Greg, Yes those comments have been made to the local federal members with no reply.
It seems like such a simple and obvious regulation / law but unless you take it to court at great expense Not much is going to happen it seems. Its like being a patient and going to a doctor for years and then being told you can't have a copy of your medical Records when you move interstate. Andrew. -----Original Message----- From: Greg Twyford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, 27 November 2006 2:41 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; General Practice Computing Group Talk Subject: Re: [GPCG_TALK] who is prepared to still use a vendor-locked-in "encrypted" database Andrew, A role for the LAW in this, methinks? Time to start lobbying government about this form of restrictive trade practice? Scenario: Minister to AMA: "why don't more of your brethren embrace e-health more readily?" AMA: "Because you and your colleagues fail to provide us with legal protection to our right to access our data unencumbered!" Greg Andrew wrote: > Yes Horst you are right so I have rephrased it. > > I have heard from a clinic recently is that MD3 is encrypted and HCN > will only release the key to the doctor/clinic after they agree not to > pass it on to any 3rd parties, including the incoming vendor.(Horst is > probably one of the few doctors who could do anything with the key I > would think) > > It was ironic because the incoming vendor (intrahealth) is shitty > about HCN not releasing the key and I am shitty with Intrahealth > because they did the same thing to one of my clients last year when they were leaving Profile. > Knowing the admin and master DB passwords to Profile did not help. > > And recently Intrahealth are claiming (Data Ownership - without > prejudice > -Intrahealth) that their dB is not encrypted but our external DB > expert just recently insisted (QUOTE "I can assure you the file data > was not in normal ASCII on a large number of documents.") that it was > and that is why they failed to extract anything more than demograhics. > > Why can't Vendors just be honest about it ? > Oh then we would know there real intentions I guess, that they are > scared customers will leave their under performing products and they > wantto try and stop them by holding their clinical data to ransom. > > Andrew C. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Horst Herb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, 24 November 2006 10:34 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; General Practice Computing Group Talk > Subject: Re: [GPCG_TALK] Data Ownership - without prejudice > -Intrahealth > > On Friday 24 November 2006 01:25, Andrew wrote: >> Who is prepared to use a clinical database that is not encrypted ? > > I think you should rephrase that to : who is prepared to still use a > vendor-locked-in "encrypted" database (unless the vendor provides the > customer with a means of decrypting everytyhing)? > > I certainly would not touch a system with a ten metre pole where I > cannot access every single record or part thereof at MY WILL ANY TIME -- Greg Twyford Information Management & Technology Program Officer Canterbury Division of General Practice E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ph.: 02 9787 9033 Fax: 02 9787 9200 PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL *********************************************************************** The information contained in this e-mail and their attached files, including replies and forwarded copies, are confidential and intended solely for the addressee(s) and may be legally privileged or prohibited from disclosure and unauthorised use. If you are not the intended recipient, any form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification, distribution and/or publication or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance upon this message or its attachments is prohibited. All liability for viruses is excluded to the fullest extent permitted by law. *********************************************************************** _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
