91–98 of 98 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suspect there will simply be a direct pipe for logging to the government, where companies don't need to retain anything.
GDPR requires you to make that kind of information available.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, the point is that the cost of automating this should be part of the cost of doing the collection, not a separate item. If you can't afford to deal with the so-called "nightmare letter", then you can't afford to snoop.
The problem is there is no exception for companies whose business model isn't snooping. Normal companies have customer lists, accounts receivable information, customer email addresses for password resets and announcements etc. A business can't stop keeping records of who owes them money. But then they're subject to regulations designed to make things difficult for the likes of Facebook and Microsoft.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
45 C.F.R. § 164.524 (c)(4) requires medical providers to make our records available to you upon request, for a reasonable fee to reflect their cost of preparing it. “Fees. If the individual requests a copy of the protected health information or agrees to a summary or explanation of such information, the covered entity may impose a reasonable, cost-based fee, provided that the fee includes only the cost of: (i) Labor…
> Despite this language, actual costs for getting medical records varies widely. “Fees range very widely, from $2-55 for short records of 15 pages to $15-585 for long ones of 500 pages. Times also range widely, from 1–30 days (or longer for off-site records)” from a survey study on the topic. All of those numbers are in line with the actual costs of producing information like that. The problem scenario is the one whe…
And for most people, 500$ for a medical record is effectively zillions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Being a small business doesn't give you the right to be negligent. I can't understand this attitude that it's negligence to not want to be bankrupted by poorly crafted regulations. We're dealing with things like a website to sell wood carvings that someone makes as a hobby. They've got names and addresses because they need to know where to ship them. This is not a reasonable place to apply a complex regulatory fram…
>This is not a reasonable place to apply a complex regulatory framework. The idea that this involves "serious responsibility" or "grave risks" is akin to applying a regulatory framework designed for an oil refinery to a garage sale because a used lawnmower may contain some "hazardous" motor oil. You're subject to exactly the same regulations on health and safety and hazardous materials handling. The steps you need to…
It's appropriate to have special requirements for large scale operations, e.g. to have fire suppression systems with regular inspections, an assigned safety officer with specific training, material safety data sheets, site zoning requirements and so on.
None of that is appropriate for someone who just has some motor oil in their garage. And the requirements that are appropriate -- the small subset like not pouring motor oil down the drain -- are easy to understand and consist of a simple prohibition rather than an unfunded mandate to affirmatively take specific actions.
> If you're a small company that sells wood carvings, you don't need to do very much to comply.
If that were true there wouldn't be small companies writing off the EU because of the compliance costs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Despite this language, actual costs for getting medical records varies widely. “Fees range very widely, from $2-55 for short records of 15 pages to $15-585 for long ones of 500 pages. Times also range widely, from 1–30 days (or longer for off-site records)” from a survey study on the topic. All of those numbers are in line with the actual costs of producing information like that. The problem scenario is the one whe…
Since meaningful use regulation has strong-armed almost all providers in the country into EMRs, it costs absolute pennies to provide those documents. And for most people, 500$ for a medical record is effectively zillions.
The reproduction cost is not the dominant factor in processing costs. Someone has to review the information, e.g. to make sure the file actually belongs to the requesting party and some clerical error doesn't cause them to receive someone else's records, the information may be in multiple independent systems, the request may be for a subset of the information which then has to be separated out, etc.
Not all of that happens all of the time, which is why it costs $2 sometimes and $500 other times.
> And for most people, 500$ for a medical record is effectively zillions.
$500 is <1% of the median income in the US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the talk, there's a parallel drawn between the nuclear industry 60 years ago and big data now, where the nuclear was originally touted as a miracle cure for everything, then disasters happened, then it never really got over the stigma despite its huge potential. Society decided, for now, the upsides aren't worth the downsides. Oil is another parallel where society is currently just at the point where we are starti…
Seems like oil and nuclear energy are different because both can be replaced with alternative sources of energy. What are the alternative sources of user data?
Currently has value with externalized downsides.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since meaningful use regulation has strong-armed almost all providers in the country into EMRs, it costs absolute pennies to provide those documents. And for most people, 500$ for a medical record is effectively zillions.
> Since meaningful use regulation has strong-armed almost all providers in the country into EMRs, it costs absolute pennies to provide those documents. The reproduction cost is not the dominant factor in processing costs. Someone has to review the information, e.g. to make sure the file actually belongs to the requesting party and some clerical error doesn't cause them to receive someone else's records, the informati…
500$ is also more than the majority of Americans have in their saving accounts. (http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/12/pf/americans-lack-of-savings...)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What they’ve done is much cheaper to develop and maintain than implement more granular data deletion tools. Especially when they really don’t need to store the data any longer than one billing period.
Don't they still need to do implement granular deletion to support user requests?