secretlyaddictedtolinux

@secretlyaddictedtolinux@lemmy.world

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. For a complete list of posts, browse on the original instance.

secretlyaddictedtolinux , to News in Doctor accused of illegally obtaining health data of Texas Children's patients, in crusade against Transgender medical treatments

good point

secretlyaddictedtolinux , to News in Doctor accused of illegally obtaining health data of Texas Children's patients, in crusade against Transgender medical treatments

Also to clarify, under the rules, certain actions may not constitute a breach to begin with and therefore the breach rules may not apply and also the exceptions may not apply.

secretlyaddictedtolinux , (edited ) to News in Doctor accused of illegally obtaining health data of Texas Children's patients, in crusade against Transgender medical treatments

It looks like there are updates to HIPPA based on concerns about Dobbs, so I am probably wrong overall.

But:

https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/faq/488/does-hipaa-permit-a-doctor-to-discuss-a-patients-health-status-with-the-patients-family-and-friends/index.html

"Even when the patient is not present or it is impracticable because of emergency circumstances or the patient’s incapacity for the covered entity to ask the patient about discussing her care or payment with a family member or other person, a covered entity may share this information with the person when, in exercising professional judgment, it determines that doing so would be in the best interest of the patient. See 45 CFR 164.510(b)."

i may not be wrong after all?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/45/164.510
(3) Limited uses and disclosures when the individual is not present. If the individual is not present, or the opportunity to agree or object to the use or disclosure cannot practicably be provided because of the individual's incapacity or an emergency circumstance, the covered entity may, in the exercise of professional judgment, determine whether the disclosure is in the best interests of the individual and, if so, disclose only the protected health information that is directly relevant to the person's involvement with the individual's care or payment related to the individual's health care or needed for notification purposes. A covered entity may use professional judgment and its experience with common practice to make reasonable inferences of the individual's best interest in allowing a person to act on behalf of the individual to pick up filled prescriptions, medical supplies, X-rays, or other similar forms of protected health information.

It doesn't seem like this exception can be waived. What are emergency circumstances or incapacity? What if I don't want anything disclosed based on someone else's professional judgment?

I just still think there is way too much leeway to allow things to be shared based on the ambiguous language of the text.

secretlyaddictedtolinux , (edited ) to News in Doctor accused of illegally obtaining health data of Texas Children's patients, in crusade against Transgender medical treatments

You're either partly right at least or I'm at least not up to date on things. It looks like there are recent additions to the rules based on the abortion case Dobbs and in addition, some of the proposed changes I read about in an article may not have been added in. Many people were complaining about HIPAA preventing them from finding out about family members who were hospitalized and there were discussions about changing things, but you may be right and none of those changes were incorporated into the actual HIPAA rules.

When I read about proposed changes to HIPAA, I figured they would be passed because it seems like the trend is erosion of individual privacy always in the interest of whatever the government says, and I didn't verify everything prior to my reply.

Good catch. It appears at least initially I'm wrong and you're right. I'm going to research it more later, but it likely won't change things.

secretlyaddictedtolinux , (edited ) to News in Doctor accused of illegally obtaining health data of Texas Children's patients, in crusade against Transgender medical treatments

It was H&R Block and all those other online tax services who did that. It was a terrible violation and I wish those companies would all be just broken up, sued into oblivion, and their CEOs personally liable for this on both a civil and criminal level. It was one of the worst data breaches, without being a breach, ever and just vomit inducing treachery.

secretlyaddictedtolinux , (edited ) to News in Doctor accused of illegally obtaining health data of Texas Children's patients, in crusade against Transgender medical treatments

Everyone who works in these industries is slime and worst of all, they make posts about adhering to regulations with hashtags to try to trick people that a large part of what they are doing isn't white-washing backdoor data that includes confidential information.

They are tricking the stupid corporations and masses to extract money, but will eventually become a liability because the data lacks consent. But all the scum working at all these terrible companies using AI and feigning compliance will eventually depart once the legal vultures start to circle, leaving shareholders to be the ones losing money.

Most of the value of the treachery of these companies is the victims never know that they have been exploited. Someone who takes time off work occasionally for severe depression may in fact be a worse worker and so companies profit from exploiting this trick and companies do not notify job candidates when they have been eliminated as candidates based on personality profiles that incorporate medical information or traits that are proxies for medical information and/or based on medical apps or health websites.

Virtually all health sites sell information to data brokers. Where do people think that goes? It goes into personality profiles to eliminate less healthy job candidates.

Some of these companies and data brokers are using AI to circumvent the design of laws, and pretend that complex programs are somehow compliant while achieving the same intent, but all the compliance hashtags don't exculpate them from their sleaze. Many of these companies that try to white wash this data show how their practices aren't discriminatory to women or minorities and that pacifies governments and seems palatable, but they make their money from getting rid of other protected classes of people that are less obvious.

It's just pure slimebag grifting, the whole thing, and eventually people wise up because their is profit in suing these assholes for their avaricious racket.

secretlyaddictedtolinux , to News in Doctor accused of illegally obtaining health data of Texas Children's patients, in crusade against Transgender medical treatments

Facebook put tracking pixels on all sort of medical websites, including websites that provided abortion services. Many of the companies with the tracking pixels didn't even have anyone in them who understood tracking pixel technology.

Data brokers regularly obtain medical information about people and even if it can't legally be used to discriminate against someone, all this information gets in through the back door through personality profiles that measure things like "resiliency" and "tenacity."

Did you need to take a break from work due to severe depression? Well that can't be legally used against you when you apply for a new job. However, since you couldn't tough it out at work, you do have a "less resilient" personality and that will be factored into a personality profile used to exclude you from jobs. They are doing this using AI now to try to get this information in through the backdoor and make it legal, and since many of the pieces of data from data brokers have no clear source of origination or clear consent obtained, these companies claim they are not relying on privileged medical information.

It's appalling and discriminatory and these companies should all be destroyed, their offices bulldozed, and the earth salted afterwards. The executives running these companies should all be castigated for what they do. They are profiting off of a data brokerage hack turning medical information into discrimination and then trying to white wash it.

Eventually, large greedy law firms will see they can make a lot of money with class action suits for disabled people who were collectively harmed by white-washing medical problems into personality profiles and these companies and their practices will become huge liabilities because they can't determine the data sources and whether consumers actually opted in. (And almost all consumers exploited by these nefarious practices monetized by sleazeballs don't opt in.)

secretlyaddictedtolinux , (edited ) to News in Doctor accused of illegally obtaining health data of Texas Children's patients, in crusade against Transgender medical treatments

The following post my be completely wrong based on new updates to HIPAA and previous suggestions that were not added as expected to revisions. There is one reply below this saying it's wrong, and they are probably right. This whole post is probably mostly wrong, therefore. I'm leaving it here for now, but it's incorrect.

It's not a textbook HIPAA violation.

HIPAA has a good-faith exception allowing medical professionals to disclose private medical information when it's in the best interest of the patient.

What is in the best interest of the patient?

Well, following all the rules of the government, which are all there for people's safety, of course!

For example, Norma gets pregnant and abortion is legal and she has an abortion. She is relying on HIPAA to keep her medical privacy.

Abortion then becomes illegal after she had her abortion. A hospital worker, knowing that abortion is illegal, provides this information to the police so that they can monitor Norma to make sure she doesn't get more abortions. This would be a good-faith exception to HIPAA because the medical worker is breaching Norma's privacy in Norma's best interest because he is worried she could break the law by having more abortions, and following the law is always in the interest of safety, no matter what. (Have doubts? Just ask ChatGPT if it's ever safer to not follow public rules and regulations because of having a different personal belief system.) Norma then sues the medical worker and claims the good-faith exception violated HIPAA, and a court then is left to decide whether this worker was acting in Norma's best interests, by helping make sure she follows the law, or doing something bad. If the court finds against the worker, it's at best a slap on the wrist and small fine, but if the hospital worker is in a conservative court, the worker is going to win anyway.

Worst of all, as a patient, Norma can not opt-out of the good-faith exception. There is no mechanism in the HIPAA rules that allows her to say "You know that good faith exception? I am explicitly requiring you to close that loop-hole for me because I'm a private person, my family and I have different values, and it's just easier for me this way. I don't want to have to worry about you deciding something that would make me uncomfortable. If I want you to talk to someone, I'll give explicit consent beforehand and even emergencies or unusual exceptions don't change this." There is no way to opt-out of this awful ambiguous rule. In the medical industry, you either accept their rules and regulations or you walk away and don't get medical care.

So sadly, you're actually totally wrong. I hope this doctor who breached patient privacy claims HIPAA wasn't violated in just this way so that legislators realize how much they fucked up and so that patients no longer have to hope and pray their doctor doesn't decide to break privacy in a patient's supposed best interest. There are so many exceptions and rules change so much that it's no wonder that women will no longer talk with doctor's about periods, and women are even afraid to tell therapists about having been raped in certain states.

It's honestly better for patients, especially women, to start seeing the medical establishment for what it is: a highly regulated arm of the government who does exactly what it's told in order to keep getting high salaries and wages. Don't adhere to the government rules? Goodbye high salaries! They don't dare bite the hands that feeds, and women are luckily wising up to it.

If this doctor gets convicted, it will be because of the false pretenses he allegedly used. He is also only being charged by the federal government which is more liberal and if it were up to the state government of Texas this person never would have been charged. The situation is far more dire that this feel-good idea that there's real enforcement over this sort of thing when the reality is there explicit loopholes written into the laws to allow it.

secretlyaddictedtolinux , to News in Supreme Court rules gun 'bump stocks’ ban is unlawful

yes, only people with the luxury of owning guns could not understand the terror of being unarmed

just because conservatives fight for a right doesn't mean it's bad. this is the 1 thing conservatives are right about

the problem is liberals don't take this as opportunity to promote more female gun ownership and tactical training. a society of armed women is a society of women who will learn math and possess their own bodies

secretlyaddictedtolinux , to News in Supreme Court rules gun 'bump stocks’ ban is unlawful

you get it

secretlyaddictedtolinux , to News in Supreme Court rules gun 'bump stocks’ ban is unlawful

Imagine a world in which men could not own guns...

But women and intersex persons were given as many guns as they wanted for free.

What would it be like?

Probably better.

secretlyaddictedtolinux , to News in Supreme Court rules gun 'bump stocks’ ban is unlawful

Hadis Najafi was a feminist. A world hero. I hope one day in a brave new feminist world, she has a holiday. I wish I had met her. I'd give anything to have met her. I don't believe in an afterlife, but if heaven were real I would get to meet her. How can one person be so courageous?

She fought without being armed because she was a hero and she couldn't not fight. She had enough and said fuck it, I know I'm going to die and don't care. Although she said "I like to think that when I think about this a few years later I'll be pleased I joined the protest" I believe a part of her new she could die, I think this was something she said to comfort herself. Heroes fight even when the odds aren't great. I wish I could become a good and courageous person like her.

You think it's bad now?

Don't be myopic. This is a woman who would have been a hero with our without weapons, but she could have done more if she had the right to bare arms.

Yes, it matters and the NRA matters and feminism matters and the solution is making sure women have more and larger guns and better tactical training.

secretlyaddictedtolinux , to News in Supreme Court rules gun 'bump stocks’ ban is unlawful

teach your daughter to use weapons, allow weapons in schools, and let her destroy anyone who attacks her.

i am sorry religious idiots are taking away her rights. these idiots are luring in many supporters because they support the second amendment. liberals need to start being pro-gun and get these religious idiots out of power

secretlyaddictedtolinux , to News in Supreme Court rules gun 'bump stocks’ ban is unlawful

this is why more young feminists need to support gun ownership and learn how to use weapons

women should be able to choose what they want to wear, the type of weapons they want to own, and what to do with their bodies

the NRA needs to stop being thought of as conservative and liberals need to embrace the NRA

secretlyaddictedtolinux , to News in Supreme Court rules gun 'bump stocks’ ban is unlawful

things are bad now. it doesnt mean they cant get worse

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • test
  • worldmews
  • mews
  • All magazines
    •