Many people express concern over the Internet of Things taking over healthcare. Devices are now able to monitor patients' health more closely, easily, and reliably than ever before. However, personal health-related information is now more accessible to hackers as well. Medical devices are already essentially omnipresent at hospitals nation-wide. Electronic health records have become a standard in most large hospital systems. The rise of Internet-connected medical wearable devices is also contributing to the countless digital health records being used by doctors. While these devices are becoming less susceptible to cyber hacking, the potential misuse of medical data is still a potent ethical issue. More cyberattacks are targeted on the healthcare sector than in any other industry. In fact, the number of cyberattacks in the healthcare industry were 63% more last year than the year before. Many of the hackers behind these breaches used a similar method. First, they would try to enter a database using a "backdoor." Once they succeeded in retrieving private information that let them access the database, they then moved laterally through the network in search of high-profile targets. Just one successful penetration is enough to give hackers access to the entire network. While this is extremely worrisome to many people, even more appalling to experts is the possibility of hackers changing data. Till today, hackers have only been able to steal data. If hackers can modify data, the results will be potentially catastrophic. Congress has taken steps to mandate high level security of private health cords by instituting the security rule under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act in 2003. But we should be aware of the fact that hackers still pose a dangerous threat to the healthcare sector.

Some people are not just concerned by the possible insecurity of their medical records but also by the fact that law enforcement could look specifically at their personal health information (PHI). The FBI and the police would greatly benefit from using people's PHI. They would be able to find more precise information about individuals and more easily track them down. Forensics experts would be able to make more reliable conclusions in critical cases. So many people think that law enforcement should be allowed to investigate somebody's health records if they have a reasonable amount of evidence to suspect the person of being a criminal. Otherwise, citizens should have a right to demand their privacy. Health records contain sensitive data and we should be careful how we use them.

As big data is being used to make more accurate prediction regarding patients, several issues arise when technology is used to tackle rarer diseases such as Sanfilippo, which is a rare genetic condition that causes fatal brain damage affecting 1 in 70,000 children. Some rare diseases are more widespread in certain countries than others such as the Bangladesh Tree Man, a rare autosomal recessive hereditary skin disorder also known as Epidermodysplasia Verruciformis, which causes bark-like tentacles to grow from the body. There are currently no known cures for these rare diseases but researchers around the world are working towards a day when an algorithm can help doctors stop these diseases. In order for algorithms to be able to make more nearly precise predictions, they need large amounts of data. Whether or not data should be shared from one country to another country is debatable. For instance, if a rare disease breaks out in North Korea, Russia, or Iran, scientists there may not have enough data to be able to treat the disease. The US, on the other hand, has a wealth of big data especially in the medical field. It could definitely leverage this to peacefully negotiate deals with other countries. Other countries - possibly allies of the US - will call this unfair and inhumane. But in the long run, it can avert worse scenarios by valuing diplomacy over war.

Other issues could arise within countries when individual companies monopolize over data and choose to give exclusive rights to it for high prices. Should the government place regulations over how medical data is shared or should it allow corporations to hold exclusive rights to data? If corporations share the data, startups will be able to develop ML algorithms faster with larger data sets. As a result, predictive algorithms will become even more accurate and labs working on such algorithms will be able to conduct more research without needing as much government funding. However, all businesses having access to health records presents numerous security issues. First of all, some government agency will have to take certain measures to ensure the data isn't being misused by a company that falsely claims to be doing research. Secondly, an agency will have to evaluate the cybersecurity of companies accessing the data. If a company has a low level of security, the risk of its health records being compromised remains the same but the consequences would have an enormous impact on essentially every other research firm that was using the data. If research firms were allowed to maintain exclusive ownership of their own medical records, they would have a greater incentive to develop new products because they would receive all the monetary compensation. Today, hospitals don't share data with each other because of the afore-mentioned security reasons but one can't help but wonder how much more accurate predictive and precision medicine could be if all data were shared.