Your Nhs Records To Be Collected And Passed On-- Unless You Opt Out Now!

[apelike 10]

1 hour ago, Thirsty Relic said:

OK, if you reject the Daily Mail, perhaps the same story covered by The Guardian may be more to your taste:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/feb/08/fears-over-sale-anonymous-nhs-patient-data

I'm a bit confused... Can they identify me personally from the data or not? By identify I mean name, address, email or telephone number,

[Baron99 790]

I'd think the Information Commissioner's Office would have something to say about people or organisations using your personal information without giving you the opportunity to provide your consent? 

 

I don't think you having to seek the organisation(s) out, then opting out counts. The organisation(s) should be contacting you & asking for your permission.  They are also required to tell you who your information will be shared with & you can stop them sharing the information at any time. 

Edited May 25, 2021 by Baron99

[Mr Allen 0]

1 hour ago, Thirsty Relic said:

OK, if you reject the Daily Mail, perhaps the same story covered by The Guardian may be more to your taste:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/feb/08/fears-over-sale-anonymous-nhs-patient-data

The Guardian is also total bobbins, read by leftie luvvies who get all offended by every little thing, case in point, the recent furore over THAT Fawlty Towers episode, even John Cleese himself said the BBC removing it in the first place was PC gone mad.

 

[trastrick 866]

Welcome to the new world order.

 

Anything a government does can be justified as "for the benefit of the people'," or the safety of the State. Even your freedom of movement, right of assembly, or a pint in your local pub to complain.

 

Where the State is supreme, you must conform to government edict.

 

Your former "public servants" are now your Masters! You have to trust them that they know best.

[Magilla 510]

40 minutes ago, Mr Allen said:

The Guardian is also total bobbins, read by leftie luvvies who get all offended by every little thing, case in point, the recent furore over THAT Fawlty Towers episode, even John Cleese himself said the BBC removing it in the first place was PC gone mad.

 

If only you hadn't just made it up to have something to complain about!

 

As your link clearly showed with respect of THAT Fawlty Towers episode, no-one complained, from the left or otherwise.

Edited May 25, 2021 by Magilla

[butlers 259]

Even funnier,as a definitely non luvvie, the last piece the Guardian did said Fawlty Towers is not racist.

You could do worse than read Mark Lawson's commentary

 

 

[altus 540]

1 hour ago, apelike said:

I'm a bit confused... Can they identify me personally from the data or not? By identify I mean name, address, email or telephone number,

It's about whether they can combine the NHS data with other data to deanonymise you rather than identify you from the NHS data only. A comment on The Register article gives an example:

 

"As long as your name isn't on it, all information about 43-year old female plumbers in the Chelmsford area who lived in Norwich from 1997-2002, who were treated for contact eczema following exposure to chemicals in the workplace in 2005 and who are currently being treated for high blood-pressure can be shared regardless of your choice."

 

You'd need to be able to link very little extra information from other data sets with the NHS one to combine the two and uniquely identify someone.

[Bargepole23 337]

1 hour ago, Mr Allen said:

The Guardian is also total bobbins, read by leftie luvvies who get all offended by every little thing, case in point, the recent furore over THAT Fawlty Towers episode, even John Cleese himself said the BBC removing it in the first place was PC gone mad.

 

Why is John Cleese any authority on whether Fawlty Towers is racist, or whatever the issue was supposed to be? Does he have some special insight, having spoken the lines 30 plus years ago?

[butlers 259]

Don't want to break it to you the Germans was first shown.......,45 years ago.

 

[apelike 10]

15 minutes ago, altus said:

It's about whether they can combine the NHS data with other data to deanonymise you rather than identify you from the NHS data only. A comment on The Register article gives an example:

 

"As long as your name isn't on it, all information about 43-year old female plumbers in the Chelmsford area who lived in Norwich from 1997-2002, who were treated for contact eczema following exposure to chemicals in the workplace in 2005 and who are currently being treated for high blood-pressure can be shared regardless of your choice."

 

You'd need to be able to link very little extra information from other data sets with the NHS one to combine the two and uniquely identify someone.

Cheers for that. Just opted out:

 

https://your-data-matters.service.nhs.uk/landingpage

 

not sure if it will make a difference but heyho...

[Jim Hardie 527]

1 hour ago, altus said:

It's about whether they can combine the NHS data with other data to deanonymise you rather than identify you from the NHS data only. A comment on The Register article gives an example:

 

"As long as your name isn't on it, all information about 43-year old female plumbers in the Chelmsford area who lived in Norwich from 1997-2002, who were treated for contact eczema following exposure to chemicals in the workplace in 2005 and who are currently being treated for high blood-pressure can be shared regardless of your choice."

 

You'd need to be able to link very little extra information from other data sets with the NHS one to combine the two and uniquely identify someone.

That’s a relief. My friend was worried that his visits to the clap clinic would be made public.

[trastrick 866]

15 hours ago, Jim Hardie said:

That’s a relief. My friend was worried that his visits to the clap clinic would be made public.

He can relax.

 

Unless he's an opposition politician, on the eve of an election.

 

Hacks and leaks of personal information are commonplace around that time.