Google to store patients' health records in test of new service

Is Google Inc really going to become the evil empire of the web? The motto "Do No Evil", which they employ will hopefully go with them as they seem to take over every facet of American lifestyles. From search engines, to word documents, to phones, to this very blog site, Google Inc has it's hand in virtually everything.

Now, Google Inc plans to unveil in the near future a system that will begin storing medical records. It will start small at the Cleveland Medical Center to work out the kinks in the system and the go larger and larger scale. "Each health profile, including information about prescriptions, allergies and medical histories, will be protected by a password that's also required to use other Google services such as e-mail and personalized search tools." Google is touting this new system a completely logical expansion of their ever popular search engine.

This sounds like a perfectly legitimate enterprise that Google is undertaking expanding upon their original idea of making search engines better and transferring it to making accessing patient records easier and better. However, I have doubts about the safety and security of the system as I am sure many others do. What will occur if the system is hacked into however and the patient confidentiality agreement is now broken and patient information is now available to all. This is not like when a hacker breaks the ITUNES code and makes songs available to steal for a small period until it is fixed. This instead is private information that once is out there it cannot be taken back. Thus, the ramifications for this brings up an interesting take on the the legal responsibilities Google has in their terms and services with regard to this use.

Bush says nation in more danger because Congress hasn't extended spy law

Benjamin Franklin once said, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."  President Bush has obviously not kept up on his Founding Fathers history despite his strict constructionist views.  Friday, he stated that America is now in more danger of attack because congress has failed to, "adopt a Senate bill that would have renewed a law that made it easier for the government to spy on foreign phone calls and e-mails that pass through the United States.  The bill also would have shielded from lawsuits telecommunications companies that helped the government wiretap U.S. computer and phone lines after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks without clearance from a secret court that was established specifically to oversee such activities."

The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance act in part created these secret courts for a reason.  In issues of National Security that are sensitive the government must still present probable cause in an expedited fashion to these secret court for approval.  Now this seems fairly reasonable; the case is expedited, national security secrets are not given to the American people and the loose standard of probable cause in this realm must be met.  

However, the President contends that sometimes information is missed and then the attack or attacks cannot be prevented.  Which in layman's terms sounds like, "We know there is going to be an attack but not sure where and have no shred of proof but if you allow us to illegally spy on Americans than we should know soon."  Furthermore, the article points out that the wiretaps can continue, the liability shield for certain private sector companies disappear.  Thus, I echo Congressman Rahm Emmanuel's sentiment that This law is not in fact about protecting Americans but protecting telephone and internet companies that are doing the spying for the government for quite a sum of money.  

Its hard for me to believe that the government should be allowed to illegally spy on American citizens via the internet and phone without a shred of probable cause.  This would be attune to a police officer stopping someone driving an SUV and searching their car because they could or could not be a drug dealer.  This is essentially what President Bush is saying.  We have no probable cause to wiretap your emails and/or phone but you could be a terrorist so we need to do it anyway. After seven years, using the terrorism and safetey card is getting old.  I wonder if the homeland security level went up because congress has not approved this law.  

Hotel California

“It’s like the Hotel California,” said Nipon Das, 34, a director at a biotechnology consulting firm in Manhattan, who tried unsuccessfully to delete his account this fall. “You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.”  So goes the newest problem with the multi-billion dollar peer to peer network, Facebook.com.  That is, many users are encountering immense difficulty when attempting to delete their Facebook user account.  

Its privacy policy says that after someone deactivates an account, “removed information may persist in backup copies for a reasonable period of time."  This is absolutely brilliant legal language.  What determines a reasonable period of time?  A week, month, years?  Furthermore, this is supposed to be a service provided by the site.  After all, Facebook is saving this in your best interest just in case one decides to reactive their account and their information can be left as it was before.  The idea that a user could simply recreate their Facebook profile without the help of Facebook is apparently too much for Mark  Zuckerberg and Co.  Thus, users are stuck with the annoyance of repetitively messaging Facebook servers with requests for deletion or following steps posted by someone else in order to delete the account.  

However, yet again Facebook seems to not be at fault.  Users in fact agree to this when they sign up for the site so legally speaking what seems to be the problem?  On the outside Facebook presents itself as a useful networking tool and it is.  Yet, the more and more I uncover certain dirty facts about it the more I question what other sites are similar with their terms and conditions and no one recognizes it because pictures and private (or lack thereof) information are not being dealt with. 

Unfortunately not much can be done unless Facebook begins to abuse this data.  But as in many cases, by the time the data is out there, irreparable harm is done to an individual and no monetary settlement or amending of terms and conditions can fix this.  So what seems to be the solution?  Be careful with what you put on Facebook.    

With Friends Like These...

I've always found it odd when I read a text that rails against the risks of hyper competitiveness. In his article, "With Friends Like These..." Tom Hodskinson makes apparent his dislike of Facebook, its founders, and in some parts, capitalism as a whole. Specifically, he discusses venture capitalist Peter Theil and his statement of, "Show me a good loser and I'll show you a loser." Hodskinson goes on to brand Theil as a neo conservative and an uber capitalist trying to make money out of friendship.
So what?
The founders of Facebook established a social network that is in high demand and does well because consumers choose to use it. Furthermore, in accusing three American venture capitalists of being "uber capitalists" in an economic system based upon the tenets of capitalism, Hodskinson comes off as yet another agitated communist or socialist symphathizer that does not necessarily have problems with Facebook but the American economic system as a whole. In stating that, "Clearly, Facebook is another uber-capitalist experiment: can you make money out of friendship? Can you create communities free of national boundaries - and then sell Coca-Cola to them? Facebook is profoundly uncreative. It makes nothing at all. It simply mediates in relationships that were happening anyway" Hodskinson detracts from his main point towards the end of the article that Facebook is more than just a social network but a way for one to be checked up upon and exploited. Instead, in railing against competitiveness, conservatism, and capitalism he hinders his point by sounding desperate and not at all like an op/ed journalist trying to convey information through opinion.

Ironically, Hodskinson has a problem with one staying in on a Saturday night on the internet but no problem with staying and reading Keats' Endymion.