3 ms·

I love this and I want it to be real but it won’t work. Here’s why... As an individual, I won’t lose my medical records because I have three backups and offsit

I love this and I want it to be real but it won’t work. Here’s why... As an individual, I won’t lose my medical records because I have three backups and offsite and whatever. You probably do too. But how do you remain really decentralized when the system has to work for a 76-year-old who can’t even remember what Google is, much less his password. Will this work in the golden hour after a stroke, when literally every minute matters? So we would make a medical record “bank”, which is federated sensibly, and require everyone to use it. And eventually we end up with a similar system that we have now.

naasking 9y ago
> So we would make a medical record “bank”, which is federated sensibly, and require everyone to use it. And eventually we end up with a similar system that we have now. Except accessing your encrypted records require the presentation a doctor's key and your key, which might be a standardized health card with a chip. So not entirely similar to what we have now, it could be considerably safer.
- dllthomas 9y ago
  > it could be considerably safer. If my card is lost or broken? The system you describe seems clearly at less risk of inappropriate disclosure. Whether it's safer is perhaps another question.
  - naasking 9y ago
    a) You still need physical access to a terminal to use the key, and b) you revoke the key when it's reported lost.
    - dllthomas 9y ago
      Those are just more reasons why it's harder to inappropriately access the data. My point was that you may need access to the key fast for health-related reasons, and so from that perspective it may reasonably be deemed "less safe" even if it's more secure. cf. the difference between "fail safe" and "fail secure", in a slightly different context
      - naasking 9y ago
        I get your point, but I don't see how it would be less safe. Right now they look up your records by name or health card number, and this would be a direct link to your health records that you could just tap. It's arguably safer even in the sense you're using it.

naasking 9y ago

> So we would make a medical record “bank”, which is federated sensibly, and require everyone to use it. And eventually we end up with a similar system that we have now. Except accessing your encrypted records require the presentation a doctor's key and your key, which might be a standardized health card with a chip. So not entirely similar to what we have now, it could be considerably safer.

dllthomas 9y ago
> it could be considerably safer. If my card is lost or broken? The system you describe seems clearly at less risk of inappropriate disclosure. Whether it's safer is perhaps another question.
- naasking 9y ago
  a) You still need physical access to a terminal to use the key, and b) you revoke the key when it's reported lost.
  - dllthomas 9y ago
    Those are just more reasons why it's harder to inappropriately access the data. My point was that you may need access to the key fast for health-related reasons, and so from that perspective it may reasonably be deemed "less safe" even if it's more secure. cf. the difference between "fail safe" and "fail secure", in a slightly different context
    - naasking 9y ago
      I get your point, but I don't see how it would be less safe. Right now they look up your records by name or health card number, and this would be a direct link to your health records that you could just tap. It's arguably safer even in the sense you're using it.