|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 9
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: Nutrition (Read 13625 times)
|
Zanthius
Enlightened
 Offline
Posts: 941
|
The thing is, we need to know exactly which individual has which health condition, and what the individual is eating. We can probably get information about what individuals are eating from grocery shops that store information about what each individual is buying. But health information is highly confidential, and it is unlikely that we can get access to such information for each individual. Only federal statistics bureaus are likely to get access to such information about the citizens in a country. And even they shouldn't be allowed to know which individual each ID belongs to.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: June 27, 2017, 08:04:41 pm by Zanthius »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Julie.chan
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 130
Sharing is good.
|
"Oppressive authoritarianism is inevitable. Let's become the oppressors!"
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scalare
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 245
|
it can't be misused if you hash it, but the insights could be used to only give healthcare to people who have handed over their fitbit details and proven that they are fit.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zanthius
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 941
|
What would be hashed? If you can generate the content that would be hashed (e.g. identifying information), then you can just find out what hash corresponds to that content. Can't go backwards, but can go forwards.
There is no way to prevent your doctor from knowing that you have gotten a heart attack. So he will know something about your health condition no matter what. But when he sends information about your health condition to the federal statistics bureau, he doesn't send them your name, but rather a random string of symbols, which is your user ID.
The same is true if you are using a grocery shop that collects information about what each customer is buying (most grocery shops will do it here, if you sign up for membership). The management of the grocery shop knows what you are buying then, but if it sends information about what you are buying to the federal statistics bureau, it shouldn't send your name, but rather a random string of symbols, which is your user ID. That user ID, somehow needs to be correlated with the user ID sent to the federal statistics bureau with your health condition from your doctor.
Anyhow, I am sure it must be possible for experts in cryptography to create a secure system for doing this. And they should make it open source, so that those that are skeptical can go in and check that everything is alright.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: June 27, 2017, 06:12:00 pm by Zanthius »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Julie.chan
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 130
Sharing is good.
|
Who cares where this ID comes from? It still doesn't solve the problem. All the agencies that are collecting data about you know your ID. So all that has to be done to identify you is to corrupt one person from one of several organizations, an easy feat. I'm sorry, anonymity and collection of data about a particular person are mutually incohesive. If you want to collect all of the data, you have to accept that fact that someone knows everything about who you are, what you do, what you eat, etc. Welcome to Stalinist Russia, or North Korea.
And even then, this does nothing to address the problems with correlative studies. You still need randomized controlled trials. So if you want nutrition science to advance, and you are willing to advocate disgusting and unethical practices to achieve this, what you should advocate for is a return to the Nazi experiments performed on Jewish prisoners. I am not on your side, though.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Zanthius
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 941
|
And even then, this does nothing to address the problems with correlative studies. You still need randomized controlled trials.
Ehh.. Nonsense. You either didn't read this article (http://archania.org/groceries_and_health.html), or you didn't understand it. Analyzing the entire population of a country is of course much better than having one or multiple randomized trials. If you think a randomized trial gives you more information than you can get from analyzing the entire population, maybe you should start basing your democracy on randomized trials (election polls).
That is actually a very good explanation of why we have such huge problems with the nutritional studies. They are just like election polls. And just like your elections polls were way off before your last presidential election, nutritional studies can be way off due to similar factors.
The problem is that it is practically impossible to get completely randomized trials. That is why we can't use election polls to decide who is going to be president, and that is why we have so much problems with the nutritional studies.
Who cares where this ID comes from? It still doesn't solve the problem. All the agencies that are collecting data about you know your ID. So all that has to be done to identify you is to corrupt one person from one of several organizations, an easy feat.
I am not an expert in cryptography, but I don't think it necessarily needs to be the same ID for all the agencies collecting data. The hashing algorithm can also be updated all the time, so that if someone learns your ID at one moment, it doesn't necessarily work anymore after a short amount of time.
If you want to collect all of the data, you have to accept that fact that someone knows everything about who you are, what you do, what you eat, etc. Welcome to Stalinist Russia, or North Korea.
That sounds a lot like politics based on fear, something that Donald Trump is very good at: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/donald-trump-and-the-politics-of-fear/498116/
And similar arguments have been used against Bernie Sanders: http://nypost.com/2016/01/16/dont-be-fooled-by-bernie-sanders-hes-a-diehard-communist/
Maybe I am not so scared, because I actually live in a functional socialist democracy, where we actually have a high level of trust in our fellow citizens.
Global comparisons of trust attitudes around the world today suggest very large time-persistent cross-country heterogeneity. In one extreme, in countries such as Norway, Sweden and Finland, more than 60% of respondents in the World Value Survey think that people can be trusted. And in the other extreme, in countries such as Colombia, Brazil, Ecuador and Peru, less than 10% think that this is the case.
Long-run data from the US, where the General Social Survey (GSS) has been gathering information about trust attitudes since 1972, suggests that people trust each other less today than 40 years ago. This decline in interpersonal trust in the US has been coupled with a long-run reduction in public trust in government – according to estimates compiled by the Pew Research Center since 1958, today trust in the government in the US is at historically low levels.
https://ourworldindata.org/trust
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: June 28, 2017, 09:55:33 am by Zanthius »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 9
|
|
|
|
|
