We know that marketing today is on steroids and myself the no call list is even becoming a farce and doesn’t work well anymore. The calls keep coming so again I return back to needing laws that have real IT Infrastructure that regulate as without it, we have laws with no balls. It seems like that’s about all that Washington seems to be capable of today sadly with the severe lack of technology education and resistance to learn more that we see in so many that we elected.
It sounds like my campaign to license and tax data sellers might have some potential implication in the UK. I don’t know about you but the marketing out there today is more of a turn off than ever and I pay very little attention to most of it. It’s just garbage running off servers and finding it’s way to my inbox or phone. Even on a lot of the consumer mobile apps and others coming out where I get solicited, my first thoughts are really not in value of the app anymore either and my first focus is what are they trying to sell me and what kind of data are they scraping or mining and selling for profit. I still look and do cover what I think is valuable but junk is winning out today over value based on the volume and items that end up in my inbox. In the US seniors get it too and if I’m complaining and I know about the mechanics of it, look what seniors have to put up with, read the link below.
Healthcare Scam Hits Up Seniors, Yet One More Good Reason to License and Tax Data Sellers, Where Do These Folks Get Their Lists and Did They Buy From a Licensed Data Seller..
It sounds like the UK is pretty much on the same track here with this recent story about linking medical records and DNA and build up more data repositories so companies get tax breaks and come in and profit, before value has been determined and any concerns over privacy. Personalized marketing is what this is called in the article below and we have that here too outside of the healthcare area as well. The real issue here is where does the line of adding information and value to public health get blurred and profiting takes over?
Personalized risk assessments are in a position to do more marketing than anything else and well yes if there’s a bit of benefit in there for public health than it will be marketed too and the big issue here too is consent. Again I keep saying that data sellers should be licensed and quarterly taxed as this would do a couple things with one generating revenue and moving some money back to the consumer side and secondly, at least there’s a record of all who sell data and what kind of data they sell. The more data that is sold without some kind of IT infrastructure, the more flawed data we get and and more junk analytics will appear…marketing. I realize research has it’s value for better health but the focus is not on that area today, it’s all money and your genes only have value if someone can make a buck with the data first. BD
Time Has Come to License and Tax the Data Sellers of the Web, Companies, Banks, Social Networks..Any One Making a Profit-Latest Microsoft/Google Privacy War Helping the Cause –Consumers Deserve to Know What Is Being Sold and To Who in a Searchable Format
Privacy Wanted–So Let’s Require Those Who Sell Web Data to Register and Tax the Transactions and Publicly Disclose Who They Sell To With a Federal Registry
Anonymisation here, Wallace argued, is impossible. For example, it would be possible to swab DNA from a coffee cup and compare this to your sequence, also linked to your medical record, stored in a research database. The HGSG plan threatens to remove people's right to know exactly who is using their genomic data and why - as required by the Helsinki Declaration - and the building of a biometric database without consent, which will allow for tracking and categorization of all individuals and those individual's relatives. This data is mostly not relevant to patient care, and could lead to stopping screening criteria in favor of individual feedback of personalized risk predictions, Wallace said. And marketing.
Ultimately, this means the entire population could unwittingly become a profit-making market for genome sequencing with presenting a direct benefit to the people whose DNA is being collected, including babies and children being sequenced without their consent. This will lead to investors cashing in and intermediaries, such as Google, building risk algorithms for profit and personalized marketing - indeed, Google's Sergey Brin is involved in the gene testing company 23andMe.
Supporters of 'Public Health Genomics', Wallace argued, said that they think data mining and storing genomes is necessary for the public health - but this itself undermines article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the right to privacy. It is also disputed just how effective genetic variants are as predictors of common diseases.
Further implications, according to Wallace, is a shifting away from public health controls on products or health inequalities in favor of personalized marketing. It also threatens a de-skilling in the NHS, opening up the floodgates to commercial control over diagnosis and prognosis. Personalized risk assessments themselves will be used to tout products and other medications.