4 ms·

Ok, lets look in context. In 1920 records were kept about beeing a jew. It was perfectly ok, no harm done, some record no one cared about. In 1942 those records

by stiray 7y ago

Ok, lets look in context. In 1920 records were kept about beeing a jew. It was perfectly ok, no harm done, some record no one cared about. In 1942 those records became mortal, sponsored by state. Should we talk about anti-gay laws? One day it is fine, second day you can get prisoned. No one should keep such records as society is changing and not always to best. This is one of the reasons, privacy is one of fundamental human rights. And is blatantly violated for the profit.

globuous 7y ago
Maybe, do you have a source you could share please ? I often read this argument around but have not verified it. I've also heard some records produced under Napoleon were used. But this was a real crazy time. Hypothetical scenario (in the sense that I have not verified it, but I do think it's a very likely scenario to have happened): There were medical records of people with physical conditions before 1933 (so they could be treated) that were used under the Nazi regime to persecute them. Does that mean it that hospitals and doctors maintaining a list of medical records to treat their patients efficiently was a bad idea ? I don't have the answer to this, I just wanted to point out that this is a delicate issue that society needs to figure out fairly quickly if they want to have an influence its outcome. I wonder what godwin would have thought about all this :)
- jacquesm 7y ago
  https://jacquesmattheij.com/if-you-have-nothing-to-hide/ https://jacquesmattheij.com/if-you-have-nothing-to-hide/
- stiray 7y ago
  Just for the last part, for everything else you can use duckduckgo (or qwant). Anyway it is not such a hypotetical scenario, nazis were really killing the disabled persons based on their medical record (yes, qwant or duckduckgo for it). Yes, it is a bad idea that doctors keep those data. If insurance companies get those information (and my dentist said he was already aproached by some company to sell dental records, I wouldnt be surprised if this is a common practice in states) you will have issues. Same with employees etc., even if nothing wrong with your health but there is x% chance that you get terminal disease. Those records should be handed over to the patient, tamper proofed (no, not blockchain, just RSA will do fine) or stored, but encrypted with patient key. Actually when writting this I remembered that we (as in my country) are having a medical smart card that needs to be given to the doctor to access our medical records. Maybe we already have such a system. Anyway it is a bit sick comparing google with doctors. The need and trust is on completely different scale not to mention that trust between doctor and patient is handled by laws and hippocratic oath since 257 AD.
thaumasiotes 7y ago
> In 1920 records were kept about beeing a jew. It was perfectly ok, no harm done, some record no one cared about. In 1942 those records became mortal As a legacy of this, the US government doesn't count Jews in the census. (And, to preserve nondiscrimination values, doesn't count other religious denominations either.) Interestingly, the census does enthusiastically collect race data on everyone. This is logically incoherent; racial groups (such as the Jews, actually) are at least as much a natural target of extermination efforts as religious groups.
- ComputerGuru 7y ago
  It’s hard to understand how things that are harmless today can be prosecuted tomorrow. Imagine a drugstore keeping a list of its customers who have diabetes... or AIDS.
  - thaumasiotes 7y ago
    Having AIDS was stigmatized right from the beginning, because it was obvious right from the beginning that if you had AIDS, you were gay. (It was also stigmatized because it was a lethal disease that spread by unclear means, but that seems less relevant to the topic at hand.)
DontTellAnyone 7y ago
By that logic we shouldn't ever collect any data on anyone, because at some point in the future group sharing trait XY might be persecuted for some reason.

by stiray 7y ago

globuous 7y ago

Maybe, do you have a source you could share please ? I often read this argument around but have not verified it. I've also heard some records produced under Napoleon were used. But this was a real crazy time. Hypothetical scenario (in the sense that I have not verified it, but I do think it's a very likely scenario to have happened): There were medical records of people with physical conditions before 1933 (so they could be treated) that were used under the Nazi regime to persecute them. Does that mean it that hospitals and doctors maintaining a list of medical records to treat their patients efficiently was a bad idea ? I don't have the answer to this, I just wanted to point out that this is a delicate issue that society needs to figure out fairly quickly if they want to have an influence its outcome. I wonder what godwin would have thought about all this :)

jacquesm 7y ago
https://jacquesmattheij.com/if-you-have-nothing-to-hide/ https://jacquesmattheij.com/if-you-have-nothing-to-hide/
stiray 7y ago
Just for the last part, for everything else you can use duckduckgo (or qwant). Anyway it is not such a hypotetical scenario, nazis were really killing the disabled persons based on their medical record (yes, qwant or duckduckgo for it). Yes, it is a bad idea that doctors keep those data. If insurance companies get those information (and my dentist said he was already aproached by some company to sell dental records, I wouldnt be surprised if this is a common practice in states) you will have issues. Same with employees etc., even if nothing wrong with your health but there is x% chance that you get terminal disease. Those records should be handed over to the patient, tamper proofed (no, not blockchain, just RSA will do fine) or stored, but encrypted with patient key. Actually when writting this I remembered that we (as in my country) are having a medical smart card that needs to be given to the doctor to access our medical records. Maybe we already have such a system. Anyway it is a bit sick comparing google with doctors. The need and trust is on completely different scale not to mention that trust between doctor and patient is handled by laws and hippocratic oath since 257 AD.

thaumasiotes 7y ago

> In 1920 records were kept about beeing a jew. It was perfectly ok, no harm done, some record no one cared about. In 1942 those records became mortal As a legacy of this, the US government doesn't count Jews in the census. (And, to preserve nondiscrimination values, doesn't count other religious denominations either.) Interestingly, the census does enthusiastically collect race data on everyone. This is logically incoherent; racial groups (such as the Jews, actually) are at least as much a natural target of extermination efforts as religious groups.

ComputerGuru 7y ago
It’s hard to understand how things that are harmless today can be prosecuted tomorrow. Imagine a drugstore keeping a list of its customers who have diabetes... or AIDS.
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  Having AIDS was stigmatized right from the beginning, because it was obvious right from the beginning that if you had AIDS, you were gay. (It was also stigmatized because it was a lethal disease that spread by unclear means, but that seems less relevant to the topic at hand.)

DontTellAnyone 7y ago

By that logic we shouldn't ever collect any data on anyone, because at some point in the future group sharing trait XY might be persecuted for some reason.