❤️️ Sign Up ©2025 NetHappenings News Email List https://cyberplayground.org
©2025 Follow@CyberPlayGround
©1998-©2025 *Educational CyberPlayGround®
©2025 https://k12playground.com
©2025 https://RichAsHell.com
©1993 – ©2025 https://edu-cyberpg.com
ECP NetHappenings
Why Be A Privacy Activist?
WHAT WE KNOW
COVID IS STILL HERE AND Think about getting a FLU SHOT NOW.
Jet-air dryers should not be used in hospital toilets OR IMHO AIRPORTS
September 7, 2018 , University of Leeds
https://m.medicalxpress.com/news/2018-09-jet-air-dryers-hospital-toilets.html
The Secret Drug Pricing System Middlemen Use to Rake in Millions
By Robert Langreth, David Ingold and Jackie Gu September 11, 2018
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-drug-spread-pricing/
The Washington Post: In 1960, about a half-million teens took a test. Now it could predict the risk of Alzheimer’s disease. https://apple.news/Ah044sY6RT1mdb4cISYDSvg
Subject: Privacy Rights
Sep 25, 2018
Please press for the powerful argument that “all data must be CONTROLLED by you”, it’s the key fundamental, universal human right and the basis of every Democracy.
—It’s based on Warren & Brandeis’ law review article on the Right to Privacy (only 12 pages of clear language), the internationally accepted basis for the modern concept of privacy:
https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/privacy/Privacy_brand_warr2.html
The right to privacy = the right of individuals to control personal information, to autonomy, self-determination, and respect. This is the basis of trust, whether between two people, or between a person and a business or government.
—All sorts of records w/sensitive personal information are owned/created/held by others, corporations, schools, and government. They must function as fiduciaries or agents and uphold the human right to privacy. The GDPR goes a long way toward protecting this right.
RE: US HEALTHCARE
Personal health information — both inside and OUTSIDE —the healthcare system, is a prime example. Individuals must control personal health data (w/ rare exceptions such as when physicians violate privacy to save a life, report child abuse, or commit those in imminent danger to self or others).
RE: CHINA
Intimate social and tech control of its citizens via total
surveillance will also create bad/distorted data for AI, because most
of the population probably hides, omits, or creates false or erroneous
data—-just like the effect of unwanted surveillance of all US health
data, patients act to protect the privacy of sensitive information
that can be used to harm them (see link below on consumer survey)
RE: HIPAA
Individuals/patients had the right of consent/control over personal
health records, until the HIPAA Privacy Rule was amended (took effect
in 2003): “The consent provisions…are replaced with a new
provision….that provides regulatory permission for covered entities
to use and disclose protected health information for treatment,
payment, or healthcare operations”. (67 Fed. Reg. 53, 183)
This means US data holders now control the use of our health data (this sentence legalized the hidden US health data aggregation industry, epitomized by IQVIA).
1) Control over personal data about our minds and bodies MUST be
restored because the US public no longer trusts providers: in 2016,
89% of 12,090 patients withheld information from their providers to protect their privacy:
https://blackbookmarketresearch.newswire.com/news/healthcares-digital-divide-widens-black-book-consumer-survey-18432252
2) This high level of mistrust means all US electronic health records systems (and the 2M+ hidden health data aggregators that sell health data) no longer hold reliable or accurate data; it’s filled with omissions and errors. In turn, this causes errors in treatment and diagnoses, harming patients via unneeded testing, prescription of unneeded drugs or treatment, and higher costs.
—Aggregating more and more flawed health data for AI to attempt to assure the accuracy of individuals’ health records will only exacerbate mistrust of providers and of discriminatory, inaccurate AI—creating a vicious cycle. Major US corporations such as IBM, Optum, IQVIA etc that purchase massive health data bases (or buy companies to acquire their massive health data bases) for proprietary AI, are big contributors to this vicious cycle.
By now it’s possible close to 100% of patients lie and omit key data. Since knowledge of the lack of privacy online is growing rapidly (helped by immensely by Facebook/Cambridge Analytica), almost 100% could be withholding data about their minds and bodies. FYI–the entire US healthcare system is also based on that model, surveillance capitalism.
3) The recent ProPublica/NYTimes article on Memorial Sloan Kettering setting up a private corporation called Paige.AI to own and analyze 25M pathology slides to better diagnose cancer, without patient consent, because they feared “30-40% would not give consent”. Virtually all US health research institutions use IRBs to avoid contacting patients directly to ask for consent, even though it’s trivially cheap & easy to contact almost anyone via cell phone or email.
Until we control all health data about our minds and bodies (inside and outside the health system), no matter who or what owns your data, mistrust in the US Healthcare system and US providers will assure bad data for US health AI projects,
Very Best,
Deb
Deborah C. Peel, MD
Founder and President
Patient Privacy Rights
C: (512) 820-6415
www.patientprivacyrights.org
https://patientprivacyrights.org/health-privacy-summit/
PROTECT YOUR FUTURE – PROTECT PRIVACY
HELP fight for the universal human right to control personal health data
DONATE: https://patientprivacyrights.org/donate-3/
▓▓▓—▓▓▓—▓▓▓
Need medical help? Sorry, not until you sign away your privacy
When you’re sick, you’re vulnerable—and that’s when your doctor pressures you into participating in a data-gathering experiment.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612282/need-medical-help-sorry-not-until-you-sign-away-your-privacy/
by Mary Madden October 23, 2018 This story is part of our November/December 2018 Issue
Last summer I found myself running late for a doctor’s appointment I’d waited months to get. Even though the back injury I had sustained three months earlier was finally starting to improve, I was eager to get an expert opinion from an orthopedic surgeon. When I arrived, breathless and apologetic, the doctor’s office was filled with patients—many with much more serious injuries than mine—who had also waited months to see the renowned specialist. As I was about to take my seat, I was called back to the front desk: Could I also please answer some questions about my personal health history using the office’s new tablet-based system?
As a social science researcher who has studied digital privacy and security issues for much of my career, I was less than thrilled to be a guinea pig for their new data-management system. But … I had waited so long for this appointment, and I had already kept the doctor waiting, and maybe this would save me time at future appointments with other doctors? At that moment, as if in response to my frustrated realization that there was no clear way to opt out and still receive the care I needed, my back muscles tightened up.
I nodded politely and brought the tablet back to my chair. From the institutional perspective, this was a totally reasonable request for verification. But it was also a clear instance of surveillance, and the power dynamics between me and the administrative authority were not at all equal. I was in pain and in no mood to argue.
By agreeing to use the tablet, I’d already consented to a form of data collection I wasn’t entirely comfortable with. I had never heard of the branded tablet the office was using, and the logo assuring me that it was “antibacterial” didn’t ease my concerns about letting scores of other patients handle a device into which I’d put my private data. The awkward software interface did little to suggest that my data would be dealt with carefully; worse than the clunky visual design, there was no indication of whether or not the tablet was internet-connected, and there was no explanation of how my data would be stored or protected once it entered their system.
So what did I do? I dutifully entered my info anyway—immediate physical needs have a way of leapfrogging over data privacy concerns, even for people like me who feel strongly about maintaining control over how their information is collected and used.
Not the first time this happened
As I scrambled to consult my phone for records of my grandparents’ cause of death and the appropriate medical term to describe the blood condition that runs in my family, I realized that this was probably the fourth time over the past year that I’d been asked to enter some version of this data digitally in other systems—in addition to various paper versions of the same information. Instead of making the patient experience more efficient and less stressful, it made me feel as though doctor’s offices were crowdsourcing their work to stressed-out patients with little explanation of why.
When I’d finished digitally detailing my health history, the final screen seemed to mock me with one last request: Could I please acknowledge that I’d received a copy of the office’s privacy practices? (I hadn’t.) But what were the consequences of opting out at this point? And what about people who were much less comfortable with technology than I was? How were they dealing with questions or concerns about this process?
The banality of Big Brother
In the internet age, it’s become repetitive and banal to simply agree to terms of service that we don’t fully understand. And while it would be nice to think that my doctors and their third-party software vendors will forever treat my health data with the utmost care, the reality is that digital health data systems have been vulnerable to numerous ransomware attacks, genetic testing companies have opened up their customers’ data to use by pharmaceutical companies, and the market for health data is massive and growing.
I’ve spent more than a decade studying Americans’ attitudes to different kinds of digital information, and I have seen repeatedly that health data is one of the most sensitive categories. In a study I contributed to at the Pew Research Center, respondents were asked whether they would participate in a web-based system that their doctor’s office used to manage patient records. Even in this scenario (which notably involved a much more transparent system than the one I’d used at the orthopedic surgeon’s office), only a little more than half of American adults definitively said they’d be comfortable sharing their data.
Health data is one of the few categories of information that enjoy a robust (if outdated) set of privacy protections by law in the US, but the definition of what even counts as health data is rapidly evolving. More and more companies are looking to use diagnostic insights from social-media data and other nonregulated categories that currently exist in the lucrative marketplace of predictive analytics. The current Wild West environment allows health data brokers to create risk scores that are sold to insurance companies that in turn use these metrics to charge higher rates to the most vulnerable among us. Not only is this bad for patient privacy, but it further exacerbates inequalities in our society.
Care shouldn’t require data consent
Americans’ concerns about the sanctity of their health data have been cited as one reason that Google and Apple have recently partnered with the likes of the American Heart Association and doctors from Massachusetts General Hospital. Such household names can help allay patients’ fears about entrusting their data to Big Tech. But we’re now at the point where the stakes are growing much higher when we make decisions to share our data with a platform or participate in a study. When we opt in, we risk losing control over how our health data is used and who can profit from it. When we opt out, we risk losing access to the care we need.
In the era of data-driven medicine, systems for handling data need to avoid anything that feels like manipulation—whether it’s subtle or overt. At a minimum, the process of obtaining consent should be separated from the process of obtaining care.
If you don’t want to hand over your information right away, or if you have concerns about the security of your doctor’s data-gathering efforts—you should be able to see the doctor anyway.
Mary Madden is a technology researcher and writer. She leads a project with the Data and Society Research Institute to understand the social and cultural impacts of data-driven technologies on health equity and well-being.
Eye doctors find that WebMD symptom checker was wrong more than half the time
Symptom checkers didn’t always catch cases that needed emergency care.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/10/eye-doctors-find-that-webmd-symptom-checker-was-wrong-more-than-half-the-time/
100,000 federal employees to hand in their formal resignations today, per CNBC
New Covid variant ‘evades antibodies’ and is ‘potentially emerging’ says World Health Organisation – Daily Record
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/health/new-covid-variant-evades-antibodies-35983957
Brian Armstrong @brian_armstrong
I’ve never been more bullish about clear rules for crypto. It’s obvious that market structure is a freight train that’s left the station.
But that hasn’t stopped the big banks from coming for another handout – this time paid by your crypto rewards. They want to undo your right under the GENIUS Act law to earn USDC rewards. Don’t let them.
Banks want to ban rewards to maintain their monopoly, and we’re making sure the Senate knows bailing out the big banks at the expense of the American consumer is not ok.
Democrats must push to restore all Medicaid and Medicare cuts.
Xs algorithms are deliberately rigged against news outlets.
Ticketmaster is now requiring people to opt out of class action lawsuits in order to buy tickets. https://x.com/rysjour/status/1972360522587873633
Share screenshots with a link in the first reply. If I share a link the post/tweet stays DOA.
Don Winslow@donwinslow
Dear @SenSchumer and @RepJeffries
How come when Mitch McConnell was in the minority he could block Supreme Court appointments and dozens of key pieces of legislation
And you two can’t even get Adelita Grijalva seated AFTER she WON her election?
Post-Covid, surge in deadly infections
Beyond the immediate fatalities, SARS-CoV-2 inflicted long-lasting immunological damage, leaving populations susceptible to a cascade of lethal infections and opportunistic pathogens.
https://www.newindianexpress.com/thesundaystandard/2025/Sep/28/post-covid-surge-in-deadly-infections
Indian news outlet getting it right about post čövid immunological damage- something that many of us have been warning about for years now.
Glad it’s getting coverage in (some parts of) the media, but it’s heartbreaking that it’s come to this.
OpenAI is trying to shift the Overton window
They are losing the public debate on training being fair use, so they are going even more extreme to try to shift what people consider normal. Throw all of them into max security prison as an example.
Stuart Syvret @StuartSyvret
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2021/03/16/jersey-still-rotten-to-its-core/
Absolutely correct.
In 2007 I began exposing decades of concealed child-abuse on Brit Monarchy tax-haven Jersey island.
I learnt the hard way that concealers & enablers ARE themselves child-abusers.
See this BBC documentary: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000t86z
Reagan – Recession
Bush Sr. – Recession
Clinton – Balanced budget, Surplus
Bush W. – The Great Recession
Obama – Rescued economy, Growth
Trump – Adds $7 Trillion to Deficit,
Unemployment at 14.7%
Biden – Rescued economy, Fastest
Economic Growth in History