Google 'Project Nightingale' collecting patient data

[Brutus]

Google is collecting data without notifying the patient. Gotta love the loopholes that allow companies to exploit the information for profit. At least they should have the decency to pay the people a percentage of the profits they get from the collected data but only in a sane world that would happen with the option of saying No.

The Tim Pool Video



The Story.

WSJ News Exclusive | Google’s ‘Project Nightingale’ Gathers Personal Health Data on Millions of Americans

Google is teaming with one of the country’s largest health-care systems on an ambitious project named “Project Nightingale” to collect and crunch detailed health information of millions of Americans across 21 states.

www.wsj.com

 

[Cherico]

wow.....

yeah I now completely under stand why Google is trying to cheat to get the democrats to win. It looks like their involved in so much blatantly illegal shit that any sane government is going to have to fuck them over hard.

Pretty much their only chance to delay the conquences of their actions is for Trump to lose and the republicans to lose both houses of congress and pack the supreme court and have the democrats know exactly who they owe for this victory.

Even then its just going to put off the obvious conquences that are coming.

 

[Terthna]

And yet some people still think having a free market economy would be a good idea; if this is what they think they can get away with under our current system, imagine what companies like Google would do without even the most basic of restriction on their actions.

 

[S'task]

And yet some people still think having a free market economy would be a good idea; if this is what they think they can get away with under our current system, imagine what companies like Google would do without even the most basic of restriction on their actions.

Uhh, you're confusing free market advocates with advocates of anarcho-capitalism.

Advocates of a Free Market system all say that the government should try and have the least impact possible in order to enable commerce and protect an individual's rights. They do not think that corporations should be allowed to literally do whatever they want, and, in fact, tend to take a dim view of corporations doing things that infringe on the rights of individuals. Now, might some think that Google should be allowed to collect such data? Probably, but only if the individuals give affirmative and knowledgeable consent to the collecting of such data. Part of the huge problem with modern tech companies is that while they kinda get the first (affirmative consent), they rarely get the second, hiding all the stuff they're collecting in massive pages of EULAs in legalese rather than plain language, plus they'll amend those EULAs pretty much at will.

Anarcho-capitalist, on the other hand, pretty much do argue that corporations can do whatever they want and that the market will decide matters and that there's no need for government at all.

 

[Terthna]

Uhh, you're confusing free market advocates with advocates of anarcho-capitalism.

Advocates of a Free Market system all say that the government should try and have the least impact possible in order to enable commerce and protect an individual's rights. They do not think that corporations should be allowed to literally do whatever they want, and, in fact, tend to take a dim view of corporations doing things that infringe on the rights of individuals. Now, might some think that Google should be allowed to collect such data? Probably, but only if the individuals give affirmative and knowledgeable consent to the collecting of such data. Part of the huge problem with modern tech companies is that while they kinda get the first (affirmative consent), they rarely get the second, hiding all the stuff they're collecting in massive pages of EULAs in legalese rather than plain language, plus they'll amend those EULAs pretty much at will.

Anarcho-capitalist, on the other hand, pretty much do argue that corporations can do whatever they want and that the market will decide matters and that there's no need for government at all.

Thanks for the clarification; I was not aware there was any distinction between the two. A lot of the Libertarians I've listened to seem to advocate for the latter, while calling it the former.

 

[S'task]

Thanks for the clarification; I was not aware there was any distinction between the two. A lot of the Libertarians I've listened to seem to advocate for the latter, while calling it the former.

Yeah, so I've noticed. There's a lot of Libertarians who are nothing more than crypto anarcho-capitalists.

"Free Market" in general refers to a market place in which people are free to engage in commerce with the government acting primarily as referee and to enforce contracts. A part a lot of people often misunderstand is the "free to engage in in commerce" bit of that, as while MOST inhibition to engage in commerce comes from government regulations (and thus why most discussion about free markets tend to center around it), the government is not the ONLY one that can make it impossible to be free to engage in commerce. Corporations can too, visa via monopoly or anti-competitive actions, and thus the government actually does have a responsibility to keep an eye on such things and break up monopolies or take actions to prevent anti-competitive actions. Another aspect of this kind of thing is truth in advertising laws, as free commerce demands honest assessments by everyone involved, and a person or business that is lying to their customer is inherently NOT engaged in the free market.

Anarcho-capitalism, however, defines "free market" as the idea that anything goes, and that reputation and competition will force the corporations to act fairly and honestly. It's a utopia ideology just as divorced from accurate understanding of human nature as communism is. Many libertarians are also utopianists with their ideology, and tend to fall to the trap of taking their ideals to the extreme, which results in anarcho-capitalism. However, unlike communism and socialism, which have unfortunately high support among modern western populations and considerable support among the media and academic classes and sympathy from major segments of the western left, anarcho-capitalism is an extremist position with little real support. It is mainly used by the progressive left to demonize the right wing position on markets as being more extreme than it is, and it is unfortunately common for libertarians who are loud and disproportionate to also make it seem that this ideal is much more common on the right than it is.

 

[Terthna]

Yeah, so I've noticed. There's a lot of Libertarians who are nothing more than crypto anarcho-capitalists.

"Free Market" in general refers to a market place in which people are free to engage in commerce with the government acting primarily as referee and to enforce contracts. A part a lot of people often misunderstand is the "free to engage in in commerce" bit of that, as while MOST inhibition to engage in commerce comes from government regulations (and thus why most discussion about free markets tend to center around it), the government is not the ONLY one that can make it impossible to be free to engage in commerce. Corporations can too, visa via monopoly or anti-competitive actions, and thus the government actually does have a responsibility to keep an eye on such things and break up monopolies or take actions to prevent anti-competitive actions. Another aspect of this kind of thing is truth in advertising laws, as free commerce demands honest assessments by everyone involved, and a person or business that is lying to their customer is inherently NOT engaged in the free market.

Anarcho-capitalism, however, defines "free market" as the idea that anything goes, and that reputation and competition will force the corporations to act fairly and honestly. It's a utopia ideology just as divorced from accurate understanding of human nature as communism is. Many libertarians are also utopianists with their ideology, and tend to fall to the trap of taking their ideals to the extreme, which results in anarcho-capitalism. However, unlike communism and socialism, which have unfortunately high support among modern western populations and considerable support among the media and academic classes and sympathy from major segments of the western left, anarcho-capitalism is an extremist position with little real support. It is mainly used by the progressive left to demonize the right wing position on markets as being more extreme than it is, and it is unfortunately common for libertarians who are loud and disproportionate to also make it seem that this ideal is much more common on the right than it is.

...Where the heck were you when I was arguing with FriedCFour, in the Exploitative Gaming Practices thread? You would have done so much better at explaining to him why letting corporations lie to their customers is a bad thing.

But seriously though; I agree with basically everything you just said, and wish I could be half as eloquent when presenting my position on a topic.

 

[Tyzuris]

At this point, I hope EU makes a move and administers the maximum fine of 4% yearly revenue on Google based on the GDPR violation. This is a gross violation of privacy.

 

[Cherico]

At this point, I hope EU makes a move and administers the maximum fine of 4% yearly revenue on Google based on the GDPR violation. This is a gross violation of privacy.

by now google has burned so many briges that the american government probally wont stick up for them and let the EU do this.

People often forget that there is a difference between to dangerous to fuck with and too dangerous to let live, once you hit the later the knives come out and your fucked. googles hitting that later position when they finally get it, its going to be massive.

 

[DarthOne]

by now google has burned so many briges that the american government probally wont stick up for them and let the EU do this.

People often forget that there is a difference between to dangerous to fuck with and too dangerous to let live, once you hit the later the knives come out and your fucked. googles hitting that later position when they finally get it, its going to be massive.

I hope your right.

 

[GoldRanger]

They did get rid of the "do no evil" part in their manifesto. No surprises here.

If we're talking about Google, I'd like to put this here:



TL;DR: Markiplier (who is a popular youtuber that does let's plays of games and other shit like that, basically another PewDiePie) had a live stream where he asked people to comment with certain emojis as a vote to guide an interactive story-like progression (kind of like quests here). Then youtube started banning literally hundreds of accounts, mostly those who "spammed" emojis. And not only youtube accounts but their linked google accounts as well. They filed appeals to let an actual human review and judge the bans, and most appeals were rejected and those people were told on google support forums that after an appeal was rejected there wasn't anything more they could do, because they claim that they review all appeals "very carefully".

Let me reiterate. Hundreds of people lost their google accounts, including work and college related materials on google docs, access to email that included things like college application correspondence, all because they put a green heart emoji on a youtube live stream. And their appeals were rejected en masse.

Now granted, Markiplier raised a stink over this and it is getting gradually fixed (a week or so later of course...), but think about this, we are so reliant on Google that it can basically snuff out a person's chances to get accepted into college or get him fired from work, and the only way to do anything about it (short of a lawsuit that would drag on for years and cost a fortune not everyone has) is to beg Google to fix the problem, and Google often refuses to listen.

Be careful, guys.

 

[S'task]

They did get rid of the "do no evil" part in their manifesto. No surprises here.

If we're talking about Google, I'd like to put this here:



TL;DR: Markiplier (who is a popular youtuber that does let's plays of games and other shit like that, basically another PewDiePie) had a live stream where he asked people to comment with certain emojis as a vote to guide an interactive story-like progression (kind of like quests here). Then youtube started banning literally hundreds of accounts, mostly those who "spammed" emojis. And not only youtube accounts but their linked google accounts as well. They filed appeals to let an actual human review and judge the bans, and most appeals were rejected and those people were told on google support forums that after an appeal was rejected there wasn't anything more they could do, because they claim that they review all appeals "very carefully".

Let me reiterate. Hundreds of people lost their google accounts, including work and college related materials on google docs, access to email that included things like college application correspondence, all because they put a green heart emoji on a youtube live stream. And their appeals were rejected en masse.

Now granted, Markiplier raised a stink over this and it is getting gradually fixed (a week or so later of course...), but think about this, we are so reliant on Google that it can basically snuff out a person's chances to get accepted into college or get him fired from work, and the only way to do anything about it (short of a lawsuit that would drag on for years and cost a fortune not everyone has) is to beg Google to fix the problem, and Google often refuses to listen.

Be careful, guys.

Simple answer to this:

Don't use Google products for everything.

Look, despite what a lot of people think, Google doesn't have a monopoly on cloud and email. They have some significant competition from others, most famously Microsoft, who's OneDrive and Office packages are WORLDS better than Google Docs, and most students should be able to get accounts for those on the cheap. Outlook web is a free email service by MS too.

Yes, they're not all free like Google is. That's a GOOD thing, because when you're paying for a service you're an actual CUSTOMER of the company in question. Always remember: to Google you're not a customer, you're the product. Google is an Ad company that does market research and ad sells and the people using their "free" products are the ad sells are based on. Microsoft is a software company that makes its money by selling its services to businesses and individuals.

Never become dependent on the Google environment.

 

[Terthna]

There's a Youtuber I follow (well, used to follow; before he posted this video), Razorfist, who's decided to change his position on regulating big tech.


TL,DR; he's decided to go full on anarcho-capitalist. He wants no regulation of big tech whatsoever, because he thinks regulation leads to lobbying and monopolies, and that that reputation and competition alone will force these corporations to act fairly and honestly. You see, this is an example of the sort of Libertarian I'm used to seeing; utterly divorced from reality in much the same way your average communist is.

 

[Captain X]

Which is why I always say I'm a "small-l" libertarian. The thing I'm concerned about is cronyism, which is what we actually have - once a business has become big and established, they get the government to come up with all these new regulations that make it very difficult or impossible for anyone else to follow the same path, and thus become competition to them anyway. But I am very much in favor of the government breaking up monopolies and ensuring fair competition.