4 ms·

Stealing data (it is not stealing I know) is much easier when the document is digital and this is exactly the kind of abuse that HIPPA is trying to address and

Stealing data (it is not stealing I know) is much easier when the document is digital and this is exactly the kind of abuse that HIPPA is trying to address and is why you still have to use paper.

yebyen 14y ago
Just say stealing. Pedants say "stealing is to deprive a person of their property..." If you read the definition of stealing, it doesn't say deprive. It says take. You can't argue that nothing is being taken. It's ridiculous to pretend that either of records or intellectual property cannot be stolen. It's not easier to steal a person's records when the documents are digital. Especially if it's done properly (the storage, the privileges, the interchange...) What's easier in the digital case, that I will concede, is to steal the entire filing cabinet. It's easier to steal a piece of paper than to do either of these other things; breaking encryption to access the records once you've stolen the entire filing cabinet, or gaining unauthorized access on a system that is supposedly audited and access controlled.
- youngerdryas 14y ago
  Well count pg as a pedant. http://www.paulgraham.com/property.html http://www.paulgraham.com/property.html
  - yebyen 14y ago
    It looks like he's arguing that ideas, art, and smells should be freely shared. He says that data moves like smells. The only thing is, there are laws that are meant to protect you from having your medical records smelled by arbitrary folks who shouldn't / snoops with no right to do it. I do not expect to have my medical records performed in a public setting by third parties, and I would not accept any amount as compensation in the form of royalties if they did. Those people should go to jail! I have no argument with Paul Graham's position on smells and data. There's a difference between a thing that is sold and published, and a thing that is shared under confidence. That is the whole idea of HIPAA and other data privacy laws. I am on the fence about copyright in general. That is not what's at issue here.

Stealing data (it is not stealing I know) is much easier when the document is digital and this is exactly the kind of abuse that HIPPA is trying to address and is why you still have to use paper.

yebyen 14y ago

Just say stealing. Pedants say "stealing is to deprive a person of their property..." If you read the definition of stealing, it doesn't say deprive. It says take. You can't argue that nothing is being taken. It's ridiculous to pretend that either of records or intellectual property cannot be stolen. It's not easier to steal a person's records when the documents are digital. Especially if it's done properly (the storage, the privileges, the interchange...) What's easier in the digital case, that I will concede, is to steal the entire filing cabinet. It's easier to steal a piece of paper than to do either of these other things; breaking encryption to access the records once you've stolen the entire filing cabinet, or gaining unauthorized access on a system that is supposedly audited and access controlled.

youngerdryas 14y ago
Well count pg as a pedant. http://www.paulgraham.com/property.html http://www.paulgraham.com/property.html
- yebyen 14y ago
  It looks like he's arguing that ideas, art, and smells should be freely shared. He says that data moves like smells. The only thing is, there are laws that are meant to protect you from having your medical records smelled by arbitrary folks who shouldn't / snoops with no right to do it. I do not expect to have my medical records performed in a public setting by third parties, and I would not accept any amount as compensation in the form of royalties if they did. Those people should go to jail! I have no argument with Paul Graham's position on smells and data. There's a difference between a thing that is sold and published, and a thing that is shared under confidence. That is the whole idea of HIPAA and other data privacy laws. I am on the fence about copyright in general. That is not what's at issue here.