Larry Page is Google’s CEO and Sundar Pichai is Google’s Senior VP, Android and Chrome.
An interview with the top players in any major company is going to be interesting, but I thought this interview lacked vision. Worth reading, but there was far more breadth than depth.
One exchange that stood out for me, this discussion on privacy:
> Q: Do you worry that the more devices we have that are connected to Google, there’s not just a privacy question but also something like creepiness?
>
> Page: I think that the Internet and mobile devices in general is changing people’s lives a lot. And we’re feeling that. Everyone can tell that their lives are going to be affected, but we don’t quite know how yet, because we’re not using these things — and because of that there’s a lot of uncertainty. I think we’ll figure that out and we’ll get products, services and technologies that really benefit people a lot, and that make their lives significantly better. And as we do that people will understand those — and then there’ll be the next set of things.
>
> Q: You’re saying the usefulness of the products will change how people feel about them?
>
> Page: Yeah, and we know that if we talk about things before people see them, there’s a much more negative reaction. That’s one of the things we learned. It’s really important for people to be able to experience products; otherwise you fear the worst without seeing those benefits.
>
> I’m not trying to minimize the issues. For me, I’m so excited about the possibilities to improve things for people, my worry would be the opposite. We get so worried about these things that we don’t get the benefits. I think that’s what’s happened in health care. We’ve decided, through regulation largely, that data is so locked up that it can’t be used to benefit people very well.
>
> Right now we don’t data-mine health care data. If we did we’d probably save 100,000 lives next year. I’m very worried that the media and governments will try to stoke the people’s fears and we’ll end up in a state where we could benefit a lot of people but we’re not able to do that. That’s the likely outcome.
There are also laws to consider, laws put in place to protect the privacy of medical records. There’s a certain amount of hubris in the claim that you’d save 100,000 lives next year if you could only data-mine health care data. I don’t like where that thinking is going.
Sure, fear of privacy = bad for Google, I get that.
100,000 lives by data mining health care? Mr. Page is delusional. It is interesting to consider what this kind of delusion says about the way people inside Google view the real world.
“We’ve decided, through regulation largely, that data is so locked up that it can’t be used to benefit people very well. Right now we don’t data-mine health care data.”
Health care data is the ultimate private information. And Larry Page is whining that Google can’t “data-mine” it? Why? So they can spam us with health-scare ads? So they can target us with ads that are specific to our medications and/or health needs?
That’s far beyond just creepy. That’s evil.
“Yeah, and we know that if we talk about things before people see them, there’s a much more negative reaction.”
Wow. What a bunch of clueless newbies.
Here, Larry, let me Bing “vaporware” for you:
http://www.bing.com/search?q=vaporware&go=&qs=n&form=QBLH&pq=vaporware&sc=8-4&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=d201bbd3f54f43acb3d740eaa929cc5c
You are exactly right, Dave. Very shallow interview.
Maybe the time was very limited or they refused to go into details?
It seems almost crazy to me that an interviewer would not ask follow up questions to someone who claims they could save 100000 lives in a year.
Could Google get any creepier ?
The glass streaming videos app was bad enough, but this kind of attitude is beyond the pal. They are in their bubble and simply dismiss any reasonable doubt with a hand backstroke.
Beyond the accidendal leaked information, who may have consequences, data mining health data or your schedules is exactly the worse that can happen if eg insurances get hold of this. that is previous state on steroïds.
Funnily, if those same datas were in the hands of government the google self proclamed libertarians would call to arms, but when it is the private sector, who has really the means to affect you negatively, all is fine
But he is “trying to minimize the issues.” He clearly wants to data-mine health records, otherwise why talk about it so explicitly? Based on this interview, to the extent I might have considered switching to Google devices before, there’s absolutely no way I’d do it now.
And people in the vicinity of Glass “explorers” ARE experiencing this product — they’re not prejudging Glass, they just don’t like it. Livestream is incredibly offensive/invasive to anyone who happens to be in a Glass user’s line of sight.
A reputation takes years to build up but far less time to destroy. Google is losing its users’ trust.
How many people will they kill when insurance companies data mine customer records and they cherry pick what they want to do for them? Or make adjustments to make healthcare less affordable for them by offering plans they’d rather they take? It cuts both ways, so to speak.
Saving 100,000 lives by mining, presumably, health predisposition and habits could be worthwhile. The question is, at what cost? Could it mean 50,000 others will be considered disposable because their lives are not lived within certain guidelines established as “best practices”? Does it mean that there will be limitations on what people are allowed and not allowed to do? Big data is a benefit for the larger organization as a means of optimizing outcomes across the population, but it does so at the expense of smaller entities who are not allowed to participate. Actually, thinking about it, they are participating–by being optimized out. This is beginning to lean towards the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the individual. This already happens, while we all benefit from eminent domain laws, nobody wants to be the one who is being told to vacate their home.
I am not even a fan of Google and I don’t think that number is a stretch (can’t believe I am agreeing with Mr. Page). Anyway, I wanted to look into solving big problems in healthcare as well (wife’s in the industry). I want to do a startup but after some research, I was appalled at how much of the data is locked up so tight. I personally don’t understand why if there is a remote chance that it does get out that say, I have depression. Is it that horrible? Heck, maybe bunch of my friends come out and say “ooh man, me too.”. We protect that data as if it gets out, my life has essentially ended. Plus, what are the chances of my friends and family finding out. My SSN can cause serious havoc in my life and it’s much easier to find someone’s SSN. I myself fighting some challenges..and yes, I would like it to be private but I have no problems releasing my data for research (preferably unidentifiable) if it’s going to help save people’s lives or improve quality of life significantly. I am to pick something random: what if the data shows that significant amount of people who had at least 3 root canals (dentistry) in their lives seem to have horrible GI issues. The data for these two things are so far apart, we would never know if there it’s the cause, correlation, etc. . Imagine if there is a possibility of finding a pattern with cancer that help us prevent it.
I get the importance of privacy but I think it’s getting a little ridiculous. Why not completely lock the identification of the patient but be more open on non-identifiable data. I know that’s not as easy as it sounds but we must try. It’s too much at stake. I believe there are patterns and discovery of those patterns to solve some persistent issues. Better yet, there might be things we find that will get us out of medication because we found the cause. I know of someone that had this very rare condition that most doctors don’t know about. It takes years and years of confusion, trial-and-error medication, and to finally find out what you really have and it’s mostly curable or “maintainable” at worst case.
Anyway, I am not saying being more open will cure all of our issues but I believe there is too much at stake for not finding out where Mr. Page is delusional.
Assuming of course he is telling the truth, isn’t evil NOT to do it. Again, assuming he is telling the truth.
Larry made a sweeping statement that is absolutely unsupported by any data. Real people die of real diseases. Lots of people work hard every day to fight these diseases. For Larry to claim that his data mining would improve things so substantially is just plain BS.
Remember how well Steve Jobs reality distortion field fared against a truly bad disease.
I would also add that the increased privacy of health care information in recent years is the result of new statues passed by our elected representatives. If Larry does not like those laws, he should support candidates who agree with him. Larry should stick to things he knows about, like selling ads.
This, my fellow readers, is how totalitarian regimes begin. “Don’t worry, Big Brother knows best”. “If only we do this on behalf of the user, they won’t have to worry their little minds about the details and can get on with their mundane lives”. “We have the brightest minds in the world, what can possibly go wrong?”
“we don’t quite know how yet”
That’s because you won’t be affected very much at the top of this pyramid.
“I’m not trying to minimize the issues.”
That’s because you’re actively ignoring them. Because you won’t be affected very much by them.
Weasel words.
So someone who posts under pseudonym complains that other people are too concerned
about their personal medical info being
data-mined for the benefit of Larry Page and
his investors because it might have a beneficial
side effect on statistical medecine or epidemiology.
Yeah, that is true. What he said is BS.. Making that claim when they don’t have the data to support it.. Putting a real number this early is strange. I knew I went too far when I said ‘I agree with him’. :<
Anyway, I merely meant that it is worth the risk of attempting to find a balance in both between privacy and data analysis (i.e. unidentifiable). Like I said, we don’t know what we’ll find as it’s just a hope or hypothesis. But there are so many pockets of health issues all over the world. So, don’t you think there has to be some value to mine this data for study? (unidentifiable)
I didn’t say we should not be concerned about privacy at all. I was merely stating “have we”.
I said that I like my health to be private. My point was that maybe it’s not a binary thing. There are aspects of data that we can grab without identifying the patient.
“So someone who posts under pseudonym”… really??!! You can’t make a point without hostility? and that’s why I used a pseudonym.
“because it might have a beneficial side effect”.. Believe me, when you or loved one are IN a bad health situation, your priorities will change. You want every chance you can to survive. It completely changes your life. It puts things in perspective..
Number 1 should’ve said “have we gone too far?”
Exactly, we could save millions of lives by just banning cigarettes, red meat, hand guns, etc,, ect. But that doesn’t mean it’s legally or politically possible to do so.
This is scary…
Hey Larry be OPEN. YOU go and publish your health records for everyone to see and let us, the “Open Web”, handle them.. OK?
Tell us more about that loss of voice you had sometime ago… We promise some doctor out there will look at it and cure you!
Don’t worry your little head with everything else we’ll do with your data…
It’s not delusional at all. If anything, Page is understating the situation. It is also not just about saving lives. After all, no life is truly saved because everyone dies. It is about improving the health of millions. Scientists learn more from data. The more the better. You put accurate, reliable health data history in my hands, I guarantee you millions of healthy years added. It’s just common sense and a matter of time.
They don’t ‘view the real world’, they try to ‘create their own’ out of the data THEY choose to use without input FROM the real world.. The data they use is like a large photo that takes a slice of time, frozen like the clocks just stopped and then every decision/choice spring from that slice of humanity… a bit self-centered as well..
So, are the Googlie boys doing this to keep up with what the folks over at Farcebook are doing?? Emotional manipulation of the user based on expression and choice of wording in ads or scenarios they create to test the malleability of human behavior?? Talk about George Orwell stuff.. AND, done without user knowledge OR explicit permission because they signed the Farcebook T&C’s without paying attention… read it and weep…
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/06/28/facebook-manipulated-689003-users-emotions-for-science/