“Ultrasonic cross-device tracking” embeds inaudible tones in advertisements

Re:“Ultrasonic cross-device tracking” embeds inaudible tones... by eridius on Friday November 04, 2016 @02:42PM (#12874864)

That doesn't sound reasonable at all. That theory hinges on the idea that doctors would prioritize getting organs over actually saving people's lives, which would be a truly horrific violation of the hippocratic oath.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“Ultrasonic cross-device tracking” embeds inaudible tones... by not_ed_snow on Friday November 04, 2016 @04:04PM (#12875606)

I see it just as an acknowledgement that I might not want there to be any possible cross-purposes of incentives in my own health.

Doctor's don't need to consciously change their behavior for there to be a difference in care. It's just that incentives are like really awesomely powerful things.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“Ultrasonic cross-device tracking” embeds inaudible tones... by prodigal_erik on Saturday November 05, 2016 @03:12PM (#12881359)

I don't actually see anything in the Oath that requires prioritizing your own patient to the detriment of any number of other sick people.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“Ultrasonic cross-device tracking” embeds inaudible tones... by eridius on Sunday November 06, 2016 @01:57AM (#12883760)

Perhaps a better way to say it is that it would be a very serious ethical violation.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“Ultrasonic cross-device tracking” embeds inaudible tones... by frozenport on Friday November 04, 2016 @03:26PM (#12875250)

I wonder if rendering expensive emergency aid rather than harvesting organs is significantly more profitable in the short term?

[ Parent | on HN ]