
NHS gives Amazon free use of health data under Alexa advice deal - edward
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/dec/08/nhs-gives-amazon-free-use-of-health-data-under-alexa-advice-deal
======
benbristow
Title is a bit misleading.

I could be wrong but from reading the article the NHS are basically just
giving Amazon an API (or data dump) for their public help pages so an Alexa
user could say 'Alexa, what causes lung cancer?' or similar.

Ala. this sort of stuff:
[https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/](https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/)

They're not giving access to health records and private P2 data (although I
see no reason why they shouldn't if granted access explicitly by the patient
via Oauth or similar. 'Alexa, when's my next doctor's appointment' would be
quite useful)

~~~
netsharc
I agree, at the end this is more about copyright and licensing of a
publication. It seems a shame to gatekeep useful info behind "Muh
copyrights!". Then again, the government could've probably worked out a deal
for e.g. a donation from one of the biggest companies in the world. But oh
well, the Tories aren't a capable bunch, indeed if the NHS had been properly
run there'd be no need to ask for donations.

As for appointments, couldn't they find that info in your day to day calendar?
(Does Alexa interface with e.g. Google Calendar?). If my doctor's appointment
are in some other database and not duplicated there, I'd probably miss it.

Although, a tool reminding me to take my medicine (which particular pills)
would be an interesting feature. Or one that can refill my prescription
online. If only it came without the whole mass surveillance/we're going to
sell your data problem.

------
rjknight
The data in question seems to be open-ish data that is already broadly
available from the NHS Content API
([https://developer.api.nhs.uk/documentation/content-
api](https://developer.api.nhs.uk/documentation/content-api)).

The standard terms allow anyone to reproduce this data, providing that certain
conditions are met. One of this involves the display of a graphic indicating
that the data has been syndicated from the NHS, which is obviously not
possible with a service that has no visible user interface, which (partially)
explains the need for an Amazon Echo-specific license agreement.

One might object to the fact that Amazon was able to negotiate a custom
agreement that is not available to others, and it would certainly be good if
other voice-oriented services were able to access the data on similar terms.
Beyond that, objections to Amazon having access to this data must be rooted in
either a) dislike of Amazon for other reasons or b) dislike of the general
principle of open data. I think it's mostly 'a', on the basis that Amazon
doesn't pay 'enough' tax, but ends up turning into 'b' as the suggestion is
made that perhaps Amazon should pay for access to data that is otherwise open.
It's a confusing mess of an argument.

~~~
yabadabadoes
C) dislike of any advantage given to a commercial company to collect data they
could ultimately sell to insurers.

So and so has a higher probability of having X or having X in their family
based on the category of questions they asked about X.

------
raxxorrax
> The material, which excludes patient data, could [...]

As long as this is ensured I wouldn't have a problem here. My country has the
idea to force patients to share data of people in public health care. The
problem is that you are forced into public health care unless you have a
certain minimal income.

Amazon is building a digital health team under its vice president Babak
Parviz. I am seriously concerned that my government would sell the data
without even thinking about implications. Amazon basic will be extended by
"basic care" naturally.

Google has its own ambitions. But overall governments tend to have the
perspective that it has the right to determine how patient data is used.
People should be made aware and officials made accountable. And in my opinion
even prosecuted in countries where there are actually laws for privacy and
data protection. Severely prosecuted, because the damage they can cause is
irreversible.

Otherwise everyone should be free to share info as they like to as long as it
is their decision.

------
kresten
Amazon doesn’t even pay tax.

~~~
kortilla
Yes they do. Payroll taxes, property taxes, road taxes, etc.

~~~
Iolaum
Payroll taxes are the employees loss, Amazon would pay that money either way.

------
yabadabadoes
So Alexa gets help eliciting private data from the users themselves? Another
great work around to privacy by the UK.

~~~
johneth
It's not private data, it's publicly available general information from the
NHS website[1] about diseases, conditions, etc.

[1] [https://www.nhs.uk/](https://www.nhs.uk/)

~~~
yabadabadoes
Is the word eliciting unclear? Alexa gets special help for content to get
users to disclose their own medical conditions, bypassing any medical privacy
laws.

~~~
johneth
People will use Alexa to ask these questions with or without the NHS's
publicly-available information. Except if they didn't use the NHS's publicly-
available information, Alexa would use some other service like WebMD. The NHS'
involvement (or lack of) would change nothing.

By your logic, Google is bypassing medical privacy laws because people can
search 'what are chickenpox symptoms?' on Google Search.

Making information about medicines, diseases, conditions and symptoms freely
available from a trusted source is a GOOD thing for society.

~~~
yabadabadoes
> Making information about medicines, diseases, conditions and symptoms freely
> available from a trusted source is a GOOD thing for society.

And this changes how? (You just sent me a link to the real trusted source.)

Making more people happy to go through WebMD like commercial portals that can
learn more about the user and sell the data is bad. Adding legitimacy to these
is bad.

~~~
johneth
My point (that you seem to have failed to grasp) is that people are going to
use Alexa and Google and Siri and so on to ask about general medical
information.

Those services will be providing this information anyway. In this scenario
(which is reality as we know it), that information may as well come from the
NHS with its mission to provide trusted information rather than, say, WebMD,
with a mission to display ads.

~~~
yabadabadoes
Yes, I must just not understand Amazon, Google and Apples' commitments to
providing free and accurate services irregardless of market conditions. If I
did I'm sure I would want them to have unconditional license to repurpose
everything.

