Google Health: Two New Deals
April 6, 2009
Googzilla has revealed some new tie ups in its Google Health initiative. At my lecture a couple of weeks ago in Houston, a big medical center with a city wrapped around it, there was quite a bit of interest in electronic medical records. The real issue, however, was consistency. I thought privacy and security were the cat’s pajamas. I was wrong. The medical types kept circling around the issue of data management, data transformation, and moving bits from Point A to Point B with the people at Point B able to use the information.
Google announced two interesting tie ups. The first is a partnership with CVS, a retail chain. You can get the details here. The Reuters’ story provides a few details. But the big point to me was that the GOOG is thinking retail and retail pharmacies.
The second tie up is with the giant Medco Health Solutions Inc. outfit. You can read this Reuters’ story here. Same deal: some facts but not much on the way the tie up will affect customers. The news story asserts that Google has more than 100 million people who can get access to prescription data. For me, the point is that the GOOG is thinking consumers via a partnership.
Microsoft thinks the same types of thoughts for HealthVault. The appearance of the two stories is either a coincidence or part of a health push. With the Obama Administration’s support of electronic medical records, the Google may be shifting gears. If so, the company will accelerate its surround and seep strategy in an effort to capture the market sector.
Can Google do this? Right now I think it is a wide open sector. Google’s chances are neither better nor worse than the other companies fighting for a handhold.
Stephen Arnold, April 6, 2009
Passwords List
April 1, 2009
Short honk: you can get three lists of common passwords here. These lists often come in handy when filtering government information prior to putting documents online. ArnoldIT.com has used this method for years. If you are indexing an organization’s documents, you might want to filter test your corpus. Might be helpful.
Stephen Arnold, April 1, 2009
Google Go Back and Managerial Guidance
March 30, 2009
If I were a Google top dog, I think I would want my suggestions followed. Well, I was in for a surprise when I read “Hacking Google: Retro Links Revives Old Google Feature” here. The addled goose knows that he is creeping close to April Fool’s Day. You read this post and decide for yourself. The main point is that allegedly a Googler can allegedly work around a Google function that has allegedly been terminated. “Allegedly” is important when writing about Googlers who hack. For me, the most interesting comment in the post was:
Why not recreate this search feature on Google with modern search engines and Web sites? Because of the pain of maintaining an “official” list, we probably couldn’t turn this on for every user (plus not every user wants a lot of extra links added to their search results). But why not provide a completely unofficial option that people could install? Thus was born Retro Links, which is a Greasemonkey script to add new search options to Google’s search results page.
Let’s think about this, hypothetically, of course. Please, note the “hypothetical” nature of this thought experiment.
If Googlers can create unofficial work arounds, what does this imply for assurances that certain data are scrubbed on a cycle, available only to certain Googlers, and other points where privacy intersect with human Googlers?
If a feature is disabled, presumably by an alleged manager, and we have this alleged informal and fun hack, what happens when a manager says, “This information is confidential” or “This personnel information about an employee must not be discussed”?
Make up your own mind. I don’t work for a real company any more. I recall a couple of outfits such as Halliburton’s Nuclear Utilities Services unit where hacking around a company action could produce some interesting visits from non Googley people.
Times are indeed different. I’m glad I am here in the mine drainage pond with my un Googley goslings. These folks follow guidelines, suggestions, and policies in my experience.
Check out this “hack” or April Fool’s Day levity. Oh, something struck me. What if this alleged hack is not a joke at all. Yikes!
Stephen Arnold, March 30, 2009
Independent Not Googley
March 26, 2009
I find this story difficult to process. On one side is the adorable Google. On the other is the dead tree outfit, The Independent. The bone of contention is expressed in “Google ‘Trying to Smear Street View Critic’”. You may be able to read here. The argument was:
Simon Davies, director of Privacy International, believes Google is trying to discredit the complaints he has registered about Street View by briefing against him to journalists.
The article mentions a couple of firms who might be pounding the salt shaker. Interesting turn of events for Google’s implementation of the A9 store front service, which seems to have disappeared.
Stephen Arnold, March 27, 2009
Google on the Hot Seat
March 18, 2009
Google got some good news. President Obama’s chief technical officer was back on the job. The sudden step down was as surprising as the allegations against two of Vivek Kundra’s assistants. Mr. Kundra was, in my opinion, one of the supporters of Google-type thinking in information technology. You can read about the return of Mr. Kundra here. Now Telecommunications Online reported here that:
An online privacy group called on Tuesday for government regulators to investigate the adequacy of Google Inc’s security safeguards after the company inadvertently released consumers’ private information this month.
The FTC is now holding this fresh hot potato. Coincidences? I don’t think this is the case. Google is the lucky recipient of interesting attention.
Stephen Arnold, March 19, 2009
Facebook and a Canadian Court
March 17, 2009
Put this in the “risks of social networking” bucket. TheStar.com reported “Facebook User Poked by the Courts. Judge Rules Man Must Divulge What He’s Posted on Private Social Web site” here. TheStar.com said:
In a precedent-setting decision, a Toronto judge has ordered a man suing over injuries from a car accident to answer questions about content on his Facebook page that is off limits to the public.
For me the most important comment in the write up was:
A court can infer that Leduc’s Facebook site “likely contains some content relevant to the issue of how Mr. Leduc has been able to lead his life since the accident,” Brown [attorney] said. Brown said Leduc [defendant] can’t “hide behind self-set privacy controls” on a Web site that’s all about telling others about one’s life.
Interesting.
Stephen Arnold, March 17, 2009
Google Behavioral Opt Out
March 17, 2009
I have avoided the contextual and behavioral ad topic. The systems and methods appear in various Google open source documents, and you should dig them out. If you want to opt out of these programs, click here and download the Google Advertising Opt Out Cookie Plug In. Keep in mind that you will need to run the script if you flush your caches. The plug in works for Firefox 1.5 and higher. You will have to read the instructions and follow them for other browsers. You can learn how to extend the Google opt out here. I have no more to offer on this topic. This is not a search topic.
Stephen Arnold, March 14, 2009
FDA: An Argument for Pervasive Monitoring
March 12, 2009
Lost amidst the noise about Apple netbooks and communication functions in Google services was this write up in Natural News: “FDA Scientists Accuse Agency of Corruption, Intimidation”. You can read the story here. When I reviewed the article, I was not concerned about who shot John. The point for me was that the information flowing into, around, and out of a US government entity seemed to be subjective to an extraordinary amount of massaging and filtering. I can understand the need for these actions in police and intelligence areas. I am a little puzzled about the same effort or lack of effort applied in areas where public health may be an issue. Read the story. Make up your own mind. My thoughts were after thinking about David Gutierrez’s write up were:
- Pervasive monitoring may make it easier to identify anomalies or unusual information activities
- A single search system would make it easier for authorized users to pinpoint topics and anomalies
- A standard for US government information objects would be helpful.
The article has a somewhat troublesome series of assertions about the agency in question. Maybe the equivalent of traffic cameras are needed to police some agencies? I don’t have a solid opinion yet. Just a concern.
Stephen Arnold, March 12, 2009
Ask.com Frames in the Picture
March 2, 2009
Frames and iframes are nifty. Over the years, their use has aroused some controversy. At one time, Google took a dim view of iframes. I have had reports that Google itself uses iframes. Other vendors have employed the technology to allow users to visit sites that are not what they seem. You navigate to another site and then discover that you are not where you want to be. Over the years, I have stumbled across patent documents that include variations of the iframe technology. Some uses are for the purpose of tracking user behavior. Others allow a Web site operator to inject content around the user’s intended destination. I lose interest in this type of cleverness, having lost my enthusiasm for tilting at windmills. There are quite a few clever and tricky folks who find ways to warp a naïf’s Internet experience.
Pandia.com, a news service that I like quite a bit, reported on some frame use at Ask.com, the also-participated Web search vendor. Ask.com for me is a good example of what happens when someone who is good at one thing tries to extend that expertise to another domain unrelated to the first. The outcome of this type of master-of-the-universe thinking is a service like Ask.com. It’s not bad; it’s not good. It’s one thing today; it will be another thing tomorrow. I recall a dinner two years ago when an azure chip consultant told me that Ask.com was on the move. I thought, “This fellow is getting paid to advise publishers about online partners?” Now Ask.com is the search engine of NASCAR. I wonder if any of the Ask.com executive team hangs out with Kentucky’s NASCAR fans? I have. I am not sure this demographic is where the action is for search.
Search Engine Roundtable followed up with its February 27, 2009, story, “Ask.com Crosses The Line: Frames Search Results.” This is a useful write up, and it includes a screenshot. For me, the most interesting comment was:
Searchers are not happy about this at WebmasterWorld. Robzilla said, “this annoys me as both a user and a webmaster, and overall just seems a little desperate.” Senior member, skipfactor, accurately points out that the search ads are not framed in.
What’s my take? Behavior that tricks users or actions that are designed to pump up revenue are part of the present culture norms. When it is a banker paying himself / herself a bonus for losing money or an insurance company refusing to honor a claim, I see behavior that makes me uncomfortable in many places. Why should anyone be surprised that online companies caught in a cash crunch would push into such murky areas. As more people use the Internet, there are more opportunities to snooker users.
The Internet is no longer something new, accessible only to scientists, engineers, and researchers. The Internet is like the Kentucky State Fair. As long as you can get on the grounds, you’re good to go. Last time I checked, the Kentucky State Fair was a mirror of the best and worst in the bluegrass state. I think it is useful to alert users of certain methods, but I don’t think most users know or care about Ask.com. Those who do may be quite happy with whatever Ask.com provides.
Stephen Arnold, March 2, 2009
Defining Social with Usage Data
February 27, 2009
Jim Zemlin’s “Facebook’s In House Sociologist Shares Stats on Users’ Social Behavior” here sheds some light on what makes Facebookers tick. As with any statistical summary, one must consider the margin of error, the sampling method, and the selectivity one brings to the presentation to data. In short, these data are not definitive, just suggestive. Nevertheless, several items bounded from the page to splash in the mine run off pond where the addled goose paddles.
First, these data substantiate what I dug out in 1999 when I poked into the behavior of engineers and scientists who used bulletin board systems. Not Facebook and Twitter grade technology, but close enough for this Web log comment. In short, in 1999 those who used the fledgling social systems did to reach a relatively small number of “friends”. What did the Facebook data suggest? The article said, “…while many people have hundreds friends on Facebook, they still only communicate with a small few. Or to quote the author of the article, “Humans may be advertising themselves more efficiently. But they still have the same small circles of intimacy as ever.” This is good news for investigatorial types because skills learned in the real world may transfer to monitoring social behaviors. Where there are clicks, there will be connections especially over time.
Second, photos are a big deal. The Facebook function that notifies a friend when a new pix is on a watched person’s page is a key driver of interaction. I am fascinated by this finding because the visual hook sets deep, lasts, and really pulls attention. I think there are some interesting ways to make use of this finding, but I am sure the trophy generation wizards are busy inventing new Facebook and Flickr services to exploit this chink in the users’ armor.
Third–and this is quite magnetizing for me–users of social networks are in “broadcast” mode. As the article said, “People who are members of online social networks are not so much ‘networking’ as they are ‘broadcasting their lives to an outer tier of acquaintances…” The idea of one way messaging–microcasting–provides some predictive worms upon which this addled goose can chew.
More Facebook data, please.
Stephen Arnold, February 27, 2009
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
