I-MED cleared after sharing patient scans with AI company
The regulator was not seen that Australia’s largest radiology provider had violated the rules of privacy of AI, an AI company, an AI company, AI company.
Last year, a Crirase The investigation revealed that millions of patients X-ray, CT scanning and other scans to educate I-Med’s AI models.
Our reporting led to the announcement of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) office to I-MED and to Harrison.ai (I-Med’s ownership).
OAIC announced that after the Privacy Commissioner Carly Kind’s I-Med’s data will be “not defined sufficiently ,, he announced that he would close the investigation. He found this despite the “small number of examples ği where the company accidentally gave anonymous information.
OAIC published the results of the questions in consultation with I-Med, Harrison.ai and sister company Analise.ai, and said the company’s definition of data was “the case study of good privacy practice”.
For the first time, the investigations confirmed the operation scale and the lack of awareness of patients. In the report, he says: “I-Med has shared less than 30 million patients (a study expresses a full imaging session for a single patient and may contain multiple types of image representing a single diagnostic section)”.
It was also found that the patients given to Analise.ai were not informed about this usage or explanation and did not give their consent ”.
Do you know more about this story?
Contact Cam Wilson safely Signal Using @cmw.69 user name. Or use our clue closed form.
The essence of the investigations of the Privacy Commissioner was whether the scans were delivered to Harrison.ai by the I-Med’s “health information” whether there was a special protected data class.
I-Med, scanning and scanning images of any text and other steps related to other steps by removing the data defined data, he said. This meant that the patient would no longer be “reasonable, and therefore the data will no longer be accepted as health knowledge.
This type was pleased that public information was made outside the “very small” number of cases in which it was shared, and therefore I-Med did not violate the protection for health data, although it left the door open for further investigation.
“In order to begin the investigation of i-Med about this or other practices, it is still clear to the Commissioner, and this case study should not be taken as a confirmation of I-Med’s actions or practices or a wider compliance. [Australian Privacy Principles]”He said.
The report did not deal with the use of the data given by I-MED, only the transfer.
A directed i-med spokesman Crirase “As the regulatory landscape develops, we remain adhering to the highest privacy and adaptation standards, while the regulatory landscape develops, while continuing to improve patient results and system integrity.”
Earlier this year, the federal government was a major shareholder with an investment of $ 32 million through the National Repetition Fund in Harrison.ai. Since then, I-MED has started to ask customers to approve their use of their scans to educate AI.
