Jump to content
scruffy1

don't want to make you paranoid, but...

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

if that wasn't enough, here's an extract from the privacy policy

 

Changes to this privacy policy

We reserve the right to revise this privacy policy or any part of it from time to time. Please review this Policy periodically for changes. Any revised policy will be placed on our website. Your continued use of our website, the My Health Record system, requesting our assistance, or the provision of further personal information to us after this privacy policy has been revised, constitutes your acceptance of the revised privacy policy

 

.
Edited by scruffy1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

if that wasn't enough, here's an extract from the privacy policy

 

Changes to this privacy policy

We reserve the right to revise this privacy policy or any part of it from time to time. Please review this Policy periodically for changes. Any revised policy will be placed on our website. Your continued use of our website, the My Health Record system, requesting our assistance, or the provision of further personal information to us after this privacy policy has been revised, constitutes your acceptance of the revised privacy policy

 

.

 

 

Summary - we're making this shit up as we go along and you can't do anything about it

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and just in :

And will it make any difference whatsoever to our mob of criminal children? No. No, it will not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

and just in :

And will it make any difference whatsoever to our mob of criminal children? No. No, it will not.

 

 

Not completely useless to the kids, because they are like 50% you and your medical conditions might be of interest to them as they find out what they've inherited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the implied 'threat' in The Age's article to the Singaporean PM, it would be interesting to note whether our own pollie leaders are opting out . Is Malcy or Dutton or Shorty or Pauline worried that their health records will be desired by terrorists ?

I'm really now quite curious to know if they are showing their support by having their own info collected and collated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cut n pasted from mypost over at ocau, because i am getting tired of repeating the work

 

from the guardian (australian edition)
There is no social licence for My Health Record. Australians should reject it
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...my-health-record-australians-should-reject-it

A former journalist, entrepreneur, and government adviser, Kelsey left England in September 2015 at the height of the care.data controversy. He moved to Australia and initially joined Telstra Health, which had just acquired Dr Foster, a health data analytics firm that he cofounded in 1999. Then in July 2016, he took over the helm of the newly created Australian Digital Health Agency, the ADHA, which was to promote the historically-underperforming Personally Controlled Electronic Health Record under its rebadged name, My Health Record.

While current messaging about My Health Record has emphasised the undoubted merits of healthcare providers having up-to-date patient information, Kelsey has repeatedly characterised the scheme in very different terms. The government’s intention is “to harness the power of the modern information revolution to empower and enable clinicians to offer industry and entrepreneurs and innovators a new platform for delivery of new services”,

last October.

“It’s about creating new industrial entrepreneurial opportunities for great apps developers over here; existing large vendors over there – to engage with the public estate, to transform the experience for citizens in England [sic],”
to the Committee for Economic Development of Australia.


noting in the privacy provisions

Who do we disclose information in your My Health Record to, and why?
We and other participants in the My Health Record system disclose your personal information as part of healthcare providers providing you with healthcare. We disclose your personal information in accordance with the access controls you have set, or as otherwise required or authorised by law.

We may disclose personal information included in your My Health Record, including identification details used to create your My Health Record, to:
  • you
  • your authorised representative(s)
  • your nominated representative(s) in accordance with your access controls
  • registered healthcare providers and healthcare provider organisations involved in your healthcare in accordance with your access controls
  • a registered healthcare provider (including individuals and organisations) in an emergency situation
  • registered Contracted Service Providers (CSPs), such as companies providing information technology services to healthcare providers, in accordance with your access controls
  • registered portal operators if you, your representative or healthcare provider accesses your My Health Record through a registered portal
  • registered repository operators for the purpose of storing, indexing and calling for documents about you which form part of your My Health Record
  • participants in the My Health Record system if we need to investigate or resolve a technical, security or privacy issue
  • the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, where necessary to ensure the clinical safety of individuals using the My Health Record system
  • contractors and delegates of the System Operator to assist us in establishing and operating the My Health Record system. Contractors and delegates are bound by strict obligations to treat individuals’ personal information with the same level of respect, privacy and security that they are entitled to from the System Operator

There are limited other circumstances in which your information may be collected, used and disclosed under the My Health Records Act. These limited circumstances include the provision of indemnity cover for healthcare providers, disclosure to courts and tribunals, for the purposes of coroner's investigations, and for law enforcement purposes.

and again, for anyone a bit slow to get the idea :

Changes to this privacy policy
We reserve the right to revise this privacy policy or any part of it from time to time. Please review this Policy periodically for changes. Any revised policy will be placed on our website. Your continued use of our website, the My Health Record system, requesting our assistance, or the provision of further personal information to us after this privacy policy has been revised, constitutes your acceptance of the revised privacy policy.






so, the choice is yours currently, and i again encourage you to make an informed decision whilst you have the choice to make a choice, because after that window of opportunity, even opting out leaves a substantial digital footprint that the government can use as they see fit, and they'll let you know if that happens as long as you carefully monitor the 8000+ word privacy policy on line constantly, or maybe any other place on their website maybe (who can say?) because that's the only place they have said they'll let you know

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Kelsey was involved the UK version and they consequencely fell over and got abandoned ... he's now here pushing our version of it

Edited by Jeruselem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, a 13 billion quid loss and system being abandoned is a great predictor for government success

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Started to read an article about how Shorten is saying the whole system should be put on hold till privacy issues could be sorted ... bloody ridiculous thing to say ... how are they gonna manage that ?!

Seriously woeful Gov. and Opposition these days

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a bit too late for that. They should change the security settings for everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wanna get really annoyed ?

 

read this link : https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1027059296784146437.html

This is even more problematic for people who choose to not have their record "kept" in a universal repository, and suggests that opt out is in fact not honoured if a single piece of data is inadvertently uploaded, which would trigger the record "open".

 

i've already complained to my professional college and asked for them to confirm it's truth

 

if it is, i'm spitting chips

 


what part of "not at all, thank you" means "yes, if you get a chance" ?

that's really fucked up
 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always figured I was the naive one, but it's cute how you still think you really have a choice 🙂 ... one that will be abided by I mean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there's a difference between naivety and passive capitulation

 

my track record against major bureaucracy so far is scruffy = 2 , others = 0

 

so i am quite inclined to go the throat in whatever way is effective when something strikes me as so obviously wrong that i can't understand why there isn't a major revolt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm,

 

I decided anarchy and deadly weapons to immediate hand made far better sense than so called "government" a very long time ago...

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, scruffy1 said:

there's a difference between naivety and passive capitulation

 

my track record against major bureaucracy so far is scruffy = 2 , others = 0

 

so i am quite inclined to go the throat in whatever way is effective when something strikes me as so obviously wrong that i can't understand why there isn't a major revolt

Righto then. I'm glad you are going the fight.

There's a lot of things " so obviously wrong that I can't understand why there isn't a major revolt " ... just sayin'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yep, but as a medico i feel obliged to act on things that affect my patients, because protecting their well-being is my professional duty, but it's the reason i decided to become a doctor in the first place

 

 

so it's really just an extension of "first, do no harm"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And isn't it just so obviously wrong that the oath  of " First do no harm " , is not an oath taken by the pollies !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jeruselem said:

That leaves about 23 million (6.1 million already in the system) who don't care or trust the derps in government

It's not just the derps in govt. Unfortunately some of the medical profession are pretty derpy when it comes to IT and security.

I was disappointed a few months back, when I went to book an appt with my GP - I was OS so thought why not use their online booking system.... zero security, and you could browse the calendar for all doctors at the clinic. Booking page didn't even use https and they wanted name, address,. phone, DOB, medicare number and private health details to make a booking.

And this is not 2-3 GPs in a small clinic. We're talking 20+ GPs across a couple of large sites that became part of a multi-GP/specialist health services company offering a bunch of corporate admin etc supposedly to allow GP and specialists to focus on medicine. And they are not a budget bulk billing bunch either.

That's an organisation of 30+ people that probably won't work out that https exists until a bunch of browsers start refusing to connect to their site in a few years - and most of them will have access to a government database.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, stadl said:

It's not just the derps in govt. Unfortunately some of the medical profession are pretty derpy when it comes to IT and security.

I was disappointed a few months back, when I went to book an appt with my GP - I was OS so thought why not use their online booking system.... zero security, and you could browse the calendar for all doctors at the clinic. Booking page didn't even use https and they wanted name, address,. phone, DOB, medicare number and private health details to make a booking.

And this is not 2-3 GPs in a small clinic. We're talking 20+ GPs across a couple of large sites that became part of a multi-GP/specialist health services company offering a bunch of corporate admin etc supposedly to allow GP and specialists to focus on medicine. And they are not a budget bulk billing bunch either.

That's an organisation of 30+ people that probably won't work out that https exists until a bunch of browsers start refusing to connect to their site in a few years - and most of them will have access to a government database.

I hear some hospitals still use Windows XP based systems ... without any security software installed as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×