Medicine is not all about diagnostics. Much of it is also about case management. Encouraging people to do the things that they should have learned from their mothers. Probably 80% or more of my intellectual work as PCP I suspect could soon be accomplished by a computer. Buy many seniors (who tend to need more medical care) don't want to interface with a computer and prefer instead to have a human being that they trust and who they know are working to help them. Once you get your medical care from a computer screen, ala' getting money from an ATM, things will change.
But I agree that the future is likely to change, as it becomes easier for non-medical persons to access and understand medical information and recommendations. It will just then come down to regulatory barriers. When will a computer be given a medical license? 20 years? 50 yrs? 5 yrs?
Are all those infected machines, that create the DDoS attack, tracked and labeled? I.e. is their cover now blown? Or do they live on to attack another day?
Most of these attacks are reflection attacks, meaning they are just exploring normal protocol behaviors. Meaning these machines, are not necessarily infected but are just innocent participants in the attack.
For example somebody has a Memcached instance running on a public machine and does not realize they have UDP ports on 11211.
The attack discussed in the blog post was an HTTP attack, so reflection and amplification were not involved. The attacking machines are most likely infected, and can be labeled and tracked.
Seems like the book, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep (source material for Blade Runner movie), had a big scandal where a popular TV personality was revealed to be an AI. Seems tame now.
This is funny. But when will the day come that we can't make them look ridiculous, but yet they are still not reliable -- and yet too many will be looking to them for guidance on life's big questions? Thus this is funny, but also sobering.
U.S. doctor here. I think "ownership" is not the correct way of thinking about this. I would argue that "access" is the better concept. If a dentist creates an xray in his office, then she should have access to the image to be able to prove that she provide standard-of-care treatment should claims of malpractice be leveled. A patient of this dentist should also have ready access to this as it is their body and their information. And perhaps an insurance company may require that they have the right to access the image and ensure the dentist is no submitting fraudulent charges. And many more examples could be created. Throw in privacy considerations adds yet another wrinkle. Again, I think "ownership" or "copyright" is not the best concept.
Hi kdtop. I really appreciate your input, and I believe that both “right to access”, “ownership to data” and “copyright” are 3 different concepts that are fairly interesting.
Speaking from a health tech product manager perspective, then it has been interesting to see how must patient data was stored on local servers that the doctor purchased, and had stored at their clinic.
One could argue, that since the doctor owns the server, wrote the data, then the doctor might also be the “owner” of the data.
That does not mean the patients shouldnt have _access_ to the data, but traditionally then it was much harder, to get access to that data.
With more services going online, the data is no longer stored on servers the doctor purchased, and even though the doctors (or the clinic) created the data, ownership might not be as easy to pin point.
If journal notes (aka patient data) is copyrighted by the clinic, then the patient has no “right” to create copies of their medical data, nor do they have any right to share their medical data with others.
In part, i agree with you that “access” is a important consideration, but it is ideally important for patients to understand if their medical data is copyright protected, as that limits the patients ability to legally share information about their medical history.
At the end of the day property rights and the legal system deciding who has property rights are the way we solve all problems.
I understand that there are complexities in these medical scenarios that aren't common place but I'm highly skeptical of the idea that we can't apply traditional ownership ideas to medical records.
I think this depends on how generalized and expansive you consider "traditional ownership ideas" to be. As GP notes, multiple people have different stakes in these documents. For example, the patient has privacy concerns which must be a pretty high priority, the doctor has a need to do business.
This can exist in our legal system of course, in the sense that the legal system can host arbitrarily complicated licenses and contracts, but it isn't obvious (to me at least) that this is the best framework.
Let's talk about money. How much is a reasonable total cost like this for restoration of hearing? $10k? $100k? $1 million? More? Next, what do readers think the cost will actually be?
