What price democracy?

I wonder if our present government would agree with you. However, I can't see that the military would do better - in terms of democracy.

Is there really such a thing as democracy ...How many actually believe that any Governments would risk letting its people run the country. It is fundamentally impossible. The people do not know all the issues or facts that go towards policy making so how can the people be expected to make any rational decisions.

Is there really such a thing as democracy ...How many actually believe that any Governments would risk letting its people run the country. It is fundamentally impossible. The people do not know all the issues or facts that go towards policy making so how can the people be expected to make any rational decisions.

I agree with you. All this hatred in the side of politicians sometimes looks funny, because if you don't know what's really happening in the country - how can you be sure that your decision is right?

The fact that no government is going to try it doesn't mean it wouldn't work - although I accept that it would take an educated and engaged population.

Q: What price democracy?
A: Priceless because it's non-existant.

Just my opinion, people are lead to believe there is demoncracy but there isn't really. Look how many petitions are ignored, city and community destroyed so that the deals that have already been made behind the curtain is allowed to progress. And if you are reading this thread in US, ex-insider (George Green) confessed that US presidents are already decided beforehand regardless of your vote and my guess is that UK is no different.

Q: What price democracy?
A: Priceless because it's non-existant.

Just my opinion, people are lead to believe there is demoncracy but there isn't really. Look how many petitions are ignored, city and community destroyed so that the deals that have already been made behind the curtain is allowed to progress. And if you are reading this thread in US, ex-insider (George Green) confessed that US presidents are already decided beforehand regardless of your vote and my guess is that UK is no different.

But, as I said above, the fact that it isn't done doesn't mean it can't be.

I posted the question because, when I've said 'we are not a democracy' in the past people have argued with the statement. Not so, this time. Maybe those arguers have changed their minds, or (possibly, more likely) they've thought 'Oh, it's her on a soapbox again!' and ignored me! 😉

But, as I said above, the fact that it isn't done doesn't mean it can't be.

I posted the question because, when I've said 'we are not a democracy' in the past people have argued with the statement. Not so, this time. Maybe those arguers have changed their minds, or (possibly, more likely) they've thought 'Oh, it's her on a soapbox again!' and ignored me! 😉

Well if you start speculating 'how it could be' scenario, it's endless and as you say it could be possible But I was merely saying what it is right now.

A very good example from today's news.
Unanonymized NHS patient records sold to Google!! God knows where the information ends up, sky is the limit!
It seems that even if you have sent a letter to go against Care.data, it doesn't bloody matter.
This is a breach of Data Protection Act but ignore the law and march on anyway....eh? 😉 😡

Well if you start speculating 'how it could be' scenario, it's endless and as you say it could be possible But I was merely saying what it is right now.

A very good example from today's news.
Unanonymized NHS patient records sold to Google!! God knows where the information ends up, sky is the limit!
It seems that even if you have sent a letter to go against Care.data, it doesn't bloody matter.
This is a breach of Data Protection Act but ignore the law and march on anyway....eh? 😉 😡

I'm inclined to agree with you. There is democracy in the fact that we can have a say, but whether or not that say is acted upon is another matter.

I'm inclined to agree with you. There is democracy in the fact that we can have a say, but whether or not that say is acted upon is another matter.

Democracy is more than just being allowed freedom of expression.
Democracy, or democratic government, is "a system of ... are involved in making decisions about its affairs, typically by voting to elect representatives to a parliament or similar assembly,"

Clearly we do not have this, i.e. we just have the pretense of a democracy - in effect a farcical situation!
If ever there was any doubt, it was a big wake up call when the millions who marched to protest about going to war with Iraq were not listened to. To be fair, I do recall Blair saying we would not go to war...3 days later it was a U turn....what goes on behind closed doors with arm-twisting huh?

Well if you start speculating 'how it could be' scenario, it's endless and as you say it could be possible But I was merely saying what it is right now.

A very good example from today's news.
Unanonymized NHS patient records sold to Google!! God knows where the information ends up, sky is the limit!
It seems that even if you have sent a letter to go against Care.data, it doesn't bloody matter.
This is a breach of Data Protection Act but ignore the law and march on anyway....eh? 😉 😡

Sold to google? Are you sure?
All the valid references to it say that Google have been given access to the records (and it's a limited set of records). There's no mention of anybody selling anything.
You assume it's a breach of data protection, but have you been directly involved in the process and agreement that took place to share that data with google? As I understand, there is a data sharing agreement in place, which is there to protect the data from being used for any other purpose than intended (which is for research into early warning of certain conditions I believe). Breaching such a data sharing agreement would cause a company like google to be in breach of data protection, resulting in fines, imprisonment and loss of business for themselves, so they will know damn well the importance of treating the data with the protection it needs. It's no different to the companies who supply computer software or suchlike to the NHS, who will also need access to limited sets of patient records in order to be able to develop and test such software. They too will be bound by data sharing and protection agreements.
Of course some people love to take a media story and blow it out of all proportion, saying that the law has been ignored etc. etc. I would suggest checking the actual facts before spreading such rumours.

Sold to google? Are you sure?
All the valid references to it say that Google have been given access to the records (and it's a limited set of records). There's no mention of anybody selling anything.
You assume it's a breach of data protection, but have you been directly involved in the process and agreement that took place to share that data with google? As I understand, there is a data sharing agreement in place, which is there to protect the data from being used for any other purpose than intended (which is for research into early warning of certain conditions I believe). Breaching such a data sharing agreement would cause a company like google to be in breach of data protection, resulting in fines, imprisonment and loss of business for themselves, so they will know damn well the importance of treating the data with the protection it needs. It's no different to the companies who supply computer software or suchlike to the NHS, who will also need access to limited sets of patient records in order to be able to develop and test such software. They too will be bound by data sharing and protection agreements.
Of course some people love to take a media story and blow it out of all proportion, saying that the law has been ignored etc. etc. I would suggest checking the actual facts before spreading such rumours.

From theregister "Google AI gains access to 1.2m confidential NHS patient records" (29th April 2016)

...critics have already pointed to the fact that the hospital trust has not been upfront about the use of confidential patient information, has not informed patients that their personal information is being provided to a commercial entity, and has not provided patients with a reasonable way to opt-out of the data sharing.
The revelations come just days after health data regulator, the Health & Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC), noted that more than a million patients had opted-out of its Care.data scheme.
...
A spokesperson for the Royal Free trust downplayed the breach of trust saying "no patient-identifiable data" would be shared and that the information is at least encrypted in transit. However, according to the agreement between DeepMind and the NHS, the information sharing may include identifying information – such as names, addresses, health service ID numbers, photographs and videos.
Patients can opt out by asking their physicians, in writing, to do so, they said. However even that approach would not prevent people's live data feed from being shared.

So they underhandedly went ahead and you still believe that patients won't be compromised? Oh puleez. :confused:
But I am aware that there are many people who wouldn't mind handing their upmost private health information to likes of Tesco or any other corporates. After all, nothing to hide, is there? 😉

PS, OK I must admit, google hasn't sold the info yet, it is a speculation and they are not guilty as far as we know today. However, when we were warned of Care.data, there were detailed analysis of consequences so I wouldn't be surprised if they find a loophole of some sort to get around the law or else it will be leaked, hacked etc.... the same usual.

I bet you love google giles. Do you use Chrome by any chance?

Well if you start speculating 'how it could be' scenario, it's endless and as you say it could be possible But I was merely saying what it is right now.

A very good example from today's news.
Unanonymized NHS patient records sold to Google!! God knows where the information ends up, sky is the limit!
It seems that even if you have sent a letter to go against Care.data, it doesn't bloody matter.
This is a breach of Data Protection Act but ignore the law and march on anyway....eh? 😉 😡

I have to say my initial thought when I saw that story was concern. As a pharmacist I am well aware of the need for confidentiality. But when you read the whole story it makes more sense. Effectively these trusts are making use of googles undoubted excellence in data management to got much needed information. Data protection act doesn't really come into it... its Caldicott which covers protection of patients confidential information whether on computers or on paper. Each trust will have a Caldicott Guardian . I can guarantee the Caldicott guardian will have scrutinised every INCH of the contract with google. The basis of Caldicott (and indeed DPA) is that only those who need information can access it , and that all people who have access must work to the Caldicott guidelines. Now EVERYONE who works with patients from porters an drivers to consultants and medical secretaries can become privy to information covered by Caldicott (The mere fact of being a patient is covered by Caldicott) So all sorts of non medical people already have access to sensitive information.

There was a furore not too long ago in the UK about the fact that certain supermarkets which have in house pharmacies were going to have access to the electronic summary records for patients. In fact it was the PHARMACISTS having access...but the Daily Wail took the line about commercialization and patients being targeted for sales of certain things because of the info being available. This strikes me as being similar.

Could it go wrong? Of course it could. ANYTHING can go wrong and google isn't my favourite company at all. My son is an SEO....he makes sure google etc can find your website. he is not a fan of Google. His immediate reaction was 'why are people moaning - it will enable much needed research to be done'

This move is surprising, and I can understand peoples concern but lets wait and see what happens .

I have to say my initial thought when I saw that story was concern. As a pharmacist I am well aware of the need for confidentiality. But when you read the whole story it makes more sense. Effectively these trusts are making use of googles undoubted excellence in data management to got much needed information. Data protection act doesn't really come into it... its Caldicott which covers protection of patients confidential information whether on computers or on paper. Each trust will have a Caldicott Guardian . I can guarantee the Caldicott guardian will have scrutinised every INCH of the contract with google. The basis of Caldicott (and indeed DPA) is that only those who need information can access it , and that all people who have access must work to the Caldicott guidelines. Now EVERYONE who works with patients from porters an drivers to consultants and medical secretaries can become privy to information covered by Caldicott (The mere fact of being a patient is covered by Caldicott) So all sorts of non medical people already have access to sensitive information.

There was a furore not too long ago in the UK about the fact that certain supermarkets which have in house pharmacies were going to have access to the electronic summary records for patients. In fact it was the PHARMACISTS having access...but the Daily Wail took the line about commercialization and patients being targeted for sales of certain things because of the info being available. This strikes me as being similar.

Could it go wrong? Of course it could. ANYTHING can go wrong and google isn't my favourite company at all. My son is an SEO....he makes sure google etc can find your website. he is not a fan of Google. His immediate reaction was 'why are people moaning - it will enable much needed research to be done'

This move is surprising, and I can understand peoples concern but lets wait and see what happens .

Your reply gives sound and balanced view Tashanie. However, for me, to a point.
Simply because I know what this is leading to.
But it is too much of a fantasy for most folks who don't know the agenda.
When conspiracy theorists warned about RFID chips (mark of the beast mentioned in the Bible) inserted into human, people laughed.
Look where we are now? It IS happening. I can see it coming and so does others who have researched wider area than just the relation between NHS and G.
Wider area as in what's happening in other country, transhumanism etc. But you need to know what technologies has been in development and what's been tested etc. It is all linked. You life will be over in a click of a button in the future. Your identity, savings, everything will be gone, erased if they don't like you which I'm sure most of you will say a good thing. LOL

You life will be over in a click of a button in the future. Your identity, savings, everything will be gone, erased if they don't like you which I'm sure most of you will say a good thing. LOL

Why would we say this is a good thing?

Why would we say this is a good thing?

I wouldn't but there will be others who would say it would be a good thing if someone disappeared off the planet. Inevitable.
I would say mostly coming from the elites since they have no consideration for likes of me or you.
We are looked upon as useless eaters on the planet.

That wasn't what you said, though.

Don't worry, the way we're going the planet will not be habitable in 50 years time!

Every silver lining has a cloud....

Let's not rule our mother nature's impact on our lives e.g. we are overdue a polar shift, or, if the volcano in Yellowstone National Park erupts then the effects will be catastrophic....

Reminds me a bit of a Woody Allen quote:

Whosoever shall not fall by the sword or by famine, shall fall by pestilence so why bother shaving?

From theregister "Google AI gains access to 1.2m confidential NHS patient records" (29th April 2016)

So they underhandedly went ahead and you still believe that patients won't be compromised? Oh puleez. :confused:
But I am aware that there are many people who wouldn't mind handing their upmost private health information to likes of Tesco or any other corporates. After all, nothing to hide, is there? 😉

PS, OK I must admit, google hasn't sold the info yet, it is a speculation and they are not guilty as far as we know today. However, when we were warned of Care.data, there were detailed analysis of consequences so I wouldn't be surprised if they find a loophole of some sort to get around the law or else it will be leaked, hacked etc.... the same usual.

I bet you love google giles. Do you use Chrome by any chance?

But "gaining access to" is not the same as records being "sold to google" which is what you stated. There's a huge difference.
How do you know this is "underhandedly"? Have you been involved in the process by which the agreement was made?
And what has this got to do with Tesco or other corporates? And what makes you think that google have any right to sell the same details?

You seem to be jumping to conspiracies and conclusions made out of thin air.

And no, I don't use Chrome generally, though I have all browsers installed as computing and software development is my day job. Please don't make ridiculous assumptions about people "loving google" or suchlike. It comes across as childish.

Your reply gives sound and balanced view Tashanie. However, for me, to a point.
Simply because I know what this is leading to.
But it is too much of a fantasy for most folks who don't know the agenda.

You know the future! Really? I'm impressed.
I would suggest you are just speculating based on conspiracy theories... and that's what they are.... theories... not fact, at least not until they can be proven.

When conspiracy theorists warned about RFID chips (mark of the beast mentioned in the Bible) inserted into human, people laughed.

Oh sure, when they wrote the bible, they were working in the RFID chip research department. Okaaaay....

😉

;)'Conspiracy hypotheses' since they haven't been tested.

🙂