http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:N-JaPys3qsUJ:www.sanfranmag.com/story/googirl+Googirl&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&lr=lang_en&client=opera

"Due to the sensitive and personal nature of the data that will be stored in Google Health, we need to conduct our health service with the same privacy, security, and integrity users have come to expect in all our services,"

Ok I've finished ROFLMAO. Even if I did believe for one minute that this data wouldn't be sold to health insurance corporates, if you think I trust Google, or indeed any search engine conglomerate, with any data you have a fucking screw loose.

But after the blowjob piece I find I've exceeded my daily quota for innuendo.

Sorry Andy, I don't trust ANY company with my health data. Sooner or later, someone is going to either suck down a bunch of data from some insurance company, or do an "Enemy of the State" number.

Try as I might, I fail to see how it's relevant to the idea of Google Health that:

- some journalist made a pretty horrible pun at her expense, or

- such details as what's her favourite colour.

The idea either stands on its own merits, or it doesn't. Bashing it because of who announced it is already an ad-hominem. Basing it on little more "bad" about the person than that some stupid headline someone else thought up at their expense, makes it even more surrealistic.

The more relevant fact is: Google has a horrible attitude towards privacy. It's the same company which still engages in "well, you might change your IP, so it's not an ID" sophistry when asked to remove your searches from their servers. It's the same company which still refuses to actually delete your searches even after 18 months, and argues that if they changed a bit of the address, it's anonymized enough. It's the same company who took such unilateral steps as suddenly sharing all one's feeds with world+dog. Etc.

Google doesn't seem interested in much more than figuring out how to give you an ad you might click on. Even if they don't bend over and hand over the data to the highest bidder, you don't really know who internally gets to peruse it all in the name of figuring out how to parse it for an ad.

Basically are very valid concerns with the service itself. Regardless of whether someone called their VP "Googirl" or "Mother Theresa". It doesn't mater. People with sillier nicknames or favourite colours have done good, and a lot more respectable people have done evil, or at least major blunders with someone else's data.

Why not use image search instead?

Paris because......

..."Mother Teresa" is actually an even worse appellation than "Googirl". Go behind the adulation, and do some research on everyone's "model of goodness". You will be shocked...

"dress by C.D. Greene with small black mirrors "

Is that so she can see who's behind her?

As far as trustworthiness of data goes, I'd still put Google some way ahead of the UK government. Not that that's saying very much...

(Paris, because she could probably use a dress like that.)

There is no advantage to the average person to have details of their medical records stored anywhere, even on paper.

The reason to hold medical records for the medical establishment is so they can data mine it, and draw dubious conclusions from statistics. Some of this will be so they can say daft things in attention diverting headlines, another part will be linked to insurance payments, very little will actually be done to advance medicine and when it does happen through some blundering miracle they will claim patent anyhow, and you will be charged through the nose for it.

In short, keeping data on people is treating people like lab rats. All doctors are failures by default, no one lives forever, so their use and position in society does appear to be somewhat overrated. Unfortunately the UK gets a doctor dipping into the pocket of every UK citizen, with the BMA acting as the Fagin in this Dickensian nightmare we call the NHS.

Anyone who puts info on this "service" is swimming in the shallow end of the gene pool and get what they deserve.

Atleast only people that NEED viagra will now get adverts for it.

Wasn't there a search engine called 'Googirl' a while back?

Don't know what it would be used for because of course I never visited it myself....

Paris cos well... y'know.

AC:

"There is no advantage to the average person to have details of their medical records stored anywhere, even on paper."

Er... what?

I'm sorry, but I've developed contact sensitivity to three topical antibiotics and I personally can't remember either the generic or brand names for them. I rely on my GP's computer system to select appropriate medicines for me. (Of course, if I was knocked unconcious, even the best memory in the world wouldn't help). For those unfortunate to be allergic to numerous medicines it's even more difficult to keep track of things like this.

OK, so the majority of people don't have persistent medical conditions, but know we're talking about the "mode" as average person. OK, so there's no valid "mean" measurement here, but mode is inappropriate: the mode is the able-bodied person, but we still install disabled access ramps in our public buildings.

Health care is by definition expected to deal mostly with non-standard or non-average cases, so the fact that medical records are not designed to assist the healthy majority should really be neither a surprise nor a concern.

I stand with Hans Mustermann on one point: Did you guys just run out of story and had to pad it with personal swipes at the story's subject?

That aside, each time Google's plans for this service are mentioned in your rag, there's a reference to the fact that data stored through this service will not be subject to HIPAA. So what? HIPAA is one of the weakest set of security requirements ever published and its enforcement is non-existent. Are you inferring that Google needs to invoke HIPAA to be capable of robust data protection?

And now a question for Google. Okay ladies, I believe you when you say you'll never share or sell our data (I can afford to believe you - I'm never going to use the service). How about when a government body 'persuades' you? How about then?

What happens when a group of insurance agencies pool their resources and buy Google? What happens to your data then? How about a group of foreign investment companies with absolutely no concern for American laws? Would you like your personal stats being used for multi-national-sponsored identity theft? Once you swing your privates out in the open, everyone within range CAN see them - the Internet is global.

"Google doesn't seem interested in much more than figuring out how to give you an ad you might click on."

Horrors! In other news, Ford isn't interested in much more than figuring out how to make a car you'll buy, US Airways isn't interested in much more than figuring out how to get you to fly on their planes, and The Register isn't interested in much more than getting you to read their articles. Criminals all; hang them high!