Showing posts with label information technology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label information technology. Show all posts
Tuesday 7 August 2018
Australian Digital Health Agency is considering adding DNA data to My Health Record
Crikey.com.au, 6 April 2018:
DNA DEBATE
The federal government’s
controversial My Health Record program is capable of storing genomic data, such
as cancer risks, using technology that both has huge research applications and
highlights privacy and security concerns.
The Sydney Morning Herald reports that
genome-sequencing company Genome.One, which can track genetic variations and
therefore disease risks, has built “necessary infrastructure” for uploading
sensitive genomic data into the opt-out system.
University of Canberra privacy expert Bruce
Arnold has criticised the inherent risks of DNA-tracking technology and,
just a week after the government backdown on police access to My Health Records, today’s news as
again demonstrating a lack public consultation.
The Australian Digital Health Agency (ADHA) which is responsibe for My Health Record gave Genome.One, a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Garvan Institute, $40,000 in September 2017 to support the development of this software.
Its GoExplore™ software provides sequencing and analyses of patients’ DNA samples to assesses their risk of developing 52 hereditary conditions, including 31 cancers, 13 heart conditions, as well several other conditions where monitoring or intervention can be of benefit.
In a change of focus, Genome.One and The Garvan Institute are reportedly no longer offering clinical reporting for genetic disease diagnosis or personal health genomics in Australia. This service was priced at $6,400 plus GST, with no Medicare rebate.
Staffing numbers in Genome.One have been severely cut, new capital is being sought and, Gavan has
stated that it intends to spin off Genome.One
software into a new company in which it will be a minority shareholder.
However, Genome.One still intends to pilot its genomics technology integrated into GP practice software and on !8 April 2018 its CEO stated; “We're working with some electronic medical record providers and we're hoping that we can get a trial underway at some point this year”.
Labels:
Big Brother,
big data,
data retention,
genetics,
health,
information technology,
privacy,
safety
Sunday 5 August 2018
Tell me again why the Turnbull Government is insisting My Health Record will become mandatory by the end of October 2018?
It is not just ordinary health care consumers who have concerns about the My Health Record database, system design, privacy issues and ethical considerations.
It is not just the Turnbull Government which has not sufficiently prepared public and private health care organisations for the nationwide rollout of mass personal and health information collection - the organisations themselves are not ready.
Lewis Ryan (Academic GP Registrar) |
* 65% of GP Registrars have never discussed My Health Record with a patient
* 78% of GP Registrars have never received training in how to use My Health Record
* 73% of GP Registrars say lack of training is a barrier to using My Health Record
* 71% of GP Registrars who have used the My Health Record system say that the user interface is a barrier
* Only 21% of GP Registrars believe privacy is well protected in the My Health Record system
In fact Australia-wide only 6,510 general practice organisations to date have registered to use My Health Record and these would only represent a fraction of the 35,982 GPs practicing across the country in 2016-17.
UPDATE
Healthcare
IT News, 3
August 2018:
The Federal Government’s Health Care Homes is
forcing patients to have a My Health Record to receive chronic care management
through the program, raising ethical questions and concerns about
discrimination.
The government’s Health Care Homes trial provides
coordinated care for those with chronic and complex diseases through more than
200 GP practices and Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services
nationally, and enrolment in the program requires patients to have a My
Health Record or be willing to get one.
But GP and former AMA president Dr Kerryn
Phelps claimed the demand for patients to sign up to the national health
database to access Health Care Homes support is unethical.
“I have massive ethical concerns about that,
particularly given the concerns around privacy and security of My Health
Record. It is discriminatory and it should be removed,” Phelps told Healthcare IT News Australia.
Under a two-year trial beginning in late 2017, up
to 65,000 people are eligible to become Health Care Homes patients as part of a
government-funded initiative to improve care for those with long-term
conditions including diabetes, arthritis, and heart and lung diseases.
Patients in the program receive coordinated care
from a team including their GP, specialists and allied health professionals and
according to the Department of Health: “All Health Care Homes’ patients need to
have a My Health Record. If you don’t have a My Health Record, your care
team will sign you up.”
Phelps said as such patients who don’t want a My
Health Record have been unable to access a health service they would otherwise
be entitled to.
“When you speak to doctors who are in involved in
the Heath Care Homes trial, their experience is that some patients are refusing
to sign up because they don’t want a My Health Record. So it is a
discriminatory requirement.”
It has also raised concerns about possible future
government efforts to compel Australians to have My Health Records.
“The general feedback I’m getting is that the
Health Care Homes trial is very disappointing to say the least but,
nonetheless, what this shows is that signing up to My Health Record could just
be made a prerequisite to sign up for other things like Centrelink payments or
workers compensation.”
Human rights lawyer and Digital Rights Watch board
member Lizzie O’Shea claims patients should have a right to choose whether they
are signed up to the government’s online medical record without it affecting
their healthcare.
“It is deeply concerning to see health services
force their patients to use what has clearly been shown to be a flawed and
invasive system. My Health Record has had sustained criticism from privacy
advocates, academics and health professionals, and questions still remain to be
answered on the privacy and security of how individual's data will be stored,
accessed and protected,” O’Shea said. [my yellow highlighting]
Friday 3 August 2018
NSW Roads & Maritime Services bungling and corrupt in 2018?
NSW Minister for Roads Maritime and Freight has a policy of sending IT jobs offshore?
With the
national unemployment rate running at 5.4 per cent nationally in June 2018 and
the New South Wales rate sitting at 4.8 per cent or 192,000 people, is the Minister for Roads Maritime and Freight & Nationals MP for Oxley Melinda Pavey secretly closing off employment opportunities for Australian information technology workers as a departmental cost-cutting measure?
These are not exactly the highest paying jobs in this country, averaging $46,000-$100,000 pa and, with the IT worker pool standing at est. 600,000+ nationally it is not as though there is an obvious scarcity of skilled workers available for hire.
So at first it was not easy to explain this......
The Daily Telegraph, 20 July 2018. P.2:
Leaked details of a
meeting between Roads and Maritime Services and seven companies bidding for a
$100 million IT contract contradict state government denials that it mandated
a 30 per cent quota of cut-price overseas workers.
The February 13 meeting,
convened by chief information officer Rob Putter, came six days after the RMS
called for tenders to provide IT services, on the condition that a “minimum” of
20 per cent of jobs would be sent overseas in the first year
and 30 per cent in the second year.
Three Indian firms, Tata
Consultancy Services, Wipro, and Tech Mahindra, attended the meeting along with
Fujitsu, Datacom, Accenture and Wollongong company itree, with 25 people in the
room and 18 dialling in.
A source who attended the
meeting said Mr Putter showed a PowerPoint slide titled RMS Pricing Principles
which stated the RMS was “seeking to achieve the lowest possible cost” to
provide the IT service.
The slide stated RMS’s
“target offshore resource utilisation” required 20 per cent of jobs offshore
in year one, 30 per cent in year two and a “measured ongoing approach
to increase offshore efforts” over the rest of the seven-year contract.
Photocopies of the slide
were provided to attendees, who “discussed at length ... the need to offshore
resources (jobs)”, the source said.
“The RMS personnel
stated that it was mandated by the (Roads) Minister that to achieve the lowest
price they need to seek offshore resources,” the source said.
“This clearly
makes a joke of the Minister’s denial that this tender mandated offshoring.” As
The Daily Telegraph revealed last week, the RMS had called for companies to
provide “development, testing, maintenance and service management for
transport-related software applications and in-the-field hardware”.…..
The RMS announced Mr
Putter’s resignation last week.
Despite NSW Government denials, the fact remains that it is highly likely that jobs were to be sourced overseas as the RMS IT operational budget blowout had reached $80 million in the 12 months to June 2018, following a $40 million blowout in the operational budget in the previous financial year.
It appears that Roads and Maritime Services has bungled its $1 billion IT systems upgrade with more bad news expected.
Dollars for mates?
Dollars for mates?
Crikey.com.au, 2 August 2018:
is under fire after six government
contracts, none of which went to public tender, were awarded to the company after
it hired former state roads minister
Duncan Gay.
The Daily Telegraph ($)
reports that the firm has been awarded contracts from the Roads
and Maritime Services agency worth over $4.46 million after hiring the former
department head as an “executive adviser” just weeks after Gay left parliament
in late 2017. The firm has reportedly hired at least 11 former Roads and
Maritime Services staff members, including two as directors, however Gay says
he has “not been involved in any RMS contracts that MU have won”.
Wednesday 1 August 2018
Turnbull Government prepares an end run around the Australian electorate?
In 1986 the Federal
Government couldn’t get the national electorate to accept the Australia
Card, a national identity card to be carried by all citizens.
Likewise in 2007 the wider electorate rejected the proposed Access Card, a national identity card with a unique personal identification number, which was to be linked to a centralised database expected to contain an unprecedented amount of personal and other information.
Federal Government also failed to have everyone embrace the idea of MyGov, a data sharing, one-stop digital portal for access to government services created in 2013. To date only 11.5 million people out of a population of over 24.9 million hold an account with MyGov.
Likewise in 2007 the wider electorate rejected the proposed Access Card, a national identity card with a unique personal identification number, which was to be linked to a centralised database expected to contain an unprecedented amount of personal and other information.
Federal Government also failed to have everyone embrace the idea of MyGov, a data sharing, one-stop digital portal for access to government services created in 2013. To date only 11.5 million people out of a population of over 24.9 million hold an account with MyGov.
When after three and a half years the
populace did not register in sufficient numbers for the so-called Personally Controlled Electronic Health
Record (PCEHR), an intrusive opt-in data retention system, government
changed tack.
It relabelled
PCEHR as My Health Record (MHR) in 2016 and broadened the number of agencies
which could access an individual’s personal/health information. Decreeing it would become
a mandatory data collection system applied to the entire Australian population,
with only a short an opt-out period prior to full program implementation1.
However, it
seems that the Turnbull Federal Government expects around 1.9 million people to
opt-out of or cancel their My Heath
Record in the next two months. Possibly with more cancellations to occur in
the future, as privacy and personal safety become issues due to the inevitable
continuation of MHR data breaches and the occurrence of unanticipated software vulnerabilities/failures.
So Turnbull
and his Liberal and Nationals cronies have a backup in place in 2018 called the Data
Sharing and Release Bill, which Introduces legislation to improve the
use and reuse of public sector data within government and with private
corporations outside of government, as well as granting access to and the
sharing of data on individuals and businesses that is currently otherwise prohibited.
The bill
also allows for the sharing of transaction, usage and product data
with service competitors and comparison services. An as yet unrealised provision which is currently being wrapped up in a pretty bow and called a consumer right - but one that is likely to be abused by the banking, finance, insurance, electricity/gas industry sectors.
The bill appears to override the federal privacy act where provisions are incompatible.
The bill appears to override the federal privacy act where provisions are incompatible.
This is a
bill voters have yet to see, because the Turnbull Government has not seen fit
to publish the bill’s full text. Only an
issues paper is available at present.
Notes:
1. Federal Government may have succeeded in retaining the personal details of every person who filled in the 2016 Census by permanently retaining these details and linking this information to their future Census information in order to track people overtime for the rest of their lives, but this win for government as Big Brother was reliant on stealth in implementation and was limited in what it could achieve at the time.
Because not everyone ended up with a genuine unique identification key as an unknown number of individual citizens and permanent residents (possibly well in excess of half a million souls) as acts of civil disobedience deliberately filled in the national survey forms with falsified information or managed to evade filling in a form altogether.
Sunday 29 July 2018
When it comes to My Heath Record the words horse, stable, door, spring to mind
In January
2016 the Australian Digital Health
Agency (ADHA) became a corporate Commonwealth established under the Public Governance,
Performance and Accountability (Establishing the Australian Digital Health
Agency) Rule.
It has a
board appointed by the Minister for Health in whose portfolio it is situated and the board is the accountable
body of the ADHA.
Currently Mr Jim Birch AM, Chair. Mr Rob Bransby, Dr Eleanor Chew, Dr Elizabeth Deven, Ms Lyn McGrath, Ms Stephanie Newell, Dr Bennie Ng, Professor Johanna Westbrook and Michael Walsh sit on this board.
Currently Mr Jim Birch AM, Chair. Mr Rob Bransby, Dr Eleanor Chew, Dr Elizabeth Deven, Ms Lyn McGrath, Ms Stephanie Newell, Dr Bennie Ng, Professor Johanna Westbrook and Michael Walsh sit on this board.
The executive team is headed by Tim Kelsey as CEO, with Professor Meredith Makeham as Chief Medical Adviser and Bettina McMahon, Ronan O’Connor, Terrance Seymour & Dr. Monica Trujillo as the four executive managers.
ADHA is also
the designated Systems Operator for My
Health Record which currently
holds the personal health information of 5.98 million people across the country
and will add the remaining 19 million after 15 October 2018 unless they opt
out of being included in this national database.
Given the potential size of this database the question of cyber security springs to mind.
It seems that the Australian Digital Health Agency has not been independently audited for cyber resilience by the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) ahead of beginning the mammoth task of collecting and collating the personal heath information of those19 million people.
Australian National Audit Office, Potential audit: 2018-19:
Management of cyber security risks in My Health Record
Australian National Audit Office, Potential audit: 2018-19:
Management of cyber security risks in My Health Record
The audit would examine the effectiveness of the Australian Digital Health Agency’s management of cyber security risks associated with the implementation and ongoing maintenance of the My Health Record system.
My Health Record creates a record of Australians’ interactions with healthcare providers, and more than 5.5 million Australians have a My Health Record. The audit would focus on whether adequate controls are in place to protect the privacy and integrity of individual records.It seems that the Australian general public still only has the honeypot's dubious word that it cannot be raided by unauthorised third parties.
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has reacted to growing community concern about the number of agencies which can access My Health Records with a vague promise of "refinements" and with this outright lie; "The fact is that there have been no privacy complaints or breaches with My Health Record in six years and there are over 6 million people with My Health Records".
The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner has recorded complaints and at least 242 individual My Health Records have been part of mandatory data breach reports in 2015-16 to 2016-17, with nine of the 51 reported breach events involving "the unauthorised access of a healthcare recipient’s My Health Record by a third party".
BACKGROUND
Intermedium, 8 May 2018:
Re-platforming options
for the My Health Record (MHR) system will soon be up for consideration, with
an Australian Digital Health Agency (ADHA) spokesperson confirming that a
request for information will be released in the next few months to inform plans
to modernise the infrastructure underpinning Australia’s mammoth patient health
database.
An open-source,
cloud-based environment has already
been flagged as a possibility for the MHR by Department of Health
(DoH) Special Adviser for Strategic trategic Health Systems and Information Management Paul Madden at Senate Estimates in May last year. He also said that the re-platforming decision was one of many “variables” that needed to be squared away to accurately gauge how much the MHR system will cost beyond 2019-20.
“The variables in there include the re-platforming of the system to an open source environment, using cloud technology… which will be something we will not know the cost of until we hit the market to get a view on that”, Madden said last year. “Our commitment is to come back to the budget in 2019 to paint out those costs for the four years beyond.”
ADHA is scoping out MHR re-platforming options early, with the existing contract with the Accenture-led consortium not set to expire until 2020. As the “National Infrastructure Operator”, Accenture is tasked with running and maintaining MHR’s infrastructure. The prime contractor works with Oracle and Orion Health to provide the core systems and portals behind MHR.
Accenture was awarded the contract to design, build, integrate and test the then-personally controlled electronic health record system (PCEHR) back in 2011, and has signed 13 contracts worth a total of $709.53 million with DoH in relation to the MHR in that time. With the original infrastructure now over seven years old, ADHA recognise the importance of modernising the environment supporting the MHR....
What happens to medical
records when opting out?
Dr Kerryn Phelps reminds
us that, if people don't opt out, the My Health Records Act
allows disclosure of patients' health information to police, courts and the ATO
without a warrant ("My Health Record backlash builds",
July 25). This would be in addition to "health information such as
allergies, medicines and immunisations" available for emergency staff.
How can the access be
restricted to emergency staff? How can only certain categories of information
be released when allergies and medication are part of general medical notes? I
was not reassured by "serious penalties relating to the misuse of
information do not apply to accidental misuse" on the website. I opted
out.
My GP has told me that, nonetheless, she will be obliged
to upload my records
- which sounds credible since I have formally opted out with the government,
not with my doctor's practice. So what happens -
does my health record get kicked off "the cloud"?
What exactly did I opt out of?
Denise De Vreeze [my yellow highlighting]
Denise De Vreeze [my yellow highlighting]
Labels:
#TurnbullFAIL,
Big Brother,
data retention,
health,
information technology,
privacy,
safety
Wednesday 25 July 2018
The two very different faces Facebook Inc presents to potential advertisers and lawmakers
Australian Newspaper
History Group Newsletter, No 98, July
2018, pp8-9:
98.2.3
Facebook described itself as a ‘publisher’ in 2013
Facebook
described itself as a “publisher” as far back as 2013, leaked documents
obtained by the Australian reveal. This contradicts the message that chief
executive Mark Zuckerberg gave to US Congress, in interviews and in speeches (Australian,
9 July 2018). A 71-page PowerPoint presentation prepared by the then managing director
of Facebook, Stephen Scheeler, outlines how the tech giant was the
“second-highest reaching publisher in Australia” when compared with traditional
media companies such as Nine and Seven. The internal sales document is partly
based on data gathered by measurement firm Nielsen as well as confidential
internal figures including quarterly revenue targets. There is no mention of
Facebook being a publisher in Nielsen’s original report; it categorises
Facebook as a “brand” in its Online Landscape Review published in May 2013. A
slide in the presentation produced by Scheeler, the most senior executive at
Facebook’s Australia and New Zealand business at the time, changed Nielsen’s
description of Facebook from a brand to a “publisher”, showing that the social media
giant views itself as such.
This
is significant because Facebook has long argued it is a tech platform, not a
publisher or a media company, when questioned about how it has generated vast
profits by siphoning off billions of dollars from the news industry. The
admission in the document contrasts with Facebook’s recent public contribution
to a high-powered Australian inquiry into the local digital media market. The
company repeatedly calls itself a “platform” in a 56-page written submission to
the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission.
Zuckerberg
has persistently rejected the suggestion that Facebook is a publisher,
presenting the company as a neutral platform that does not have traditional
journalistic responsibilities. In April, Zuckerberg was asked by US senators
investigating the Cambridge Analytica data scandal to explain whether his
company was a tech company or publisher. Dan Sullivan, a Republican Senator for
Alaska, said: “That goes to an important question about what regulation or action,
if any, we would take.” Asked by Senator Sullivan if Facebook was a “tech
company or the world’s largest publisher” during his second day of testimony on
Capitol Hill, the Facebook co-founder responded: “I view us as a tech company
because the primary thing that we do is build technology and products.” Senator
Sullivan pressed further: “You said you’re responsible for your content, which
makes you kind of a publisher, right?” Zuckerberg did not admit Facebook was a
media company or publisher, but did say it was responsible for what is posted
on its platforms after it emerged that the company allowed Russia to spread
disinformation in the US presidential election.
“I
agree that we’re responsible for the content. But we don’t produce the content.
I think that when people ask us if we’re a media company or a publisher, my
understanding of what the heart of what they’re really getting at is: do we
feel responsible for the content on our platform? The answer to that I think is
clearly yes. But I don’t think that that’s incompatible with fundamentally at
our core being a technology company where the main thing that we do is have
engineers and build products.”
Labels:
Facebook,
information technology,
Internet,
media
Tuesday 24 July 2018
Australian Health Minister Greg Hunt is not being truthful about My Health Record and he knows it
On 16 July 2018 the Australian Minister for Health and Liberal MP for Flinders, Gregory Andrew 'Greg' Hunt, characterised My Health Record as a "secure summary" of an individual's key health information.
The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) tells a rather different story.
One where at least 242 individual My Health Records have been part of mandatory data breach reports in 2015-16 to 2016-17, with nine of the 51 reported breach events involving "the unauthorised access of a healthcare
recipient’s My Health Record by a third party".
A story which also involves at least 96 instances of Medicare uploading data to the wrong digital health records and also uploading claim information to another 123 My Health Records apparently without the knowledge or consent of the persons in whose names these My Health Records had been created.
There were other instances where MyGov
accounts held by healthcare recipients were incorrectly linked to the My
Health Records of other healthcare recipients.
Prior to the database name change and system change from opt-in to opt-out there had been another 9 data breaches of an unspecified nature reported, involving an unknown number of what are now called My Health Records.
More instances are now being aired in mainstream and social media where My Health Records were created by DHS Medicare Repository Services or other agents/agencies without the knowledge or consent of the individual in whose name the record had been created.
Prior to the database name change and system change from opt-in to opt-out there had been another 9 data breaches of an unspecified nature reported, involving an unknown number of what are now called My Health Records.
More instances are now being aired in mainstream and social media where My Health Records were created by DHS Medicare Repository Services or other agents/agencies without the knowledge or consent of the individual in whose name the record had been created.
Healthcare IT News 16 July 2018 |
If this is how the national e-health database was officially functioning malfunctioning by 30 June 2017, how on earth is the system going to cope when it attempts to create millions of new My Health Records after 15 October 2018?
On the first day of the 60 day opt-out period about 20,000 people refused to have a My Health Record automatically created for them and at least one Liberal MP has also opted out, the Member for Goldstein and member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport Tim Wilson.
Prime Minister Malcolm Bligh Turnbull has stated his view that mass withdrawals will not kill the national digital health records system - perhaps because he and his government are possibly contemplating adopting the following three coercive recommendations found amongst the thirty-one recommendations included in the Siggins Miller November 2016 Evaluation of the Participation Trials for the My Health Record: Final Report:
NOTES
OAIC annual reports:
On the first day of the 60 day opt-out period about 20,000 people refused to have a My Health Record automatically created for them and at least one Liberal MP has also opted out, the Member for Goldstein and member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport Tim Wilson.
Prime Minister Malcolm Bligh Turnbull has stated his view that mass withdrawals will not kill the national digital health records system - perhaps because he and his government are possibly contemplating adopting the following three coercive recommendations found amongst the thirty-one recommendations included in the Siggins Miller November 2016 Evaluation of the Participation Trials for the My Health Record: Final Report:
20. Use all mechanisms
available in commissioning and funding health services as vehicles to require
the use of the My Health Record to obtain funds where practical.
21. Consider ways to
require the use of the My Health Record system by all healthcare providers and
how to best use the Government’s purchasing power directly (e.g. in the aged
care sector), via new initiatives as they arise (such the Health Care Home
initiative) or via PHNs commissioning clinical services (e.g. require use of
the My Health Record system in all clinical and aged care services that receive
Commonwealth funds). Such requirements should have a timeframe within which
healthcare providers need to become compliant.
22. Explore with health
insurers how they could encourage preferred suppliers and clients to use the My
Health Record system as part of their push for preventive care and cost
containment.
That the My Health Record is not about improving health service delivery for individual patients is indicated by the fact that a My Health Record is retained by the National Repositories Service for between 30 and up to 130 years after death and, even during an individual's lifetime can be accessed by the courts, police, other government agencies and private corporations listed as research organisations requiring medical/lifestyle information for what is essentially commercial gain, at the discretion of the Secretary of the Department of Health or the Digital Health Agency Systems Operator. See: My Health Records Act 2012 (20 September 2017), Subdivision B - s63 to s70
To put it bluntly, this national database will allow federal government to monitor the personal lives of Australian citizens more closely, enforce civil & criminal law, monetise collated data for its own benefit and, weaponize the personal information collected anytime it feels threatened by dissenting opinion.
NOTES
OAIC annual reports:
The Guardian, 22 July 2018:
Australia’s impending My
Health Record system is “identical” to a failed
system in England that was cancelled after it was found to be selling
patient data to drug and insurance companies, a British privacy expert has
said.
My Health Record is a
digital medical record that stores
medical data and shares it between medical providers. In the UK, a similar
system called care.data was announced in 2014, but cancelled in 2016 after an
investigation found that drug and insurance companies were able to buy
information on patients’ mental health conditions, diseases and smoking habits.
The man in charge of
implementing My Health Record
in Australia, Tim Kelsey, was also in charge of setting up care.data.
Phil Booth, the
coordinator of British privacy group Medconfidential, said the similarities
were “extraordinary” and he expected the same privacy breaches to occur.
“The parallels are
incredible,” he said. “It looks like it is repeating itself, almost like a
rewind or a replay. The context has changed but what is plainly obvious to us
from the other side of the planet, is that this system seems to be the 2018
replica of the 2014 care.data.” [my yellow highlighting]
North Coast
Voices , 22 July 2018, Former
Murdoch journalist in charge of MyHealth records –what could possibly go wrong?
UPDATE
Australian
Parliamentary Library, Flagpost,
23 July 2018:
Section 70 of the My Health Records Act
2012 enables the System Operator (ADHA) to ‘use or disclose
health information’ contained in an individual’s My Health Record if the ADHA
‘reasonably believes that the use or disclosure is reasonably necessary’ to,
among other things, prevent, detect, investigate or prosecute any criminal
offence, breaches of a law imposing a penalty or sanction or breaches of a
prescribed law; protect the public revenue; or prevent, detect, investigate or
remedy ‘seriously improper conduct’. Although ‘protection of the public
revenue’ is not explained, it is reasonable to assume that this might include
investigations into potential fraud and other financial offences involving
agencies such as Centrelink, Medicare, or the Australian Tax Office. The
general wording of section 70 is a fairly standard formulation common to
various legislation—such as the Telecommunications
Act 1997—which appears to provide broad access to a wide range of agencies
for a wide range of purposes.
While this should mean
that requests for data by police, Home Affairs and other authorities will be
individually assessed, and that any disclosure will be limited to the minimum
necessary to satisfy the request, it represents a significant reduction in the
legal threshold for the release of private medical information to law
enforcement. Currently, unless a patient consents to the release of their
medical records, or disclosure is required to meet a doctor’s mandatory
reporting obligations (e.g. in cases of suspected child sexual abuse), law
enforcement agencies can only access a person’s records (via their doctor) with
a warrant, subpoena or court order....
It seems unlikely that
this level of protection and obligation afforded to medical records by the
doctor-patient relationship will be maintained, or that a doctor’s judgement
will be accommodated, once a patient’s medical record is uploaded to My Health
Record and subject to section 70 of the My Health Records Act 2012. The
AMA’s Guide
to Medical Practitioners on the use of the Personally Controlled Electronic
Health Record System (from 2012) does not clarify the situation.
Although it has
been reported that
the ADHA’s ‘operating policy is to release information only where the request
is subject to judicial oversight’, the My Health Records Act 2012 does
not mandate this and it does not appear that the ADHA’s operating policy is
supported by any rule or regulation. As legislation would normally take
precedence over an agency’s ‘operating policy’, this means that unless the ADHA
has deemed a request unreasonable, it cannot routinely require a law
enforcement body to get a warrant, and its operating policy can be ignored or
changed at any time.
The Health
Minister’s assertions that no one’s data can be used to ‘criminalise’
them and that ‘the Digital Health Agency has again reaffirmed today that
material … can only be accessed with a court order’ seem at odds with the
legislation which only requires a reasonable belief that disclosure of a
person’s data is reasonably necessary to prevent, detect, investigate or
prosecute a criminal offence…..
Although the disclosure
provisions of different agencies may be more or less strict than those of the
ADHA and the My Health Records Act 2012, the problem with the MHR system
is the nature of the data itself. As the Law Council of Australia notes,
‘the information held on a healthcare recipient’s My Health Record is regarded
by many individuals as highly sensitive and intimate’. The National Association
of People with HIV Australia has
suggested that ‘the department needs to ensure that an individual’s My
Health Record is bound to similar privacy protections as existing laws relating
to the privacy of health records’. Arguably, therefore, an alternative to the
approach of the current scheme would be for medical records registered in the
MHR system to be legally protected from access by law enforcement agencies to
at least the same degree as records held by a doctor.
Monday 23 July 2018
Clifton Gardens-Mosman residents, you have a data breach......
looks like apple got access to a bunch of Australian business regos and just dumped them into maps without validation. Now everyone’s ‘retirement trusts’ (SMSFs) are showing up... pic.twitter.com/2etZKaTYMA— Maxwell Swadling (@mxswd) July 21, 2018
I spy with my little eye a former "young broker of the year", a number of Self-Managed Superannuation Funds and a slew of private corporations whose registered addresses are not so private anymore.
Labels:
data breach,
information technology,
Internet
Sunday 22 July 2018
Former Murdoch journalist in charge of MyHealth records –what could possibly go wrong?
Former news editor of the notorious Newscorp
publication The Sunday Times which was involved
in the UK hacking scandal, former
Executive Director of Transparency and Open
Data
in the UK Cabinet Office and then National Director for Patients and
Information and head of the toxic
government Care.data project which
stored patient medical information in a
single database. before ending up as
the commercial director of Telstra
Health in Australia, Tim Kelsey, was appointed as CEO of
the Australian Digital
Health Agency by the Turnbull Coalition Government to progress the
stalled My Health Record national
database in 2016 with a salary worth $522,240 a year.
A curriculum vitae
which may go some way to explaining why
reports
are beginning to emerge of individuals seeking to opt-out of My Health Record
finding out they have been registered by stealth in the Australian national
database some years ago.
Crikey.com.au, 18 July 2018:
The
bureaucrat overseeing My Health Record presided over a disaster-plagued
national health record system in the UK, and has written passionately about the
belief people have no right to opt out of health records or anonymity.
Tim
Kelsey is a former British journalist who moved into the electronic health
record business in the 2000s. In 2012, he was appointed to run the UK
government’s national health record system, Care.data, which was brought
to a shuddering halt in 2014 after widespread criticism
over the sale of patients’ private data to drug and
insurance companies, then scrapped altogether in 2016. By that stage,
Kelsey had moved to Telstra in Australia, before later taking
a government role. There was considerable criticism about the lack of
information around Care.data, and over 700,000 UK people opted out of the system.
Kelsey
vehemently opposed allowing people to opt out — the exact model he is
presiding over in Australia. In a 2009 article, “Long Live The Database State”, for Prospect…..
For
Kelsey, this was necessary for effective health services…….
Kelsey
also expressed his opposition to the anonymisation of data, even of the most
personal kind…...
Kelsey’s
vision was of a vast state apparatus collecting, consolidating and distributing
private information to enable an interventionist state.
Moreover,
he stated others should have access to data…..
ADHA,
Kelsey is doing little to fix his reputation for controversy. On Saturday,
ADHA released an extraordinary 1000-word attack on News Corp health journalist Sue
Dunlevy who correctly pointed out the strong risk to privacy
in the My Health Record system. The statement repeatedly criticised Dunlevy,
accusing her of “dangerous fearmongering” and being “misleading and ignorant”.
Dunlevy
had rightly noted the lack of any effective information campaign about My
Health record (exactly the criticism made of Care.data), prompting ADHA to
boast of its $114 million campaign at Australia Post shops, Department of Human
Services “access points” and letters to health practitioners. It makes you
wonder why even News Corp’s Janet Albrechtsen said she’d never heard of My Health Record until last week….
Labels:
Big Brother,
big data,
information technology,
privacy,
safety
Friday 20 July 2018
Slowly but surely Russian connections between the UK Brexit referendum campaign and the US presidential campaign are beginning to emerge
“We have concluded that there are risks in relation to
the processing of personal data by many political parties. Particular concerns
include: the purchasing of marketing lists and lifestyle information from data
brokers without sufficient due diligence, a lack of fair processing, and use of
third party data analytics companies with insufficient checks around consent….We
have looked closely at the role of those who buy and sell personal data-sets in
the UK. Our existing investigation of the privacy issues raised by their work
has been expanded to include their activities in political processes….The
investigation has identified a total of 172 organisations of interest that
required engagement, of which around 30 organisations have formed the main
focus of our enquiries, including political parties, data analytics companies
and major social media platforms…..Similarly, we have identified a total of 285
individuals relating to our investigation.” [UK
Information Commissioner’s Office, Investigation
into the use of data analytics in political campaigns: Investigation update,
July 2018]
Slowly but
surely the Russian connections between the UK Brexit referendum campaign and
the US presidential campaign are beginning to emerge.
The
Guardian, 15
July 2018:
A
source familiar with the FBI investigation revealed that the commissioner and
her deputy spent last week with law enforcement agencies in the US including
the FBI. And Denham’s deputy, James Dipple-Johnstone, confirmed to the Observer that
“some of the systems linked to the investigation were accessed from IP
addresses that resolve to Russia and other areas of the CIS [Commonwealth of
Independent States]”.
It was also reported that Senator Mark Warner, vice chair of US Senate Intel Committee and Damian Collins MP, chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport select committee inquiry into “fake news”, met in Washington on or about 16 July 2018 to discuss Russian interference in both British and American democratic processes during an Atlantic Council meeting.
It was also reported that Senator Mark Warner, vice chair of US Senate Intel Committee and Damian Collins MP, chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport select committee inquiry into “fake news”, met in Washington on or about 16 July 2018 to discuss Russian interference in both British and American democratic processes during an Atlantic Council meeting.
UK Information
Commissioner’s Office (ICO), media
release, 10 July 2018:
Information
Commissioner Elizabeth Denham has today published a detailed update of her
office’s investigation into the use of data analytics in political campaigns.
In
March 2017, the ICO began looking into whether personal data had been misused
by campaigns on both sides of the referendum on membership of the EU.
In
May it launched an investigation that included political parties, data
analytics companies and major social media platforms.
Today’s progress report gives details of some of the
organisations and individuals under investigation, as well as enforcement
actions so far.
This
includes the ICO’s intention to fine Facebook a maximum £500,000 for two
breaches of the Data Protection Act 1998.
Facebook,
with Cambridge Analytica, has been the focus of the investigation since
February when evidence emerged that an app had been used to harvest the data of
50 million Facebook users across the world. This is now estimated at 87
million.
The
ICO’s investigation concluded that Facebook contravened the law by failing to
safeguard people’s information. It also found that the company failed to be
transparent about how people’s data was harvested by others.
Facebook
has a chance to respond to the Commissioner’s Notice of Intent, after which a
final decision will be made.
Other
regulatory action set out in the report comprises:
warning letters to 11 political
parties and notices compelling them to agree to audits of their data protection
practices;
an Enforcement Notice for SCL
Elections Ltd to compel it to deal properly with a subject access request from
Professor David Carroll;
a criminal prosecution for SCL
Elections Ltd for failing to properly deal with the ICO’s Enforcement Notice;
an Enforcement Notice for Aggregate IQ
to stop processing retained data belonging to UK citizens;
a Notice of Intent to take regulatory
action against data broker Emma’s Diary (Lifecycle Marketing (Mother and Baby)
Ltd); and
audits of the main credit reference
companies and Cambridge University Psychometric Centre.
Information
Commissioner Elizabeth Denham said:
“We
are at a crossroads. Trust and confidence in the integrity of our democratic
processes risk being disrupted because the average voter has little idea of
what is going on behind the scenes.
“New
technologies that use data analytics to micro-target people give campaign
groups the ability to connect with individual voters. But this cannot be at the
expense of transparency, fairness and compliance with the law.
She
added:
“Fines
and prosecutions punish the bad actors, but my real goal is to effect change
and restore trust and confidence in our democratic system.”
A
second, partner report, titled Democracy Disrupted? Personal information and political influence,
sets out findings and recommendations arising out of the 14-month
investigation.
Among
the ten recommendations is a call for the Government to introduce a statutory
Code of Practice for the use of personal data in political campaigns.
Ms
Denham has also called for an ethical pause to allow Government, Parliament,
regulators, political parties, online platforms and the public to reflect on
their responsibilities in the era of big data before there is a greater
expansion in the use of new technologies.
She
said:
“People
cannot have control over their own data if they don’t know or understand how it
is being used. That’s why greater and genuine transparency about the use of
data analytics is vital.”
In
addition, the ICO commissioned research from the Centre for the Analysis of
Social Media at the independent thinktank DEMOS. Its report, also published
today, examines current and emerging trends in how data is used in political
campaigns, how use of technology is changing and how it may evolve in the next
two to five years.
The
investigation, one of the largest of its kind by a Data Protection Authority,
remains ongoing. The 40-strong investigation team is pursuing active lines of
enquiry and reviewing a considerable amount of material retrieved from servers
and equipment.
The
interim progress report has been produced to inform the work of the DCMS’s
Select Committee into Fake News.
The
next phase of the ICO’s work is expected to be concluded by the end of October
2018.
The
Washington Post,
28 June 2018:
BRISTOL,
England — On Aug. 19, 2016, Arron Banks, a wealthy British businessman,
sat down at the palatial residence of the Russian ambassador to London for
a lunch of wild halibut and Belevskaya pastila apple sweets
accompanied by Russian white wine.
Banks
had just scored a huge win. From relative obscurity, he had become the largest
political donor in British history by pouring millions into Brexit, the
campaign to disentangle the United Kingdom from the European Union that had
earned a jaw-dropping victory at the polls two months earlier.
Now
he had something else that bolstered his standing as he sat down with his new Russian
friend, Ambassador Alexander Yakovenko: his team’s deepening ties to Donald
Trump’s insurgent presidential bid in the United States. A major Brexit
supporter, Stephen K. Bannon, had just been installed as chief executive of
Trump’s campaign. And Banks and his fellow Brexiteers had been invited to
attend a fundraiser with Trump in Mississippi.
Less
than a week after the meeting with the Russian envoy, Banks and firebrand
Brexit politician Nigel Farage — by then a cult hero among some
anti-establishment Trump supporters — were huddling privately with the
Republican nominee in Jackson, Miss., where Farage wowed a foot-stomping crowd
at a Trump rally.
Banks’s
journey from a lavish meal with a Russian diplomat in London to the raucous
heart of Trump country was part of an unusual intercontinental charm offensive
by the wealthy British donor and his associates, a hard-partying lot who dubbed
themselves the “Bad Boys of Brexit.” Their efforts to simultaneously cultivate
ties to Russian officials and Trump’s campaign have captured the interest of
investigators in the United Kingdom and the United States, including special
counsel Robert S. Mueller III.
Vice
News, 11 June
2018:
Yakovenko
is already on the radar of special counsel Robert Mueller, who is investigating
Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election, after he was named in
the indictment of ex-Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos….
Banks,
along with close friend and former Ukip leader Nigel Farage, was among the very
first overseas political figures to meet Trump after his surprise victory in
November 2016.
It
also emerged over the weekend that Banks passed contact information for Trump’s
transition team to the Russians.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)