NHS Database Opt Out
- Thread starter Westyfield2
- Start date
Is this opinion or fact?
I can't find where this is clarified.
Most worrying is the definition of what is in the public interest has not been stated and can change.
Unfortunately it's just information I've been told, I know several people involved in various aspects of the project. That is the only aspect of data being made available that I'm aware of, and with DPA etc it's the only information that could legally be made available. I'm not sure where deuses idea of going on an STD register comes from?
Florida..sorry for that.
But I do think the NHS is going the US way of doing things or maybe meeting in the middle.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
Sure, I suspect that most members of NHS staff would like to see a cure for cancer . . . theory is great, if only practice were as good.
Cost, accuracy, currency and security are "issues" with the NHS database that almost certainly makes the "idea in principle" a complete irrelevance.
However, you go for it sunshine; there are Management & IT Consultants aplenty who are desperate for a place on the gravy train that will never reach the station
Dont worry to all the naysayers, your NHS data is safe with us!
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/23/nhs_worm_infection/
"the researchers observed 4 GB of stolen data being funneled to the monitored servers. Because that represents a fraction of the servers used by Qakbot, the amount of pilfered information is likely much higher."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/23/nhs_worm_infection/
"the researchers observed 4 GB of stolen data being funneled to the monitored servers. Because that represents a fraction of the servers used by Qakbot, the amount of pilfered information is likely much higher."
In what way?
what?Sure, I suspect that most members of NHS staff would like to see a cure for cancer . . . theory is great, if only practice were as good.
Cost, accuracy, currency and security are "issues" with the NHS database that almost certainly makes the "idea in principle" a complete irrelevance.
However, you go for it sunshine; there are Management & IT Consultants aplenty who are desperate for a place on the gravy train that will never reach the station
accuracy, currency and security are the whole purpose of the NHS NPfIT, not it's failings...
The cost and the amount of management and consultants are the only criticisms of it. That was what I stated in my post, so you've made something up and agreed with the rest of my post.
by infecting machines and stealing local data they wouldn't get access to centrally stored patient records, another positive reason for them.
And once they do infect and get access to centrally stored data? Because it will happen. Whether it's some skiddie, gang or foreign government agency, someone is going to get access to and harvest a central repository.
how?
I don't know. I'm not a hacker. But I know not to trust any security system, or anyone that claims a system can't be broken into.
Sharing details. As I have said if you catch something that can be passed on to your girl friend\wife they will be told and you don't have a choice.
And your name will go onto a data base again you have no choice.
This keeps the cost down for that person or NHS.
So you don't have a bank account? or a passport? I'm not saying it's entirely unhackable, I'd be a fool to, but it's a damn sight more secure than the majority of your data, because patient record confidentiality is such a big deal.
But the law explicitly prohibits that from happening. how would they know who your girlfriend was in any case?
I do, but I'm anal as **** about my security and know full well they can be broken into (like the recent convictions in the US for card fraud).
Just like a central database for the NHS can and will be broken into.
Jesus ****ing Christ, do you work for the government or something?
It doesn't have to make sense to fringe CTs
I just don't see why you'd opt out of something with so many benefits because you perceive a risk to your security when potentially more important data is stored with less security.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 3,833
- Location
- London
I'm incredibly anti-ID cards / nanny state nonsense.
I can't see a reason to opt out of this unless there is specification-creep. That is an ever present worry.
A post on the previous page about insurance companies getting access is a prime example. Add to that all the information about your blood type, then a DNA sample to see what you would be capable of donating.
We might end up in a happy situation where Barry Scott from Organs Direct™ has found a 'direct match' for your kidneys and would you like to part with them for a generous amount of wonga... Simply pop your giblets into the pre-paid bag and we'll send you CASH!
I can't see a reason to opt out of this unless there is specification-creep. That is an ever present worry.
A post on the previous page about insurance companies getting access is a prime example. Add to that all the information about your blood type, then a DNA sample to see what you would be capable of donating.
We might end up in a happy situation where Barry Scott from Organs Direct™ has found a 'direct match' for your kidneys and would you like to part with them for a generous amount of wonga... Simply pop your giblets into the pre-paid bag and we'll send you CASH!
Probably my main concern.
The clause that data may be shared when in the 'public interest' has no boundaries, we do not decide what is in the public interest. An insurance company may say that with access to this information they can reduce premiums by providing acurate insurance. Therefore it is in the public interest and the NHS can make £3 a time by sharing the information.
- Applicant has rare blood type. +£6 a month due to added risk of bleeding to death on the table.
- Applicant once hospitalised for fight. +£10 a month due to high risk.
etc