MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: jesmu84 on September 01, 2014, 07:08:11 PM
-
With all the hacked/leaked celebrity photos in the last 24 hours (thank you Justin Verlander), what's the prevailing mentality going to be on cloud storage? These were mere photos, not important documents or other files. Apparently, they were relatively easy to obtain. I'm guessing Apple also has some 'splaining to do.
-
I sure hope all the naked pictures I took of myself as selfies don't get out there.
Not much to see, of course.... :D I feel bad for the hacks as it is a matter of security, but what the hell is with everyone taking pictures of themselves in the nude? What a f'd up society we live in. Are they taking them for posterity sake so they can check themselves out in 20 years?
The one of Jason Verlander that a buddy of mine sent to me today....truly, I don't need to see it and warn me before I open that crap up. LOL.
-
Not for sure we'd have such an entertainin', investigative Labor Day if not for JL, KU, and the Cloud. Spent all day on the Internet tryin' to get to the bottom of all this.
BeeJay, what you say on AAPL tomorrow, Bro?
-
With all the hacked/leaked celebrity photos in the last 24 hours (thank you Justin Verlander), what's the prevailing mentality going to be on cloud storage? These were mere photos, not important documents or other files. Apparently, they were relatively easy to obtain. I'm guessing Apple also has some 'splaining to do.
I would take storage security for what it's worth. The raison d'etre of back-end cloud services is about computing power and data aggregation. People storing files there is not what the Cloud is all about.
-
I would take storage security for what it's worth. The raison d'etre of back-end cloud services is about computing power and data aggregation. People storing files there is not what the Cloud is all about.
Keefe, actually it is what many view the future as being. Where the Cloud will be the storage location. I myself despise that idea.
The problem with data security, is that it is inherently limited in its security. Since by nature it is software driven, there are always holes/exploits. Because of that these cloud storage ideas cannot be secure. Given that it aggregates large quantities of information, it then becomes a huge target. As more people/institutions shift to cloud storage we can expect this to continue…similarly, as we consolidate many businesses leading to a few corporations having most of the info/data we will see increasing vulnerability.
-
Not for sure we'd have such an entertainin', investigative Labor Day if not for JL, KU, and the Cloud. Spent all day on the Internet tryin' to get to the bottom of all this.
BeeJay, what you say on AAPL tomorrow, Bro?
Tomorrow? Dunno, may present a buying opportunity for those wanting to get in before the upcoming product/services announcement. Sitting near their high.
For me, not a big story as of yet. If some nerdbaits "guessed" the passwords of celebs, well tough. It's a good lesson (another one) for people re: password complexity.
I only use one password, but at least it's complex: $cHe1n.2Geth3r
-
Keefe, actually it is what many view the future as being. Where the Cloud will be the storage location. I myself despise that idea.
The problem with data security, is that it is inherently limited in its security. Since by nature it is software driven, there are always holes/exploits. Because of that these cloud storage ideas cannot be secure. Given that it aggregates large quantities of information, it then becomes a huge target. As more people/institutions shift to cloud storage we can expect this to continue…similarly, as we consolidate many businesses leading to a few corporations having most of the info/data we will see increasing vulnerability.
JB
I am the COO of a Microsoft-funded enterprise developing platforms for the Azure stack. We are deploying our first Health Care pilot with a major cancer research center, two regional health care facilities and underserved clinics in the PNW.
Obviously, patient privacy and security are central to the delivery and we have a significantly improved security protocols based on emergent stream architectures that are parameter-defined. This is an innovative way to provide significantly heightened security around huge amounts of data.
I understand what you are saying about ongoing security issues but the Cloud is far more secure than storing on an individual box. And the point of the Cloud isn't storage but, rather, computing power. As we aggregate EMRs we can have 50,000 servers slewed to a query in seconds with the end result being the harmonization of records and the democratization of patient care.
Big Data has been a reality for decades but only now is the infrastructure enabling its incredible potential.
-
JB
I am the COO of a Microsoft-funded enterprise developing platforms for the Azure stack. We are deploying our first Health Care pilot with a major cancer research center, two regional health care facilities and underserved clinics in the PNW.
Obviously, patient privacy and security are central to the delivery and we have a significantly improved security protocols based on emergent stream architectures that are parameter-defined. This is an innovative way to provide significantly heightened security around huge amounts of data.
I understand what you are saying about ongoing security issues but the Cloud is far more secure than storing on an individual box. And the point of the Cloud isn't storage but, rather, computing power. As we aggregate EMRs we can have 50,000 servers slewed to a query in seconds with the end result being the harmonization of records and the democratization of patient care.
Big Data has been a reality for decades but only now is the infrastructure enabling its incredible potential.
Let's just hope that patient's health records are secure, which scares a lot of people. Ultimately, is it secure from someone that has legit access and wants to put it out there anyway? A political candidate, for example. A celebrity, etc.
Back to the iCloud stuff. I guess people are naive. If you are storing photos, music, etc on the iCloud from your iPhone, I've always looked at it as a temporary holding queue more than anything. Yes, it's storage, but if it is something really important, that's not where it's going. Then again, I don't understand the fascination of taking selfies in a bathroom mirror like all these goofballs, so I don't fit the profile. I think it sucks someone stole their stuff, but if someone doesn't want naked photos of themselves floating around, don't take naked photos. Or keep them in a safe \ safety deposit box. It is things like this that sometimes make me wonder how much of this stuff is there to drive PR, much like so many having a sex tape and so many of them magically being stolen. Cynical, I know.
-
news flash-kim kardashian and miley cyrus may be a couple of the "celebrities" who had nude pics of themselves stolen and put out there for all to see? well stop the bus beevis, now this has really gone too far...are you kidding me? i haven't really seen the whole list of those involved, but most of these people have been seen nude or very near nude already. yes, there are some who really didn't ask for this when they signed up to become public figures. then, as most would say, either keep your damn clothes on or don't be storing the crap anywhere but in a lock box :o this isn't that difficult
-
Easy enough to figure out now why Justin Verlander is havin' such a chitty season. Poor guy doesn't have the energy to pitch.
-
I sure hope all the naked pictures I took of myself as selfies don't get out there.
Not much to see, of course.... :D I feel bad for the hacks as it is a matter of security, but what the hell is with everyone taking pictures of themselves in the nude? What a f'd up society we live in. Are they taking them for posterity sake so they can check themselves out in 20 years?
You know, I've never heard anyone respond to financial hacking by saying, Just don't use online banking. That's what you get for using credit cards.
-
Think healthcare records secure? - see the latest healthcare breach: http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/18/technology/security/hospital-chs-hack/ (http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/18/technology/security/hospital-chs-hack/)
Been in healthcare IT industry for years - security in healthcare lagging - http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/20/us-cybersecurity-healthcare-fbi-idUSKBN0GK24U20140820 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/20/us-cybersecurity-healthcare-fbi-idUSKBN0GK24U20140820)
But now that Keefe is in healthcare, I am sure we will learn all about it...
Let's just hope that patient's health records are secure, which scares a lot of people. Ultimately, is it secure from someone that has legit access and wants to put it out there anyway? A political candidate, for example. A celebrity, etc.
Back to the iCloud stuff. I guess people are naive. If you are storing photos, music, etc on the iCloud from your iPhone, I've always looked at it as a temporary holding queue more than anything. Yes, it's storage, but if it is something really important, that's not where it's going. Then again, I don't understand the fascination of taking selfies in a bathroom mirror like all these goofballs, so I don't fit the profile. I think it sucks someone stole their stuff, but if someone doesn't want naked photos of themselves floating around, don't take naked photos. Or keep them in a safe \ safety deposit box. It is things like this that sometimes make me wonder how much of this stuff is there to drive PR, much like so many having a sex tape and so many of them magically being stolen. Cynical, I know.
-
This just may bring back the Polaroid camera....
-
You know, I've never heard anyone respond to financial hacking by saying, Just don't use online banking. That's what you get for using credit cards.
Credit cards are protected from hacking - it's debit cards that are not.
-
Let's just hope that patient's health records are secure, which scares a lot of people. Ultimately, is it secure from someone that has legit access and wants to put it out there anyway? A political candidate, for example. A celebrity, etc.
That kind of breach can be limited - probably never prevented - by healthcare providers that have strict policies for breaches. I am aware of quite a few that are moving to immediate termination for any breaches that can't be properly explained as an innocent mistake. And the education is being beefed up to make "innocent mistakes" harder to come by.
But if someone wants to make a quick buck by selling a high-profile patient's records to People, even knowing it puts their job at risk, that's hard to prevent altogether.
-
That kind of breach can be limited - probably never prevented - by healthcare providers that have strict policies for breaches. I am aware of quite a few that are moving to immediate termination for any breaches that can't be properly explained as an innocent mistake. And the education is being beefed up to make "innocent mistakes" harder to come by.
But if someone wants to make a quick buck by selling a high-profile patient's records to People, even knowing it puts their job at risk, that's hard to prevent altogether.
Always after the fact, though.
-
You know, I've never heard anyone respond to financial hacking by saying, Just don't use online banking. That's what you get for using credit cards.
Understood, but I don't equate those at all. For my online banking, I have a pin, a password, and a keysite I have to recognize....three level security and it's encrypted. The bank is also under government regulatory requirements around that data as it is an essential part of the banking system and every day commerce.
Why are people taking nude selfies of themselves? That's question one. Question two, if you are that concerned about them, why wouldn't you put them somewhere that requires multiple levels of security AND they are encrypted. At the end of the day, seems to me that 99% of us have to bank to function in this world, whether we choose to do it online is another matter. I don't see where we all need to take nude photos of ourselves for reasons to function. It seems to be a pure vanity play, but that's what a lot of these folks are. I feel bad for them, but on the other hand if you don't want naked photos of yourself getting around, then don't take naked photos of yourself. If your money is stolen from the bank, insurance covers it....you don't get your naked photos back.
-
Think healthcare records secure? - see the latest healthcare breach: http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/18/technology/security/hospital-chs-hack/ (http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/18/technology/security/hospital-chs-hack/)
Been in healthcare IT industry for years - security in healthcare lagging - http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/20/us-cybersecurity-healthcare-fbi-idUSKBN0GK24U20140820 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/20/us-cybersecurity-healthcare-fbi-idUSKBN0GK24U20140820)
But now that Keefe is in healthcare, I am sure we will learn all about it...
I don't think they are secure, and I'm mostly worried about people playing politics with the data, which invariably will happen.
-
Understood, but I don't equate those at all. For my online banking, I have a pin, a password, and a keysite I have to recognize....three level security and it's encrypted. The bank is also under government regulatory requirements around that data as it is an essential part of the banking system and every day commerce.
Why are people taking nude selfies of themselves? That's question one. Question two, if you are that concerned about them, why wouldn't you put them somewhere that requires multiple levels of security AND they are encrypted. At the end of the day, seems to me that 99% of us have to bank to function in this world, whether we choose to do it online is another matter. I don't see where we all need to take nude photos of ourselves for reasons to function. It seems to be a pure vanity play, but that's what a lot of these folks are. I feel bad for them, but on the other hand if you don't want naked photos of yourself getting around, then don't take naked photos of yourself. If your money is stolen from the bank, insurance covers it....you don't get your naked photos back.
Well yeah I don't equate them 100%, I just don't think the moral hand-wringing has any place in this at all. It's a complete invasion of privacy and goes to an even deeper, grosser level than just stealing someone's bank info. It's not as simple as just guessing passwords, this is a pretty sick level.
It doesn't matter if YOU see no reason to take nudes. No one needs to do A LOT of things to function. But we still have fun doing them. And, no offense, no one wants yours (or mine). This problem just always targets and shames women, instead of the f'ing creepers who thinks it is okay to do this. We should be judging the people who stole this and the people who went to look for them.
What if people started hacking others' search and browsing history?
-
Some people like to take them to send to their significant other. It's a form of eroticism, which goes way, WAY back in history be it letters, paintings, poems, pictures, whatever.
Sure, some of these people might feel violated, but everyone has to know it's a possiblity that they'll come out someday. Especially when you're a high-profile celebrity. Do I think most of these people care? Probably not - it'll be a fleeting headline for a few weeks. And for some of the lesser known people, they might enjoy their time in the spotlight. Honestly, no press is bad press, right?
-
Well yeah I don't equate them 100%, I just don't think the moral hand-wringing has any place in this at all. It's a complete invasion of privacy and goes to an even deeper, grosser level than just stealing someone's bank info. It's not as simple as just guessing passwords, this is a pretty sick level.
It doesn't matter if YOU see no reason to take nudes. No one needs to do A LOT of things to function. But we still have fun doing them. And, no offense, no one wants yours (or mine). This problem just always targets and shames women, instead of the f'ing creepers who thinks it is okay to do this. We should be judging the people who stole this and the people who went to look for them.
What if people started hacking others' search and browsing history?
Who says they don't (or couldn't)?
-
Well yeah I don't equate them 100%, I just don't think the moral hand-wringing has any place in this at all. It's a complete invasion of privacy and goes to an even deeper, grosser level than just stealing someone's bank info. It's not as simple as just guessing passwords, this is a pretty sick level.
It doesn't matter if YOU see no reason to take nudes. No one needs to do A LOT of things to function. But we still have fun doing them. And, no offense, no one wants yours (or mine). This problem just always targets and shames women, instead of the f'ing creepers who thinks it is okay to do this. We should be judging the people who stole this and the people who went to look for them.
What if people started hacking others' search and browsing history?
Not a morality play at all. I'm curious why people take naked photos of themselves....are they that vane? I'm trying to understand the point of doing it. Secondly, if it is something that makes someone that upset, then don't do it or be far smarter where you put them.
I guess one day people wake up or they get out of the shower or they're taking a piss and they have their camera there..."hey, it would be a great idea to take a few photos of me naked right now so I can look at myself".
Whatever floats their boat, but since some of these celebs have done this stuff in the past and purposely leaked it to get pub, I'm not exactly heartbroken over their situation. If you would have told me someone took pictures of someone not knowing they were being taken (Erin Andrews) and put them out there, then I have a hell of a lot more sympathy for their plight.
-
Some people like to take them to send to their significant other. It's a form of eroticism, which goes way, WAY back in history be it letters, paintings, poems, pictures, whatever.
Sure, some of these people might feel violated, but everyone has to know it's a possiblity that they'll come out someday. Especially when you're a high-profile celebrity. Do I think most of these people care? Probably not - it'll be a fleeting headline for a few weeks. And for some of the lesser known people, they might enjoy their time in the spotlight. Honestly, no press is bad press, right?
I suppose, just seems really stupid. In today's day and age, you take a photo of yourself or someone else in that type of situation, bad things seem to follow. Digital destruction. Appreciate the response.
My wife and I have had this conversation with our kids many times. You take photos like this, guaranteed someone is saving it for later, or sending it to a buddy, or whatever. It will come back on you, guaranteed. Don't take the photo. Period.
-
What if people started hacking others' search and browsing history?
Already been done.
-
I suppose, just seems really stupid. In today's day and age, you take a photo of yourself or someone else in that type of situation, bad things seem to follow. Digital destruction. Appreciate the response.
My wife and I have had this conversation with our kids many times. You take photos like this, guaranteed someone is saving it for later, or sending it to a buddy, or whatever. It will come back on you, guaranteed. Don't take the photo. Period.
I don't disagree. I'm just giving you the "why" that you asked for.
Good advice for anyone, not just kids.
-
I suppose, just seems really stupid. In today's day and age, you take a photo of yourself or someone else in that type of situation, bad things seem to follow. Digital destruction. Appreciate the response.
My wife and I have had this conversation with our kids many times. You take photos like this, guaranteed someone is saving it for later, or sending it to a buddy, or whatever. It will come back on you, guaranteed. Don't take the photo. Period.
I always say, don't take any photos that you would be embarrassed if the world saw them. In the digital era nothing is safe or sacred.
-
JB
I am the COO of a Microsoft-funded enterprise developing platforms for the Azure stack. We are deploying our first Health Care pilot with a major cancer research center, two regional health care facilities and underserved clinics in the PNW.
Obviously, patient privacy and security are central to the delivery and we have a significantly improved security protocols based on emergent stream architectures that are parameter-defined. This is an innovative way to provide significantly heightened security around huge amounts of data.
I understand what you are saying about ongoing security issues but the Cloud is far more secure than storing on an individual box. And the point of the Cloud isn't storage but, rather, computing power. As we aggregate EMRs we can have 50,000 servers slewed to a query in seconds with the end result being the harmonization of records and the democratization of patient care.
Big Data has been a reality for decades but only now is the infrastructure enabling its incredible potential.
I understand the ability to increase security with huge amounts of data, but with that comes an increased motivation to target them. In the end it is all software and software can be beaten with enough motivations.
If it is economically viable to target these "large data" clouds, then people will and you can't stop them.
-
Not a morality play at all. I'm curious why people take naked photos of themselves....are they that vane?
Vane is a noun, so uhh... but, are they that vain? Yes. You saw it with the ice bucket challenge. yay yay yay, look at me. Guarantee you some of the people whose photo was leaked don't care much at all; are a bit turned on by it.
And sometimes it's important to take a keep pics. My guy ZFB always makes sure to get a pic of his friends with an ID, just in case.
(http://debragettlemanrak.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/asuporngirl-thumb-250x181.jpg)
(http://i399.photobucket.com/albums/pp77/FlyingCarl/2010%20Minuteman%20Rally/CheckInpicture.jpg)
-
I understand the ability to increase security with huge amounts of data, but with that comes an increased motivation to target them. In the end it is all software and software can be beaten with enough motivations.
If it is economically viable to target these "large data" clouds, then people will and you can't stop them.
At the end of the day, what is important is improving the quality of patient care, especially for underserved populations.
-
What if people started hacking others' search and browsing history?
4ever's would likely include a lot of "Gail Pudvan" ;)
-
At the end of the day, what is important is improving the quality of patient care, especially for underserved populations.
I'm actually fine with it for medical records. Maybe I'm strange, but I wouldn't have any problem with anyone hacking my medical records.
-
I'm actually fine with it for medical records. Maybe I'm strange, but I wouldn't have any problem with anyone hacking my medical records.
I'm the same way. But the reality is that certain patient data is worth its weight in gold for research purposes.
What's interesting about our project is that it is harmonizing data to enable democratization of patient care.
-
This just may bring back the Polaroid camera....
But, unless you develop the film yourself, you are handing your film over to a minimum wage youngster to do with as they please.
If you mean a digital Polaroid, it would be easier just to turn off the icloud or other backup service on the phone.
-
But, unless you develop the film yourself, you are handing your film over to a minimum wage youngster to do with as they please.
If you mean a digital Polaroid, it would be easier just to turn off the icloud or other backup service on the phone.
Have you ever used a Polaroid? There is no film to develop -- the original 'instant' camera
-
Have you ever used a Polaroid? There is no film to develop -- the original 'instant' camera
No. I think of Polaroid as a brand, but if it means an instant camera that prints the picture, my fault. I am just old enough to remember them from the 1970's but never used one.
-
I'm actually fine with it for medical records. Maybe I'm strange, but I wouldn't have any problem with anyone hacking my medical records.
It's not about not having anything to hide. And if you have no problem with it, then you must feel it would be OK for anyone.
Companies would want these records to look at regarding hiring. Do you have diabetes? Had cancer at some point in your life. Seen a mental health professional? Had various other medical issues?
These would be reasons for a company to not hire you. Can drive up insurance costs. They may think you would be a risk to miss a lot of work. With many companies funding their own insurance plans, these medical records can become very important - and not to your benefit.
-
But, unless you develop the film yourself, you are handing your film over to a minimum wage youngster to do with as they please.
If you mean a digital Polaroid, it would be easier just to turn off the icloud or other backup service on the phone.
What are you talking about? I am talking about this:
(https://blog.the-impossible-project.com/images/4104t.jpg)
As demonstrated by the lovely Candice Bergen in 1977:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s02YnORALXM
-
I like your pin shot
I keep it with your letter
Done up in blueprint blue
It sure looks good on you
-
What are you talking about? I am talking about this:
(https://blog.the-impossible-project.com/images/4104t.jpg)
As demonstrated by the lovely Candice Bergen in 1977:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s02YnORALXM
No, but I now understand. Muscoop often humbles me and proves that I am even dimmer than I thought. Somehow I've managed to make it in this world, but scoop often makes me wonder how...
-
I'm actually fine with it for medical records. Maybe I'm strange, but I wouldn't have any problem with anyone hacking my medical records.
For mine, I agree. For others, disagree tremendously. Quite frankly, if some guy took some anti-depressant 20 years ago and is now running for Senator, I don't particularly care, but it would be used against them. If some guy is running for POTUS and he's popping Viagra every 10 minutes, God Bless him but that data is none of my business either, yet it would get out there.
So on and so forth.
-
No, but I now understand. Muscoop often humbles me and proves that I am even dimmer than I thought. Somehow I've managed to make it in this world, but scoop often makes me wonder how...
I remember as a kid the photo would come out and you would see people waving the photo to "make it develop faster". I always wondered if that was incredible BS or really did speed up the process. Mythbusters will have to do something with that one. ;)
-
Vane is a noun, so uhh... but, are they that vain? Yes. You saw it with the ice bucket challenge. yay yay yay, look at me. Guarantee you some of the people whose photo was leaked don't care much at all; are a bit turned on by it.
Damn, you respond to my misspelling of vane, but still won't provide the correct list of Kentucky recruits you chastised several of us for.....
By the way, yes I agree with your other comments on this post.
-
Kodachrome
They give us those nice bright colors
They give us the greens of summers
Makes you think all the world's a sunny day
I got a Nikon camera
I love to take a photograph
So mama don't take my Kodachrome away
-
This just may bring back the Polaroid camera....
Kid waving a Polaroid photo vigorously: "I've been waving for more than 6 seconds. Whattya mean it's not like Snapchat?"
-
I remember as a kid the photo would come out and you would see people waving the photo to "make it develop faster". I always wondered if that was incredible BS or really did speed up the process. Mythbusters will have to do something with that one. ;)
Hence Andre 3000 telling young ladies to "Shake it like a Polaroid picture," a lyric was understood by exactly no one under the age of 30.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/S0ikjP3.gif)
-
I'm the same way. But the reality is that certain patient data is worth its weight in gold for research purposes.
What's interesting about our project is that it is harmonizing data to enable democratization of patient care.
To be honest, I think the movement is to get to the point where we can sell our own data. I'm fine with Google having my data, I'm fine with my medical records being available to researchers....however, I'd like to profit from that. There is a value to the users of my data, but it's my data. You can have it, if you pay me for it.
-
To be honest, I think the movement is to get to the point where we can sell our own data. I'm fine with Google having my data, I'm fine with my medical records being available to researchers....however, I'd like to profit from that. There is a value to the users of my data, but it's my data. You can have it, if you pay me for it.
Just came out of a meeting at MS on this and our Chief Medical Info Officer pointed out that patients don't care about the data. The whole point of Big Data is to democratize information so that data isn't just sucked up into the ether repositories but so that it can be used in underserved populations by providers.
-
Just came out of a meeting at MS on this and our Chief Medical Info Officer pointed out that patients don't care about the data. The whole point of Big Data is to democratize information so that data isn't just sucked up into the ether repositories but so that it can be used in underserved populations by providers.
I don't think it needs to stop there. You could look at population trends, gender trends, age trends, etc. vs disease and outcomes sorted by different therapies and such. Electronic medical records could open up whole new areas of research that would have been so much harder to do on paper.
-
Just came out of a meeting at MS on this and our Chief Medical Info Officer pointed out that patients don't care about the data. The whole point of Big Data is to democratize information so that data isn't just sucked up into the ether repositories but so that it can be used in underserved populations by providers.
My guess is your chief medical info officer is correct IF it is aggregated data. People start to care when it is attached to a face, or a SS #, or what have you.
For example, if they think it is going to keep them from getting a job, they might care. Or if it is going to raise their auto insurance premium, or whatever. If it's in the blind, I would agree, no one is going to care. But how will the data be used, who else gets their hands on it, etc, is always a concern.
I'd be curious to hear the legal side of the treatments that come from the data. A drug company can create a drug that for 99.99999% of the public works a certain way, but rest assured the 0.0001% that has a different reaction to it will result in a lawsuit, etc,. So, if you're taking 50,000 records of type 1 diabetics and comparing and contrasting how certain insulin works, etc to help effectively treat other diabetics, but for whatever reason it has a negative reaction to some small group of type 1 diabetics as a result (in other words, the doctor is sued for not treating them as an individual but as a collective data point), what's the liability if any?
For the record, I'm all for this technology and think it will help the vast majority of people, but I also know how F'd our country can be and the realities of a litigious society we have.
-
I don't think it needs to stop there. You could look at population trends, gender trends, age trends, etc. vs disease and outcomes sorted by different therapies and such. Electronic medical records could open up whole new areas of research that would have been so much harder to do on paper.
Our lead investigator is an Epidemiologist so we are looking at baseline statistical reporting from a public health perspective. We are tied in to a major local university medical school and an affiliated Cancer Research Center for this pilot.
-
My guess is your chief medical info officer is correct IF it is aggregated data. People start to care when it is attached to a face, or a SS #, or what have you.
For example, if they think it is going to keep them from getting a job, they might care. Or if it is going to raise their auto insurance premium, or whatever. If it's in the blind, I would agree, no one is going to care. But how will the data be used, who else gets their hands on it, etc, is always a concern.
I'd be curious to hear the legal side of the treatments that come from the data. A drug company can create a drug that for 99.99999% of the public works a certain way, but rest assured the 0.0001% that has a different reaction to it will result in a lawsuit, etc,. So, if you're taking 50,000 records of type 1 diabetics and comparing and contrasting how certain insulin works, etc to help effectively treat other diabetics, but for whatever reason it has a negative reaction to some small group of type 1 diabetics as a result (in other words, the doctor is sued for not treating them as an individual but as a collective data point), what's the liability if any?
For the record, I'm all for this technology and think it will help the vast majority of people, but I also know how F'd our country can be and the realities of a litigious society we have.
No worries there, Type 1 diabetes will be cured in 5-10 years.
-
I'd be curious to hear the legal side of the treatments that come from the data. A drug company can create a drug that for 99.99999% of the public works a certain way, but rest assured the 0.0001% that has a different reaction to it will result in a lawsuit, etc,. So, if you're taking 50,000 records of type 1 diabetics and comparing and contrasting how certain insulin works, etc to help effectively treat other diabetics, but for whatever reason it has a negative reaction to some small group of type 1 diabetics as a result (in other words, the doctor is sued for not treating them as an individual but as a collective data point), what's the liability if any?
Plenty of interesting questions there.
When the FDA approves use of a drug, it typically approves it for particular diseases. Therefore, for example it might approve a specific drug for type 1 diabetes. A doc who prescribes the drug for this purpose will likely be able to defend any lawsuit on the basis of the FDA approval. There may be circumstances where the patient can argue the doc knew or should have known that other circumstances could have led to the adverse reaction, but I suspect these are fairly limited. In other words, the FDA's approval of the drug for the condition insulates the doc to a fairly significant degree.
Occasionally, after approval a particular side effect (sometimes in a limited group of patients) becomes apparent. And in some of these cases, the FDA issues a "black box" warning. This essentially tells the docs that they should be cautious about using the drug in that subset of patients. When this happens, the doc's liability would likely increase if he or she used the drug in those situations and didn't properly warn the patient or monitor for the side effect.
Finally, there is the situation where the FDA approves the drug for a particular condition (type 1 diabetes) but research later shows that it is also effective in treating another condition (high cholesterol). Docs are free to use the drug to treat patients with high cholesterol, but their risk of liability could be higher if an adverse reaction happens in one of those patients. In this case, the doc's defense would be showing that there is evidence indicating that the drug is appropriate for patients with high cholesterol, despite the fact that the FDA's approval is more limited. This type of use is often referred to as "off label use" and is very common. As long as the evidence supports use in the other conditions, docs would frequently be successful in defending the claim.
-
My guess is your chief medical info officer is correct IF it is aggregated data. People start to care when it is attached to a face, or a SS #, or what have you.
For example, if they think it is going to keep them from getting a job, they might care. Or if it is going to raise their auto insurance premium, or whatever. If it's in the blind, I would agree, no one is going to care. But how will the data be used, who else gets their hands on it, etc, is always a concern.
I'd be curious to hear the legal side of the treatments that come from the data. A drug company can create a drug that for 99.99999% of the public works a certain way, but rest assured the 0.0001% that has a different reaction to it will result in a lawsuit, etc,. So, if you're taking 50,000 records of type 1 diabetics and comparing and contrasting how certain insulin works, etc to help effectively treat other diabetics, but for whatever reason it has a negative reaction to some small group of type 1 diabetics as a result (in other words, the doctor is sued for not treating them as an individual but as a collective data point), what's the liability if any?
For the record, I'm all for this technology and think it will help the vast majority of people, but I also know how F'd our country can be and the realities of a litigious society we have.
And this is one of the great traveshamockeries holding technological advancement back. Between patent trolls and legal concerns should there be a downside to innovation there is a great brake applied to our technological advancement.
Want to improve the economy? Get the lawyers in check and watch innovation and productivity flourish.
My company is spending an insane amount of time and effort on putting security in place on our products. Are there potential threats? Sure but it's not that we are concerned with an actual hack and what might happen it's that we want to appear concerned. The security team reports to and is driven by the legal department which tells me what the driving force is. Holds everything back
-
The FDA does not have any control over a Doctor's use of an approved device or drug in my experience. Sold many a device that benefited patients which were used in areas not approved by the FDA. Many companies that I have been associated with have had beneficial medical devices delayed by FDA and made considerably more expensive because of the potential of future litigation. I remember a colleague who had a neighbor employed by the Dept. of Transportation that received a promotion to the FDA. Not unusual for a company to go through the majority of the regulation process to have the agent leave and a new person take over who insists on beginning the process over.
-
No worries there, Type 1 diabetes will be cured in 5-10 years.
For my daughter's sake (and the 2 million others that have the disease in this country), I hope you are right.
-
And this is one of the great traveshamockeries holding technological advancement back. Between patent trolls and legal concerns should there be a downside to innovation there is a great brake applied to our technological advancement.
Want to improve the economy? Get the lawyers in check and watch innovation and productivity flourish.
My company is spending an insane amount of time and effort on putting security in place on our products. Are there potential threats? Sure but it's not that we are concerned with an actual hack and what might happen it's that we want to appear concerned. The security team reports to and is driven by the legal department which tells me what the driving force is. Holds everything back
You will not receive one argument from me at all.
-
And this is one of the great traveshamockeries holding technological advancement back. Between patent trolls and legal concerns should there be a downside to innovation there is a great brake applied to our technological advancement.
Want to improve the economy? Get the lawyers in check and watch innovation and productivity flourish.
My company is spending an insane amount of time and effort on putting security in place on our products. Are there potential threats? Sure but it's not that we are concerned with an actual hack and what might happen it's that we want to appear concerned. The security team reports to and is driven by the legal department which tells me what the driving force is. Holds everything back
Until something happens to YOU - then lawyers look a lot better.
You are right, though. Legal shenanigans and costs drive up costs and hold back innovation at times. But without said lawyers making sure the security is OK, you open yourself up to the possibility of more lawsuits. There are always those out there that will take advantage of you and game the system. Without legal protections, your company would not be in business very long.
A good example would be OSHA and its regulations. They cost companies time and money. But they are only there because of abuses that exist.
-
The FDA does not have any control over a Doctor's use of an approved device or drug in my experience. Sold many a device that benefited patients which were used in areas not approved by the FDA.
Correct - that's the "off label use" referred to in my post.
I only distinguished use according to the label vs off-label use because a question was raised about potential liability for a physician if sued by an injured patient.
-
Until something happens to YOU - then lawyers look a lot better.
You are right, though. Legal shenanigans and costs drive up costs and hold back innovation at times. But without said lawyers making sure the security is OK, you open yourself up to the possibility of more lawsuits. There are always those out there that will take advantage of you and game the system. Without legal protections, your company would not be in business very long.
A good example would be OSHA and its regulations. They cost companies time and money. But they are only there because of abuses that exist.
OHSA and even the EPA are reasonable examples but they are government bodies on "one side" of the issue, also they don't have a monetary incentive either. The problem is that lawyers sit on both sides of the transaction: those claiming to be aggrieved and the accused perpetrators. Also, lawyers are incentivized to take any opportunity to make money, even on trumped up charges. Lawyers are protecting clients, they are generating revenue for their firm.
Simple fix? Loser pays. You'll watch a bunch of frivolous lawsuits disappear.
-
I remember as a kid the photo would come out and you would see people waving the photo to "make it develop faster". I always wondered if that was incredible BS or really did speed up the process. Mythbusters will have to do something with that one. ;)
I recall that actually was detrimental to the quality of the photograph, but I'm not 100% on that.
-
Want to improve the economy? Get the lawyers in check and watch innovation and productivity flourish.
First, kill all the lawyers. The only people worse than us are politicians.
-
First, kill all the lawyers. The only people worse than us are politicians.
...and if all of the lawyers are dead no one can press charges for their elimination ... I like it!
-
First, kill all the lawyers. The only people worse than us are politiciansBadger fans.
Fify
-
OHSA and even the EPA are reasonable examples but they are government bodies on "one side" of the issue, also they don't have a monetary incentive either. The problem is that lawyers sit on both sides of the transaction: those claiming to be aggrieved and the accused perpetrators. Also, lawyers are incentivized to take any opportunity to make money, even on trumped up charges. Lawyers are protecting clients, they are generating revenue for their firm.
Simple fix? Loser pays. You'll watch a bunch of frivolous lawsuits disappear.
Wow - nobody else has that opportunity!!
-
Wow - nobody else has that opportunity!!
You are correct, but you compared OSHA to lawyers, lawyers are motivated by money, OSHA is not. You can't protect the hen house with guards that are paid by both the hens and the wolves.
-
...and if all of the lawyers are dead no one can press charges for their elimination ... I like it!
Credit where credit is due: It's from William Shakespeare, Henry VI
-
First, kill all the lawyers. The only people worse than us are politicians.
Many politicians are lawyers, or at least have law degrees.....kill them twice?
-
OHSA and even the EPA are reasonable examples but they are government bodies on "one side" of the issue, also they don't have a monetary incentive either. The problem is that lawyers sit on both sides of the transaction: those claiming to be aggrieved and the accused perpetrators. Also, lawyers are incentivized to take any opportunity to make money, even on trumped up charges. Lawyers are protecting clients, they are generating revenue for their firm.
Simple fix? Loser pays. You'll watch a bunch of frivolous lawsuits disappear.
I always here this argument and at face value it sounds good, but it would cause far far more harm than good. What you would see is the 'big money' would just invest even more in crushing the opposition. They already do this, but an additional threat of if you lose, you'll have to pay the millions in attorney's fees we are throwing at this even though we know we are in the wrong.
Really bad idea.
-
I always here this argument and at face value it sounds good, but it would cause far far more harm than good. What you would see is the 'big money' would just invest even more in crushing the opposition. They already do this, but an additional threat of if you lose, you'll have to pay the millions in attorney's fees we are throwing at this even though we know we are in the wrong.
Really bad idea.
Unbelievably bad idea. Just another ploy to get those who are not rich from ever suing.