Wholly getting rid of medical privacy is obviously a bad idea. But perhaps we could agree that there are research purposes where greater access to data would be helpful, and that creating exemptions under certain circumstances could help on the research side. (Eg, the data is securely silo'ed and access restricted, and stays inside the research org only.)
(It's mind boggling to me that people have such poor ability to think in anything but stark binaries. It's a total failure of critical thought which degrades the quality of policy discussion. How do we even approach it?)
I don’t see how your particular viewpoint is any less "binary" than the other one. Collectivism or individualism is the binary option, where you land on the collectivist side of the coin.
It's mind boggling to me that people still resort to ad-hominem attacks when discussing viewpoints here on HN, when it's clearly against the rules. How do we even approach it?
HIPAA regulations also allow researchers to use de-identified data.
https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/special-...
I feel like we've built a church (or possibly cult) that had mantras of "Innovation at all cost. Liquidity at all costs...." among a few others. With no view whatsoever as to what the implications
And I seriously am starting to think that HN and general SV culture. Specifically here on HN, the number of times I've seen a justification end in one is those thought terminating cliches is legitimately concerning. The amount of reasoning that boils down to "this is good because it improves innovation. And because it improves innovation it is good." And not only zero thought on the implications of taking the action suggested - what seems like an unawareness that one should even consider the consequences of taking the action. It's as if "we've reached the 'innovation is good' stage of the thought state machine so the state machine should terminate and return success".
It's absolutely mind-boggling to me that anyone could post a comment on saying yes we should give up medical privacy and not even have a single sentence on the negative consequences of doing that. "Why would one need to think about the negative consequences? It has a positive consequence so clearly we should do it."
Is it a gap in CS education? General education? Is it the personality type of us engineers? Is it nature? Nurture? Both? Is it social? Others don't step in to provide that feedback when it happens? How do we even approach it?