4 ms·

As a Brit, my medical records are held by the nationalised health service, but this doesn't mean that random cabinet ministers or police can go leafing through

by dhimes 8y ago

As a Brit, my medical records are held by the nationalised health service, but this doesn't mean that random cabinet ministers or police can go leafing through them on a whim. Yet.

pjc50 8y ago
If they decide to legislate to read them, the fact that they're stored in a private company, on a blockchain, or on the surface of the moon becomes irrelevant.
- godelski 8y ago
  > on a blockchain Fuck that! Seriously. Why do people keep wanting to put data on the blockchain? All that does is make the data public. Sure, it can't be decrypted __now__, but do you want to take the risk that it will always be encrypted? Even if you update the security of the entire chain the previous blocks are still decryptable (and we repeat the with same problem). We don't need a fully audit-able system this type of data. There are advantages to centralized data systems and I would even take a decentralized approach over a BC method. Unless you can give a very compelling reason why the data needs to be audit-able through the entire history.
- dgzl 8y ago
  No it doesn't. A private company has an obligation by contract to protect that information, even from the government. Our 4th amendment privacy rights apply to businesses as well. Edit: I thought we were talking about America.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    The answer for America, as far as I can determine from brief googling of a foreign legal system, is "no it doesn't": https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/huse-v-texas/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/huse-v-texas/ and https://law.justia.com/cases/texas/court-of-criminal-appeals/2016/pd-0433-14.html https://law.justia.com/cases/texas/court-of-criminal-appeals... ? > obligation by contract to protect that information, even from the government Contract never trumps statute anywhere.
    - dgzl 8y ago
      > Contract never trumps statute anywhere. The 4th Amendment to privacy trumps statues everywhere (i.e. neither the feds nor state can just legislate their ability to read private company data). The contract between the customer and the org. should prevent the org. from just handing it over willingly.
      - cyphar 8y ago
        The 4th amendment having any legislative teeth is honestly a joke at this point. The NSA spying programs show the US government has very little interest in upholding the 4th amendment. Now, does this mean no company will take the government to court to protect their user data? Maybe not, but the list of companies that I can think of which will do that is vanishingly small. And let's not forget that the AT&T NSA spying case was dismissed by the appeals court, and was not accepted by review in the supreme court. Do you think the outcome would be any different next time?
        dgzl 8y ago
        This is where I express my concern that the American government is operating outside of the Constitution and are guilty of violating our rights. Many constitutionists consider these three-letter agencies to be entirely unconstitutional.
        cyphar 8y ago
        Sure, and I'm in favour of constitutional bills of rights (in Australia we have no strong protections of that kind, it's mostly ad-hoc and common law with the only really significant protection being the "on just terms" concept of compulsory acquisition). The problem is that if there is no way to effectively "petition a redress of grievances" (to borrow a phrase) about some constitutional violations, what is the point of that clause of the constitution? If you have legal protections of your rights, you must also have a court system that is willing to actually hold the government to account over violations of your rights -- and my impression of the US (as an outsider) is that this is not the case for 4th amendment violations.

by dhimes 8y ago

As a Brit, my medical records are held by the nationalised health service, but this doesn't mean that random cabinet ministers or police can go leafing through them on a whim. Yet.

pjc50 8y ago

If they decide to legislate to read them, the fact that they're stored in a private company, on a blockchain, or on the surface of the moon becomes irrelevant.

godelski 8y ago
> on a blockchain Fuck that! Seriously. Why do people keep wanting to put data on the blockchain? All that does is make the data public. Sure, it can't be decrypted __now__, but do you want to take the risk that it will always be encrypted? Even if you update the security of the entire chain the previous blocks are still decryptable (and we repeat the with same problem). We don't need a fully audit-able system this type of data. There are advantages to centralized data systems and I would even take a decentralized approach over a BC method. Unless you can give a very compelling reason why the data needs to be audit-able through the entire history.
dgzl 8y ago
No it doesn't. A private company has an obligation by contract to protect that information, even from the government. Our 4th amendment privacy rights apply to businesses as well. Edit: I thought we were talking about America.
- pjc50 8y ago
  The answer for America, as far as I can determine from brief googling of a foreign legal system, is "no it doesn't": https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/huse-v-texas/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/huse-v-texas/ and https://law.justia.com/cases/texas/court-of-criminal-appeals/2016/pd-0433-14.html https://law.justia.com/cases/texas/court-of-criminal-appeals... ? > obligation by contract to protect that information, even from the government Contract never trumps statute anywhere.
  - dgzl 8y ago
    > Contract never trumps statute anywhere. The 4th Amendment to privacy trumps statues everywhere (i.e. neither the feds nor state can just legislate their ability to read private company data). The contract between the customer and the org. should prevent the org. from just handing it over willingly.
    - cyphar 8y ago
      The 4th amendment having any legislative teeth is honestly a joke at this point. The NSA spying programs show the US government has very little interest in upholding the 4th amendment. Now, does this mean no company will take the government to court to protect their user data? Maybe not, but the list of companies that I can think of which will do that is vanishingly small. And let's not forget that the AT&T NSA spying case was dismissed by the appeals court, and was not accepted by review in the supreme court. Do you think the outcome would be any different next time?
      - dgzl 8y ago
        This is where I express my concern that the American government is operating outside of the Constitution and are guilty of violating our rights. Many constitutionists consider these three-letter agencies to be entirely unconstitutional.
        cyphar 8y ago
        Sure, and I'm in favour of constitutional bills of rights (in Australia we have no strong protections of that kind, it's mostly ad-hoc and common law with the only really significant protection being the "on just terms" concept of compulsory acquisition). The problem is that if there is no way to effectively "petition a redress of grievances" (to borrow a phrase) about some constitutional violations, what is the point of that clause of the constitution? If you have legal protections of your rights, you must also have a court system that is willing to actually hold the government to account over violations of your rights -- and my impression of the US (as an outsider) is that this is not the case for 4th amendment violations.