You *are* being watched...
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Kim Bolton on 26 Mar 2010 14:10 Ret. wrote: >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. On the other hand, A&E teams run through well-known algorithms to deal with incoming cases. >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. ROFL. It is possible to have secure databases, but the NHS one isn't that type. Besides, the other thing is that the database will be mined, or sold, or rented out, to those with the money and interest, and no-one is claiming *they* are secure. -- from Kim Bolton
From: Ret. on 26 Mar 2010 14:16 Mike Scott wrote: > Ret. wrote: > ... >> "When the new system is fully up and running, anyone who has access >> to your records: >> >> *must be directly involved in caring for you. >> *must have an NHS smartcard with a chip and passcode (like a bank >> card and pin). >> *will only see the information they need to do their job. >> *will have their details recorded - who they are and if they have >> added or changed any of your information (you can ask to see this), >> and will ask your >> permission every time they need to look at your SCR." > > http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/health-news/2010/01/10/doctor-who-hacked-into-prime-minister-s-health-records-escapes-prosecution-86908-21955907/ > > (mind the wrap) > > "Doctor who hacked into Prime Minister's health records escapes > prosecution".... "The breach was discovered on a national database > called the Emergency Care Summary system, which holds the details of > 2.5million people in Scotland." > > > Improves confidence in their security systems no end. It is perfectly obvious that no database is secure from wrong-doing by the people who have legitimate access to it. Every now and again a police officer is prosecuted from having interrogated PNC to see if his daughter's latest boyfriend has a record - or how many known criminals are living in his street. Clearly there is no database that is 100% secure. The only way to achieve that would be to deny access to everyone. Kev
From: Ret. on 26 Mar 2010 14:41 Rob wrote: > Ret. wrote: >>> Conor wrote: >>>> On 26/03/2010 14:17, Ret. wrote: >>>> >>>>> I made it quite clear that I was disputing their allegation that I >>>>> had been speeding. I could have refused to take the breath test on >>>>> the grounds that they had no lawful reason to request it - but >>>>> that would have been a very stupid thing to do. >>>> >>>> Only because failure to give a breath test upon request results in >>>> a driving ban >>> >>> Although not if it could be shown that the request for the breath >>> test was not lawful (which it was not in my case). The problem is it >>> would have been my word against two police officers. > > Why would that have been a 'problem' - lengthy legal arguments on > complicated points of law? In a way it was my fault. I sped away from a panda car when the lights changed. I also accelerated hard up to 65 mph on my speedo which I know is a true 60 mph (which was the limit). The panda car was balked behind another car and had difficulty catching up to me. They then accused me of having been doing 70 mph which they said they had both observed on their speedometer. I pointed out to them that whilst they may have indeed been doing 70 in order to catch up with me - I myself was doing nowhere near that speed. The problem, of course, is that had I refused the breath test (which was requested because I had allegedly exceeded the speed limit), then I could well have been arrested and charged with refusing to provide a breath test. My claim that I was not speeding would have been countered by two police officers claiming that I *had* been speeding. The police woman told me, even before she requested the breath test, that they were not going to book me for speeding - which is a good job because I *would* have fought that . Kev
From: Ret. on 26 Mar 2010 14:57 Cynic wrote: > On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 17:24:32 +0000, Bod <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> > wrote: > >>> So you think we should allow wrongdoing to take place? > >> Of course not, but your case won't be helped by mouthing off. > > How is politely refusing to answer a question or take a breath test > "mouthing off"? It isn't - but there is little doubt that had I refused the test I would have been arrested. I had every right to refuse the test because the grounds for requesting it (speeding) was just wrong - I had not been speeding. What would have been achieved however? Our day out would have been ruined, and I would have faced weeks of worry waiting for the case to get to court, with no guarantee that my evidence would be accepted. Some times you just have to bite your tongue and take the easy option. I was delayed a few minutes, I took a breath test which I knew would be negative, and we were then on our way. Had the officers been unpleasant or officious then I certainly would have taken it further - but they were pleasant and polite and I do believe that they honestly believed I had been speeding although I genuinely had not. In the event no harm was done and I have no regrets about taking the action that I did. Kev
From: Ret. on 26 Mar 2010 15:02
Mike Scott wrote: > Ret. wrote: > .... >> >> You can drag up unlikely scenarios as long as you like. The fact is >> that I stand more chance of being killed by a crashing 747 than I >> will of becoming involved in one of your imaginary scenarios. > > Funny you should mention that. One did come down a few miles north of > Harlow a few years ago. Part of Hatfield Forest is still afaik fenced > off (radioactive?). I shudder to think what might have happened. So > /your/ idea of low probability may well not align well with that of > others. >> >> It could happen to someone, somewhere, but the chances of it >> happening to any one of us is so remote as to be not worth being >> concerned about. And I am *not* concerned about it. > > Out of curiosity, I'd say the chance that your house would burn down > is singularly low. So may I assume you don't trouble with fire > insurance? I don't think that the chances are as low as a 747 crash. There are any number of occurences that could result in a house fire and so I certainly do have house insurance. Kev |