1. Ben —

    Interesting approach, but unlikely to be adopted by the non-digerati out there, and less likely to be promoted by the Googleplex.

    Not sure about the 1-800-FLOWERS case you mention on your post, but this reminds me of law school “battle of the forms” cases — which reminds me of that Marx Brothers movie with Chico and Groucho ripping out clauses of a contract, until they’ve got basically nothing left at the end. Two one-sided forms do not an agreement make . . . .

  2. Isn’t it time to eliminate the “nobody’s twisting arms” argument? You are assuming everyone is a rational actor, which they aren’t. You also assume that this won’t become a standard that you are forced into in the end (as opposed to a more regulated database with clear privacy policies and criminal, as opposed to civil, remedies).

    When dicussing academia, it is fine to make assumptions regarding people’s relative negotiating power, knowledge, and ability to engage in rational analysis, but it is dangerous to base policy off of those ideas.

    At the same time, I do agree that transportable health records are an important, and missing, part of comprehensive care. Perhaps the private market is better equipped to provide those records, but the privacy concerns are legion and the invasiveness into your general life you might also find astonishing (just wait until your own toilet is beaming urinalysis to your records on a daily basis).


  1. Score one more for Google Health at the Hub of the Universe

    Another Hub health care worthy has signed up with Google Health — today’s Boston Globe reports that Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts joins Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center — see John Halamka’s GeekDoctor post — in facilitating the download..