Yet another NHS data grab

https://www.theregister.com/2021/05/13/nhs_data_grab/

If you want your data to remain under some semblance of privacy, opt out now (not in a couple of weeks) as just like last time, you can’t opt out once you’re in.

I will save people a lot of thinking and researching.

The important points are covered in this bit:

However, Dr Bhatia said patients may not know their information could be used by US companies planning to bid for work for the NHS. "I do not have any confidence the data will not be [given] to the private sector in the US. Nobody ever checks; once it is anonymised and outside GDPR, they can give it to who you like.

“The information may not identify you but it can be used in ways you are not happy about. It could be used by a company looking to buy up GP surgeries, for example. There is no granularity for how the data could be used.

1. If you are concerned about they know about you – the answer is that an anonymous patient handled by a particular surgery has a range of medical problems. That’s the anonymised bit. It may not even identify the surgery. Partially anonymised vs. fully anonymised. Check the definitions given in GDPR.
2. If you are concerned about how it affects your specific GP surgery – localised info identifies the good money spinners and therefore the best targets for a buy out, but that would depend on the data only being partially anonymised.

You ought to be aware that thanks to Thatcher and Co. followed by Lansley¹ in more recent times the GP’s are much less connected to the NHS as most people think of it than anyone outside the NHS would believe.
The GP’s regard the notes as their notes, not yours.
I don’t know the current level of resistance, but GP’s have long resisted letting the local hospitals have access to the GP records even when the patient is admitted to hospital.

Try asking to see your notes that the GP holds – you may find you have to mention the FOIA (That is NOT a requirement when requesting info BTW)

The GP quoted in the story is being a touch ingenious and probably knows that Joe Public doesn’t know about levels of anonymisation.

People should be concerned that it might have an impact on who runs some surgeries. I don’t think there’s a concern that some quirky affliction of your dangly parts (or lady-bits) will become public knowledge.

¹ Given his financial associations with various health companies he should never have been allowed any input to the NHS never mind being given charge of the actual ministry

doesn’t know about levels of anonymisation.

The problem here is that the more information that is collected together, the more scope there is for undoing so-called anonymisation.

Simply omitting a name does not de-anonymise a person, if it is necessary to keep other information such as date and place of birth (could be useful for some research). Looking at that piece of information alone, it isn’t particularly relevant other than as a status point (person in this surgery was born on 16th December 1973 in Glasgow).
However, when correlated with other data, well, let’s see who is on the electoral register with this date of birth and this location. There’s so much data floating around that it likely isn’t at all difficult to automate this sort of thing. Just churn through all the data sets matching up stuff. And since it’s “anonymous” and often with little oversight, it doesn’t matter if conclusions drawn automatically are wrong…

Partially anonymised vs. fully anonymised.

It’s worth noting that the more anonymous data is, the less useful it is for anything.
“Forty heathly people in this country suffered unexpected sudden fatal aneurysms” is a data point. The first questions anybody looking into that will ask are: gender, age, approximate address (rule out environmental causes), weight, were they taking medication? the same stuff?

And, suddenly, the useful data is a lot more specific. It may not mention your name, but don’t be fooled into thinking that omitting name, address, and serial number makes you anonymous. It might, but it equally might not.

some quirky affliction of your dangly parts (or lady-bits) will become public knowledge.

I’m not a wannabe celeb, nobody will be interested in anything of mine that dangles. I’m more concerned that I might find future private medical coverage contains exclusions for things that I don’t even know I might have, determined by researching my antecedents.
[well, in my case, good luck with that… but you know what I mean]

never mind being given charge of the actual ministry

You’re surprised? The Tories are openly brazenly corrupt, and everybody is too busy chanting the “Let’s get Brexit done” or “Let’s get Covid done” mantras to even care about little things like that.

The thing that concerns me is that possibility that US entities might use these data in their bid to “take-over” the NHS.

After Trump I have zero confidence in their abilites to manage anything properly!

Trump said what he thought – this new one – goodness knows – no that’s not the TV remote :-|

Some of our MP’s give pigs a bad name.

Simply omitting a name does not de-anonymise a person, if it is necessary to keep other information such as date and place of birth (could be useful for some research). Looking at that piece of information alone, it isn’t particularly relevant other than as a status point (person in this surgery was born on 16th December 1973 in Glasgow).

Yup, that’s why stuff is listed as partially anonymised and fully.
I did point at reading the GDPR to get an idea of what the terms mean.

You’re surprised?

Not even remotely (Hubble telescope) surprised.

The Tories are openly brazenly corrupt

I’m of the opinion that the phrase is a tautology.

The thing that concerns me is that possibility that US entities might use these data in their bid to “take-over” the NHS.

That’s the bit you should be concerned about

And the story continues…
https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/15/palantir_uk_sci_tech_committee/

(interesting idea of “sovereignty” these people have)

Thanks for letting us know about the deadline and opt-out Rick, I can’t say I would have heard otherwise.

Here’s a quick dose of medical mayhem for Authentic Steve.

https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/15/zoll_defibrillator_dashboard_vulnerabilities/

A great example of a good idea (defibs self test, report status back to the mothership so notifications can be issued for test failures) gone horribly wrong (hey guys, save time, just upload your assets info as a big Excel file).

And stretching the medical angle to its absolute limit, we need look no further than Ohio.
https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/15/magnetic_medics_ohio_covid_vaccines/
The two real stories here are:

• Why did state legislators even let these people in the room?

And:

• How is it possible that such a nut can be an actual registered nurse? Surely you want to be looked after by…. well…. read the article and draw your own conclusions regarding her mental faculties.

Here’s a quick dose of medical mayhem for Authentic Steve.

https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/15/zoll_defibrillator_dashboard_vulnerabilities/

You know, if you had a large hospital with a lot of those in use, the guys in Medical Electronics might be duly concerned.

I wonder if there’s a big one near me…