Ethical implications of the remote measurement of PD

It seems to me likely that computer systems can be built that in some sense remotely measure a person's Parkinson's. By "remotely" I mean they work from a distance, without a person having to do anything and, possibly, without the knowledge and consent of the people being observed.

Such a system could use photographic, video, audio, keyboard or other data to give a person a Parkinson's score.

Once up and running, the rate at which data could be collected would be breathtaking. Thousands of people could me measured in minutes. For example, 50,000 people at a football match could be photographed; thousands of people passing through airport security could be videoed; millions of web sites could be trawled; tens of millions of telephone calls could be monitored.

Measurement offers great clinical and research benefits:
- It could lead to earlier diagnosis, which in turn would help to identify the etiology of PD;
- It could give detailed measures of progression rates, which might lead to the identification of treatments to slow progression.
- It could assess the symptomatic effect of treatments and identify which ones are most effective.

However, it raises ethical issues. For instance:
- What impact would it have on a person to out of the blue to be told they had a 50% chance of developing PD?
- Suppose you telephone an insurance company to arrange medical insurance and as you speak they analyse your voice print and find you have a 10% chance of developing Parkinson's in the next year. Could you still get insurance? What would happen to the premium?

Should work continue in this area?

I have no answers, just questions.

What do other people think?

John