Are you aware the tories are selling your health records?
Discussion
Yep, that's right, Bozza and his tory chums are selling your (and your families) entire health records.
https://www.medicaldevice-network.com/features/nhs...
And before anyone says the data is anonymised, it transpires the data will not properly anonymised and the tories are exempting the data from GDPR laws.
The deadline to opt out has been extended to the 25th August so you still have time to stop your health records being sold to whoever might want them.
https://www.civicmc.nhs.uk/files/2021/05/Opt-out-F...
Obviously there are legitimate reasons 3rd parties might use you health records but the tories have made no meaningful restrictions on who can buy your records or where they can be sold on to or what they are used for.
https://www.medicaldevice-network.com/features/nhs...
And before anyone says the data is anonymised, it transpires the data will not properly anonymised and the tories are exempting the data from GDPR laws.
The deadline to opt out has been extended to the 25th August so you still have time to stop your health records being sold to whoever might want them.
https://www.civicmc.nhs.uk/files/2021/05/Opt-out-F...
Obviously there are legitimate reasons 3rd parties might use you health records but the tories have made no meaningful restrictions on who can buy your records or where they can be sold on to or what they are used for.
Apart from drug companies and health/life insurance companies wanting them for better analysis and prediction, who would be interested in my (and your) health records?
If not particularly in favour of thr gov selling off public data, but i can't see how this will affect me or my family negatively. Maybe I'm missing what the risks are.
If not particularly in favour of thr gov selling off public data, but i can't see how this will affect me or my family negatively. Maybe I'm missing what the risks are.
boyse7en said:
Apart from drug companies and health/life insurance companies wanting them for better analysis and prediction, who would be interested in my (and your) health records?
If not particularly in favour of thr gov selling off public data, but i can't see how this will affect me or my family negatively. Maybe I'm missing what the risks are.
Insurance companies might be rather interested in peoples medical records.If not particularly in favour of thr gov selling off public data, but i can't see how this will affect me or my family negatively. Maybe I'm missing what the risks are.
“ The database will not include names or addresses, or any other data that could directly identify a patient like their NHS number, date of birth, or postcode. NHS Digital claims this will allow the information to remain confidential when it’s accessed by third parties in the healthcare industry. It also says that the data will only be accessible to organisations with a legitimate need for it who match up to stringent criteria, and that the database will never be used for insurance or marketing purposes, promoting or selling products or services, market research or advertising.”
Update,
"In a letter to all GP’s, 19 July 2021, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State Jo Churchill set out a new process for commencing data collection, moving away from a previously fixed date of 1 September."
https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/data-c...
"In a letter to all GP’s, 19 July 2021, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State Jo Churchill set out a new process for commencing data collection, moving away from a previously fixed date of 1 September."
https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/data-c...
In principle it is a very good thing. In the age of big data and machine learning NHS data is a huge national asset that will put the U.K. far beyond other countries in medical and health research. It will massively advance our academic work, which will drive health treatments, drug discovery, medical devices and puts the U.K. right at the front of a new industry.
BUT U.K. governments have a history of poorly thought out IT projects. They have some very good ones, and I am absolutely not one of the people to dam all government IT projects because of a few high profile failures. But this seems to fall in to the “poorly thought out” bucket, where it has been pushed through from fast for a variety of reasons.
BUT (#2) I’m unsure if this is really an issue or paranoia of the InfoSec community, who get jumpy about the most niche, low probability exploits, or if it is a genuine risk.
BUT U.K. governments have a history of poorly thought out IT projects. They have some very good ones, and I am absolutely not one of the people to dam all government IT projects because of a few high profile failures. But this seems to fall in to the “poorly thought out” bucket, where it has been pushed through from fast for a variety of reasons.
BUT (#2) I’m unsure if this is really an issue or paranoia of the InfoSec community, who get jumpy about the most niche, low probability exploits, or if it is a genuine risk.
Electro1980 said:
In principle it is a very good thing. In the age of big data and machine learning NHS data is a huge national asset that will put the U.K. far beyond other countries in medical and health research. It will massively advance our academic work, which will drive health treatments, drug discovery, medical devices and puts the U.K. right at the front of a new industry.
BUT U.K. governments have a history of poorly thought out IT projects. They have some very good ones, and I am absolutely not one of the people to dam all government IT projects because of a few high profile failures. But this seems to fall in to the “poorly thought out” bucket, where it has been pushed through from fast for a variety of reasons.
BUT (#2) I’m unsure if this is really an issue or paranoia of the InfoSec community, who get jumpy about the most niche, low probability exploits, or if it is a genuine risk.
NHS health information is already available for research purposes.BUT U.K. governments have a history of poorly thought out IT projects. They have some very good ones, and I am absolutely not one of the people to dam all government IT projects because of a few high profile failures. But this seems to fall in to the “poorly thought out” bucket, where it has been pushed through from fast for a variety of reasons.
BUT (#2) I’m unsure if this is really an issue or paranoia of the InfoSec community, who get jumpy about the most niche, low probability exploits, or if it is a genuine risk.
The tories have previously tried to get this pushed through but they failed. Now they are using the pandemic to get this pushed through.
Unknown_User said:
Electro1980 said:
In principle it is a very good thing. In the age of big data and machine learning NHS data is a huge national asset that will put the U.K. far beyond other countries in medical and health research. It will massively advance our academic work, which will drive health treatments, drug discovery, medical devices and puts the U.K. right at the front of a new industry.
BUT U.K. governments have a history of poorly thought out IT projects. They have some very good ones, and I am absolutely not one of the people to dam all government IT projects because of a few high profile failures. But this seems to fall in to the “poorly thought out” bucket, where it has been pushed through from fast for a variety of reasons.
BUT (#2) I’m unsure if this is really an issue or paranoia of the InfoSec community, who get jumpy about the most niche, low probability exploits, or if it is a genuine risk.
NHS health information is already available for research purposes.BUT U.K. governments have a history of poorly thought out IT projects. They have some very good ones, and I am absolutely not one of the people to dam all government IT projects because of a few high profile failures. But this seems to fall in to the “poorly thought out” bucket, where it has been pushed through from fast for a variety of reasons.
BUT (#2) I’m unsure if this is really an issue or paranoia of the InfoSec community, who get jumpy about the most niche, low probability exploits, or if it is a genuine risk.
The tories have previously tried to get this pushed through but they failed. Now they are using the pandemic to get this pushed through.
Unknown_User said:
Insurance companies might be rather interested in peoples medical records.
if they need it if they want it they ask you, you say no, no insurance. I used to work in travel health insurance, when people got sick overseas we asked thier consent for access to GP records. If they said no, no cover. if we found something relevant undeclared, no cover.
Unknown_User said:
And before anyone says the data is anonymised, it transpires the data will not properly anonymised and the tories are exempting the data from GDPR laws.
It's anonymous until it isn't. Each patient record will be assigned a code which will then allow that patient to be identified if there is a "valid legal reason" whatever that transpires to mean.Imagine a future with a more socialist government in power who then use these records for "valid legal reasons" they decide to take advantage of the records for their own means. Vaccination records can already be used to restrict freedoms, imagine what slightly tin foil hat future manipulation could be done with all of that data.
Take away the evil Tory bias of the OP's statement. No political party will fight this particularly hard as they all know the information would be gold if they were in power instead of the current temporary lot. There's some grumbling about delaying and some muttering about not informing the public enough but nothing about scrapping the idea completely.
I opted out, you can do it online easily but I've no confidence that actually means anything at all.
If sharing my medical records helps anybody going through what I have experienced in recent years, then I am all for it.
I recall a few years back I was contacted by the GP to ask for permission to share my records with other parts of the health service, such was the level of confidentiality. Of course, I agreed.
As for the insurance company argument, if you need a new life policy then I would imagine you would have to answer a lot of questions about your medical history. I don’t think withholding this information is an option.
I recall a few years back I was contacted by the GP to ask for permission to share my records with other parts of the health service, such was the level of confidentiality. Of course, I agreed.
As for the insurance company argument, if you need a new life policy then I would imagine you would have to answer a lot of questions about your medical history. I don’t think withholding this information is an option.
It's not a new idea, the previous scheme, 'care.data' was scrapped after just two years:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-26259101
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-26259101
t TBH.Smiljan said:
It's anonymous until it isn't. Each patient record will be assigned a code which will then allow that patient to be identified if there is a "valid legal reason" whatever that transpires to mean.
You don't need a "valid legal reason" once you've got the data. Your medical history is almost as unique as your fingerprints. It's a trivial problem for Big Data to identify most people.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff