By David Davis
When I read in the pages of this newspaper this month that the Conservative Party was planning to transfer people’s health data to Google, my heart sank. The policy described was so naive I could only hope that it was an unapproved kite-flying exercise by a young researcher in Conservative HQ. If not, what was proposed was both dangerous in its own right, and hazardous to the public acceptability of necessary reforms to the state’s handling of our private information.
There are powerful arguments for people owning their own information and having rights to control it. There are massive weaknesses in the NHS’s bloated central database and there are benefits from using the private sector. But there are also enormous risks, so we are still a long step from being able to give personal data to any company, let alone Google.
Google is the last company I would trust with data belonging to me. In the words of human rights watchdog Privacy International, Google has “a history of ignoring privacy concerns. Every corporate announcement has some new practice involving surveillance”. It gave Google the lowest possible assessment rating: “hostile to privacy”. It was the only company of the 20 assessed to get this rating. It also said Google was leading a “race to the bottom” among internet firms, many of which did little to protect their users.
Continue Reading I Wouldn’t Trust Google With my Personal Info
A little more to it than that. If you believe “yes we can” you believe in mankind. They are men so you can believe in them too. Yes we can what? , make a perfect world? God says mankind is born corrupted with sin and not capable of any good thing. There is not a righteous one among you, no not one. One sounds nicer but which is the truth?
The optimists believe their system will make a better health care system, The pessimists believe something else will make a better health care system. The synthesis is they both believe in a better health care system. It plays on the imagination a little bit. How much better? Enough that thou shalt not surely die?
Edward, I agree that that is clearly the larger goal…. for the public to view the ruling class as deities who replace God and traditional religion. For example, are gods not those who have power over our reality and life-death? So, these draconian health care measures that are being proposed, including Google’s management of the publics private health care records, provides this ruling class with the power to make decisions over our health, and therefore our reality and our life-death.
However, thinking about it a little further I would guess that the dialectic that is being spun here, in this specific case, is “well managed health care” versus “no or extremely limited health care.” We’re being told that the system is broke, which is either a manufactured condition or factually inaccurate. And since we’re broke we need to take new steps to “save” our health care system. Hence, we must turn to “innovative” methods to “increase” efficiencies and “save” costs. This is the path that we are being lead down… this is specifically what Arnold is doing in California.
So, we have a manufactured economic crisis being utilized to manufacture a health care crisis where the public is being given “health care according to the ruling class” or “no health care at all.” Well, I say we opt for “no health care at all,” because their health care plan is the Nazi health care plan (take a look and compare, you will be astonished). It’s all about control and little about health.
I say we organize our own cooperatives and manage our own medical treatments locally, and disregard all of their attempts to further manage our lives. Screw their dialectics.
The synthesis is they want to be your God and you their people. They want you to follow them because they are all knowing, all seeing and all powerful. I think that is the synthesis for fear of death, poverty and other things.
@Hegel… You are 100% correct. Anthony Sutton ,Eustace Mullins,Edward Louis Bernays and Rudolf Steiner found that out a long time ago. A herd of sheeple turns the way the sheep-dogs want them to turn. And sheep-dogs act on trainings by higher-ups, they were not born to be sheep-dogs, but they were recruited to do the job, because of their special talents………Same goes for humans, sadly
I’m certainly one not to dismiss the dialectical technique, but what’s the end goal here, if not to secure the management of public records by private hands? I’ve been seeing calls from various local governments to switch various services to google, such as internal email, and I’m surprised to see that the effort to secure gov’t business by Google seems to be coordinated globally.
Perhaps they’re using medical records as the challenge point so that the public will acquiesce to services such as email as a starting point. I’m just not sure as this point. But I think it’s good you bring up this perspective so we make sure we analyze these stories thoroughly. I just don’t see the potential synthesis that you speak of here. What might I be missing?
Whenever we read about some far-out, extreme legislative push (401k confiscation, FEMA coffins, the coming draft, and now Googled public health records), I just want to suggest remembering the Hegelian Dialectic. Part of this dialectic, today, seems to involve introducing ideas in an extreme way, in order to quickly foment and organize individuals around an issue (intentional). The antithesis view also exists, of course, and has its followers as well.
What folks don’t realize is that the synthesis of the two extremes is the end goal. The end goal was figured out before you even heard about the extremes.
Blindly reporting on an extreme without any reference to it as a probable dialectic is, IMO, is manipulated reporting. That is, reporting with good intentions, but becoming a blind participant of a larger agenda.