From: boltar2003 on
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 11:46:56 -0000
"Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>> See my other posts. Do you think that the present system where your paper
>> files are transported about hospitals, and even between hospitals, by
>> porters etc?
>>
>> I really couldn't care less who looks at my medical records.
>>
>You might have a different attitude if you had a disability or long term
>illness.
>

Or even just a mundane but embarrassing ailment. Who wants the whole world
knowing they had athletes foot or piles or ecszma or IBS or whatnot?

B2003

From: Ret. on
Conor wrote:
> On 25/03/2010 15:10, Ret. wrote:
>
>> I can understand that there are other people who are not like this,
>> who, instead of being amiable and co-operative, are argumentative,
>> unco-operative, and will not do *anything* unless they absolutely
>> have to.
>
> I am quite lucky in this respect. As someone who is an ex-member of
> the security services (Police/Armed Forces etc) , I do not have to
> answer a police officers questions thanks to an amendment to the
> Terrorism Act. In fact, unless he has good reason, the officer is
> actually committing an offence under the Terrorism Act by asking me.

Would you care to enlighten us as to this amendment that excuses you from
answering lawful questions? I don't suppose it excuses you from being
arrested for refusing to give your name and address when it is lawfully
required...?

Kev

From: Brimstone on


<boltar2003(a)boltar.world> wrote in message
news:hoi7ca$drr$1(a)speranza.aioe.org...
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 11:46:56 -0000
> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> See my other posts. Do you think that the present system where your
>>> paper
>>> files are transported about hospitals, and even between hospitals, by
>>> porters etc?
>>>
>>> I really couldn't care less who looks at my medical records.
>>>
>>You might have a different attitude if you had a disability or long term
>>illness.
>>
>
> Or even just a mundane but embarrassing ailment. Who wants the whole world
> knowing they had athletes foot or piles or ecszma or IBS or whatnot?
>
Indeed, or a mental health problem that causes one to have irrational
massive insecurities.


From: Adrian on
boltar2003(a)boltar.world gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

>>> See my other posts. Do you think that the present system where your
>>> paper files are transported about hospitals, and even between
>>> hospitals, by porters etc?
>>>
>>> I really couldn't care less who looks at my medical records.

>>You might have a different attitude if you had a disability or long term
>>illness.

> Or even just a mundane but embarrassing ailment. Who wants the whole
> world knowing they had athletes foot or piles or ecszma or IBS or
> whatnot?

Then there's the financial implications. Very few people are like Kev in
having access to a final-salary pension. Most have money-purchase
pensions, where the annuity rates are calculated based on medical
information.

That information is just as liable to be maliciously falsified as it is
to be maliciously leaked. What proof is there that it hasn't been? The
audit trail which is part of the self-same insecure application?

B'sides, you might _say_ that you have nothing to hide, but what if your
wife received details of the results of a paternity test or STI clinic
appointment? Who's she going to believe? You? You've got a vested
interest in lying. Or the IT system? After all, it's secure and
trustworthy. Isn't it?
From: Adrian on
"Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

>> B'sides, if you get run over in the street, how do they even know what
>> entry on the computer to look up?

> Because he's a good little soldier who carries ID.

Pity his wallet was stolen by the mugger. Or is too blood-stained to be
read.