wow, there's no mentioning of Google in the article at all (ctrl-F showed no hit); Even then, "Google engineers" do NOT just get access to GCP client's data... it would be a immense breach of client trust for GCP and would be a code red for google immediately.

Please refrain from making strenuous, baseless connections to arbitrary articles for your own privacy vendetta. It helps nobody.

I used Google as an example of what it normally means to send stuff to the cloud. Sorry If it bothered you. Insert X powerful monopoly private company instead.

HN readers don't seem to be very good at detecting hypotheticals used as narrative devices.

I think the "no jokes or fun" rule hurts comprehension.

Reading „cloud“ and „cancer test“ in the same article gives me the shivers. This is arguably one of the most sensitive pieces of information one can own about a person. The NN could just run in the app, recent phones are heavily optimized for this anyway.

Is it really that scary? In countries with sane laws and/or universal health care you can shout about your cancer diagnosis from the rooftops.

Now imagine you live in a country without sane (or sanely enforced) protective laws _OR_ universal healthcare!

Do cloud tests really change much? How many people will start Googling information about a disease as soon as they have a positive diagnosis, giving Google the information without any cloud tests.

I could be googling for a relative, or because of an upcoming test. An uploaded test is a hard fact.

Your argument is that because things are already bad it doesn't hurt to make them worse?

No, it wasn't my argument

On the fence about this. On the one hand I agree that sensitive data should stay local, but on the other hand this would make their very valuable asset (the model) public.

can't wait to see ads for coffins and start wondering if google knows more than I do.