I am one of only two women in my postcode, and a different age from the other one. If the drug company wanted to know about my individual situation to help understand my prescribing habits, and they owned the data, why would they not look?
Lesley
> On 8 Feb 2014, at 20:58, "Michael Leuty" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 2014-02-08 at 20:30 +0000, Adrian Midgley wrote:
>> declaring they did not wish to have their records uploaded to the
>> central server or sold-on from there
>
> I find myself in a quandary over this issue. Clare Gerada writes quite
> forcefully in today's Times saying that it is our moral duty not to opt
> out.
>
> As a GP of Very Little Brain I think of two reasons why one might want
> to opt-out.
>
> 1. Anonymity may be broken either by (a) deduction from several pieces
> of data, (b) incompetence (data loss, cracking attack), or (c)
> deliberate release to authorised people (Mr Policeman Plod, etc).
>
> 2. The idea of intimate information about oneself being sold
> commercially is abhorrent.
>
> Those of us who use Facebook or Google products evidently see no problem
> with no. 2, but Aunty Flo may feel differently. Although Aunty Flo, with
> her keen idea of duty, might sympathise with Clare Gerada's view.
>
> So to my mind the main problem is number 1. Should I be terribly worried
> about accidental (or deliberate) disclosure, or just accept that there
> is no longer any such thing as privacy and get over it? And are there
> other issues that I have simplistically ignored?
>
> Mike
>
> --
> Michael Leuty
> Nottingham, UK
|