Who are you? Can you prove it? - Page 4

Rock Steady · 09-30-2006, 02:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by morethanpretty

If there is a chip available there will be one goin in my kid...the number of pedo's and other creeps out there are just gettin worse. ..

The # of sleazy govt people increases even worse. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Spexxvet · 09-30-2006, 08:09 AM

The problem with the chip, and to a lesser extent the bracelet, is the person who wants it out of another person. There could be some digging around with a knife, or chopping off body parts, so that the chip/bracelet is nullified. That would be double plus ungood, IMHO.

morethanpretty · 09-30-2006, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

The problem with the chip, and to a lesser extent the bracelet, is the person who wants it out of another person. There could be some digging around with a knife, or chopping off body parts, so that the chip/bracelet is nullified. That would be double plus ungood, IMHO.

Not if the chip is hidden...if they don't know its there they won't know to look for it or try and deactivate it

xoxoxoBruce · 09-30-2006, 01:05 PM

It's pretty easy to find in with simple equipment.

Scan all the kids coming by until you get one that has a family rich enough to make it pay. Stuff them in a metalized bag until you get them away from scanners which is not very far.

Remember the chip is not a transmitter....it doesn't send out signals. It's more like a reflector that shapes the reflection into a unique signature, but has to be within feet of the scanner, not miles.

Flint · 10-04-2006, 11:23 AM

High court won't hear privacy case

The Supreme Court yesterday declined to hear a case filed by privacy rights groups aimed at reversing a 2003 amendment to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act that gives providers -- and not necessarily the patient or family members -- the go-ahead to release routine patient data.

Deborah Peel, an Austin, Texas, psychiatrist, chairwoman of the Patient Privacy Rights Foundation and a central figure in the court case, said that the HIPAA provision effectively eliminates people's control of consent.

The HIPAA rule allows physicians, hospitals and pharmacies to sidestep the patient's consent to use or disclose information for routine uses. Under the rule, that disclosure must be limited to the "minimum necessary" information to accomplish the intended purpose.

Healthcare providers said that the consent rule would handcuff them to provide timely and efficient medical services, the Associated Press reported.

Under a provision in the federal law, individuals have the right to request restrictions on personal medical data, but those requests take time and often come back rejected, Peel said.

The psychologist's involvement in the privacy movement is equal parts personal and professional. As a psychoanalyst, Peel said that privacy is "absolutely essential" in the treatment of her patients. "Like surgeons need a sterile field, we need privacy," she said.

But it was also her involvement in the care of a family member that propelled her into action. Peel said she had written to two national pharmaceutical chains requesting restrictions put on family member's medical records, but that in each case, the chains took weeks before they ultimately denied her request.

The experience, she said, helped to frame her legal argument. "Our position is: How do you have a right to privacy if you have to beg another party to exercise it?"she said. "If I have to beg someone to exercise my right, then I don't have a right."

The lawsuit, which was filed by the Patient Privacy Rights Foundation and nine other groups that represented some 750,000 patients, doctors and consumers, also claimed that federal agencies didn't follow the necessary procedures to change or amend the HIPAA rule.

In a decision the privacy advocates had sought to reverse, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that any privacy violations could not be properly blamed on the government, the AP reported.

"They've given the power to eliminate our privacy to private corporations," Peel said.

Matthew DoBias / HITS staff writer

xoxoxoBruce · 10-05-2006, 06:26 AM

So if I give you a beer and you get in your car and kill somebody, I'm responsible.
But the feds give the physicians, hospitals and pharmacies (for the convenience of the Insurance Companies), the whole damn brewery, then claim they're clean?
Dickheads.

09-30-2006, 08:09 AM	#47
Spexxvet Makes some feel uncomfortable Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 10,346	The problem with the chip, and to a lesser extent the bracelet, is the person who wants it out of another person. There could be some digging around with a knife, or chopping off body parts, so that the chip/bracelet is nullified. That would be double plus ungood, IMHO. __________________ "I'm certainly free, nay compelled, to spread the gospel of Spex. " - xoxoxoBruce

09-30-2006, 01:05 PM	#49
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	It's pretty easy to find in with simple equipment. Scan all the kids coming by until you get one that has a family rich enough to make it pay. Stuff them in a metalized bag until you get them away from scanners which is not very far. Remember the chip is not a transmitter....it doesn't send out signals. It's more like a reflector that shapes the reflection into a unique signature, but has to be within feet of the scanner, not miles. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

10-04-2006, 11:23 AM	#50
Flint Snowflake Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Dystopia Posts: 13,136	Modern Healthcare's daily IT enewsletter High court won't hear privacy case The Supreme Court yesterday declined to hear a case filed by privacy rights groups aimed at reversing a 2003 amendment to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act that gives providers -- and not necessarily the patient or family members -- the go-ahead to release routine patient data. Deborah Peel, an Austin, Texas, psychiatrist, chairwoman of the Patient Privacy Rights Foundation and a central figure in the court case, said that the HIPAA provision effectively eliminates people's control of consent. The HIPAA rule allows physicians, hospitals and pharmacies to sidestep the patient's consent to use or disclose information for routine uses. Under the rule, that disclosure must be limited to the "minimum necessary" information to accomplish the intended purpose. Healthcare providers said that the consent rule would handcuff them to provide timely and efficient medical services, the Associated Press reported. Under a provision in the federal law, individuals have the right to request restrictions on personal medical data, but those requests take time and often come back rejected, Peel said. The psychologist's involvement in the privacy movement is equal parts personal and professional. As a psychoanalyst, Peel said that privacy is "absolutely essential" in the treatment of her patients. "Like surgeons need a sterile field, we need privacy," she said. But it was also her involvement in the care of a family member that propelled her into action. Peel said she had written to two national pharmaceutical chains requesting restrictions put on family member's medical records, but that in each case, the chains took weeks before they ultimately denied her request. The experience, she said, helped to frame her legal argument. "Our position is: How do you have a right to privacy if you have to beg another party to exercise it?"she said. "If I have to beg someone to exercise my right, then I don't have a right." The lawsuit, which was filed by the Patient Privacy Rights Foundation and nine other groups that represented some 750,000 patients, doctors and consumers, also claimed that federal agencies didn't follow the necessary procedures to change or amend the HIPAA rule. In a decision the privacy advocates had sought to reverse, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that any privacy violations could not be properly blamed on the government, the AP reported. *"They've given the power to eliminate our privacy to private corporations,"* Peel said. Matthew DoBias / HITS staff writer __________________ **************** There's a level of facility that everyone needs to accomplish, and from there it's a matter of deciding for yourself how important ultra-facility is to your expression. ... I found, like Joseph Campbell said, if you just follow whatever gives you a little joy or excitement or awe, then you're on the right track. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terry Bozzio**

10-05-2006, 06:26 AM	#51
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	So if I give you a beer and you get in your car and kill somebody, I'm responsible. But the feds give the physicians, hospitals and pharmacies (for the convenience of the Insurance Companies), the whole damn brewery, then claim they're clean? Dickheads. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)