3 ms·

Kaiser has had another privacy bug for many years, which is they give out phone numbers of individual doctors in the Kaiser system (of course it goes to voice m

Kaiser has had another privacy bug for many years, which is they give out phone numbers of individual doctors in the Kaiser system (of course it goes to voice mail). That sounds great but it's invasive: call a Kaiser oncologist, and your phone carrier sells the number you dialed to data brokers who profile you as a likely cancer patient. Call an AIDS specialist, gender transition therapist, abortion provider, etc.: same idea. Kaiser should instead have a single incoming phone number where you enter an extension of the doctor you are trying to reach. So everyone dials the same outgoing number. I griped to them about this around 10 years ago and they basically said hrmmph.

lotsofpulp 3y ago
That’s a crazy solution to a legislative problem. Also, source that call records are sold? I thought even the government (non federal security apparatus) needed a warrant to get access to that information?
- 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 3y ago
  sounds like I need to start dialing some random businesses to fuck up my ads
- kevingadd 3y ago
  https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/security/a23567/att-phone-records-police/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/security/a23567/...
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    The source material on page 9 and 10 claims a subpoena is necessary: https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/09/02/us/hemisphere-project.html?_r=0 https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013... Therefore, I am confused whether or not a warrant is needed. If the phone networks were straight up selling call records, then surely no law enforcement agency would bother with warrants.
    - whaleofatw2022 3y ago
      Buying the records could cause issues potentially in court. The selling of 'evidence' can cause various conflicts of interest. That said I would be completely unsurprised if they were used for 'parallel discovery' purposes.
    - throwaway81523 3y ago
      Call records have never needed a warrant (lookup "pen registers"). Call contents (i.e. wiretaps) have in principle always needed a warrant, modulo many exceptions. These days though, call records seem to be for sale to anyone who wants them, whether or not that is legal.
      - gopher_space 3y ago
        A private investigator could fill us in, but if you look at the different personal data services you'll see a lot of "check this box to agree that you have a valid legal reason to pay us $75 for your ex's info" type setups. Pirate Code law.
    - singleshot_ 3y ago
      Subscriber data: court order. Communications: warrant. Metadata: it depends. (Not a general rule but a useful heuristic).
- hi-v-rocknroll 3y ago
  KP's phone carrier, the caller's carrier, or an intermediate phone network maybe selling metadata to data brokers. The current practice in America is that once data* about a person has been disclosed to a business by any means, the person loses all rights to it and it becomes the property of that business to do with and resell it however they want. * There are limited carve-outs for medical records and such.
  - kbenson 3y ago
    > The current practice in America is that once data* about a person has been disclosed to a business by any means, the person loses all rights to it and it becomes the property of that business to do with and resell it however they want. Yes. I think what's being alluded to is that the ultimate problem lies there, and carving out special systems and cases to legislate to avoid bad behavior that might results from that will always fall short of what we could get with some more overarching legislation that makes it so the end person retains at least enough rights about that data to know when it's happening and preferably be able to stop it and requiring very stringent rules about those that do attempt it with permission from end users. At that point it's no longer about finding which if the data aggregators are doing unsavory things with the data they get from you and trying to find some way to get them to stop and it's then about any data broker that wants your information trying to get you to allow it (because there are undoubtedly cases where the data is good for society and even good for you) needs to justify what and why and how they use it. Edit: And there would be legal recourse if they don't follow those legal standards, of course. It's implied, but might as well be stated outright.
    - smolder 3y ago
      I think the better starting point would be that businesses have no right to share personally identifying information about their customers (short of court orders) and the carve outs go the other way. I should then grant the "identity handling rights", by way of a license, to businesses, as needed. Put some standards around the language and method of establishing consent so it can't be buried in EULAs, and then I'll be happy to check a box to grant businesses to transact with my PII on my behalf if there is a legitimate need.
hi-v-rocknroll 3y ago
Correlation between web, social media, brick and mortar retailers, banking, credit, and cell phone carriers has reached a level of ridiculous perversion. America needs a modern German-like privacy framework. Data brokers should be illegal and individuals should have final say over how uniquely identifying information about them is exchanged.
- smolder 3y ago
  Yes. The data hoarding creates endless opportunity for abuse and only marginally improves the utility of things like advertising. The case of insurance providers having a microscope into everyone's lives is simply dystopian. As with political campaigns, potential employers, law enforcement, and so on.
bee_rider 3y ago
Your cellphone could also report your location when you walk to these medical providers, right?
- KeepFlying 3y ago
  Yeah but you could theoretically turn off Location services and then the cell network may not be able to tell if you're at the doctors or at the McDonalds next door so it still offers some (limited) privacy.
  - bhhaskin 3y ago
    By that logic you could in theory use a VOIP number to call...
nix0n 3y ago
So if I call some Sports Medicine doctors, then advertisers will think I'm a cool, active person.
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 3y ago
  Then they see the rest of your browsing history
neilv 3y ago
The solution is FBI raids on the headquarters of the carriers, data brokers, and companies that buy/use/resell/share/etc. the data. Plus the individuals found responsible thrown into prison, and personally bankrupted. Plus a punitive hit to the stockholders, including clawbacks of past realized gains, to align incentives better with productive society, and not let a corporation be a shield for routine criminal conspiracy. Working backwards from the desired state, what legislation do we need?
- drstewart 3y ago
  >Working backwards from the desired state, what legislation do we need? Not much for the jackboot police state you look to create
  - kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 3y ago
    "It's fine, I'm not doing anything wrong, so it won't hurt me"
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
SAI_Peregrinus 3y ago
This is not unique to Kaiser. Anyone not on an HMO plan has separate providers for separate specialties.
Dalewyn 3y ago
>I griped to them about this around 10 years ago and they basically said hrmmph. To be fair to Kaiser, that really isn't their problem. You should be griping to the telco (yes, I know it's a waste of time) and your politicians (marginally more useful than the former), because that is their problem.

lotsofpulp 3y ago

That’s a crazy solution to a legislative problem. Also, source that call records are sold? I thought even the government (non federal security apparatus) needed a warrant to get access to that information?

01HNNWZ0MV43FF 3y ago
sounds like I need to start dialing some random businesses to fuck up my ads
kevingadd 3y ago
https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/security/a23567/att-phone-records-police/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/security/a23567/...
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  The source material on page 9 and 10 claims a subpoena is necessary: https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/09/02/us/hemisphere-project.html?_r=0 https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013... Therefore, I am confused whether or not a warrant is needed. If the phone networks were straight up selling call records, then surely no law enforcement agency would bother with warrants.
  - whaleofatw2022 3y ago
    Buying the records could cause issues potentially in court. The selling of 'evidence' can cause various conflicts of interest. That said I would be completely unsurprised if they were used for 'parallel discovery' purposes.
  - throwaway81523 3y ago
    Call records have never needed a warrant (lookup "pen registers"). Call contents (i.e. wiretaps) have in principle always needed a warrant, modulo many exceptions. These days though, call records seem to be for sale to anyone who wants them, whether or not that is legal.
    - gopher_space 3y ago
      A private investigator could fill us in, but if you look at the different personal data services you'll see a lot of "check this box to agree that you have a valid legal reason to pay us $75 for your ex's info" type setups. Pirate Code law.
  - singleshot_ 3y ago
    Subscriber data: court order. Communications: warrant. Metadata: it depends. (Not a general rule but a useful heuristic).
hi-v-rocknroll 3y ago
KP's phone carrier, the caller's carrier, or an intermediate phone network maybe selling metadata to data brokers. The current practice in America is that once data* about a person has been disclosed to a business by any means, the person loses all rights to it and it becomes the property of that business to do with and resell it however they want. * There are limited carve-outs for medical records and such.
- kbenson 3y ago
  > The current practice in America is that once data* about a person has been disclosed to a business by any means, the person loses all rights to it and it becomes the property of that business to do with and resell it however they want. Yes. I think what's being alluded to is that the ultimate problem lies there, and carving out special systems and cases to legislate to avoid bad behavior that might results from that will always fall short of what we could get with some more overarching legislation that makes it so the end person retains at least enough rights about that data to know when it's happening and preferably be able to stop it and requiring very stringent rules about those that do attempt it with permission from end users. At that point it's no longer about finding which if the data aggregators are doing unsavory things with the data they get from you and trying to find some way to get them to stop and it's then about any data broker that wants your information trying to get you to allow it (because there are undoubtedly cases where the data is good for society and even good for you) needs to justify what and why and how they use it. Edit: And there would be legal recourse if they don't follow those legal standards, of course. It's implied, but might as well be stated outright.
  - smolder 3y ago
    I think the better starting point would be that businesses have no right to share personally identifying information about their customers (short of court orders) and the carve outs go the other way. I should then grant the "identity handling rights", by way of a license, to businesses, as needed. Put some standards around the language and method of establishing consent so it can't be buried in EULAs, and then I'll be happy to check a box to grant businesses to transact with my PII on my behalf if there is a legitimate need.

hi-v-rocknroll 3y ago

Correlation between web, social media, brick and mortar retailers, banking, credit, and cell phone carriers has reached a level of ridiculous perversion. America needs a modern German-like privacy framework. Data brokers should be illegal and individuals should have final say over how uniquely identifying information about them is exchanged.

smolder 3y ago
Yes. The data hoarding creates endless opportunity for abuse and only marginally improves the utility of things like advertising. The case of insurance providers having a microscope into everyone's lives is simply dystopian. As with political campaigns, potential employers, law enforcement, and so on.

bee_rider 3y ago

Your cellphone could also report your location when you walk to these medical providers, right?

KeepFlying 3y ago
Yeah but you could theoretically turn off Location services and then the cell network may not be able to tell if you're at the doctors or at the McDonalds next door so it still offers some (limited) privacy.
- bhhaskin 3y ago
  By that logic you could in theory use a VOIP number to call...

nix0n 3y ago

So if I call some Sports Medicine doctors, then advertisers will think I'm a cool, active person.

kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 3y ago
Then they see the rest of your browsing history

neilv 3y ago

The solution is FBI raids on the headquarters of the carriers, data brokers, and companies that buy/use/resell/share/etc. the data. Plus the individuals found responsible thrown into prison, and personally bankrupted. Plus a punitive hit to the stockholders, including clawbacks of past realized gains, to align incentives better with productive society, and not let a corporation be a shield for routine criminal conspiracy. Working backwards from the desired state, what legislation do we need?

drstewart 3y ago
>Working backwards from the desired state, what legislation do we need? Not much for the jackboot police state you look to create
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 3y ago
  "It's fine, I'm not doing anything wrong, so it won't hurt me"
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

SAI_Peregrinus 3y ago

This is not unique to Kaiser. Anyone not on an HMO plan has separate providers for separate specialties.

Dalewyn 3y ago

>I griped to them about this around 10 years ago and they basically said hrmmph. To be fair to Kaiser, that really isn't their problem. You should be griping to the telco (yes, I know it's a waste of time) and your politicians (marginally more useful than the former), because that is their problem.