4 ms·
> There shouldn't be any private data to steal. Vaccines require the running of clinical trials during development and approval. Trial data was not stolen in t
by sho_hn 6y ago
> There shouldn't be any private data to steal.
Vaccines require the running of clinical trials during development and approval. Trial data was not stolen in this case (according to the companies), but obviously this is private "vaccine data".
- lodovic 6y agoThe article specifically states "we are unaware that any study participants have been identified through the data being accessed". The breached data concerns "confidential information about the vaccine and its mechanism of action, its efficiency, its risks & known possible side effects and any unique aspects such as handling guidelines". What strikes me is the fact that this information is confidential at all.
- willis936 6y agoPerhaps this was an NSA job.
- sho_hn 6y agoI know, this was exactly of my point: I felt that OP didn't read the article, and it didn't occur to them that "vaccine data" could also refer to personal information in their blanket dismissal. In this concrete case it wasn't the case, but that all "vaccine data" should be open is certainly privacy nonsense. Once you introduce that definition I agree.
- a1369209993 6y ago> > There shouldn't be any private data to steal. For technical information (how to make the vaccine) this means it's not private. For personal (including medical) information about clinical trial participants this means Pfizer-Biontech should not have the information in the first place.