You *are* being watched...
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Kim Bolton on 25 Mar 2010 20:22 Ret. wrote: >Kim Bolton wrote: >> Ret. wrote: >> >>> Yesterday my wife received a letter from the NHS describing the new >>> national records database that is being set up. The benefits, of >>> course, is that once up and running, any doctor, anywhere in the UK, >>> will have immediate access to the medical records of any person from >>> anywhere else in the country. If you suddenly fall ill, or are >>> seriously injured when on holiday down in Cornwall, a doctor down >>> there can access your records no matter that you might live in >>> Preston. >>> It is made clear in the letter that if my wife does not want her >>> records on this national database, then she can 'opt out'. Will >>> she? Of course not. >>> >>> I can see it now, however, you will all be saying: "What if the >>> information is sold to pharmaceuticals companies. They will then be >>> able to bombard you with junk mail advertising their cures for your >>> specific ailments." "What if a blackmailer gets hold of the fact >>> that you once had Syphilis and threatens to let your family know?" >>> etc. etc. What ifs, what ifs, what >> >> Although you dismiss these things as 'what ifs', that's how one >> explores the possibilities of database usage and data loss. >> >> Would you rather have a disaster and then deal with the problems? >> >> Databases exist to be mined and sold. The NHS one will go the same way >> - the NID was offered to firms that paid enough money, even while it >> was being discussed. > >So when you get your letter - will you be opting out? I got mine today... Yes. No two doctors agree on anything anyway. Having your notes online could easily slow things down. I'll take my chances with A&E. -- from Kim Bolton
From: Ste on 26 Mar 2010 00:14 On 25 Mar, 19:26, Cynic <cynic_...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On 25 Mar 2010 18:03:46 GMT, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>> Yes. How does that counter anything I have stated? Movements are > >>>> closely associated with behaviour, motive and intent, or hadn't you > >>>> noticed? > > >>>No I hadn't. They certainly *can* be - but they most certainly don't > >>>*have* to be. > > >> They almost always are. Few people go on a random drive without having > >> any motive (reason) for doing so. > > >Does "Because I fancy going for a bimble" count as a "motive"? > > Yes. You have a reason for driving. Perhaps sightseeing. Perhaps to > enjoy the feeling of movement. > > > If not, > >then - we regularly go on "random drives". Don't know where we're going, > >beyond a general direction. Just see where we end up. > > Such a thing is unusual these days (with the cost of fuel being what > it is) except with youngsters who have recently got their licence and > are enjoying the experience of driving for its own sake. I still do it now and again (although it tends to be more making long detours between two specific destinations, than actually just setting out to nowhere in particular), although as you say not to the extent as when I first got my licence. I remember when I was about 18, my old man had just taken delivery of a brand new company car with factory mileage on it, and then he went away for a week on holiday. When he came back, I'd put over 2000 miles on it. I seem to remember conversation was heavily punctuated with expletives for the following half hour. Lol.
From: Albert T Cone on 26 Mar 2010 05:27 Conor wrote: > On 24/03/2010 10:05, Ret. wrote: > >> I never said that - but ID parade 'stooges' are simply selected, >> according to certain physical traits (height, hair colour, age, etc) off >> the streets or from colleges, > > You said it was random. That is not random. Yes it is; it's a random selection from a non-random subset, but it's still random. I can pick a random number the interval 21 -> 100, for example.
From: Ret. on 26 Mar 2010 07:36 Kim Bolton wrote: > Ret. wrote: > >> Kim Bolton wrote: >>> Ret. wrote: >>> >>>> Yesterday my wife received a letter from the NHS describing the new >>>> national records database that is being set up. The benefits, of >>>> course, is that once up and running, any doctor, anywhere in the >>>> UK, will have immediate access to the medical records of any >>>> person from anywhere else in the country. If you suddenly fall >>>> ill, or are seriously injured when on holiday down in Cornwall, a >>>> doctor down there can access your records no matter that you might >>>> live in Preston. >>>> It is made clear in the letter that if my wife does not want her >>>> records on this national database, then she can 'opt out'. Will >>>> she? Of course not. >>>> >>>> I can see it now, however, you will all be saying: "What if the >>>> information is sold to pharmaceuticals companies. They will then be >>>> able to bombard you with junk mail advertising their cures for your >>>> specific ailments." "What if a blackmailer gets hold of the fact >>>> that you once had Syphilis and threatens to let your family know?" >>>> etc. etc. What ifs, what ifs, what >>> >>> Although you dismiss these things as 'what ifs', that's how one >>> explores the possibilities of database usage and data loss. >>> >>> Would you rather have a disaster and then deal with the problems? >>> >>> Databases exist to be mined and sold. The NHS one will go the same >>> way - the NID was offered to firms that paid enough money, even >>> while it was being discussed. >> >> So when you get your letter - will you be opting out? I got mine >> today... > > Yes. No two doctors agree on anything anyway. Having your notes online > could easily slow things down. > > I'll take my chances with A&E. But if you are unconcious when you are taken into A&E, having immediate access to details of your current medication and any allergies, etc. could be the difference between life and death. There is an article in today's DM claiming that porters and cleaners have access to your records. Certainly porters have always done because they are the people who carry your paper files from department to department. The new system apparently requires 'smart cards' to gain access to the database, and as there will be less need to transport paper records about, it is likely to be more secure than the present system. Kev.
From: Ret. on 26 Mar 2010 07:51
Conor wrote: > On 25/03/2010 17:10, Ret. wrote: > >> You may also be surprised to hear that very often, after being >> stopped and questioned in a friendly and polite manner, the drivers >> would remark: "It's nice to see that you are out and about and doing >> your job." But then these are the people who recognise that the >> police are there to help them and arrest criminals and who do not >> believe that every policeman is there to harass them and stitch them >> up. > > That is before, for reasons out of the Police's control, they ended up > being quite a rare sight on the streets. > > Around my area, once it gets past teatime, there are 4 officers > covering a few hundred square miles. There have always been far fewer officers actually out on patrol than the average member of the public thinks there is. When I was in the job, and someone was complaining about the police not attending to this or not attending to that, I would often ask them how many officers did they think were out patrolling a major town like, say, Warrington, at any given time. Their estimations were invariably 3 or 4 times the number that were actually out there. The problems today is that although police numbers have increased - they have nowhere near kept pace with the massive increase in demand. Kev |