Who owns the data
Who owns the health information?
- the patient to whom it refers?
- the health provider who created it?
- the IT specialist who has the greatest control over it?
- the researcher who aggregates it?
- the health 2.0 company that harvested it?
the notion of ownership is inadequate for health information. No one has an absolute right to destroy health information. But you can drive the car you own into a tree or into the ocean if you want to.
All of the groups above have a complex series of rights and responsibilities relating to health information that should never be trivialized into ownership.
But asking the question at all is a hash argument.
What is a hash argument?
Come to think of it, there’s a certain class of rhetoric I’m going to call the “one way hash” argument. Most modern cryptographic systems in wide use are based on a certain mathematical asymmetry: You can multiply a couple of large prime numbers much (much, much, much, much) more quickly than you can factor the product back into primes. A one-way hash is a kind of “fingerprint” for messages based on the same mathematical idea: It’s really easy to run the algorithm in one direction, but much harder and more time consuming to undo. Certain bad arguments work the same way—skim online debates between biologists and earnest ID aficionados armed with talking points if you want a few examples: The talking point on one side is just complex enough that it’s both intelligible—even somewhat intuitive—to the layman and sounds as though it might qualify as some kind of insight… The rebuttal, by contrast, may require explaining a whole series of preliminary concepts before it’s really possible to explain why the talking point is wrong.
At some point I will modify this article to actually do the rebuttal. At this point it is enough to say that -even asking the question- who owns the data is creating a hash argument. The question presumes that the notion of ownership is valid and jettisons those foolish enough to try and answer the question into needless circular debate. Once you mistakenly assume that the question is answerable you cannot help but back an unintelligible position.
People asking this question at conferences is a pet peeve for me.
-FT
At the risk of trivializing the question:
http://2healthguru.wordpress.com/2009/03/26/i-will-license-or-lease-my-health-information-to-providers/
No pun intended!
It’s time to consider and IP approach considering the downstream financial impact of the care delivery, financing & related systems claiming entitlement.
Is this the new Godwin’s Law? Toss out “hash argument,” and expect all discussion to cease? Established notions of ownership are not all trivial, and there are few other available models to challenge the “might makes right” argument of possession. Excluding any ownership-based discussion only delivers the debate to those whose motives are more economic than social or moral.
So how about a rejoinder: “what kind of ‘ownership’ did you have in mind?”
Really interesting analysis of the situation. When I’ve heard this question or read it online, in my head I always say “Who CARES?” This is a good explanation of why I shouldn’t care. I think we’re too worried about ownership and not worried enough about providing great results. Not to mention some civility and understanding.
Not at all. Rather, “calling hash argument” requires that you at least reference why an argument qualifies. This is easier to do when you can link to something that clearly details why the argument is a hash argument, which is exactly what I have done here. It is useful to point out when someone is opening a can of worms that has no added benefit to a discussion.
One of the few constitutional amendments I’d like to see is something along these lines:
———–
Data concerning a citizen is the joint property of the citizen and the entities that create that data.
———–
Call it a hash argument if you like. I prefer not to. I see it as a key to personal empowerment in an age of information and increasing corporate power.
– stanley krute
What does “joint property” mean?
I have “joint property” with my wife and (heaven forbid) if we ever get a divorce there will be a big mess.
Who has control of what goes in the data? Who has the responsbility to maintain the data?
Your statement sounds lovely but deals with none of the actual complexities in the issue.
It does not even detail how this notion of ownership that you have not defined is empowering…
-FT