4 ms·
That's the price of freedom: putting individuals in control of their data means they have responsibility to protect it. But is that such a bad trade-off? Let m
by pzone 10y ago
That's the price of freedom: putting individuals in control of their data means they have responsibility to protect it. But is that such a bad trade-off?
Let me put it another way. Someone has to decide where it's safe to send and store private data. Right now, in many cases, it's the government. Why do we think that the government is properly equipped to make that decision for us? Make sure you don't give your medical records to any shady companies. Corporations with international operations and teams of lawyers are probably better equipped to determine where data can be safely secured than some random regulator.
- _delirium 10y agoHow do you propose that I personally reach agreements with corporations on storage of my medical records? I've visited a hospital once in my life, which involved doing business with dozens of different "businesses", from the hospital to the anesthesiologist, all of whom collected records, and none of whom I was in a condition to negotiate with on an individual basis (nor would they have been interested in negotiating with me regarding their data-protection policies anyway). And I don't have any faith in corporations determining where data can be safely stored; I think they will primarily go with where it can be most profitably stored, which is not necessarily the same question. I would feel much more comfortable if the hospital, anesthesiologist, and everyone else were required to store my data in accordance with a regulator's oversight. And preferably in the USA or a friendly western country. The companies can of course exercise additional caution if they feel it warranted, but I'd like the government to legislate some minimums.