On 07/24/2018 11:12 AM, Jim Birch wrote:
"To avoid that risk, you might consider pointing out errors and
untruths specifically
and explicitly."
Sure: what are the specific actual harms that have occurred in Australia by
the government knowing too much? Be specific. Name a few. (I won't
On 24/07/18 11:12, Jim Birch wrote:
... what are the specific actual harms that have occurred in Australia by
the government knowing too much? ...
The Stolen Generations: a systematic data driven government process of
removing children by force from their families.
Narelle,
On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 12:33 PM, Narelle Clark wrote:
> Ask any of the women whose violent ex-partners were provided with
> access to their location via police looking up personal information.
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:19 AM Jim Birch wrote:
>
> Sure: what are the specific actual harms that have occurred in Australia by
> the government knowing too much? Be specific. Name a few. (I won't count
> getting done for tax dodging and crime. Other than that, I have trouble
> coming up
David rightly wrote,
“If the Government's loud protestations that they only want to improve the
health system are true then perhaps they could begin by removing access from
every entity except registered hospitals and medical practices, and individuals
to their own record. If some
On Monday, 30 July 2018 14:26:24 AEST Stephen Loosley wrote:
> “This product is a piece of shit,” a doctor at Florida’s Jupiter Hospital
> said to IBM, according to the documents seen by Stat News. “We bought it for
> marketing and with hopes that you would achieve the vision."
"We bought it
Bernard writes,
> The My Health Record system has already been changed from opt-in
> to opt-out; the government removed the requirement to obtain your
> consent to register you for a record and to acquire your data and to
> disseminate it to health care professionals.
>
> These two facts are
This is my view, it's in an APF media release sent out today:
The biggest privacy risks to your My Health Record – the Government.
Whatever arguments are put up for and against My Health Record and the
current push to make it opt-out, there are two inescapable facts:
1. My Health Record is a
'shared health record' is what I have a problem with. I don't want a 'shared'
health
record, I want a MY health record. Seems the department has forgotten what the
word
'my' means.
For MY health record, the only people who should have access to it is me, and my
chosen doctor. Not other
On Tue, 2018-07-24 at 13:43 +1000, Jim Birch wrote:
> You might not state it explicitly but there a basic implication that
> MyHR is bad and we're better off without it, isn't there? Maybe I'm
> misreading and you're in favour of a shared health record but against
> some aspects of the
You might not state it explicitly but there a basic implication that MyHR
is bad and we're better off without it, isn't there? Maybe I'm misreading
and you're in favour of a shared health record but against some aspects of
the implementation? In the circumstances you might say so because it is
On Tue, 2018-07-24 at 11:12 +1000, Jim Birch wrote:
> "To avoid that risk, you might consider pointing out errors and
> untruths specifically and explicitly."
>
> Sure: what are the specific actual harms that have occurred
That is not pointing out an error, that's asking a question. Not a bad
Sure, and we don't live in a totalitarian country, but it's an animating
narrative du jour. I don't like a lot of our government, but then, they
were freely elected by some very foolish people.
There's a world of difference between totalitarianism and a shared health
record. A shared health
On 22/07/18 17:22, Karl Auer wrote:
Hullo. I hope this crosspost will be forgiven. ...
It is on topic for the list.
Opt out of My Health Record ...
Perhaps mention that 1.5 million records have been stolen from the
Singapore government's system, including what medicine the Prime
Minister
Orwell (Blair) was writing about 1948, but titled his book 1984 to avoid
persecution.
What he wrote about had already come to pass. If the past is fake news, then
the writers
of history have won some sort of war.
"Fake news" was a mere speck of what Orwell was railing against. Think Newspeak,
On Mon, 2018-07-23 at 14:20 +1000, Jim Birch wrote:
> Fake news (i.e. stories that are designed to get the juices flowing)
> travel faster and further. Reality comes a long second.
Hm. Not sure if you are accusing me and/or David of generating "fake
news" or not.
Truisms positioned to cast
On Mon, 2018-07-23 at 13:53 +1000, David wrote:
> I thought it was possible for an individual to at least display their
> record, I assume all of it (?), and to be notified when it was
> accessed. However whether this would be honoured for all time, even
> if true, is not guaranteed.
You can set
It's not guaranteed that the government won't shoot you or imprison you
either. Such is life.
The one thing that that George Orwell was absolutely correct about is that
there was a year called 1984. The rest turned out, ironically, to be
exactly the kind of fake news he was railing against.
18 matches
Mail list logo
