Imagine what it would be like at the library if, instead of using the Dewey Decimal System to find things, everyone had to use a system run by digital ad companies.
Eventually, people would get used to having companies know who reads what, when and where. You'd either trust the companies or find other ways to search for information.
Dudley then delves into some of the same concerns I do regarding Chrome and other Google programs that have a very heavy emphasis on targeted advertisements for their sales revenue.
I see this as a slippery slope for ethics where electronic medical records (EMRs) are concerned, and previously blogged about the language Google Health used regarding their "Interesting companies that offer personalized online health tools" and third-party advertising not clearly indicated in the FAQ. I haven't checked back to see if they have revised this and plan on doing so soon.
Dudley concludes with the same sentiments, bold emphasis mine
Maybe I'm jumping the gun.
I'll bring the subject up again in a couple of years, after Google and Microsoft are storing our medical records and we're using Chrome 3.0 and Internet Explorer 10.
Unless we're all used to it by then.
Edit: My colleague V. Lawrence shared NPR Marketplace's September 5th coverage on Google health with me. Is there truly no co-mingling if someone uses Chrome?
Halamka: It's not on Gmail, it's not on Blogger, it's not on YouTube, it's not on Search. It's a totally separate, isolated, secure area and they have not co-mingled any Google features with Google Health.