Health industry warns of ‘sinister’ govt legislation

What do you mean you don't want everyone to know your medical details?


Health professionals, academics, politicians and privacy specialists have all come out in opposition to "sinister" government legislation which threatens to wreck the basic premise of doctor/patient confidentiality.

Legislation currently passing through the House of Lords gives the Secretary of State for Health extraordinary powers to "disclose and process" confidential patient information. This means the government (all arms of it) is entitled to know and use all your medical records as it sees fit.

We covered this issue at the end of January but now it is going through the Lords and the serious lobbying has begun. We are also trying to work out what happened to the Bill between January and now because the offending clause used to be clause 59 but the same clause is now number 67.

Anyway, we paid a visit to the House of Lords to hear a number of experts express their concerns and attempt to persuade the Lords of their case. It took place in the grand Moses Room - beautifully decorated but with a nasty breeze. Baroness Gould chaired the meeting, along with representatives of the Patients Association, ACHEW, POPAN and FIPR (see bottom for acronym translation).

A lot was said - most of it noteworthy - but you will tire if we run it all here. The basic point is that the government is giving itself wide-ranging powers over the patient/doctor confidentiality agreement. Its argument is that without this legislation if won't be able to effectively run cancer registries.

Trust me, I'm a Politician

But, in what has become a very disturbing facet of many examples of new legislation (we're thinking mostly RIP and the Terrorist Act here), the government has written itself quite unnecessarily wide powers over large groups of people.

Again, it says we should trust the legislators and it would never (or be allowed) to abuse its position, but the question, again, is: why then give yourself the power to do so?

This wide-net philosophy has not gone unnoticed, but is the first time the health care professionals have come face-to-face with it. They simply can't understand why the government would want these new powers.

LSE fellow and privacy advocate Simon Davies ventured that the government may be trying to pull economic interests into the previous public interests arguments. With computing power and databases these days the data from millions of people's medical records is worth a fortune.

But apart from this, the assembled panel could not see what the point of the clause is - prompting a Lord and two representatives to call it "sinister". There is also much anger than no one was consulted before the clause suddenly appeared in the Bill. The British Medical Association, the General Medical Council, the Royal College of paediatricians and others have all come out against the clause.

"Frankly bizarre" Vanessa Bourne of the Patients Association called it. The spokeswoman for ACHEW (sorry, we didn't catch your name) was good value. "I was thinking 'perhaps I've got it wrong, perhaps I'm a nutter' but now I know that I'm not. The only change we want to this clause is for it to be taken out. It is entirely obnoxious from start to finish."

Private Practice

What has all this got to do with technology, you ask? Good question. The fact is that technology is directly behind all this legislation. The government has started becoming aware of computer technology - in particular Internet technology - and what it can do.

We believe it has got it all hopelessly muddled; it is unlikely to agree. The fact is that though Whitehall, not to mention the secret services, can see huge time and cost savings in storing all the information on UK citizens on computers. It just hasn't recognised our rights to privacy at the same time.

The government is working on protocols so it can link all its departments' databases together. The ensuing network is either a wonderful use of technology or a terrifying portent of real Big Brother. We don't have a problem with it AS LONG AS there are strong safeguards in place. Currently, there aren't.

In a very telling part of the clause as well, the Bill says that the government will use anonymising software for patient records (so an individual can't be recognised but data can still be used for research) "having regard to the cost and the technology available".

Not unreasonably, a security software consultant said that any such technology would need to be developed and the government ought to be working with people to develop it rather than not implement any because none is already there. Unless of course anyone has decided to produce a huge, record-anonymising piece of software that fits in with the Health Department's computers just for kicks.

There's loads more to say, but we'll end it here with a good quote from FIPR lawyer Nicholas Bohm. "Now I know my medical records probably aren't very secure stuck in the filing cabinet of my doctor's office, but there is a huge difference between that and having it on a government database." Once the data is out there, it's very hard to get rid of. ®

Acronym fun

ACHEW - Association of Community Health Councils of England and Wales
POPAN - Prevention of Professional Abuse Network
FIPR - Foundation for Information Policy Research (ole Caspar Bowden's organisation)

Related Links

Bill in Acrobat format - the revised Bill is not in HTML at the moment
The old clause 59

Related Story

New govt health bill leaves privacy on deathbed


Other stories you might like

  • FTC urged to protect data privacy of women visiting abortion clinics
    As Supreme Court set to overturn Roe v Wade, safeguards on location info now more vital than ever

    Democrat senators have urged America's Federal Trade Commission to do something to protect the privacy of women after it emerged details of visits to abortion clinics were being sold by data brokers.

    Women's healthcare is an especially thorny issue right now after the Supreme Court voted in a leaked draft majority opinion to overturn Roe v Wade, a landmark ruling that declared women's rights to have an abortion are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution.

    If the nation's top judges indeed vote to strike down that 1973 decision, individual states, at least, can set their own laws governing women's reproductive rights. Thirteen states already have so-called "trigger laws" in place prohibiting abortions – mostly with exceptions in certain conditions, such as if the pregnancy or childbirth endangers the mother's life – that will go into effect if Roe v Wade is torn up. People living in those states would, in theory, have to travel to another state where abortion is legal to carry out the procedure lawfully, although laws are also planned to ban that.

    Continue reading
  • Zuckerberg sued for alleged role in Cambridge Analytica data-slurp scandal
    I can prove CEO was 'personally involved in Facebook’s failure to protect privacy', DC AG insists

    Cambridge Analytica is back to haunt Mark Zuckerberg: Washington DC's Attorney General filed a lawsuit today directly accusing the Meta CEO of personal involvement in the abuses that led to the data-slurping scandal. 

    DC AG Karl Racine filed [PDF] the civil suit on Monday morning, saying his office's investigations found ample evidence Zuck could be held responsible for that 2018 cluster-fsck. For those who've put it out of mind, UK-based Cambridge Analytica harvested tens of millions of people's info via a third-party Facebook app, revealing a – at best – somewhat slipshod handling of netizens' privacy by the US tech giant.

    That year, Racine sued Facebook, claiming the social network was well aware of the analytics firm's antics yet failed to do anything meaningful until the data harvesting was covered by mainstream media. Facebook repeatedly stymied document production attempts, Racine claimed, and the paperwork it eventually handed over painted a trail he said led directly to Zuck. 

    Continue reading
  • Florida's content-moderation law kept on ice, likely unconstitutional, court says
    So cool you're into free speech because that includes taking down misinformation

    While the US Supreme Court considers an emergency petition to reinstate a preliminary injunction against Texas' social media law HB 20, the US Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday partially upheld a similar injunction against Florida's social media law, SB 7072.

    Both Florida and Texas last year passed laws that impose content moderation restrictions, editorial disclosure obligations, and user-data access requirements on large online social networks. The Republican governors of both states justified the laws by claiming that social media sites have been trying to censor conservative voices, an allegation that has not been supported by evidence.

    Multiple studies addressing this issue say right-wing folk aren't being censored. They have found that social media sites try to take down or block misinformation, which researchers say is more common from right-leaning sources.

    Continue reading
  • US-APAC trade deal leaves out Taiwan, military defense not ruled out
    All fun and games until the chip factories are in the crosshairs

    US President Joe Biden has heralded an Indo-Pacific trade deal signed by several nations that do not include Taiwan. At the same time, Biden warned China that America would help defend Taiwan from attack; it is home to a critical slice of the global chip industry, after all. 

    The agreement, known as the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF), is still in its infancy, with today's announcement enabling the United States and the other 12 participating countries to begin negotiating "rules of the road that ensure [US businesses] can compete in the Indo-Pacific," the White House said. 

    Along with America, other IPEF signatories are Australia, Brunei, India, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. Combined, the White House said, the 13 countries participating in the IPEF make up 40 percent of the global economy. 

    Continue reading
  • 381,000-plus Kubernetes API servers 'exposed to internet'
    Firewall isn't a made-up word from the Hackers movie, people

    A large number of servers running the Kubernetes API have been left exposed to the internet, which is not great: they're potentially vulnerable to abuse.

    Nonprofit security organization The Shadowserver Foundation recently scanned 454,729 systems hosting the popular open-source platform for managing and orchestrating containers, finding that more than 381,645 – or about 84 percent – are accessible via the internet to varying degrees thus providing a cracked door into a corporate network.

    "While this does not mean that these instances are fully open or vulnerable to an attack, it is likely that this level of access was not intended and these instances are an unnecessarily exposed attack surface," Shadowserver's team stressed in a write-up. "They also allow for information leakage on version and build."

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022