Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dannyalcatraz" data-source="post: 6173016" data-attributes="member: 19675">This is pretty speculative at this point, clearly, and- as stated, I'm not a litigator- so I freely admit that I could be way off base.Some thoughts:1) &quot;unique identifier&quot; may have different but overlapping meanings to progmammers and the law.&nbsp; We won't know which is the key until this all snakes its way through the system.2) the fact that they target you with ads based on the content of your email may be legally sufficient to be held liable.&nbsp; All that you have to do to violate HIPPA is obtain the data and use it in a way not intended by the person whose privacy is in question.&nbsp; That the process is automated and impenetrable to human eyes will probably not sway a judge- Courts generally don't let corporations do via automation what they can't do by human agency.3) Google's software is operating in some way in concert with advertisers' software for commercial purposes.&nbsp; The advertisers may no be aware of any of the data.&nbsp; Their software may not even know anything beyond their ad got sent to someone.&nbsp; All that means is that the advertiser may be shielded from liability.&nbsp; Google still used private patient data in a way violative of the patient's privacy rights.That the data isn't retained- and whether it is or not has not been revealed*- is probably immaterial.&nbsp; The violation- however ephemeral- has still occurred.* and my gut says it is retained and or shared &amp; retransmitted in some form for some non-trivial time.&nbsp; Otherwise, why would I keep getting ads based on one-time communications?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dannyalcatraz, post: 6173016, member: 19675"] This is pretty speculative at this point, clearly, and- as stated, I'm not a litigator- so I freely admit that I could be way off base. Some thoughts: 1) "unique identifier" may have different but overlapping meanings to progmammers and the law. We won't know which is the key until this all snakes its way through the system. 2) the fact that they target you with ads based on the content of your email may be legally sufficient to be held liable. All that you have to do to violate HIPPA is obtain the data and use it in a way not intended by the person whose privacy is in question. That the process is automated and impenetrable to human eyes will probably not sway a judge- Courts generally don't let corporations do via automation what they can't do by human agency. 3) Google's software is operating in some way in concert with advertisers' software for commercial purposes. The advertisers may no be aware of any of the data. Their software may not even know anything beyond their ad got sent to someone. All that means is that the advertiser may be shielded from liability. Google still used private patient data in a way violative of the patient's privacy rights. That the data isn't retained- and whether it is or not has not been revealed*- is probably immaterial. The violation- however ephemeral- has still occurred. * and my gut says it is retained and or shared & retransmitted in some form for some non-trivial time. Otherwise, why would I keep getting ads based on one-time communications? [/QUOTE]

Verification