Google’s $8.5M Privacy Pact Going To Inapt Orgs, Groups Say

“A coalition of privacy groups [including Patient Privacy Rights] stepped up its opposition to the proposed $8.5 million settlement of a California class action alleging Google Inc. illegally divulged search information, saying Wednesday that counsel has failed to show how the seven organizations chosen to receive cy pres funds are appropriate.”

To view the full article (only available by subscription), please visit Google’s $8.5M Privacy Pact Going To Inapt Orgs, Groups Say.

Your prescription history is their business

“A secretive, for-profit service called ScriptCheck keeps track of all your prescriptions, even those you pay for with cash. Life insurers pay for the data.”

To view the full article, please visit: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-lazarus-20131022,0,1491023.column#ixzz2miu5cODJ

Five Public Interest Groups Underscore Opposition To Settlement In Google Privacy Suit

“Consumer Watchdog joined the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and three other public interest groups today in re-iterating their opposition to a proposed $8.5 million settlement in a class action suit against Google for privacy violations in the way it handled users’ search data because proposed recipients of settlement funds don’t represent the interests of the class.”

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/1529279#ixzz2i1kPTbJt

Security and Privacy of Patient Data Subject of Regulatory Hearing

Representatives of patients, providers, insurers and tech companies testify before federal panel yesterday at the HIT Policy Privacy & Security Tiger Team Virtual Hearing on Accounting for Disclosures.

“We believe it’s the patient’s right to have digital access that is real-time and online for accounting of disclosures,” said Dr. Deborah Peel, the head of Patient Privacy Rights, a group she founded in 2004. Patients “need and want the data for our own health. We need to have independent agents as advisors, independent decision-making tools, we need independence from the institutions and data holders that currently control our information. We need to have agents that represent us, not the interests of corporations,” she said.

“I think the day will come when people will understand that their health information is the most valuable personal information about them in the digital world and that it’s an asset that should be protected in the same way that they protect and control their financial information online,” Peel said.

To view the full article click Security and Privacy of Patient Data Subject of Regulatory Hearing

To view a PDF of the hearing click HIT Policy Privacy & Security Tiger Team Virtual Hearing on Accounting for Disclosures

 

Medical Info for Sale Online

In this article the News4 I-Team discovered how anyone with internet access and who is willing to pay just a few hundred dollars can easily have access to and purchase private medical records online.  This contributes to between “one and two million Americans being affected by medical identity theft each year”.

Read more in this article here and learn where stolen medical information goes, who is selling the information, and where they are getting it from in the first place.  Are YOU at risk?

 

Patient privacy evangelist, analytics officer spar over data rights

To view the full article, please visit: Patient privacy evangelist, analytics officer spar over data rights

“…At the HIMSS Media/Healthcare IT News Privacy and Security Forum in Boston, patient privacy advocate Deborah Peel, MD, of Patient Privacy Rights, and UPMC Insurance Services Division Chief AnalyticsOfficer Pamela Peele took the stage to debate the highly-contested issue of whether patients should have full consent over how and with whom their personal health information records are shared.”

Key quotes from Dr. Peel:

“Forty to 50 million people a year do one of three things: avoid or delay diagnosis for critical conditions like cancer, depression and sexually transmitted diseases, or they hide information,” said Peel. “There’s the economic impact of having a system that people don’t trust.”

“He found that only a whopping 1 percent of the public would ever agree to unfettered research use of their data. Even with de-identified data, only 19 percent would agree to the use of their data for research without consent,” said Peel. “On the other hand, when people are asked if they want to participate or have their data used with consent, the public is very altruistic, so we get something very different fuller information, more complete information when the public knows what you’re doing with it and they support the project.”

 

Five More Organizations Join Lawsuit Against NSA Surveillance

National Lawyers Guild, Patient Privacy Rights and The Shalom Center Among 22 Groups Asserting Right to Free Association

 

San Francisco, Ca – infoZine – Five new groups—including civil-rights lawyers, medical-privacy advocates and Jewish social-justice activists—have joined a lawsuit filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) against the National Security Agency (NSA) over the unconstitutional collection of bulk telephone call records. With today’s amended complaint, EFF now represents 22 entities in alleging that government surveillance under Section 215 of the Patriot Act violates Americans’ First Amendment right to freedom of association.

 

The five entities joining the First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles v. NSA lawsuit before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California are: Acorn Active Media, the Charity and Security Network, the National Lawyers Guild, Patient Privacy Rights and The Shalom Center. They join an already diverse coalition of groups representing interests including gun rights, environmentalism, drug-policy reform, human rights, open-source technology, media reform and religious freedom.

 

Five More Organizations Join Lawsuit Against NSA Surveillance

To view the full article, please visit: Five More Organizations Join Lawsuit Against NSA Surveillance

“The five entities joining the First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles v. NSA lawsuit before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California are: Acorn Active Media, the Charity and Security Network, the National Lawyers Guild, Patient Privacy Rights and The Shalom Center. They join an already diverse coalition of groups representing interests including gun rights, environmentalism, drug-policy reform, human rights, open-source technology, media reform and religious freedom.”

The FBI’s New Wiretapping Plan Is Great News for Criminals

To view the full article, please visit: The FBI’s New Wiretapping Plan Is Great News for Criminals

US technology is designed for ‘exceptions’ and ‘outliers’, i.e., ‘worst-case’ scenarios like terrorists and unconscious patients.

Bruce Schneier concludes  his May 29th  essay:

“Finally there’s a general principle at work that’s worth explicitly stating. All tools can be used by the good guys and the bad guys. Cars have enormous societal value, even though bank robbers can use them as getaway cars. Cash is no different. Both good guys and bad guys send e-mails, use Skype, and eat at all-night restaurants. But because society consists overwhelmingly of good guys, the good uses of these dual-use technologies greatly outweigh the bad uses. Strong Internet security makes us all safer, even though it helps the bad guys as well. And it makes no sense to harm all of us in an attempt to harm a small subset of us.”

Fear-driven technology harms Democracy and health:

  • Example #1: FBI

Bruce Schneier’s essay (below) tells how US-created security flaws help the wrong people (criminals and terrorists) and harm the rest of us (law-abiding citizens).

  • Giving the government access (via back doors, brute force decryption, etc) to everyone’s data to find terrorists is the ‘worst-case’ scenario used to justify destroying strong data security protections.
  • But law-abiding people, businesses, and government really NEED strong data security protections to function everyday online.
  • Criminals and terrorists can exploit the security flaws created to catch them to steal information and harm governments, individuals, and corporations; but ordinary citizens and businesses can’t build or afford security technology to protect their own data.
  • WORST CONSEQUENCES: people will not trust technology and governments, and cyber-wars can destroy people, governments, and corporations.

 

  • Example #2: US health technology systems

The US eliminated data privacy in health technology systems, helping the wrong people (government and corporations) and harming patients.

  • Government and corporations control the use of the nation’s health data. Medical emergencies are the ‘worst-case’ scenario used to justify this technology: if you are unconscious in an emergency room (a one-in-a-million), you can’t give consent to share your data.
  • But the 299,999, 700 million US patients who are awake expect to control use of personal health data in order to trust doctors and technology.
  • Government and industry control use of the nation’s data for various purposes without the knowledge of the public, there is no ‘chain of custody’ for health data and no data map to track uses. Some hidden uses may be beneficial and some may harm patients.  Patients can’t buy or use privacy technology to protect health data.
  • WORST CONSEQUENCES: 40-50 million people/year avoid or delay treatment, or hide information to protect the privacy of health information, risking their lives and health.  Technology causes tens of millions of people who need treatment to suffer bad health outcomes.

 

In a Democracy, judges should approve spying on suspected criminals or terrorists. In a Democracy patients should be asked for consent to use personal health data. Advance directives or break-the-glass technology can permit access to health data when patients are unconscious.

 

In a Democracy, shouldn’t technology support ‘best-case’ scenarios , i.e., citizens’ freedoms and human and civil rights to privacy and health?

Privacy groups ask FTC to stop Facebook policy changes

“Half a dozen privacy groups have asked the Federal Trade Commission to stop Facebook from enacting changes to two of its governing documents… In addition to EPIC, CDD and Consumer Watchdog, representatives from Patient Privacy Rights, U.S. Public Interest Research Group and the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse also signed the letter.”

To view the full article, please visit: Privacy groups ask FTC to stop Facebook policy changes