> While broad access was originally intended only for NHSE employees with security clearance, the FT reported that the briefing noted that external workers had requested the same permissions “as it is too inconvenient to apply for all of the necessary individual CDAs”.
Let's get rid of those pesky ACLs. Trust us, we know what we're doing.
Before this decision, I supported "opt-out" as I believe the benefits of that to our community outweighed the cost. I agree now the balance has shifted.
A few years ago, some UK doctors were warning civilians to request to their Doctor to "NOT be included in shareable data" for this reason.
That in itself was weird. Why would I have to ask for this?
So I did, only for the doctor - a normal english doctor in a nice place, to turn to me and say " I can, but you are either 'on the team' or you are not "
I was confused and I just went " I just rather my health data wasnt shared ".
The point isnt that at one point it was possible to request this, or that doctors "leaked that you could", or that finally Palantir finally got access - my point is, if you think about it, some random Doctor thought it was politically incorrect for me to request privacy from possible future sharing of private patient data with corporate interests. I cant think of any possible benefit or reason he could have had other than some authority, perhaps a gov department, or news article somehow conveyed that it was "good".
If most of the upper middle class think like this is, well then we shouldn't be surprised it got shared with Palantir.
In my later years I just think, it is weird how different people are. So no I dont think this is just idiocy or naughtiness, most people are just rather perhaps ignorant. As always though I dont know, you tell me.
A cynic would put this together with the plan to close all the NHSs source code: since the public wouldn't like further Palentir integration + be able to see it happening.
This is another way Starmer and Labour have snatched ignominious defeat to a gang of rich weirdos and New Age charlatans, from the jaws of victory. Amazing.
I'm wondering how this works in accordance to gdpr, whichh has explicit guidelines for how to process healthcare related data. This seems conflicting in different ways.
Not at all! Sharing data with US (a trusted ally, with whom the UK has a 'special relationship' [0]) company, run by an angelic, Ubermensch billionaire can only be good.
[0] Haters call this relationship 'being their bitch', but don't listen to them.
> While broad access was originally intended only for NHSE employees with security clearance, the FT reported that the briefing noted that external workers had requested the same permissions “as it is too inconvenient to apply for all of the necessary individual CDAs”.
Let's get rid of those pesky ACLs. Trust us, we know what we're doing.
NHS data opt out https://digital.nhs.uk/services/national-data-opt-out
I would say that this requires "opt in" more than "opt out".
Before this decision, I supported "opt-out" as I believe the benefits of that to our community outweighed the cost. I agree now the balance has shifted.
Weird story.
A few years ago, some UK doctors were warning civilians to request to their Doctor to "NOT be included in shareable data" for this reason.
That in itself was weird. Why would I have to ask for this?
So I did, only for the doctor - a normal english doctor in a nice place, to turn to me and say " I can, but you are either 'on the team' or you are not "
I was confused and I just went " I just rather my health data wasnt shared ".
The point isnt that at one point it was possible to request this, or that doctors "leaked that you could", or that finally Palantir finally got access - my point is, if you think about it, some random Doctor thought it was politically incorrect for me to request privacy from possible future sharing of private patient data with corporate interests. I cant think of any possible benefit or reason he could have had other than some authority, perhaps a gov department, or news article somehow conveyed that it was "good".
If most of the upper middle class think like this is, well then we shouldn't be surprised it got shared with Palantir.
In my later years I just think, it is weird how different people are. So no I dont think this is just idiocy or naughtiness, most people are just rather perhaps ignorant. As always though I dont know, you tell me.
Nothing to see here. Internal controls are working as they should. Everything is fine.
Nothing to see here. Move along citizen, before I look into your file.
A cynic would put this together with the plan to close all the NHSs source code: since the public wouldn't like further Palentir integration + be able to see it happening.
This is why blind trust in any kind of entity governing your most sensitive data is misplaced. Laws and policy can be changed. Your identity cannot.
This is another way Starmer and Labour have snatched ignominious defeat to a gang of rich weirdos and New Age charlatans, from the jaws of victory. Amazing.
I'm wondering how this works in accordance to gdpr, whichh has explicit guidelines for how to process healthcare related data. This seems conflicting in different ways.
Wouldn’t GDPR require they opt-in rather than out?
This is high treason.
Not at all! Sharing data with US (a trusted ally, with whom the UK has a 'special relationship' [0]) company, run by an angelic, Ubermensch billionaire can only be good.
[0] Haters call this relationship 'being their bitch', but don't listen to them.
I’m just totally black pilled on politics at this point. There’s just no hope.
You haven't completed the chain of reasoning that brought you this far.
UK is done. :(