
Google Finds Another Privacy Controversy in Healthcare
The company's DeepMind subsidiary and the UK's Royal Free health system may not have done enough to inform patients their data was in use. The two are working to develop an alert application to analyze risk of kidney disease.
As the United States settled in to celebrate its independence, a subsidiary of one of its most successful companies was bringing ire to English institutions. British-based DeepMind, a Google-owned AI firm,
In developing Streams, an app for the analysis of blood tests to determine risk of kidney disease, DeepMind collaborated with the Royal Free. The Information Council (ICO) on Monday announced that “the Royal Free NHS Foundation Trust failed to comply with the Data Protection Act when it provided patient details to Google DeepMind.”
The ICO’s statement pointed to “several shortcomings in how the data was handled, including that patients were not adequately informed that their data would be part of the test.”
Identifiable data is integral to what Streams does. As DeepMind’s site points out, it needs to convey identifying information like age, name, date of birth, and NHS number to convey to physicians just which patient’s test has indicated a need for further kidney care.
Ultimately, DeepMind aims to prove Streams successful and apply its working principles to warning systems for other health conditions. Although it is an AI firm, the company says Streams does not apply AI techniques to their available patient data, claiming that they had intended to but that the “state of data and information flow in the NHS was not as good” as hoped.
The data at hand, however, did contain personal information, including diagnoses of bipolar disorder, depression, and HIV. DeepMind’s access to the information has been known since New Scientist
Information Commissioner Elizabeth Denham
DeepMind itself is not accused of wrongdoing, but its own independent review panel noting that the original 2015 arrangement that resulted in this controversy could have been more detailed, and that the firm could have done better at informing the public of what it was doing.
"People are concerned about the power of big technology firms, and we felt that we should hold DeepMind to a very high standard because of its link to Google," said Dr. Julian Huppert, who heads the independent review panel.
Naturally, this is not the first Google-related run-in with the legality issues of voluminous data aggregation projects. In 2013,






































