On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, J. Antas wrote: > David W Forslund wrote: > > > Universal Ids have fatal problems with them unless they are some form of > > robust biometric. > > DNA chip? It could be the solution.
David and J., Identification and Authentication are two different functions. For authentication, "robust biometric" may be helpful. For identification, an arbitrary symbol is preferred. > But then again, you would need some kind of probe to read it. > And if you use a probe (mechanical, electronic, biologic, or any > combination of these) you will have to deal with the classical > "key<-->lock" problem. If we embed patient information of any kind in the identifier (e.g. DNA data, gender, date of birth), then we will be disclosing potentially sensitive patient information whenever the identifier is used. Furthermore, as you already pointed out in your previous message, these patient information may have to change over time (e.g. gender). ... > > Arguing over things like the number of digits needed in a UID is a waste > > of time. The issue is not really how many digits - but how should the UID be produced: Specifically, 1) who should produce the UID and 2) how should a directory be maintained. Regarding #2, David Forslund et al made a proposal in 2000: http://www.amia.org/pubs/symposia/D200400.PDF To my knowledge, it has not been implemented or tested in real-world settings. ... Best regards, Andrew --- Andrew P. Ho, M.D. OIO: Open Infrastructure for Outcomes www.TxOutcome.Org ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click _______________________________________________ Care2002-developers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/care2002-developers
