Since the story is about the medical personnel looking for a reason that this person had cocaine in her system AND they found a link about the patient having used cocaine, the likelihood that the search included the patients name as well as the word cocaine is extremely high, while the likelihood that it did not contain both terms is extremely low.
The fact that the search results are available to every other person on the planet does not mean that the information that the patient was currently in the hospital being treated for cocaine overdose is available to everyone on the planet. I'm sure you are aware that asking a question can be supplying information in and of itself. For example, if one to hear their wife's male co-worker( with whom she had been working multiple all nighters for the last few months), ask their wife's sister if the wife had gotten the herpes test, one could infer that their wife has been cheating on them. Anyone on the planet could ask the question, but that doesn't mean something is being stated when that specific individual asks it.
I find it interesting that you think the guy wanting patent confidentiality to be the ass. That also says a lot.
Doctor X discusses Patient Y's case with Doctor Z, also involved in the case, at the supermarket. This is a HIPAA violation, as long as there are bystanders and he used specific identifying information. The Doctor intended to have the conversation in a place where he could have reasonably assumed there were unrelated people overhearing.
This would be the violation described in the summary.
The example above was not a generic search on cocaine and then a generic search on the patients name. It was a search that included cocaine and the specific patients name in the same search. Doing a Google search is not like having telephone call with another doctor and asking about the patient's genital sores. It is like submitting your issue with genital sores to a company that specializes in collecting and selling data.
Too bad, the search your doctor did returned the results for the SleazyRidr down in Florida. The one suffering from low blood pressure, and the medication she just prescribed you will make our high blood pressure worse and give you a stroke.
First, if you think Google doesn't know who you are, you are naive. Second, a search on "MitchDev sores on genitals" is most certainly putting medical records out there if you are sitting in the doctors office waiting for him to look at your sores. It is silly to say that typing in medical information and submitting it to a third part isn't putting medical records out there just because the primary purpose of the database isn't the collection of medical records.
Anyone couldn't Google that information. For example, I couldn't Google your real name for genital sores because I don't know your real name. Of course, even if I did know your real name, it wouldn't be illegal for me to publicly disclose any ailment you might have because I am not your doctor. HIPAA does not apply to me. It does apply to your doctor and your nurse.
You are ignoring what the AC said. In both situations the one collecting data must 1) DO the act of collecting the information. They then 2) KNOW the information. Finally, they can 3) DO an action based on that information. The AC made the point that DOing the action to collect the information is a violation. He tried to drive the point home by asking if you were cool with someone DOing the act of collecting data when it is your ten year old daughter changing her clothes. You tried to pretend that action 1 is really action 3 and argued against that strawman.
I am friendly with my neighbors. That's why I don't ask them to go out of their way to do me favors that I could trivially accomplish myself. It's the same reason I don't wake my wife up in the middle of the night to fetch me a glass of water if I wake up thirsty.
I'm not going to argue that we haven't gotten better at treating cancer. I know in my lifetime, breast cancer has gone from a death sentence to a disease that I currently know several women who have gotten it and lived. Leukemia is another one. When I was a kid, leukemia meant you were definitely going to die soon.
That being said, the fact that there are not a bunch of expensive cars at cancer research facilities doesn't mean that there isn't unethical behavior chasing money. There are not a lot of expensive cars in McDonald's parking lots either. I'm not arguing that researchers are or are not ethical. I'm just pointing out that your rebuttal is flawed.
Not under-developed, but very likely culturally unaware. You will run into the same kinds of problems that people have when they have no exposure to Shakespeare or the Bible. Cultural references will zing past you and you will be completely unaware that you are missing large parts of the conversation.
If he lives in the US like me, he DOES pay for it. We pay huge amounts of money for education. hundreds of thousands of education 'experts' are on the government payroll. Expecting the government to use the hundreds of billions of dollars that go into education to write a few books is not being a "whiny entitlist whiny entitlist complaining that everything should be handed to you for free".
Amazon has a separate transaction choice for rental, so even if it is somewhere in the EULA, it is clear that Amazon specifically represents one as a sale and the other as a rental. Combine that with the fact that the rental price is less than the sale price and it becomes clear that the purchaser most certainly believes he is making a purchase as opposed to a rental.
The only reason that trying to convert a sale into a rental post transaction isn't considered fraud is because of the screwed up caste system that has developed in the US.
Slashdot Mirror
And if you can lay down, there is no sleep like a moving car sleep.
I don't think it was.
Since the story is about the medical personnel looking for a reason that this person had cocaine in her system AND they found a link about the patient having used cocaine, the likelihood that the search included the patients name as well as the word cocaine is extremely high, while the likelihood that it did not contain both terms is extremely low.
The fact that the search results are available to every other person on the planet does not mean that the information that the patient was currently in the hospital being treated for cocaine overdose is available to everyone on the planet. I'm sure you are aware that asking a question can be supplying information in and of itself. For example, if one to hear their wife's male co-worker( with whom she had been working multiple all nighters for the last few months), ask their wife's sister if the wife had gotten the herpes test, one could infer that their wife has been cheating on them. Anyone on the planet could ask the question, but that doesn't mean something is being stated when that specific individual asks it.
I find it interesting that you think the guy wanting patent confidentiality to be the ass. That also says a lot.
Or, they could belong to the wrong church. Or, they could have worked on the wrong political party's campaign...
Hmmm.... No, doctors performing investigations on people to decide whether they want to treat them or not is bad.
Doctor X discusses Patient Y's case with Doctor Z, also involved in the case, at the supermarket. This is a HIPAA violation, as long as there are bystanders and he used specific identifying information. The Doctor intended to have the conversation in a place where he could have reasonably assumed there were unrelated people overhearing.
This would be the violation described in the summary.
The example above was not a generic search on cocaine and then a generic search on the patients name. It was a search that included cocaine and the specific patients name in the same search. Doing a Google search is not like having telephone call with another doctor and asking about the patient's genital sores. It is like submitting your issue with genital sores to a company that specializes in collecting and selling data.
The doctor releasing medical data to Google is already using the data in illegal ways.
Too bad, the search your doctor did returned the results for the SleazyRidr down in Florida. The one suffering from low blood pressure, and the medication she just prescribed you will make our high blood pressure worse and give you a stroke.
First, if you think Google doesn't know who you are, you are naive. Second, a search on "MitchDev sores on genitals" is most certainly putting medical records out there if you are sitting in the doctors office waiting for him to look at your sores. It is silly to say that typing in medical information and submitting it to a third part isn't putting medical records out there just because the primary purpose of the database isn't the collection of medical records.
Anyone couldn't Google that information. For example, I couldn't Google your real name for genital sores because I don't know your real name. Of course, even if I did know your real name, it wouldn't be illegal for me to publicly disclose any ailment you might have because I am not your doctor. HIPAA does not apply to me. It does apply to your doctor and your nurse.
You are ignoring what the AC said. In both situations the one collecting data must 1) DO the act of collecting the information. They then 2) KNOW the information. Finally, they can 3) DO an action based on that information. The AC made the point that DOing the action to collect the information is a violation. He tried to drive the point home by asking if you were cool with someone DOing the act of collecting data when it is your ten year old daughter changing her clothes. You tried to pretend that action 1 is really action 3 and argued against that strawman.
Most of your doomsday scenarios can be accomplished without internet connected devices. Adding "on a computer" does not change anything.
I am friendly with my neighbors. That's why I don't ask them to go out of their way to do me favors that I could trivially accomplish myself. It's the same reason I don't wake my wife up in the middle of the night to fetch me a glass of water if I wake up thirsty.
It sounds like it wouldn't be a good choice because you mixed up the attachments. You don't attach things to the card. You attach the card to things.
Are you suggesting that it costs less to have your empty oven preheating with your presence than it is without your presence? Odd.
I'm not going to argue that we haven't gotten better at treating cancer. I know in my lifetime, breast cancer has gone from a death sentence to a disease that I currently know several women who have gotten it and lived. Leukemia is another one. When I was a kid, leukemia meant you were definitely going to die soon.
That being said, the fact that there are not a bunch of expensive cars at cancer research facilities doesn't mean that there isn't unethical behavior chasing money. There are not a lot of expensive cars in McDonald's parking lots either. I'm not arguing that researchers are or are not ethical. I'm just pointing out that your rebuttal is flawed.
Must be your zip code. In my zip code, I see plenty of 45 year old women that look that good.
No... The tongueings the best part.
I haven't played Ur in years. Actually, I haven't even seen the game in years.
Not under-developed, but very likely culturally unaware. You will run into the same kinds of problems that people have when they have no exposure to Shakespeare or the Bible. Cultural references will zing past you and you will be completely unaware that you are missing large parts of the conversation.
Which doesn't answer the question. Does it fall under the jurisdiction of the Grammar Nazis?
Does that apply to its/it's? Since technically "Its Christmas." would be grammatically incorrect.
I find the 5 day weather forecasts to be extremely accurate. Amazingly accurate. Even the 10 day forecasts are pretty darn good.
If he lives in the US like me, he DOES pay for it. We pay huge amounts of money for education. hundreds of thousands of education 'experts' are on the government payroll. Expecting the government to use the hundreds of billions of dollars that go into education to write a few books is not being a "whiny entitlist whiny entitlist complaining that everything should be handed to you for free".
Amazon has a separate transaction choice for rental, so even if it is somewhere in the EULA, it is clear that Amazon specifically represents one as a sale and the other as a rental. Combine that with the fact that the rental price is less than the sale price and it becomes clear that the purchaser most certainly believes he is making a purchase as opposed to a rental.
The only reason that trying to convert a sale into a rental post transaction isn't considered fraud is because of the screwed up caste system that has developed in the US.
He would be correct if Amazon did not offer to sell the movie, and the buyer did not pay money to buy the movie.