From: boltar2003 on 26 Mar 2010 07:55 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 26 Mar 2010 07:58 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 26 Mar 2010 08:00 <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 26 Mar 2010 08:01 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 26 Mar 2010 08:02
"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. |