5 ms·

> “Any governmental assurances to keep your data safe have as much value as a truckload of dead rats in a tampon factory.” Remember this. I expect every piece

> “Any governmental assurances to keep your data safe have as much value as a truckload of dead rats in a tampon factory.” Remember this. I expect every piece of data given out to the government or to private organizations to sit in the databases of every major intelligence agency, and will not be surprise if it's all exposed to the public domain through data aggregation companies in near future.

HillaryBriss 9y ago
also an aspect of a single-payer healthcare plan? i don't expect corporate databases to be secure. but, if/when single-payer healthcare is implemented in the US, data leaks and breaches will occur often. i guess the difference is optical: instead of blaming the evil corporations, we'll blame the evil government.
- ende 9y ago
  One difference is that corporations can be more easily taken to court. It's more difficult to hold the 'government' accountable without it being political. I don't necessarily know how to remedy that, but it's a different class of problem. Maybe there should be more personal liability for the individuals in these agencies?
- Panino 9y ago
  > also an aspect of a single-payer healthcare plan? Note: single payer healthcare systems are about who pays, not who provides -- it's even in the name. So here, hospitals and clinics provide healthcare while the government pays those hospitals and clinics. There's no reason for the government to know John Doe's enlarged prostate medication because that's between the doctor and patient. > if/when single-payer healthcare is implemented in the US, data leaks and breaches will occur often Can you provide numerous links to stories about Medicare and Medicaid personal data being exposed to the public? And if so, do those breaches outweigh the cost of (in the single payer case) millions of people without healthcare, increased costs, and worse health outcomes?
  - leereeves 9y ago
    > There's no reason for the government to know John Doe's enlarged prostate medication because that's between the doctor and patient. Unless the government is paying for it and expects to know exactly what it's paying for.
    - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
      > the government is paying for it and expects to know exactly what it's paying for To embellish on this point, if you have a system where the government doesn't know what John Doe's healthcare providers are billing for and blindly cuts a cheque, expect to have lots of John Does having lots of very-expensive procedures.
      - walshemj 9y ago
        no in that case you have something like NICE in the Uk
    - Panino 9y ago
      Certainly. Is this the case with Medicare, and if so, does the US federal govt. know what medications my Grandpa takes?
      - linksnapzz 9y ago
        Fedgov absolutely knows. HHS CMS does elaborate data-mining on providers that take gov't money to look for fraud.
    - ameister14 9y ago
      Which is why as an unintended side effect of the US instituting a single-payer healthcare system, abortion would become illegal.
      - int_19h 9y ago
        Only if it's federal single-payer, rather than state-by-state (the latter is quite possible - it's how Canada does it). And assuming the existing law wrt taxes and abortions stays in place, of course, which I doubt if we ever get close to the numbers necessary to pass federal single-payer.
- sleepyhead 9y ago
  No, it's not. Or at least not necessarily. Here in Norway all doctor offices and public hospitals are independently operated at some level (there are hospital regions though). We are however in the process of introducing a shared journal system which will result in all of these providers sharing information about patients. This information sharing is also something that can be done in fully privatised (aka uncivilised) systems such as in the USA, so it's not really a trait of public healthcare system. But while sharing the information has a lot of benefits, there is as you mentions huge risks with data breaches as data will be sent around. And something we have been discussing here in Norway recently due to a few outsourcing as well as software data access issues. But nothing compare to this case in Sweden. > i guess the difference is optical: instead of blaming the evil corporations, we'll blame the evil government. No, that's a huge difference mate.
- toomanybeersies 9y ago
  That is the most bizarre argument against single-payer healthcare I have ever seen.
throw85301 9y ago
We should open that data. Every single human would have a record in a freely accessible, distributed database with (at least) a highres full body shot, name and a date of birth. Maybe add "full DNA sequence" in there when it gets cheap enough. There are definitely downsides (corporations having access to this will get annoying), but some of us (me and (I think) you) are already living as if this is the case, and this would teach people that this is the world we live in and remove some inefficiencies and let people build things like a global facial-recognition based authentication system.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  A lot of the potential problems can be avoided by limiting the 'free speech' rights of corporations.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- cosinetau 9y ago
  You were right to use a throwaway. This is a stupid idea. Are you interested in fixing the problem and protecting people's information, or are you only interested in creating more surveillance and data minding opportunities for people?
  - girvo 9y ago
    Radical transparency has massive downsides, yes, but it's not completely black and white. I can see some interesting arguments for it as well as many against it. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/25/one-idea-to-best-the-surveillance-state-radical-transparency https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/25/one-id...
    - cosinetau 9y ago
      Your comment says nothing. I'm glad you can think around a problem and tell me that you're capable of that, but what the Guardian is positing is "you can't steal our data if we give it to you!" Way to beat them at their own game. It doesn't make it any less asinine.
seppin 9y ago
social media, too

HillaryBriss 9y ago

also an aspect of a single-payer healthcare plan? i don't expect corporate databases to be secure. but, if/when single-payer healthcare is implemented in the US, data leaks and breaches will occur often. i guess the difference is optical: instead of blaming the evil corporations, we'll blame the evil government.

ende 9y ago
One difference is that corporations can be more easily taken to court. It's more difficult to hold the 'government' accountable without it being political. I don't necessarily know how to remedy that, but it's a different class of problem. Maybe there should be more personal liability for the individuals in these agencies?
Panino 9y ago
> also an aspect of a single-payer healthcare plan? Note: single payer healthcare systems are about who pays, not who provides -- it's even in the name. So here, hospitals and clinics provide healthcare while the government pays those hospitals and clinics. There's no reason for the government to know John Doe's enlarged prostate medication because that's between the doctor and patient. > if/when single-payer healthcare is implemented in the US, data leaks and breaches will occur often Can you provide numerous links to stories about Medicare and Medicaid personal data being exposed to the public? And if so, do those breaches outweigh the cost of (in the single payer case) millions of people without healthcare, increased costs, and worse health outcomes?
- leereeves 9y ago
  > There's no reason for the government to know John Doe's enlarged prostate medication because that's between the doctor and patient. Unless the government is paying for it and expects to know exactly what it's paying for.
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    > the government is paying for it and expects to know exactly what it's paying for To embellish on this point, if you have a system where the government doesn't know what John Doe's healthcare providers are billing for and blindly cuts a cheque, expect to have lots of John Does having lots of very-expensive procedures.
    - walshemj 9y ago
      no in that case you have something like NICE in the Uk
  - Panino 9y ago
    Certainly. Is this the case with Medicare, and if so, does the US federal govt. know what medications my Grandpa takes?
    - linksnapzz 9y ago
      Fedgov absolutely knows. HHS CMS does elaborate data-mining on providers that take gov't money to look for fraud.
  - ameister14 9y ago
    Which is why as an unintended side effect of the US instituting a single-payer healthcare system, abortion would become illegal.
    - int_19h 9y ago
      Only if it's federal single-payer, rather than state-by-state (the latter is quite possible - it's how Canada does it). And assuming the existing law wrt taxes and abortions stays in place, of course, which I doubt if we ever get close to the numbers necessary to pass federal single-payer.
sleepyhead 9y ago
No, it's not. Or at least not necessarily. Here in Norway all doctor offices and public hospitals are independently operated at some level (there are hospital regions though). We are however in the process of introducing a shared journal system which will result in all of these providers sharing information about patients. This information sharing is also something that can be done in fully privatised (aka uncivilised) systems such as in the USA, so it's not really a trait of public healthcare system. But while sharing the information has a lot of benefits, there is as you mentions huge risks with data breaches as data will be sent around. And something we have been discussing here in Norway recently due to a few outsourcing as well as software data access issues. But nothing compare to this case in Sweden. > i guess the difference is optical: instead of blaming the evil corporations, we'll blame the evil government. No, that's a huge difference mate.
toomanybeersies 9y ago
That is the most bizarre argument against single-payer healthcare I have ever seen.

throw85301 9y ago

We should open that data. Every single human would have a record in a freely accessible, distributed database with (at least) a highres full body shot, name and a date of birth. Maybe add "full DNA sequence" in there when it gets cheap enough. There are definitely downsides (corporations having access to this will get annoying), but some of us (me and (I think) you) are already living as if this is the case, and this would teach people that this is the world we live in and remove some inefficiencies and let people build things like a global facial-recognition based authentication system.

anigbrowl 9y ago
A lot of the potential problems can be avoided by limiting the 'free speech' rights of corporations.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
cosinetau 9y ago
You were right to use a throwaway. This is a stupid idea. Are you interested in fixing the problem and protecting people's information, or are you only interested in creating more surveillance and data minding opportunities for people?
- girvo 9y ago
  Radical transparency has massive downsides, yes, but it's not completely black and white. I can see some interesting arguments for it as well as many against it. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/25/one-idea-to-best-the-surveillance-state-radical-transparency https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/25/one-id...
  - cosinetau 9y ago
    Your comment says nothing. I'm glad you can think around a problem and tell me that you're capable of that, but what the Guardian is positing is "you can't steal our data if we give it to you!" Way to beat them at their own game. It doesn't make it any less asinine.

seppin 9y ago

social media, too