose predominantly from the distinction the Party was able to establish between itself and the incumbent. In addition to his Fresh Approach for Working Families, Rudd himself was put forward as the anthropomorphic representation of the future: shinier, sprightlier, more culturally sensitive, more compassionate, more intellectually rigorous, and less likely to be swayed by xenophobic populism.
But now in office, the ALP is arguably working hard to subdue those elements of civil society that risk exposing the reality that it will not herald anything close to a social democratic utopia. In days gone by, these tactics were referred to as co-option. Under Rudd they have been shrewdly repackaged as the 2020 Summit.
In addition to offering the chance for delegates to be considered one of the New Labor Government's 1000 most trusted confidants, the 2020 Summit cemented the elitist idea that hand-picked "experts" should drive public policy. Tripping over egos in the rush to be anointed as among "Australia's best and brightest", the foundation was neatly laid for the influential class's support for the "Kevin Again in 2010 (Three Years is not Nearly Enough)" campaign.
Summit delegates were not only conveniently encouraged to ignore the pivotal role of broad-based, grassroots social movements in delivering electoral success for the ALP, but to forget how those movements managed to stave off some of the worst excesses of the Howard government, even when it controlled the Senate.
All this is by no means an effort to downplay the significance of some of the Federal Government's policy announcements. An apology to our Indigenous people, abolition of temporary protection visas for refugees, repealing (parts of) WorkChoices and a commitment to withdrawing (some) troops from Iraq are important shifts in rhetoric and practice. But for those of us who have grown used to fighting for the crumbs hurled in our direction, it is tempting to mistake ALP initiatives as dramatic steps forward rather than an amelioration of policies that should never have been countenanced in the first place.
It would be a mistake to unquestioningly accept these initiatives as sufficient compensation for failing to actually move public policy in a progressive direction, or as balance for new regressive measures. An apparently greater willingness to talk with advocacy organisations should not be confused with a commitment to meaningful consultation - and action.
Ultimately, the Federal Government must be judged on the strength of its policies, not on how they compare to the policies of the previous administration, or to hypothetical horror scenarios imagining 15 years under Howard.
So while there may still be some reluctance to call an end to our starry-eyed rebound affair with Rudd, it's time for those of us who are committed to creating a truly just and sustainable Australia to begin pointing out that we're no longer willing to sleep on the wet patch.
Mr. Rudd hasn't given up, but he is in danger of losing his way
The first six months of Kevin Rudd as prime minister heading a Labor government has not been the complete waste of time that the Opposition tries to portray.
Nor do I believe that Mr. Rudd has given up this early in the piece.
However, in an effort to be seen as the 'reasonable' face of Labor he is beginning to lose his way.
The aims and aspirations of today's working families may be valid, focussing on reviewing the taxation structure may or may not be necessary, an education revolution may be long overdue, but gearing policy to populist end of these notions and virtually ignoring the destructive elephant in the room is not the best idea.
So here is a word portrait of that elephant to remind Rudd and his minsiters exactly what the bottom line is.
climate change, water security, global warming, prolonged drought, climate change, food shortages, global warming, coastal erosion, climate change, death of the Murray Darling, global warming, species extinction, climate change, environmental refugees, global warming, renewable energy, climate change, greenhouse gas abatement, global warming, destructive storms, climate change, property loss, global warming, carbon trading, climate change.
Nor do I believe that Mr. Rudd has given up this early in the piece.
However, in an effort to be seen as the 'reasonable' face of Labor he is beginning to lose his way.
The aims and aspirations of today's working families may be valid, focussing on reviewing the taxation structure may or may not be necessary, an education revolution may be long overdue, but gearing policy to populist end of these notions and virtually ignoring the destructive elephant in the room is not the best idea.
So here is a word portrait of that elephant to remind Rudd and his minsiters exactly what the bottom line is.
climate change, water security, global warming, prolonged drought, climate change, food shortages, global warming, coastal erosion, climate change, death of the Murray Darling, global warming, species extinction, climate change, environmental refugees, global warming, renewable energy, climate change, greenhouse gas abatement, global warming, destructive storms, climate change, property loss, global warming, carbon trading, climate change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
