This topic has been touched on in some previous conversations (and, honestly, it has been more interesting than the threads its hijacked...) So I figured it's time to spin this into a thread of its own.
As technology has improved, it has become easier and easier to assemble vast databases of information. These present a very nasty two-edged sword. For example, a hospital having fast access to all your medical records can save your life. Of course, the wrong organization having access to everyone's medical records can ruin your life. (You happen to have the misfortune of being known to have the same 1 in 1,000,000 blood condition as someone wanted for murder? That level of co-incidental evidence will send you to jail. Even though by that statistic, the agency had their pick of about 380 candidates in the USA who all have that condition, not to mention the actual guilty party may be missed because they weren't diagnosed, yet.)
So, what should we, the people, be demanding from these technologies? How can we strike a balance and get the most benefits with the fewest drawbacks?
Do you want a centralized health database?
Clearly the easiest to implement. Also the most open to corruption.
How about multiple distributed databases?
Harder to implement. Less open to corruption. But, ultimately, may consolidate back to a centralized database, as common access APIs and consolidation tools will likely emerge.
Or would you rather be the owner and sole proprietor of your own data?
Even harder to implement. Much more resilient to corruption, though. But with the added responsibility of having to maintain your own data, and increased chances for data loss or inaccessibility when needed.
Or do you have some other idea entirely?
Please explain it!
Change is coming. Modernization marches on, and infrastructure will be built. Which would you choose, and why?
As technology has improved, it has become easier and easier to assemble vast databases of information. These present a very nasty two-edged sword. For example, a hospital having fast access to all your medical records can save your life. Of course, the wrong organization having access to everyone's medical records can ruin your life. (You happen to have the misfortune of being known to have the same 1 in 1,000,000 blood condition as someone wanted for murder? That level of co-incidental evidence will send you to jail. Even though by that statistic, the agency had their pick of about 380 candidates in the USA who all have that condition, not to mention the actual guilty party may be missed because they weren't diagnosed, yet.)
So, what should we, the people, be demanding from these technologies? How can we strike a balance and get the most benefits with the fewest drawbacks?
Do you want a centralized health database?
Clearly the easiest to implement. Also the most open to corruption.
How about multiple distributed databases?
Harder to implement. Less open to corruption. But, ultimately, may consolidate back to a centralized database, as common access APIs and consolidation tools will likely emerge.
Or would you rather be the owner and sole proprietor of your own data?
Even harder to implement. Much more resilient to corruption, though. But with the added responsibility of having to maintain your own data, and increased chances for data loss or inaccessibility when needed.
Or do you have some other idea entirely?
Please explain it!
Change is coming. Modernization marches on, and infrastructure will be built. Which would you choose, and why?
