Big Tech joins up with Big Brother to turn your private health data into $38bn ‘public treasure’
By Helen Buyniski | RT | January 21, 2020
Big Tech is poised to rake in tens of billions of dollars from a new healthcare record keeping standard that scorns privacy for convenience, creating massive opportunities for extortion and other abuses by criminals and government.
“Wouldn’t life be easier if you could view your full medical history with a few taps on your smartphone?” an upbeat piece touting Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) – a new data standard for healthcare patient data – asked, somewhat rhetorically, on Tuesday in Kaiser Health News. This oversimplified, no-downside spin on a truly ominous technology neglects to warn anyone who’s ever used a health clinic that the medical details of their private life are about to get a lot more public, data-privacy laws be damned, and there will be no putting this particular genie back in the bottle.
The US government has officially thrown its weight behind the rollout of FHIR, mandating in 2020 that all medical providers who receive government funding make patient data available through FHIR-compatible apps. This move cements an unspoken alliance between Big Tech and Big Brother that has repeatedly seen the former deployed to circumvent troublesome constitutional restrictions imposed on the latter. The government may not be able to violate Fourth Amendment provisions against unreasonable search and seizure, but if, say, the FBI wants access to a target’s health records, it no longer has to show up at their doctor’s office with a warrant – those records will be sitting in an unsecured corporate database on the cloud, if history is any guide. Unless the medical records industry seriously overhauls its idea of what constitutes information security, patient data will be fair game for everyone from the NSA to the lowliest basement-bound hacker.
Americans’ health data is supposed to be protected under a law called HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) that, at least in theory, gives the patient autonomy over how and where their records are shared. The US Department of Health and Human Services claims 2018 was the biggest year yet for HIPAA enforcement, and a glimpse at the agency’s newsroom shows a constant stream of multi-million-dollar payouts from companies found guilty of treating patient privacy like an afterthought, even a nuisance. Keeping in mind that even this lengthy list only represents the violators who got caught, it’s safe to assume that healthcare providers violate patient privacy on an almost-daily basis, whether by failing to encrypt or otherwise secure patient data or failing to ensure those accessing the data have the authority to do so. FHIR lacks any sort of new provisions to hold these companies responsible for data breaches, which with every patient’s information on the same server will be orders of magnitude more devastating than they already are. FHIR is also expected to stream data from wearable devices like fitness trackers directly into patients’ medical records, opening up a whole new dimension of surveillance.
Without the new government mandate, healthcare providers had been slow to embrace the idea of Google or Microsoft essentially sticking a billion-dollar straw into their patient records and slurping heartily. Health Level Seven International, the private company that devised FHIR, has boasted of the “public treasure” of information exchange that will result from “breaking open the silos” and unleashing decades of stored health data on the world. Paper-based records are described as “chaos,” and even electronic records are lamentably “isolated in electronic silos.” Inert data is not “working for the industry” – never mind that the data legally belongs to patient and practitioner, not “the industry,” and that under FHIR it will be leveraged by private-sector players with no intention of paying any of the parties whose data makes the system valuable. Providers who don’t want to participate in this orgy of financial speculation (the electronic health record “market” is predicted to be worth $38 billion by 2025) aren’t protecting their patients – they’re “information blocking,” according to financial penalties Congress has imposed since 2016. With the 2020 mandate, they’ll be exiled from government pastures entirely, unless they give up their data. Your data.
If this all sounds like paranoid technophobia, look no further than Blue Button, the government-backed initiative to create consumer demand for FHIR by making it the go-to standard for patients to download their personal health records. Microsoft, Google, Amazon, IBM, Oracle, and Salesforce plus the US government have thrown their considerable resources behind this surveillance-state bonanza, which seems designed to trick consumers into prioritizing convenience over safety. The project’s webpage informs patients that the onus is on them to protect their medical data once downloaded, even though the average US internet user knows next to nothing about information security and their government likes to keep things that way. One need only witness US Attorney General William Barr lecturing Apple about the evils of encryption last week in regard to an already-solved case to observe how information security is treated by Washington as an obstacle to what was once called Total Information Awareness before some clever soul in the Pentagon decided the name (but not the concept) was too Orwellian for the public.
FHIR is hardly the first attempt to sell a privacy-destroying technology using convenience, or the first attempt to specifically target medical privacy as a sort of ‘final frontier’ of the surveillance state. But anyone who doesn’t want their latest STD test, abortion, rehab stay, life-threatening allergy, Viagra prescription, or other formerly-private clinical experience ending up in the public domain would be wise to advocate for stricter privacy protections – and steeper penalties for violators, especially app developers – before it’s too late.
Bolivia: MAS Presidential Candidate Becomes Target of Lawfare
Luis Arce at a news conference after being announced as the Movement to Socialism’s presidential candidate, in Buenos Aires, Argentina Jan. 20, 2020. | Photo: Reuters
teleSUR | January 22, 2020
Bolivia’s Office of the Prosecutor expanded an investigation against Evo Morales’ former officials, among whom is Luis Arce, the Movement Towards Socialism (MAS) presidential candidate.
The announcement was made by prosecutor Heidi Gil one day after the MAS unveiled that Arce would be its presidential candidate in the upcoming elections in May.
The judicial process is related to the alleged diversion of public resources from the Indigenous Development Fund (Fondioc), a case in which former Presidency’s Minister Juan Ramon Quintana has also been mentioned.
“If the Prosecutor finds enough evidence during the extension of the investigation, they will be called to testify,” Gil said referring to Arce and Quintana.
The extension of the judicial investigation was requested by the current Fondioc director, Rafael Quispe, a well-known opponent of the Morales administration who was appointed to that position by the government of Jeanine Añez.
Since the coup d’etat consummated on November 10 in Bolivia, numerous MAS militants have been subject to judicial persecution.
In this regard, the MAS leader Evo Morales said that the current U.S.-backed de facto regime does not seek justice but “revenge and impunity.”
Former Minister of Economy Luis Arce is one of the intellectuals who designed the economic model that allowed Bolivia to keep high growth rates for more than a decade.
‘Obvious malicious intent’: Tulsi Gabbard hits Clinton with defamation suit over ‘Russian asset’ smear
RT | January 22, 2020
Democratic presidential hopeful Tulsi Gabbard is suing two-time White House runner-up Hillary Clinton over her claim that Gabbard was a “Russian asset,” alleging that the lie hurt not just her campaign but the entire election.
Clinton “lied about her perceived rival Tulsi Gabbard… publicly, unambiguously, and with obvious malicious intent” when she claimed Gabbard was “the favorite of the Russians,” the campaign alleges in the suit, filed on Wednesday in the federal Southern District of New York. While Clinton isn’t technically running against Gabbard in the 2020 contest, the filing drily notes that the role of president is “a position Clinton has long coveted, but has not been able to attain.”
The filing alleges Clinton harmed not just Gabbard but also “American voters” and “American democracy” by pushing the baseless smear, citing “scientifically conducted opinion surveys” indicating that millions of potential voters believed Clinton’s claims due to her status as a political insider and authority figure with likely access to non-public information. Over 200 articles have been published amplifying the smear since Clinton first uttered it in an October episode of Democratic strategist David Plouffe’s ‘Campaign HQ’ podcast, and the campaign estimates the former secretary of state’s attacks cost Gabbard $50 million in lost donations, lost votes, and reputational damage.
While Clinton never retracted the inflammatory claim that Gabbard was working for the Kremlin – despite a formal request from the Hawaii congresswoman’s campaign – her representatives did attempt to retrospectively muddy the waters. After Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill verified that she was indeed referring to Gabbard with a snarky “if the nesting doll fits” after Clinton’s initial comments in October, he subsequently backpedaled, trying to claim that Clinton meant Republicans – not Russians – were pulling the candidate’s strings. The resulting “corrections” streamed unevenly through the media, confusing no one bar a few copy-editors.
The Gabbard campaign has requested a jury trial in addition to legal restrictions on republishing the smear, and also seeks at least $50 million in compensatory, punitive and special damages. The filing painstakingly lays out Gabbard’s history of service to her country, indicating that Clinton could not possibly have believed the Iraq war vet and House Foreign Relations Committee member was “the favorite of the Russians,” and must therefore have been deliberately lying. It cites Clinton’s “long-time grudges” as the likely rationale for the attack, recalling that Gabbard resigned her post as vice chair of the Democratic National Committee in protest and voiced support for Clinton’s rival Bernie Sanders after it emerged that the DNC had put its thumb on the scale in the 2016 primary contest to help the former New York senator.
Clinton has not publicly responded to the lawsuit as of Wednesday afternoon. The former First Lady has shown no signs of letting go of 2016-era rivalries, however, recently claiming in an interview that “no one likes” or wants to work with Sanders, who recently polled as the most popular member of the US Senate.
Hotter than the hottest thing ever
Climate Discussion Nexus | January 22, 2020
So 2019 was hotter than anything ever was hot, except 2016 which was itself the hottest thing ever. We’re all going to die! Unless we don’t because it wasn’t. As Anthony Watts observes, if you measure from the depths of the natural Little Ice Age you get an upward line. But if you take a longer perspective you get ups and downs, within which our era is not remarkable. Even worse, as Watts also shows on a graph, the most credible numbers from the United States, which has the best temperature measurements in the world, show 2019 as cooler than 2005… and 2006… and 2007, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018. But hey, who’s counting?
Alarmists frequently assert that they rely on science whereas “deniers” rely on oil money and slippery rhetoric. But in addition to the contradictions between reasonably complete American temperature records (that, among other things, show the number of really hot days falling over the past century) and very patchy records from most of the rest of the planet, Watts raises some very basic statistical issues that the Armageddon types do not seem eager to discuss.
For instance, Watts’ Jan. 15 post objects to suspect statistical selectivity in the findings. Particularly glaring is an inconsistent baseline for comparisons because NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) clings to the coolest available period (1951-80, though without wishing to discuss why there was a cooling from around 1920 even as the atmospheric CO2 that supposedly drives temperature increased) whereas the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), equally alarmist in its views, uses 1981-2000.
His Jan. 17 post makes another point that deserves far more attention than it usually gets. He takes aim at “a press release session that featured NOAA and NASA GISS talking about how their climate data says that the world in 2019 was the second warmest ever, and the decade of 2010-2019 was the hottest ever (by a few hundredths of a degree).” But as every competent statistician knows, results can never be more accurate than inputs. And since nobody claims to be measuring temperature in hundredths of a degree outside a laboratory, there must be a lot of people within NOAA and NASA writhing in shame at this claim.
It gets worse. As we were told in high school math, and some of us even listened, if you measure two things to one decimal place and multiply them correctly, you may very well get a number with two decimal places. Thus 0.5 times 0.5 is 0.25. And that second decimal place yields an apparent increase in precision. But it’s worse than apparent, it’s deceptive, unless you know the two factors are exactly right. If I give you exactly half of a buck and a half, that is, exactly 0.5 times 1.5 dollars, I give you exactly 75 cents. But if the two factors are just estimates, if I try to split the leftover doughnut and a half from the meeting evenly between us, giving you about .5 times roughly 1.5, it is fatuous to say you got exactly .75 of a doughnut which beats the measly .73 you had last week.
The right procedure in such cases is not to keep two decimal places or even one. It is to round it to a whole number to accommodate the growing uncertainty as you combine uncertainties. “I got most of a stale doughnut again” is the best way to characterize what happened.
Such spurious precision is a chronic feature of climate science as of a great many things in the modern world. Thus David Middleton mocks a publication called The Anthropocene for asserting that death will get worse due to climate change including “an additional 1,603 deaths from injuries each year in the United States”; as Middleton rightly asks, “Are they sure it’s not 1,602 or 1,604?” And since the actual piece said “Global warming of 1.5 °C could result in an additional 1,603 deaths from injuries each year in the United States, an international team of researchers reported yesterday in the journal Nature Medicine” there’s an Ossa of estimated temperature rise beneath a Pelion of “could result” medical modeling that ought to have shamed the authors into saying “about 1,500”.
When it comes to global temperature, no sane person would ever claim to have measured the temperature anywhere outside a laboratory within a few hundreds of a degree. So there is no possible way that we know the temperature of the entire Earth, most of which has no temperature stations at all, to within even a few tenths of a degree let alone a few hundredths.
Putting all this legerdemain together, if that press release that galloped around the world while the statistics were pulling on their boots was not a lie then, to borrow a phrase from Damon Runyon’s Guys and Dolls, it will do until a lie comes along.