[hn_throwaway_99]

I, personally, would be 100% fine with this, as long as:

1. My data was anonymized.

2. At least in the Navy's case, that there was some assurance that some of the work would be made available back to the public, i.e. if all the data was tagged and organized in a way that an open source data set could be made (again, anonymized), but the analysis and any models built would be proprietary to Google.

I honestly don't understand why the knee jerk reaction would be to be upset at your simple exercise.

[mike00632]

The military members served the public. Google is profiting. You have it backwards.

[burner7]

Because you served to help your country and then call it a day, not have your medical legacy live on in a Google product after you’ve left. Just another thumb in the eye for vets from a public that doesn’t care beyond a NFL game. That’s where the simple exercise could lead.

[gretch]

Yeah but that data can be used to make things better for you later. For example, with the burn pits in Iraq where soldiers no longer have to individually prove harm: https://www.publichealth.va.gov/docs/exposures/ten-things-to....

This data could lead to a discovery like “hey a statistically significant portion of people deployed at (x) between years y and z developed this type of medical condition - the military is responsible and needs to pay them.”

If there’s no value to digitizing this data, why is the military paying Google to do it? It’s not like Google is purchasing it

[thewebcount]

> Yeah but that data can be used to make things better for you later.

Or, the more likely case, someone figures out how to de-anonymize it and it could be used to hurt me later. That seems much much more likely to me.

[ashwagary]

1. I dont think DNA can be sufficiently anonymized.

2. I think de-anonymization not only hurts you but also could hurt a large % of the people you are directly related to.