Scan Barcodes Instantaneously
In the realm of Legacy posts, Anne Zimmerman, a professional with a JD and an MS degree, delves into the intriguing topic of A Right to Data.
Zimmerman's article, published under the Health Regulation & Law category, discusses the evolving landscape of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and its implications for personal data.
At the heart of the discussion is the concept of a "right to be forgotten," which focuses on the ability for individuals to opt out of data collection. However, when it comes to the sale of medical or genetic data derived from facial recognition, if adequately deidentified, there appears to be no law prohibiting such practices.
The phrase "Barcode me" encapsulates the belief that personal data should be compensated when used for financial gain. Yet, as of now, no specific companies or organizations have been publicly identified as incorporating health data derived from facial recognition processing and offering remuneration for it. The facial recognition market primarily operates in sectors like banking and finance, healthcare, government, and IT, with leading companies such as Glory Ltd., Aware, Inc., Cognitec Systems GmbH, and NEC Corporation focusing on identity verification rather than health data monetization.
The article also touches upon the value of health data in the corporate world. Health data is often reused and pooled, leading to significant financial windfalls for manufacturers and data miners. This is particularly true in the sale of equipment, medical devices, and pharmaceutical products with data-generating patents.
The use of data for financial gain provides a windfall, even without the risk of a breach. However, the question remains: is deidentification sufficient to ensure privacy, especially for health data? The big data landscape can trace and deidentify data at various stages of aggregation, raising concerns about the potential for reidentification or privacy breaches.
Moreover, the article addresses the increasing constitutional protection of pharmaceutical marketing as free speech. This adds another layer of complexity to the debate, as it may limit the ability to regulate the use of personal health data for commercial purposes.
In conclusion, Zimmerman's article provides a thought-provoking exploration of the intersection of AI, Health Regulation, and Law. It underscores the need for a balanced approach that respects individuals' right to control their data while allowing for the benefits that big data can bring. As we move forward, it is crucial to continue this conversation and strive for a future where personal data is treated with the respect and value it deserves.
