Is the word eliciting unclear? Alexa gets special help for content to get users to disclose their own medical conditions, bypassing any medical privacy laws.
People will use Alexa to ask these questions with or without the NHS's publicly-available information. Except if they didn't use the NHS's publicly-available information, Alexa would use some other service like WebMD. The NHS' involvement (or lack of) would change nothing.
By your logic, Google is bypassing medical privacy laws because people can search 'what are chickenpox symptoms?' on Google Search.
Making information about medicines, diseases, conditions and symptoms freely available from a trusted source is a GOOD thing for society.
> Making information about medicines, diseases, conditions and symptoms freely available from a trusted source is a GOOD thing for society.
And this changes how? (You just sent me a link to the real trusted source.)
Making more people happy to go through WebMD like commercial portals that can learn more about the user and sell the data is bad. Adding legitimacy to these is bad.
My point (that you seem to have failed to grasp) is that people are going to use Alexa and Google and Siri and so on to ask about general medical information.
Those services will be providing this information anyway. In this scenario (which is reality as we know it), that information may as well come from the NHS with its mission to provide trusted information rather than, say, WebMD, with a mission to display ads.
Yes, I must just not understand Amazon, Google and Apples' commitments to providing free and accurate services irregardless of market conditions. If I did I'm sure I would want them to have unconditional license to repurpose everything.
I could be wrong but from reading the article the NHS are basically just giving Amazon an API (or data dump) for their public help pages so an Alexa user could say 'Alexa, what causes lung cancer?' or similar.
They're not giving access to health records and private P2 data (although I see no reason why they shouldn't if granted access explicitly by the patient via Oauth or similar. 'Alexa, when's my next doctor's appointment' would be quite useful)
I agree, at the end this is more about copyright and licensing of a publication. It seems a shame to gatekeep useful info behind "Muh copyrights!". Then again, the government could've probably worked out a deal for e.g. a donation from one of the biggest companies in the world. But oh well, the Tories aren't a capable bunch, indeed if the NHS had been properly run there'd be no need to ask for donations.
As for appointments, couldn't they find that info in your day to day calendar? (Does Alexa interface with e.g. Google Calendar?). If my doctor's appointment are in some other database and not duplicated there, I'd probably miss it.
Although, a tool reminding me to take my medicine (which particular pills) would be an interesting feature. Or one that can refill my prescription online. If only it came without the whole mass surveillance/we're going to sell your data problem.
The standard terms allow anyone to reproduce this data, providing that certain conditions are met. One of this involves the display of a graphic indicating that the data has been syndicated from the NHS, which is obviously not possible with a service that has no visible user interface, which (partially) explains the need for an Amazon Echo-specific license agreement.
One might object to the fact that Amazon was able to negotiate a custom agreement that is not available to others, and it would certainly be good if other voice-oriented services were able to access the data on similar terms. Beyond that, objections to Amazon having access to this data must be rooted in either a) dislike of Amazon for other reasons or b) dislike of the general principle of open data. I think it's mostly 'a', on the basis that Amazon doesn't pay 'enough' tax, but ends up turning into 'b' as the suggestion is made that perhaps Amazon should pay for access to data that is otherwise open. It's a confusing mess of an argument.
> The material, which excludes patient data, could [...]
As long as this is ensured I wouldn't have a problem here. My country has the idea to force patients to share data of people in public health care. The problem is that you are forced into public health care unless you have a certain minimal income.
Amazon is building a digital health team under its vice president Babak Parviz. I am seriously concerned that my government would sell the data without even thinking about implications. Amazon basic will be extended by "basic care" naturally.
Google has its own ambitions. But overall governments tend to have the perspective that it has the right to determine how patient data is used. People should be made aware and officials made accountable. And in my opinion even prosecuted in countries where there are actually laws for privacy and data protection. Severely prosecuted, because the damage they can cause is irreversible.
Otherwise everyone should be free to share info as they like to as long as it is their decision.
18 comments
[ 35.1 ms ] story [ 1053 ms ] thread[1] https://www.nhs.uk/
By your logic, Google is bypassing medical privacy laws because people can search 'what are chickenpox symptoms?' on Google Search.
Making information about medicines, diseases, conditions and symptoms freely available from a trusted source is a GOOD thing for society.
And this changes how? (You just sent me a link to the real trusted source.)
Making more people happy to go through WebMD like commercial portals that can learn more about the user and sell the data is bad. Adding legitimacy to these is bad.
Those services will be providing this information anyway. In this scenario (which is reality as we know it), that information may as well come from the NHS with its mission to provide trusted information rather than, say, WebMD, with a mission to display ads.
I could be wrong but from reading the article the NHS are basically just giving Amazon an API (or data dump) for their public help pages so an Alexa user could say 'Alexa, what causes lung cancer?' or similar.
Ala. this sort of stuff: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/
They're not giving access to health records and private P2 data (although I see no reason why they shouldn't if granted access explicitly by the patient via Oauth or similar. 'Alexa, when's my next doctor's appointment' would be quite useful)
As for appointments, couldn't they find that info in your day to day calendar? (Does Alexa interface with e.g. Google Calendar?). If my doctor's appointment are in some other database and not duplicated there, I'd probably miss it.
Although, a tool reminding me to take my medicine (which particular pills) would be an interesting feature. Or one that can refill my prescription online. If only it came without the whole mass surveillance/we're going to sell your data problem.
The standard terms allow anyone to reproduce this data, providing that certain conditions are met. One of this involves the display of a graphic indicating that the data has been syndicated from the NHS, which is obviously not possible with a service that has no visible user interface, which (partially) explains the need for an Amazon Echo-specific license agreement.
One might object to the fact that Amazon was able to negotiate a custom agreement that is not available to others, and it would certainly be good if other voice-oriented services were able to access the data on similar terms. Beyond that, objections to Amazon having access to this data must be rooted in either a) dislike of Amazon for other reasons or b) dislike of the general principle of open data. I think it's mostly 'a', on the basis that Amazon doesn't pay 'enough' tax, but ends up turning into 'b' as the suggestion is made that perhaps Amazon should pay for access to data that is otherwise open. It's a confusing mess of an argument.
So and so has a higher probability of having X or having X in their family based on the category of questions they asked about X.
As long as this is ensured I wouldn't have a problem here. My country has the idea to force patients to share data of people in public health care. The problem is that you are forced into public health care unless you have a certain minimal income.
Amazon is building a digital health team under its vice president Babak Parviz. I am seriously concerned that my government would sell the data without even thinking about implications. Amazon basic will be extended by "basic care" naturally.
Google has its own ambitions. But overall governments tend to have the perspective that it has the right to determine how patient data is used. People should be made aware and officials made accountable. And in my opinion even prosecuted in countries where there are actually laws for privacy and data protection. Severely prosecuted, because the damage they can cause is irreversible.
Otherwise everyone should be free to share info as they like to as long as it is their decision.