I agree that some people who think they are experts make big stuff ups -
including Governments worldwide.  But people in glass houses should not
throw stones.  Doctors are suppose to be in the top few percentiles of IQ.
Yet how many of them can't read or refuse to obey instructions.  Every year
we read of some-one finding discarded old medical records on the rubbish
tip.  Every week I see patients on medication they don't qualify for (RB or
Authority), yet a significant percentage of GP's and specialists refuse to
read or understand the yellow book or what their clinical package displays
on the screen.  Some blantatly ignore the restrictions.  I am not justifying
the PBS's criteria, so please no discussions about it.  All I'm sayimg is
that if PBS made regulations we must follow it or prescribe privately -
there are many discussions about Dr. not bulk-billing, and if they feel so
strongly a patient needs Medication X that they will falsefy records or lie
to be able to prtescribe it, then prescribe it privatey.

I can continue add infinitum of how silly / stupid we as Dr.'s are, because
we believe we are above the law. 

Cedric

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Horst Herb
Sent: Friday, 7 April 2006 7:51 AM
To: General Practice Computing Group Talk
Subject: Re: [GPCG_TALK] another goodreason not to trust HeSA with our
privatekeys


On Fri, 7 Apr 2006 07:47, Ian Haywood wrote:
> The fact is, even if HeSA, HealthLink, et al., were computing 
> super-geniuses all running OpenBSD, someday, someone is going to crack 
> their system. They've chosen a system were our security is dependent 
> on theirs (however good), but they could have easily chosen one where 
> it isn't. The problem is, they don't trust *us* ;-)

The problem is that they don't understand that it is entirely irrelevant 
whether they trust *us*.

If we stuff up (our key gets compromised by our fault) = *we* are liable for

the consequences

If they stuff up (our key gets compromised by THEIR fault) = *we* are
(still!) 
liable for the consequences because it will be close to impossible to prove 
in court that it was their fault

If in any case we will get the blame and suffer the consequences, what's so 
difficult then to understand that *we* want full control?
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk


_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk

Reply via email to