Microsoft’s AI wants to be your medical middleman, but is a “Secure by Design” promise really enough for Copilot? Would you trust Microsoft with the “puzzle” of your medical records?
Short answer? No, and no.
Microsoft's AI wants to be your medical middleman, but is a "Secure by Design" promise really enough for Copilot?
Submitted 1 day ago by throws_lemy@reddthat.com to technology@lemmy.world
Comments
TrojanRoomCoffeePot@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Jhex@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
lope
DisgruntledPelican@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Microslop wants a lot of things… but they prove that they can’t deliver in term of quality and data safety.
billwashere@lemmy.world 9 hours ago
Secure by design… what a joke.
grue@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Griffus@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
You probably won’t see this, but I think you’ve gotten a response or two in your backlog.
grue@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I regretted not cropping that as soon as I posted it because I knew someone would comment on it, but I couldn’t figure out how to crop after-the-fact on my phone and re-upload. The screenshot utility can do it, but the image viewer can’t.
devolution@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Copilot is the worst AInofnthen all. I wouldn’t trust it to do a grocery list let alone anything medical.
phutatorius@lemmy.zip 16 hours ago
Security audit by independent third parties, including access to the full source code, or GTFO.
fierysparrow89@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
Source code of what? Unfortunately, none of the above is anywhere near enough.
We need locally available ai models that can run off-line. Also: the ai context and history must be kept separately from the model itself.
If the ai model needs to communicate with the outside world, user needs 100% transparency and control what data the ai sends.
phutatorius@lemmy.zip 11 hours ago
Source code of what?
The AI agent. Also, a way to see all of its training data.
fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Microsoft’s push to make Copilot a kind of AI medical middleman—especially through the newly announced Copilot Health—raises a real tension: the company is loudly promoting a Secure by Design philosophy, but the sensitivity of health data means the bar is far higher than a general security promise. The short version is that Secure by Design is necessary, but nowhere near sufficient for something that sits between you, your clinicians, your medical records, and your wearables.
- Microslop copilot
docus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 hours ago
Security by design is only one aspect of what would be required. Even if it keeps my data secure, if it is going to recommend putting pva glue on cuts and butter on burns, it’s a no from me. Altough i would be curious what it has to say about vaccinations…
phutatorius@lemmy.zip 11 hours ago
Self-certified Secure By Design isn’t worth squat.
Ghyste@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
No.
MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Ha, go fuck a duck.
crandlecan@mander.xyz 19 hours ago
duck.com would like a word with you 👍
01189998819991197253@infosec.pub 1 day ago
I don’t trust Microsoft with my temp folder, what makes you think I’m going to trust it with my medical data? In case there’s any ambiguity left in that: no, I do not, and will never, trust Microsoft with this data, nor with any other personal, personal adjacent, identifiable, personal, or private data. Period. Hard stop.
EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 1 day ago
Miss off, Micro$lop
HubertManne@piefed.social 1 day ago
thing is in a place with no universal healthcare there is a lot to lose. may be bad for places where healthcare is a right but at least its not going to completely prevent you from getting treatment.
Flaqueman@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
When a headline is a question, the answer is always NO. Case and point
lmr0x61@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
Betteredge’ law my beloved
(It isn’t statistically true in practice, though 😔)