This appeared a few days ago.
UK regulator to assess claims that UK health websites shared users’ sensitive data with third parties
An investigation by the Financial Times found popular sites disclosed personal information to third party companies.
By Tammy Lovell
November 18, 2019 11:28 AM
UK data protection regulator, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), is assessing a Financial Times (FT) investigation which claimed UK health websites share people’s sensitive data with third party companies.
The FT study, which used open-source tools to analyse 100 health websites, found 79% dropped cookies allowing third-parties to track individuals around the internet, without the consent legally required in the UK.
According to the report, sites such as WebMD, Healthline, Babycentre and Bupa, shared medical symptoms, menstrual and fertility information, diagnoses and drug names, with companies, including Google, Amazon, Facebook and Oracle.
Simon McDougall, the ICO’s executive director for technology policy and innovation, said the regulator “will be assessing the information provided by the FT before considering our next steps.”
Meanwhile, Facebook also said it was investigating the FT’s claims. “We don’t want websites sharing people’s personal health information with us — it’s a violation of our rules, and it doesn’t benefit us or people using Facebook. We’re conducting an investigation and will take action against sites in violation of our terms,” a spokesperson said.
Amazon and Google also denied using sensitive health data to build advertising profiles. Bupa told Healthcare IT News that although it used cookies on its site, it did not share visitors’ health information with third parties.
Oracle, Babycentre, Healthline and WebMD had not responded to requests for comment at the time of publication.
Lots more here:
There is a video from the FT here which explains more of what is going on.
Here is the original article reporting the investigation:
How top health websites are sharing sensitive data with advertisers
FT investigation reveals symptoms and drug names shared with hundreds of third parties including Google and Facebook
Madhumita Murgia and Max Harlow
13 November, 2019
You can be assured the Financial Times (FT) is not going to make claims like the above without very careful checking so I am assuming it is true and all I can say is that is should stop.
Advertising tampons to people who are using menstrual trackers is simply dreadful and deeply unworthy of any company.
What do you think – should such tracking and targeting of advertising be illegal? Where should lines be drawn or is all fair ‘in love and war’?
David.
You can get a .pdf of the FT article here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.drbrd.com/docs/myhr/FT_Health_Data.pdf
Not wanting to sound alarmist but Minister Hunt looks likely to hand over access to MyHR to private health insurance organisations. With pharmacies mostly retail shops you can pick a prescription up from and private health companies access your vitals the UK scenario will soon roll out here
ReplyDeleteLet's face it - government has the money, the power and the legislation on its side, so it can do anything it wants. It can privatise MyHR and draw a line under their involvement and ongoing exposure, just li in e they did when they privatised the failed HCN project many years ago.
ReplyDelete@8.33 AM Agreed, leading to the bureaucratic practice of finding someone to blame for this extraordinary policy mess as they ask "Whose fault is this, it's certainly not going to be me?"
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, 8:33 AM stated that the Federal Government privatised the failed HCN project.
ReplyDeleteSorry, the HCN initiative succeeded in demonstrating how we might successfully work collaboratively with clinicians across the various divides and deliver qualitatively improved information flows to the point of care. It also demonstrated that national collaboration was possible if its foundations were solid and its guidance system adequate to the task. And, it delivered a number of health communications services that have served us well, including the national poison's information service. Each step of the way forward was worked out collaboratively, with the private sector actively engaged in enabling the requirements for improved information flows to be delivered and supported over time.
Having said that, there are some forces that can't be controlled and the election of the Howard government in 1996 changed the whole landscape, particularly the landscape relating to the contribution and leadership of government.
The HCN was 'sold off' for reasons of ideology.
The fact that it subsequently 'failed' has all to do with the loss of its Health Ministers' mandate and the search for so-called information products to sell to the customer base that the original HCN had created.
Every doctor in Australia basically was a customer due to the delivery of the US Library of Medicine's Bio-medical Literature database, in its entirety, on-line, and at a national price negotiated by the HCN with the US Library of Medicine. Delivery of this capability was the number one priority of the medical colleges of Australia. Remember, this was done before the Web came into practical use.
The HCN wasn't perfect. I accept that. Unfortunately what we as a nation have lost is the very thought of purposefully organized collaboration to achieve a worthy goal in the full knowledge that we don't know how to go forward. We will have to work out how to move forward. A higher level of trust is needed; a higher level than presently exists.
@John SCott
ReplyDelete"We will have to work out how to move forward."
The government knows exactly how it wants to move forward - throw technology at the problem and call it Digital Transformation. Unfortunately, the disruption they get is the wrong sort.
"A higher level of trust is needed;"
The people don't trust the way the government throws technology at problems.
To quote Talking Heads (Once in a lifetime):
"Same as it ever was. Same as it ever was."
Anonymous 10:06am
ReplyDeleteI agree the current approach centred on technology is wrong-headed.
Equally, the metaphor of 'Digital Transformation' is unhelpful. Digital transformation can sometimes seem like the emperor’s new clothes. It’s the thing that everyone is doing and everyone is interested in yet sometimes hard to define and to quantify.
Further, healthcare is currently hindered in clinical and health service reform by the limitations of digital technology. One might also add hindered by business models of IT vendors.
Finally, I agree with you that people don't trust the way government throws technology at problems.
Having said that, we each have a decision to make. Do we spend our time complaining or do we spend it focusing on going forward?