"erode trust" seems like a bit of an understatement. If your doctor whispers all your secrets directly to the police he quite simply becomes an enemy, instead of a (nominal) friend.
This is a trend post covid where a variety of agencies are trying to squeeze the data toothpaste out of the tube. It's utterly cynical and should be resisted at every encounter.
The people behind making these plays for data don't care about "trust and confidence," in instutions because from their perspective, when they have data, the power, and are specially protected by the law, they don't need your trust or confidence. Police with access to medical records means a source of blackmail to leverage against potential witnesses, political dissidents, and basically, anyone they please. I can see the argument now, "You mean you will give access to these random university researchers to explore it, but you won't give it to us to solve this very henious crime? Tsk.."
It's so egregious for anyone who understands what it is, but there is so little popular resistance I can only assume nobody else cares.
Haha as if, if you entrusted your data to random university researchers, they’d come to you. If you do that they’ll just take the data from the university, thank you very much, that’s much easier.
People think that by giving government power they're doing good. That, with the help of government, together we can collectively unite and form a Utopia.
But history has been populated by way more dystopia and bloody revolutions and governments that crush the people, than collective harmony Utopias.
Human beings are way more primitive than we realize I think and will corrupt ANY system, capitalism, socialism, democracy, etc.
I don't know if it's because power corrupts or sociopaths get into power. So while it seems good at first over time that power will be abused.
Even the CHURCH was selling indulgences at one point.
> People think that by giving government power they're doing good. That, with the help of government, together we can collectively unite and form a Utopia.
I don't actually believe that any more. I think maybe they actually relish is the idea that others would be forced to conform to their beliefs about how everyone must think and behave and be ruled.
They might believe it would be a utopia, but it would be specifically a utopia of their specification, and specifically excluding any possibility of different utopias, different opinions, non-conformance. Maybe not, maybe they do believe they are doing good. But the dream is always a fundamentally narcissistic, selfish, and naive utopia even if they are incapable of seeing anything but generosity and greatness in their own plans and therefore genuinely believe they are doing good.
I wonder what on earth the police want with patient data from the NHS. What's wrong with obtaining a warrant to access the necessary data on a case by case basis? (Although I can think of very few cases where patient data would help solve a legitimate crime).
It also gives them a nice list of potential suspects that they can pin the crime on. A test which is only accurate to about 1 in 300,000 will produce a reasonably large list of people when the tested population is in the 10s of millions.
Prosecutors are going to chose the one that is most easily convicted. And that may or may not be the person who's actually guilty. It will most likely be the one who cracks the most easily under interrogation (read: trusts that the police are "helping them clear things up"). The actually guilty person would think to STFU and get a lawyer; an innocent person is going to think this "honest mistake" will get cleared up.
The medical records of our betters already get special treatment in the NHS. When they first started national electronic records they created a special class of record for important people with limited access.
Eek. Greater sharing of data is often cause for concern. But this seems like a particularly pernicious change. For those who are unaware, the NHS will currently treat anyone who needs care: no questions asked, including about illegal activity (as long as you're not judged a danger to medical staff or other patients of course). And they won't report any suspected illegal activity to the police either.
This is excellent from a healthcare perspective. It means that if someone needs care they don't have to think twice about it. They can just seek that care. This looks like it might destroy that trust, and IMO that's not at all worth it.
Not true.
If you show up at a UK A&E with what looks like a gunshot wound or a stab wound, you will get healthcare, but the police will also be informed of you having suffered these specific injuries, and they will take a keen interest in finding out the surrounding circumstances. As in, for example: "Did you get shot because you shot first?"
This isn't true; they do ask for proof of residency. Source; I've been twice with folks from the US needing urgent care, and they've been treated, but also coerced into paying and or giving their details. If I were there outside of a visa etc, I would already not trust the NHS.
Things like this always make me think about a friend who got a job doing admin for the police around university. One of his jobs ended up being processing exam results for a multiple choice exam which was part of the firearms qualification - still a small minority of officers in the UK.
They said that some of the answers were so easy they could have guessed them with zero experience or experience. But there were many who failed them with an overall mark just high enough to pass.
When you go giving a group of people power, it's sobering to think about who those individual people might be - especially in an organisation that is so widespread, requires little education and has been accused of lowering hiring standards due to staff shortages.
25 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 74.1 ms ] threadThe people behind making these plays for data don't care about "trust and confidence," in instutions because from their perspective, when they have data, the power, and are specially protected by the law, they don't need your trust or confidence. Police with access to medical records means a source of blackmail to leverage against potential witnesses, political dissidents, and basically, anyone they please. I can see the argument now, "You mean you will give access to these random university researchers to explore it, but you won't give it to us to solve this very henious crime? Tsk.."
It's so egregious for anyone who understands what it is, but there is so little popular resistance I can only assume nobody else cares.
But I am really curious about which bullshit justification they came up with for that. It must be really creative.
I don't imagine it was hard, the police in the UK spend an awful lot of time dealing with people with some kind of mental illness.
Yes, its unfortunate they have to spend so much time dealing with their colleagues and lawmakers.
"The people who haven't gotten the you-know-whats are killing my kids from myocarditis"
(redacted to prevent HN thought-crime violation)
But history has been populated by way more dystopia and bloody revolutions and governments that crush the people, than collective harmony Utopias.
Human beings are way more primitive than we realize I think and will corrupt ANY system, capitalism, socialism, democracy, etc.
I don't know if it's because power corrupts or sociopaths get into power. So while it seems good at first over time that power will be abused.
Even the CHURCH was selling indulgences at one point.
I don't actually believe that any more. I think maybe they actually relish is the idea that others would be forced to conform to their beliefs about how everyone must think and behave and be ruled.
They might believe it would be a utopia, but it would be specifically a utopia of their specification, and specifically excluding any possibility of different utopias, different opinions, non-conformance. Maybe not, maybe they do believe they are doing good. But the dream is always a fundamentally narcissistic, selfish, and naive utopia even if they are incapable of seeing anything but generosity and greatness in their own plans and therefore genuinely believe they are doing good.
Prosecutors are going to chose the one that is most easily convicted. And that may or may not be the person who's actually guilty. It will most likely be the one who cracks the most easily under interrogation (read: trusts that the police are "helping them clear things up"). The actually guilty person would think to STFU and get a lawyer; an innocent person is going to think this "honest mistake" will get cleared up.
This is excellent from a healthcare perspective. It means that if someone needs care they don't have to think twice about it. They can just seek that care. This looks like it might destroy that trust, and IMO that's not at all worth it.
Good job.
They said that some of the answers were so easy they could have guessed them with zero experience or experience. But there were many who failed them with an overall mark just high enough to pass.
When you go giving a group of people power, it's sobering to think about who those individual people might be - especially in an organisation that is so widespread, requires little education and has been accused of lowering hiring standards due to staff shortages.