This was extremely unconvincing for me. The site is now 500ing for me, so I can't fully quote it, but the arguments about privacy just fall flat. You don't know about Epic's, or GE's, or Philips' security either. You have to trust the institution of HIPPA et al overall to at least make things right.

I really don't care if my recording becomes training data.

I would rather be spoken to like I'm not an idiot. Use technical terms please. I want precision.

Calling the US healthcare system underfunded might be the most wild part of the whole thing. We spend 5.3 trillion dollars a year. That's 17% of the entire economy.

> You don't know about Epic's, or GE's, or Philips' security either.

The argument that a new vendor's security is probably not worse than others misses the point that by opting in, there is one more database/vendor/server where sensitive data about you resides, and which eventually will get hacked. It's usually just a question not whether, but when.

For instance, in the UK, on this very day news reported half a million British people's medical data has been offered for sale on Alibaba, the "Chinese E-Bay". Trivial security advice is to "reduce the attack surface", i.e. to reduce the chances of getting hit by reduce one's presence in places where personal data is concentrated (thus making an attractive target for hackers).

For example, when the German healthcare system launched its central electronic patient record, I opted out. One more system that, once hacked, won't have anything on me stored in it.