TV presenters in NHS data fears

[David Hansen]

On 5 Dec 2008 at 10:36, Mary Hawking wrote:

> I am not sure how it was discovered that the access in this case was not 
> authorised: was it by spot checking access labelled as consented, or by 
> registering unauthorised access?

I suspect that if such information is available it will be in 
specialist media. However, I wouldn't expect anything to emerge until 
the Fiscal rascals have decided whether to go for a trial or not. The 
newspaper articles don't contain a great deal more 
<http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/health/display.var.2473071.0.Doctor_fac
es_charges_for_accessing_records.php> 
<http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland/Police-launch-inquiry-into-
accessing.4759782.jp>.

> Everything in life is a trade-off.
> For the young and fit, privacy may be paramount: for the old, sick and 
> confused on multiple medications, a risk to absolute privacy might be 
> offset by the availability of up-to-date information on medication in an 
> emergency care setting.

Indeed. However, it is surely for the person most concerned to decide 
this for themself, with the default being nothing put into this system 
at all and them deciding access levels and so on. Instead the 
"masterminds" came up with a completely open compulsory system. People 
had to fight them very hard to get the limitied changes, which appear 
not to change the underlying nature of thre beast.

This is clearly yet another Labour Party tracking system, the "health" 
stuff bolted onto the front of it being just a smokescreen for the real 
aims.




-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents 
me   
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54