Google’s quest to digitize troops’ tissue samples(propublica.org)
propublica.org
Google’s quest to digitize troops’ tissue samples
https://www.propublica.org/article/google-human-tissue-jpc-military
122 comments
>Second, I don't see any harm in sharing public data (anonymized of course) with any private or public research organizations.
Your DNA isn't "public data". Further, those in the military didn't have a choice in the DNA collection. Anyone who chooses to give their DNA to Google, or anyone else, should be free to do so. Nobody's DNA should be harvested and given to a private corporation, no matter what the purported purpose.
Your DNA isn't "public data". Further, those in the military didn't have a choice in the DNA collection. Anyone who chooses to give their DNA to Google, or anyone else, should be free to do so. Nobody's DNA should be harvested and given to a private corporation, no matter what the purported purpose.
Full disclosure: I worked 6 years for a private DNA analysis company. I left the company over two years ago in pursuit of challenges closer to my passions -- robotics.
> Your DNA isn't "public data".
You shed DNA every day in dead skin cells; if you're in public then it's effectively public trash and most public trash is... well... public. If you eat or drink at a restaurant then you've left your DNA on the utensils and cups.
Even beyond that: Are you sure your relatives haven't given their DNA? It is possible to reconstruct your DNA using the DNA of your relatives.
> Nobody's DNA should be harvested and given to a private corporation, no matter what the purported purpose.
This much I fully agree on. Private businesses should have no business in DNA analysis. Private businesses aren't beholden to nearly as much public scrutiny. Unfortunately, DNA analysis is (or, was when I left) a growing private business.
> Your DNA isn't "public data".
You shed DNA every day in dead skin cells; if you're in public then it's effectively public trash and most public trash is... well... public. If you eat or drink at a restaurant then you've left your DNA on the utensils and cups.
Even beyond that: Are you sure your relatives haven't given their DNA? It is possible to reconstruct your DNA using the DNA of your relatives.
> Nobody's DNA should be harvested and given to a private corporation, no matter what the purported purpose.
This much I fully agree on. Private businesses should have no business in DNA analysis. Private businesses aren't beholden to nearly as much public scrutiny. Unfortunately, DNA analysis is (or, was when I left) a growing private business.
To clarify an important point glossed over and ignored here:
This isn't just "public DNA" shed anonymously drifting about in the wind . . .
This is the conjunction of two sets - "public DNA" AND the identity and detailed health record of the body that DNA came from.
A bucket of "public DNA" is interesting, sure, if you're into that - but it becomes a whole lot more when classified by (say) those that contracted cancer Vs those that didn't - particularly when combined with environmental factors, etc.
This isn't just "public DNA" shed anonymously drifting about in the wind . . .
This is the conjunction of two sets - "public DNA" AND the identity and detailed health record of the body that DNA came from.
A bucket of "public DNA" is interesting, sure, if you're into that - but it becomes a whole lot more when classified by (say) those that contracted cancer Vs those that didn't - particularly when combined with environmental factors, etc.
[deleted]
You shed DNA, sure, but that doesn't make it public data.
If tomorrow we invented a tool to read your thoughts based on the electromagnetic waves your brain emits, that doesn't suddenly make your thoughts public data.
If tomorrow we invented a tool to read your thoughts based on the electromagnetic waves your brain emits, that doesn't suddenly make your thoughts public data.
"Your DNA isn't "public data". Further, those in the military didn't have a choice in the DNA collection."
Fucking right! Google has an unmitigated hide to even contemplate such collection.
The 'no' in Google's 'do no evil' disappeared long ago.
Google's behavior in recent years is really beyond the pale, it's acting like a metastasizing cancer in everything it touches. It's high time governments brought it to heel.
You're absolutely right, DNA shouldn't be harvested by any private irrespective of purpose.
Fucking right! Google has an unmitigated hide to even contemplate such collection.
The 'no' in Google's 'do no evil' disappeared long ago.
Google's behavior in recent years is really beyond the pale, it's acting like a metastasizing cancer in everything it touches. It's high time governments brought it to heel.
You're absolutely right, DNA shouldn't be harvested by any private irrespective of purpose.
The military members consented to this when they joined (along with mandatory vaccinations and many other things) voluntarily.
DNA is public data (you're shedding it everywhere) although in many research situations, many pseudonymous genomes are available.
Heck, there are even ones tied to individuals; for example, https://my.pgp-hms.org/profile/hu80855C That's my genome. Google paid for it to be sequenced. I'm David Konerding. Have fun with it.
DNA is public data (you're shedding it everywhere) although in many research situations, many pseudonymous genomes are available.
Heck, there are even ones tied to individuals; for example, https://my.pgp-hms.org/profile/hu80855C That's my genome. Google paid for it to be sequenced. I'm David Konerding. Have fun with it.
> The military members consented to this when they joined
Did they clarify what time period the DNA covers? We’re all military subjects able to give reasonable consent? If it includes samples from before ~1953, did they even know the significance of what DNA was or how it could be used?
> voluntarily
I have uncles who served in the military via conscription in the Korean and Vietnamese wars. Is their DNA included? It certainly wasn’t voluntary.
Did they clarify what time period the DNA covers? We’re all military subjects able to give reasonable consent? If it includes samples from before ~1953, did they even know the significance of what DNA was or how it could be used?
> voluntarily
I have uncles who served in the military via conscription in the Korean and Vietnamese wars. Is their DNA included? It certainly wasn’t voluntary.
"The military members consented to this when they joined..."
Even if they did, I'll bet they didn't anticipate the raiding of their DNA and medical records by a pariah corporation.
Moreover, I'd lay money that many in the military would strongly object to such collection.
If the military were to go ahead with this then it deserves to lose recruiting numbers.
—
Edit: re your DNA. It's fine if you make a conscious clearheaded decision to put your DNA on line. The fact is that many people will have an absolutely antithetical view about this to you and their views must be respected. Problems arise when people like you who really don't care about privacy are put in charge of making decisions for those who do care.
This is not a criticism of you per se but those handling personal data on behalf of others are less likely to value it to the same extent as the owners of said data. That's why rules should be set up at the outset and they must be inviolate.
A final point, even though you have put your DNA on line you should do so anonymously as your DNA is a link to your relatives and it's highly likely that some of them will have antithetical views to you about the matter—you need to respect their privacy and wishes.
Even if they did, I'll bet they didn't anticipate the raiding of their DNA and medical records by a pariah corporation.
Moreover, I'd lay money that many in the military would strongly object to such collection.
If the military were to go ahead with this then it deserves to lose recruiting numbers.
—
Edit: re your DNA. It's fine if you make a conscious clearheaded decision to put your DNA on line. The fact is that many people will have an absolutely antithetical view about this to you and their views must be respected. Problems arise when people like you who really don't care about privacy are put in charge of making decisions for those who do care.
This is not a criticism of you per se but those handling personal data on behalf of others are less likely to value it to the same extent as the owners of said data. That's why rules should be set up at the outset and they must be inviolate.
A final point, even though you have put your DNA on line you should do so anonymously as your DNA is a link to your relatives and it's highly likely that some of them will have antithetical views to you about the matter—you need to respect their privacy and wishes.
[deleted]
> Second, I don't see any harm in sharing public data .... Are these negative reactions only because its Google?
100% I do not trust Google to do remotely the right thing that is in the interest of anyone but themselves.
These people served their country for the government to give that data to a private company for profit? Google can talk all they want about doing it for good, zero trust in them to actually to anything remotely close to that.
And as we've seen with Google in the past, what they say they will do today does not mean that standard will still apply tomorrow.
100% I do not trust Google to do remotely the right thing that is in the interest of anyone but themselves.
These people served their country for the government to give that data to a private company for profit? Google can talk all they want about doing it for good, zero trust in them to actually to anything remotely close to that.
And as we've seen with Google in the past, what they say they will do today does not mean that standard will still apply tomorrow.
We need to be very careful about medical big data and the privacy/ethics implications, but the benefits of this kind of medical research seem so compelling and the risks seem so nebulous.
insurance companies are super powerful in the US, and some states are pro-business to some insane level. things such as this and businesses similar to 23andme really scare me. you need just one state to make it legal / one fucked CEO, and insurance company have your insurance data & your health data. Maybe there's a data leak & they use it without telling people, who knows.
Insurance companies being regulated per-state in the US doesn't mean "you only need one state to defect", it means that defection would only apply to people living in that state.
And insurance companies obviously already have your health data. You might remember before the ACA they'd drop people based on it and now they don't because they're not allowed to do that.
And insurance companies obviously already have your health data. You might remember before the ACA they'd drop people based on it and now they don't because they're not allowed to do that.
"Maybe there's a data leak & they use it without telling people,..."
Yes. ...And it'll take major data leaks of medical records put online by hackers before government takes note and fixe# it.
You can bet the moment some very prominent politician's medical records are put online for all the world to see the details of his piles operation and the fact that he's being treated for gonorrhea that legislation will then follow.
Yes. ...And it'll take major data leaks of medical records put online by hackers before government takes note and fixe# it.
You can bet the moment some very prominent politician's medical records are put online for all the world to see the details of his piles operation and the fact that he's being treated for gonorrhea that legislation will then follow.
I'm working at a health care startup whose business model is to work closely with at risk folks and help them avoid (expensive) emergency room visits. Since we don't have a lot of our own data, we need access to models pretrained on millions of patients to help us automate processes like discovering people with illnesses they haven't received treatment for yet. Unfortunately, these models are always licensed. So anyone with money can get them, but not smaller entities like small companies and hospitals. I think there must be a way to make this sort of anonymous data/model weights public and available to businesses in addition to research (researches can sometimes get data, but often are restricted from releasing models). Kind of like how MIT licenses wind up usually more beneficial to society than GPL.
There is some risk to privacy, but I think the "risk of privacy" is used more as a way to justify charging money for data rather than a true concern over privacy/ public safety.
There is some risk to privacy, but I think the "risk of privacy" is used more as a way to justify charging money for data rather than a true concern over privacy/ public safety.
Man, I’m a vet, work in tech, and the reactions here are why I hate the tradeoffs I make by being in the industry.
The amount of “what’s the big deal!” or just total blindness to the issue at hand is not surprising but severely disappointing in what it confirms.
These aren’t just random medical records, they belong to service members and extends the theme of the DoD owns you in service and the VA “helps” you after service to… and Google too! It’s just another example of how Soldiers are treated like disposable units and now apparently that extends into my civilian life.
The civilian/military divide lives and breathes in the so-what attitudes in this thread.
The amount of “what’s the big deal!” or just total blindness to the issue at hand is not surprising but severely disappointing in what it confirms.
These aren’t just random medical records, they belong to service members and extends the theme of the DoD owns you in service and the VA “helps” you after service to… and Google too! It’s just another example of how Soldiers are treated like disposable units and now apparently that extends into my civilian life.
The civilian/military divide lives and breathes in the so-what attitudes in this thread.
"It's just another example of how Soldiers are treated like disposable units..."
Tragically, this problem is not new. It's centuries old and few countries manage veterans well.
Unfortunately, young testosterone-driven men with lots of bravado have little concept of war until they're in the trenches when they quickly learn to regret past notions. Commitments made by governments to their fighting men quickly atrophy and the 'detritus' of war is all too often left to fend for itself.
Tragically, this problem is not new. It's centuries old and few countries manage veterans well.
Unfortunately, young testosterone-driven men with lots of bravado have little concept of war until they're in the trenches when they quickly learn to regret past notions. Commitments made by governments to their fighting men quickly atrophy and the 'detritus' of war is all too often left to fend for itself.
It's like you're assuming bad faith while many people are trying to save lives.
Google has proved many times over how willing they are to sacrifice ethics to profits. It surprises me that anyone thought this was a good idea.
Let me help expose the thinking here. Since I was an engineer who worked for Google over a decade and helped launch several health projects while there and wrote one of the docs that ended up convincing the leaders at Google Brain and Research to work on health problems (after the Google Health records debacle), the thinking is relatively straightforward:
Google spent heavily to build infrastructure and hire smart people. A small number of those people work on ads, which, while not "walled-off" from the rest of the company, does operate at arm's distance. A larger number of people work on other projects- many of them cloud, which is Google's other non-insignificant revenue source- doing all sorts of things, from building software and hardware infrastructure to do high performance computing (of many kinds) to optimizing models for growing products like Youtube through watchnext and Play Store through suggestions. Many of those people are ex-scientists who want to help use what they've learned to make life better for people- potentially through better medicines.
At the same time, most companies that work with health are incredibly low-tech, super-inefficient and mainly exist to waste patient's money. They fail to use ML and data engineering to maximize the value of their products, they run inefficient software and hardware, they can't explain why their products work or not.
So it stood to reason- at least in 2007, when I joined- that Google could use its technical prowess and ads $$$ to fund health research with the goal of providing a greater good for the world- while also making some revenue and profit from the products. While making the case for this I was extremely careful to repeatedly explain that Google had a serious reputational risk because people were skeptical that the company could both be a big tech advertiser, and a health research company. I said that we should always be up front and open about any deal we make, because eveyrthing is going to leak anyway and at least by being open you have some control over the narrative. And I also said that this work needed to be carried out ethically and in a way that was unrelated to existing consumer products (ads, search, android, etc).
Well, I was successful and managed to convince Google Research to get into health and Jeff Dean and Greg Corrado have been actively working in that area for some time. The work has had extremely modest success in terms of research output and products, but they're committed to it long-term. Later, as Google finally began to recognize Cloud as a business model, I began to engage with the cloud leadership, but with a slightly different pitch: Google, with its infrastructure, could be a great partner to pharma and EMR enterprises, as a service provider (servers and storage) as well as new ideas for data processing (Flume) and machine learning (this was pre-tensorflow; Sibyl was the system i wanted to sell).
This went on for some time and Google made a few products and published a few papers. Some are great and some are terrible, but I left because I came to the conclusion that Google simply can't provide the same level of innovation or success that Ads and Search had, when working in the health area. There are several reasons for this:
The data sources are not as rich as the web. The web provides copious data to make good Search and Ads systems. The data in health and research is ... terrible. Nobody gave any thought to featurization or any of the other important data engineering/ML engineering you need to be sucessful. A dataset like the one being discussed here is significant because it's homogenous.
Verily was getting going but at the time the focus was on medical devices, not machine learning for health research.
At the same time, Sundar has taken over and his approach... is not very enlightened. He was good at rapid growth in multiple products such as Android and Youtube, which were critical for Google to stay competitive when it looked like Facebook was going to own social. He has little to no understsanding of anything but growing consumer products (and when I say "consumer products", I mean the consumer is the product).
So my conclusion- after all of this- is that Google will ultimately fail to make the impact it could have, both because people don't trust google to handle this sort of data ethically, and because the upper leadership doesn't have the "DNA" (so to speak) to build products and do research in this area. Which is a real shame. But the good part is: there's nothing left inside of Google that makes them special in any way for health research. Everybody who wants to emulate the Google style has all the tools available in external open source repos and cloud systems (that includes TPU v4 which is a huge competitive edge for google).
Oh well.
Google spent heavily to build infrastructure and hire smart people. A small number of those people work on ads, which, while not "walled-off" from the rest of the company, does operate at arm's distance. A larger number of people work on other projects- many of them cloud, which is Google's other non-insignificant revenue source- doing all sorts of things, from building software and hardware infrastructure to do high performance computing (of many kinds) to optimizing models for growing products like Youtube through watchnext and Play Store through suggestions. Many of those people are ex-scientists who want to help use what they've learned to make life better for people- potentially through better medicines.
At the same time, most companies that work with health are incredibly low-tech, super-inefficient and mainly exist to waste patient's money. They fail to use ML and data engineering to maximize the value of their products, they run inefficient software and hardware, they can't explain why their products work or not.
So it stood to reason- at least in 2007, when I joined- that Google could use its technical prowess and ads $$$ to fund health research with the goal of providing a greater good for the world- while also making some revenue and profit from the products. While making the case for this I was extremely careful to repeatedly explain that Google had a serious reputational risk because people were skeptical that the company could both be a big tech advertiser, and a health research company. I said that we should always be up front and open about any deal we make, because eveyrthing is going to leak anyway and at least by being open you have some control over the narrative. And I also said that this work needed to be carried out ethically and in a way that was unrelated to existing consumer products (ads, search, android, etc).
Well, I was successful and managed to convince Google Research to get into health and Jeff Dean and Greg Corrado have been actively working in that area for some time. The work has had extremely modest success in terms of research output and products, but they're committed to it long-term. Later, as Google finally began to recognize Cloud as a business model, I began to engage with the cloud leadership, but with a slightly different pitch: Google, with its infrastructure, could be a great partner to pharma and EMR enterprises, as a service provider (servers and storage) as well as new ideas for data processing (Flume) and machine learning (this was pre-tensorflow; Sibyl was the system i wanted to sell).
This went on for some time and Google made a few products and published a few papers. Some are great and some are terrible, but I left because I came to the conclusion that Google simply can't provide the same level of innovation or success that Ads and Search had, when working in the health area. There are several reasons for this:
The data sources are not as rich as the web. The web provides copious data to make good Search and Ads systems. The data in health and research is ... terrible. Nobody gave any thought to featurization or any of the other important data engineering/ML engineering you need to be sucessful. A dataset like the one being discussed here is significant because it's homogenous.
Verily was getting going but at the time the focus was on medical devices, not machine learning for health research.
At the same time, Sundar has taken over and his approach... is not very enlightened. He was good at rapid growth in multiple products such as Android and Youtube, which were critical for Google to stay competitive when it looked like Facebook was going to own social. He has little to no understsanding of anything but growing consumer products (and when I say "consumer products", I mean the consumer is the product).
So my conclusion- after all of this- is that Google will ultimately fail to make the impact it could have, both because people don't trust google to handle this sort of data ethically, and because the upper leadership doesn't have the "DNA" (so to speak) to build products and do research in this area. Which is a real shame. But the good part is: there's nothing left inside of Google that makes them special in any way for health research. Everybody who wants to emulate the Google style has all the tools available in external open source repos and cloud systems (that includes TPU v4 which is a huge competitive edge for google).
Oh well.
As Dr. Ian Malcolm said it: “Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.”
Nice! The is one of the big advantages of military project where you can have massive sample set collected using the same standards. Hopefully we'll see some real medical advancement out of this.
The military are already having a very difficult time recruiting people. Not for a lack of interest but for a lack of physical qualification. [1] This behavior will not help them get more people.
I foresaw something like this when I served and had to fight them on DNA collection. I neither won nor lost but I stalled them long enough to get out. That was my commander's idea. It went all the way to Al Gore via FoIA and came back down as several boxes of paperwork that were worded more vague than a car commercial as to what the data/dna could be used for, how long they could keep it and who would have access to it.
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWN13pKVp9s (2012)[video][16 mins]
I foresaw something like this when I served and had to fight them on DNA collection. I neither won nor lost but I stalled them long enough to get out. That was my commander's idea. It went all the way to Al Gore via FoIA and came back down as several boxes of paperwork that were worded more vague than a car commercial as to what the data/dna could be used for, how long they could keep it and who would have access to it.
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWN13pKVp9s (2012)[video][16 mins]
Do they still use the old PT model for fitness upkeep?
Culturally that was like telling people you can walk to work...even if you work 20 miles away. Our society needs more interesting and subjectively calibrated brain food for fitness maintenance.
Ideally they could switch to a relatively flexible multi-model fitness system. Give a bit more freedom and education to people who showed they are willing to fight for it. And if somebody still wants PT? Go for it.
Culturally that was like telling people you can walk to work...even if you work 20 miles away. Our society needs more interesting and subjectively calibrated brain food for fitness maintenance.
Ideally they could switch to a relatively flexible multi-model fitness system. Give a bit more freedom and education to people who showed they are willing to fight for it. And if somebody still wants PT? Go for it.
> Give a bit more freedom and education to people who showed they are willing to fight for it.
People need to eat properly and exercise on a daily basis in to stay fit for service. Most 18-20 year olds have a hard time with discipline. Routine mandatory exercise is a must have for military service. Thus the people with the discipline and "who show willingness to fight for it" and basic competence are the ones that end up leading in the military.
People need to eat properly and exercise on a daily basis in to stay fit for service. Most 18-20 year olds have a hard time with discipline. Routine mandatory exercise is a must have for military service. Thus the people with the discipline and "who show willingness to fight for it" and basic competence are the ones that end up leading in the military.
> Most 18-20 year olds have a hard time with discipline
Discipline is a lens though, not a binary state of having/not having a permanent heart condition. If it's hard, there are usually much better lenses for military levels of upkeep.
Just like there are better models than "willpower" for losing weight.
(As to whether anyone who is proud of their personal discipline level wants to admit that, on the other hand...)
Discipline is a lens though, not a binary state of having/not having a permanent heart condition. If it's hard, there are usually much better lenses for military levels of upkeep.
Just like there are better models than "willpower" for losing weight.
(As to whether anyone who is proud of their personal discipline level wants to admit that, on the other hand...)
To be clear discipline in the military is a couple things that are pretty good basic life skills that a lot of people at that age especially lack, i.e. go to sleep at a reasonable hour, show up to work on time, exercise daily, eat well, avoid alcohol abuse, follow through with assigned tasks. These are real challenges for people at that age and who come from many walks of life, sometimes unhealthy environments. The military immediately rewards and punishes for lack of that discipline and it’s a pretty good environment to develop young people. But absent the persistent structure the military provides won’t happen on its own.
> But absent the persistent structure the military provides won’t happen on its own.
Hmm, but this is different from saying "the military never changes its approach to things like this, to get better results with the people it works with" which it does.
In fact in recent years all branches have advertised their desire to "adapt".
Slow process, but it's there & needs to be. Change processes to get the results you need, as returns diminish. Some destabilization required--brass will survive
Hmm, but this is different from saying "the military never changes its approach to things like this, to get better results with the people it works with" which it does.
In fact in recent years all branches have advertised their desire to "adapt".
Slow process, but it's there & needs to be. Change processes to get the results you need, as returns diminish. Some destabilization required--brass will survive
Oh for sure, I served over 20 years ago and the branches have all adapted their PT regimes quite a bit. Push-ups, Sit-ups and Run was the standard when I served and since then I think they’ve changed it up a bunch and some have even tried incorporating crossfit-style workouts and have evolved their fitness standards - as they should. Enforcing fitness standards and mandatory participation still makes sense and always will for young people especially those who serve.
Do they still use the old PT model for fitness upkeep?
According to the General in the linked video from 2012 they have tried to make some improvements, though there is only so much they can do with someone that has been eating poorly and sitting still for most of their life leading up to enlistment. I have not kept up to date with what they are currently doing but there are others here that I believe are still in the military.
According to the General in the linked video from 2012 they have tried to make some improvements, though there is only so much they can do with someone that has been eating poorly and sitting still for most of their life leading up to enlistment. I have not kept up to date with what they are currently doing but there are others here that I believe are still in the military.
> only so much they can do with someone that has been eating poorly and sitting still for most of their life leading up to enlistment
That's kind of BS. Young people that enlist are not fully formed adults yet and have a huge opportunity to reshape themselves to be fit for military service. I can speak from experience here. Basic training sheds pounds and builds muscle, I've seen it first hand. The problem is that it lasts only 8 week which is not nearly long enough to create new habits or break old ones.
That's kind of BS. Young people that enlist are not fully formed adults yet and have a huge opportunity to reshape themselves to be fit for military service. I can speak from experience here. Basic training sheds pounds and builds muscle, I've seen it first hand. The problem is that it lasts only 8 week which is not nearly long enough to create new habits or break old ones.
I entirely believe you made it work but I think you are one of the exceptions now. Basic training will induce crazy weight loss but it will not reverse T2D which many young people now have. Many of them can't do a single push-up. Run 1 to 1.5 miles? Most of them would end up in the hospital. There are parts of the U.S. where this is the exception rather than the norm. The high-school kids around me are like freight trains and ready for the NFL. But this is not the case in most big cities.
Sure type 2 diabetes or being drastically overweight disqualifies you from service.
Lots of people have never done a push up or run outside of gym class by the time they serve, it’s not a new challenge. Couch to 5K is solvable and the military is pretty good at it.
I’d love to quantify your comment a bit more… how many young people have a disqualifying health issue like type 2 diabetes, heart problems or obesity? How much of a problem is it really?
Lots of people have never done a push up or run outside of gym class by the time they serve, it’s not a new challenge. Couch to 5K is solvable and the military is pretty good at it.
I’d love to quantify your comment a bit more… how many young people have a disqualifying health issue like type 2 diabetes, heart problems or obesity? How much of a problem is it really?
[deleted]
> only so much they can do
It's curious though. We also live in a couch-to-5K world now, so it'd be interesting to know how far "only so much" might go.
It also seems strangely commingled with lack of motivation, the way people complain about others sitting around, which teasing those apart is a good way to attack such problems.
(Especially factoring in the actual, likely fitness needs of a given individual in a given MOS being at war and maybe charging drones most of the day while periodically jogging for cover, or whatever the numbers show is likely-activity vs contingency-plan.)
It's curious though. We also live in a couch-to-5K world now, so it'd be interesting to know how far "only so much" might go.
It also seems strangely commingled with lack of motivation, the way people complain about others sitting around, which teasing those apart is a good way to attack such problems.
(Especially factoring in the actual, likely fitness needs of a given individual in a given MOS being at war and maybe charging drones most of the day while periodically jogging for cover, or whatever the numbers show is likely-activity vs contingency-plan.)
[deleted]
Nothing in the article supports the submitted headline.
disclosure: work for Google
I read the article and I'm not really convinced that something bad is happening here. A lot of the comments here are purporting that something unethical is happening here - in the article I read: “Ultimately, even through negotiations, we were unable to find a pathway that we legally could do and ethically should do,” Simon said. “And the partnership dissolved.” (referring to a previous design proposal). So it seems like there's a rigorous review process here which demonstrably can shut down the project or prevent forward movement if there's something bad happening.
Also, I don't get this spin along the length of the article that Google is somehow bullying the US military around. I mean, I get that narrative when it's Google is working with smaller businesses and using capital as leverage. But do we really think that Google > DoD and that the US Navy is just getting strongarmed around? I choose to think they have agency here and _if_ there's blame (big if), how is it not mostly on the Navy who is holding the data and running the show?
I read the article and I'm not really convinced that something bad is happening here. A lot of the comments here are purporting that something unethical is happening here - in the article I read: “Ultimately, even through negotiations, we were unable to find a pathway that we legally could do and ethically should do,” Simon said. “And the partnership dissolved.” (referring to a previous design proposal). So it seems like there's a rigorous review process here which demonstrably can shut down the project or prevent forward movement if there's something bad happening.
Also, I don't get this spin along the length of the article that Google is somehow bullying the US military around. I mean, I get that narrative when it's Google is working with smaller businesses and using capital as leverage. But do we really think that Google > DoD and that the US Navy is just getting strongarmed around? I choose to think they have agency here and _if_ there's blame (big if), how is it not mostly on the Navy who is holding the data and running the show?
Here is a simple exercise: imagine these were your medical records and your former employer gave them to a third party for profit.
I, personally, would be 100% fine with this, as long as:
1. My data was anonymized.
2. At least in the Navy's case, that there was some assurance that some of the work would be made available back to the public, i.e. if all the data was tagged and organized in a way that an open source data set could be made (again, anonymized), but the analysis and any models built would be proprietary to Google.
I honestly don't understand why the knee jerk reaction would be to be upset at your simple exercise.
1. My data was anonymized.
2. At least in the Navy's case, that there was some assurance that some of the work would be made available back to the public, i.e. if all the data was tagged and organized in a way that an open source data set could be made (again, anonymized), but the analysis and any models built would be proprietary to Google.
I honestly don't understand why the knee jerk reaction would be to be upset at your simple exercise.
The military members served the public. Google is profiting. You have it backwards.
Because you served to help your country and then call it a day, not have your medical legacy live on in a Google product after you’ve left. Just another thumb in the eye for vets from a public that doesn’t care beyond a NFL game. That’s where the simple exercise could lead.
Yeah but that data can be used to make things better for you later. For example, with the burn pits in Iraq where soldiers no longer have to individually prove harm: https://www.publichealth.va.gov/docs/exposures/ten-things-to....
This data could lead to a discovery like “hey a statistically significant portion of people deployed at (x) between years y and z developed this type of medical condition - the military is responsible and needs to pay them.”
If there’s no value to digitizing this data, why is the military paying Google to do it? It’s not like Google is purchasing it
This data could lead to a discovery like “hey a statistically significant portion of people deployed at (x) between years y and z developed this type of medical condition - the military is responsible and needs to pay them.”
If there’s no value to digitizing this data, why is the military paying Google to do it? It’s not like Google is purchasing it
> Yeah but that data can be used to make things better for you later.
Or, the more likely case, someone figures out how to de-anonymize it and it could be used to hurt me later. That seems much much more likely to me.
Or, the more likely case, someone figures out how to de-anonymize it and it could be used to hurt me later. That seems much much more likely to me.
1. I dont think DNA can be sufficiently anonymized.
2. I think de-anonymization not only hurts you but also could hurt a large % of the people you are directly related to.
2. I think de-anonymization not only hurts you but also could hurt a large % of the people you are directly related to.
How is it for profit? The government is paying Google, not the other way around.
Your former employer is paying a 3rd party service to digitize your old health records.
I’d much rather have digital records instead of paper files which can be trivially destroyed or lost. Imagine if I got cancer and had to sue this former employer and I could subpoena for this info.
Your former employer is paying a 3rd party service to digitize your old health records.
I’d much rather have digital records instead of paper files which can be trivially destroyed or lost. Imagine if I got cancer and had to sue this former employer and I could subpoena for this info.
Imagine I'm a dead guy from the 19th century?
They have much more than just 19th Century records. Where'd you get 19th century as an upper bounds from?
It seems hard to find date ranges for what they exactly collect and store, but I found this relevant line that gives 2002 as an upper bounds:
Also, this gem:
It seems hard to find date ranges for what they exactly collect and store, but I found this relevant line that gives 2002 as an upper bounds:
"More than 99 percent of the 338 specimens from 1917–1969 were completely desiccated, as were over 72 percent of the 218 from 1970–2002."
Also, this gem:
The JPC does not have documentation regarding any consent forms signed by patients or research participants whose data or specimens were submitted to the repository (Baker personal communication, 2011a). Such consents may have been obtained for clinical procedures used to excise specimens at facilities where people received medical care, but it is highly unlikely that they included notification that the specimens could be sent to a remote repository or used later for education or research purposes. Consents for research use may have been obtained for some materials gathered for the war or cohort registries, but the JPC has no documentation on these (Baker personal communication, 2011a).The last statement is correct- up until about 10 years ago, the vast majority of consent forms didn't explicitly state that the specimens could be reused for other studies later, that hadn't been consented to.
Now most consent forms explicitly call out the option of the data collector to share the data with more parties for further use beyond the scope of the original study.
Now most consent forms explicitly call out the option of the data collector to share the data with more parties for further use beyond the scope of the original study.
Can you think of a less obtuse way to interpret the comment? You may be missing a good point.
Disclosure: I’m a vet and work in tech.
On one hand, the DoD playing chess with plug and play resources that Soldiers are. Tech employees being willfully blind to the ethics of this. No surprise either way, China got my data via OPM anyway.
On the other: sick! That’s great Google has the medical records detailing people’s worst moments from war (TBI, PTSD. amputations) or others (spousal abuse, drug abuse), all for a good product! A maxim vets are pretty good at following is your DoD past stays with you and the VA, but that’s great Google gets to poke under the covers too. Hope the product is useful for an OKR. This doesn’t stop with pathology slides from days of yore and we all know it.
On one hand, the DoD playing chess with plug and play resources that Soldiers are. Tech employees being willfully blind to the ethics of this. No surprise either way, China got my data via OPM anyway.
On the other: sick! That’s great Google has the medical records detailing people’s worst moments from war (TBI, PTSD. amputations) or others (spousal abuse, drug abuse), all for a good product! A maxim vets are pretty good at following is your DoD past stays with you and the VA, but that’s great Google gets to poke under the covers too. Hope the product is useful for an OKR. This doesn’t stop with pathology slides from days of yore and we all know it.
With the caveat that I do not know the specifics of this case, I agree in principle with giving health companies access to large amounts of data like this. Research like this could save a huge amount of lives, but it needs lots of data, which is currently quiet difficult to collect. Ideally there'd be some sort of central, deidentified repository of data that all researchers can access for free. But in the absence of that, I'll take what I can get. I've lost too many people to cancer; I'd sacrifice a lot to see better diagnostics. Maybe I'm strange, but I don't care if Google or any other healthcare has access to all of the x-rays, mris, and blood tests that I've ever done provided that they're deidentified.
The central repository is TCGA and dbGAP. It's pseudoanonymized but some datasets are restricted acces. When I worked for Google, we applied for access and downloaded the whole thing (petabytes) and then got an email from NCBI that we had to delete it all. Our idea was that we could serve a copy of it "for free" for researchers (internal to Google or external) to use in the cloud (without having to redownload it). This morphed a bit and became Public Datasets with User-Pays access. And AWS hosts it as well. Far more people use the data on AWS than anywhere else.
> some datasets are restricted acces.
That does not impress me. China and North Korea will get it.
That does not impress me. China and North Korea will get it.
Researchers don't need access to the data. They need to be able to run analyses on the data and get results. This can be achieved without handing over the data and in the UK the NHS actually built a system to do this. And then the corrupt Tory government handed the data over to Palantir anyway.
What exactly do you mean? Very few, if any, hosts of health research data have the data, network, and compute infrastracture to make use of their data. It should be in the cloud so it's actually useful.
I mean that the researchers submit jobs to the data owners who run the jobs, possibly in the cloud, and return the results to the researchers. The researchers don't need direct access to the data. I, along with millions of others, have opted out of every NHS digital initiative because I don't trust them. And my instincts were right because the data was given to Palantir. But if I was given the choice I would allow my data to be used in the privacy-respecting system described above.
I honestly don't think that model works. What if you want to join data between two datasets from two providers? Who pays for the cloud? What if the researchers want to do more featurization, making snapshot views for performance?
Having looked at similar contracts (specifically UofC's CrimeLab running analysis of police data against UofC hospital xray data), the pairing is required to be done on a host such that the xray data never leaves the UofC imaging infrastructure. Contractually, at least. Not exactly sure where your questions are coming from.
yeah, that happens. the researchers hate it (the service provided is often inferior to their own in-house setup) and it's mainly to retain some level of funding for the lab, rather than benefiting the most users. Also, university infrastructure is far less secure than a cloud account run by a cloud provider.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> “The chief concern,” Google’s liaison in the military warned the leaders of the repository, “is keeping this out of the press.”
Just once it would be nice if companies were actually held accountable.
Just once it would be nice if companies were actually held accountable.
Accountable for what? What wrongdoing are you alleging and what is your evidence?
That seems like an intentionally misleading sentence structure. The phrase was said by the guy from the navy, not anyone from Google.
It doesn't seem misleading at all tbh. Misleading would by "liaison to the military", not "liaison in the military".
The guy from the Navy was under Google's NDA.
Which, I can argue, makes the statement much much worse.
Maybe. But the whole article seems to me to be centered around bozotic behavior by the Navy, not questionable actions of Google.
To me the biggest red flag is that they eventually selected "small technology firm" to host the scanned archive, instead of a legit cloud operator like Google, Microsoft, Amazon, etc. That is the most likely point of graft in this process.
To me the biggest red flag is that they eventually selected "small technology firm" to host the scanned archive, instead of a legit cloud operator like Google, Microsoft, Amazon, etc. That is the most likely point of graft in this process.
What law do you suggest here? Or do you mean consumers should vote with their wallets? (or eyes, in the case of ads.)
[deleted]
Original source is here: https://www.propublica.org/article/google-human-tissue-jpc-m...
Changed from https://gcaptain.com/us-navy-opens-medical-vault-for-google/. Thanks!
Submitters: "Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Submitters: "Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
The title is not correct and not supported by the article. The article clearly states that Google has not obtained any medical records.
“Ultimately, even through negotiations, we were unable to find a pathway that we legally could do and ethically should do,” Simon said. “And the partnership dissolved.”
“Ultimately, even through negotiations, we were unable to find a pathway that we legally could do and ethically should do,” Simon said. “And the partnership dissolved.”
Ok, we've switched the URL from https://gcaptain.com/us-navy-opens-medical-vault-for-google/ to the original source, and corrected the title as part of that.
Url changed from https://gcaptain.com/us-navy-opens-medical-vault-for-google/, which points to this.
Evil does as it will. If Google has it, the ccp does too.
It took me this comment to realize that for some people we’re really in a kind of cold war state, where everything happening in the US comes back to China.
Except the USSR was not nearly as evil as the CCP.
The “evil” part is really the core of it to me.
You didn’t go for “menacing” or “powerful” or “aggressive”, the primary angle is not what they could do, it’s their morality.
You didn’t go for “menacing” or “powerful” or “aggressive”, the primary angle is not what they could do, it’s their morality.
They held first place for a good while, though.
[deleted]
What's evil about improving health?
This question is not being asked in good faith. Google's intent is not to improve health - it's to get their hands on as much data as possible to then turn around and sell ads.
I don’t see how a small sample of a small demographic is possibly useful for advertising, even if they sell pharmaceuticals to every single service member it still won’t be a significant amount of money to Google. This is just some researchers trying to play with a health dataset.
I think there’s a lot of real good that could come from such datasets, it’s unfortunate this effort is tied to Google somehow because it triggers the privacy zealotry brain off switch of HN.
I think there’s a lot of real good that could come from such datasets, it’s unfortunate this effort is tied to Google somehow because it triggers the privacy zealotry brain off switch of HN.
You think their health group is trying to examine skin and biopsy samples to sell ads?
[deleted]
Skin care isn't a huge market? Health products aren't a huge market? Google would love to be able to personally target you with ads for your exact skin condition, and be the only company with the data to do so.
Please explain how you could use pathology slides for ads? Does not seem possible.
As a first thought, if you had a large enough labelled dataset, you could build predictive models that would identify skin conditions from path slides. Then, if a user accessed the site and you had their path data, you could show them an ad for melanoma removal, or whatever.
Not that google is or will do that.
Not that google is or will do that.
They already have a huge settlement in my state for illegally using biometric identification on Google Photos data. Hundreds of millions of users are already uploading pictures that contain a significant amount of their skin!
I read your (excellent) longer comment in here, but I think that we should recognize by now that the idea that Google is not doing it now will never equate to that they will not do it when they can. There's a great statement out there about how DoubleClick data wouldn't be connected with Google's existing targeting data... until, of course, it was. And since Google doesn't have the mindset to succeed in businesses other than ads, we should assume they will eventually pivot all data to selling ads eventually.
If you can imagine a scenario where Google could use data for ad money, the only correct take is to act on the assumption they eventually will. And the fact that supposedly reputable organizations like hospitals and the military keep bending over backwards to hand them people's private medical data should be crisis-level alarming.
I read your (excellent) longer comment in here, but I think that we should recognize by now that the idea that Google is not doing it now will never equate to that they will not do it when they can. There's a great statement out there about how DoubleClick data wouldn't be connected with Google's existing targeting data... until, of course, it was. And since Google doesn't have the mindset to succeed in businesses other than ads, we should assume they will eventually pivot all data to selling ads eventually.
If you can imagine a scenario where Google could use data for ad money, the only correct take is to act on the assumption they eventually will. And the fact that supposedly reputable organizations like hospitals and the military keep bending over backwards to hand them people's private medical data should be crisis-level alarming.
That was a settlement (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/20/technology/texas-google-p...), Google wasn't found to have done anything illegal. Ken Paxton is an ass and he does this repeatedly because it's easy for him to score political points fighting Google. You agreed to these features in the ToS.
Personally I love the feature where I can search for people- that pre-existed, in Picasa, for a decade and it was very popular. I guess the only answer is: decouple from Google as much as you can if you don't like the terms.
Personally I love the feature where I can search for people- that pre-existed, in Picasa, for a decade and it was very popular. I guess the only answer is: decouple from Google as much as you can if you don't like the terms.
That is not my settlement. I do not live in the Lone Star (by average reviews out of five) state.
I'm Illinoisan, where Google illegally used facial recognition on people without their consent. And lines in a ToS about doing whatever they want with your data is not consent, especially because it isn't optional.
Note that settlements do not mean they didn't do something illegal: It means they did something illegal, but are agreeing to pay out money in exchange for not having to admit they did something illegal.
And yes, I've worked to minimize Google's access to my data since 2014. Unfortunately, they seem to like trying to get it from other sources. As mentioned in the article, they've appropriated personal medical data from hospitals without patient consent multiple times.
I'm Illinoisan, where Google illegally used facial recognition on people without their consent. And lines in a ToS about doing whatever they want with your data is not consent, especially because it isn't optional.
Note that settlements do not mean they didn't do something illegal: It means they did something illegal, but are agreeing to pay out money in exchange for not having to admit they did something illegal.
And yes, I've worked to minimize Google's access to my data since 2014. Unfortunately, they seem to like trying to get it from other sources. As mentioned in the article, they've appropriated personal medical data from hospitals without patient consent multiple times.
This one? https://www.googlebipasettlement.com/ No, you can't assume a settlement means guilt. In this case, Google likely decided that it wasn't worth fighting, cheaper to pay the fine. Google's change is to allow people to opt-out (not opt-in) while keeping the face grouping feature.
I don't really think much of these cases.
I don't really think much of these cases.
I mean, I would agree the law could be stronger here. My face data primarily resides on other people's accounts. It's illegal for Google to have that under BIPA without my consent, but it looks like the settlement is allowing them to continue doing that without my consent (or even agreement to their ToS).
The case may be poor, but only in the reason that it fails to actually force Google to comply with the law going forward. Facebook was more successfully forced to shut down their facial recognition technology and delete all of the data: https://techcrunch.com/2021/11/02/facebook-face-recognition-...
The case may be poor, but only in the reason that it fails to actually force Google to comply with the law going forward. Facebook was more successfully forced to shut down their facial recognition technology and delete all of the data: https://techcrunch.com/2021/11/02/facebook-face-recognition-...
This dataset is completely unrelated to ads targeting. I understand there's no way to convince external folks of that, however.
DISCLOSURE: Previous DOD contractor, now retired
DISCLOSURE: Retired Army Warrant Officer
DISCLOSURE: Common sense with the facts as presented
DISCLOSURE: Worked directly with a named party
.. having retired from the DOD, I can assure you on my mother's grave that google has nothing but nefarious interest in this project. All this incessant posturing, bullying and socio/psychopathic behaviour of "aforementioned parties" points to one internal memo: '...extract maximum profit at all cost.'
.. having retired from the DOD, I can assure you on my mother's grave that google has nothing but nefarious interest in this project. All this incessant posturing, bullying and socio/psychopathic behaviour of "aforementioned parties" points to one internal memo: '...extract maximum profit at all cost.'
> google has nothing but nefarious interest in this project
So Google wants to profit from it. Is that really surprising? It's a private company and will seek profit. It would be foolish of them to start a project if it only results in losses.
The research could potentially benefit humanity and the medical field, which means the interest isn't "nothing but nefarious".
So Google wants to profit from it. Is that really surprising? It's a private company and will seek profit. It would be foolish of them to start a project if it only results in losses.
The research could potentially benefit humanity and the medical field, which means the interest isn't "nothing but nefarious".
.. surmise what you will. My intel states otherwise.
Google clearly doesn't care about extracting maximum profit at all costs. All their products are free and their employees spend all day sliding down slides in microkitchens.
What they do have is an ad monopoly they don't seem to be able to develop into anything else, and then a lot of passion projects the founders happen to like.
What they do have is an ad monopoly they don't seem to be able to develop into anything else, and then a lot of passion projects the founders happen to like.
Cookie nag and newsletter nag, fuck you.
Too bad Google dropped the "don't be evil" mantra... only downhill from then... Why would anyone with common sense believe this to be a good idea?
For as many times as this has been debunked, it's rather frustrating to see this particular misinformation persist.
https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct/
https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct/
They removed it from their code of conduct in 2018. That article is from a year ago... I guess they put it back.
I just linked you the code of conduct where it is very clearly still present. It was at one time moved from the opening statement to the closing statement, but it has never been removed as you've claimed.
edit: This was in response to the parent's original comment, prior to the edit.
edit: This was in response to the parent's original comment, prior to the edit.
It's easy for Google to re-write history....
https://gizmodo.com/google-removes-nearly-all-mentions-of-do...
But either way, the fact that they are evil today tells the whole story.
https://gizmodo.com/google-removes-nearly-all-mentions-of-do...
But either way, the fact that they are evil today tells the whole story.
I have been at Google 17 years.
I have seen nearly all versions of our code of conduct in existence (IE there were some prior to me joining, but they all had the "don't be evil part")
It was never removed.
That article is clickbait, and it has been called out as wrong by other articles, repeatedly.
Others have pointed this out.
This is trivial to verify by looking at web history archives, of which there are many.
The first version that appeared on abc.xyz in 2018 has don't be evil in it (https://web.archive.org/web/20181202062954/https://abc.xyz/i...). The previous versions on google.com have don't be evil in them.
Rather than accept any of this, you are simply repeating yourself again and again, and citing a debunked clickbait source.
That will not make you any righter, and it will not make your claim any truer.
You've already had one comment now flagged as dead because you won't stop.
It is not interesting or a useful contribution to comments on this story.
Can you please just grow up and move on, and or make some actually substantive comment about the article, rather than continue to derail and detract from the broader discussion?
There is a thing worth discussing here, and this is not it.
I have seen nearly all versions of our code of conduct in existence (IE there were some prior to me joining, but they all had the "don't be evil part")
It was never removed.
That article is clickbait, and it has been called out as wrong by other articles, repeatedly.
Others have pointed this out.
This is trivial to verify by looking at web history archives, of which there are many.
The first version that appeared on abc.xyz in 2018 has don't be evil in it (https://web.archive.org/web/20181202062954/https://abc.xyz/i...). The previous versions on google.com have don't be evil in them.
Rather than accept any of this, you are simply repeating yourself again and again, and citing a debunked clickbait source.
That will not make you any righter, and it will not make your claim any truer.
You've already had one comment now flagged as dead because you won't stop.
It is not interesting or a useful contribution to comments on this story.
Can you please just grow up and move on, and or make some actually substantive comment about the article, rather than continue to derail and detract from the broader discussion?
There is a thing worth discussing here, and this is not it.
zzz345345(1)
Unless Google successfully removed online evidence, that simply doesn’t seem to be correct.
A more nuanced and accurate description of the change seems to be written up here:
https://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-dont-be-evil/2540...
A more nuanced and accurate description of the change seems to be written up here:
https://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-dont-be-evil/2540...
That article is specifically called out as being misleading and clickbaity by Search Engine Journal. I don't see what linking it again is adding to the conversation.
>There have been click-baity news reports stating that “Google Removes ‘Don’t Be Evil’ Clause From Its Code of Conduct” but that is not entirely accurate.
>Google has not removed that clause. Google has removed it from the preface, resulting in more attention to the word respect. But it still remains at the end of the document as before.
>There have been click-baity news reports stating that “Google Removes ‘Don’t Be Evil’ Clause From Its Code of Conduct” but that is not entirely accurate.
>Google has not removed that clause. Google has removed it from the preface, resulting in more attention to the word respect. But it still remains at the end of the document as before.
> “Despite efforts from Google and many at the Department of Defense, our work with JPC unfortunately never got off the ground”
Second, I don't see any harm in sharing public data (anonymized of course) with any private or public research organizations. Isn't advancement in medicine good? Are these negative reactions only because its Google?
I'd have a problem if Google said that only they can have this data or something nefarious, but there is nothing in the original article to suggest that.