The group might like to be aware of this forthcoming data-mining
exercise, whereby your data will be extracted from your GP record unless
you opt out by the cut-off date. The entire thread, and the links
contained in them, are worth reading.

Once out there, there is no way back.

There has been very little publicity. You won't get a letter in the junk
mail, like last time.

The medconfidential site has a list of some 2000 codes, nearly all of
which refer to STDs and related conditions, but there are very many more
codes.

Note that you might need two opt-outs, one being a letter to your GP
(medconfidential has a pro-forma) and an online one for hospital-related
opt-outs. Links are in the thread.

The discussion on 'anonymising' is worth noting.

Message-ID:

Posted by Jeff Layman in UKLM

Quoted in full

=====

For those who thought the care.data fiasco was no more, beware! There is
an even more extreme move to sequester our medical records for "data"
purposes. More information at:

https://www.theregister.com/2021/05/13/nhs_data_grab/

"According to an official announcement on the NHS Digital website
(https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/data-collections-and-data-sets/data-collections/general-practice-data-for-planning-and-research),

data held in GP medical records will be collected via a new service
called the General Practice Data for Planning and Research data
collection. It will replace the General Practice Extraction Service
(GPES), which has operated for over 10 years."

The "General Practice Data for Planning and Research" (GPDPR) data
collection, eh? No intention to invoke confusion and make it appear that
it's part of GDPR and so all above board?

It's all being done very quietly with the hope that it will take place

=====

--
Spike

On 22/05/2021 09:14, Spike wrote:
The group might like to be aware of this forthcoming data-mining
exercise, whereby your data will be extracted from your GP record unless
you opt out by the cut-off date. The entire thread, and the links
contained in them, are worth reading.


I've never known the BMA miss a chance to criticise anything going
outside the NHS (or anything this government does come to that) and the
article quotes them as engaged and supportive. So I'm unbothered.

I would probably be anyhow given The Register:

a. has no claims the anonymised data can be linked to named individuals

b. cited campaigners and doctors mainly concerned about use of data
outside the NHS. People like "Dr Neil Bhatia, a Hampshire GP and
information governance lead". Lead for the BMA? Royal College of GPs?
Nope. For a single GP practice with a dozen or so doctors





--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 09:14 22 May 2021, Spike said:

The group might like to be aware of this forthcoming data-mining
exercise, whereby your data will be extracted from your GP record
unless you opt out by the cut-off date. The entire thread, and the
links contained in them, are worth reading.

Providing personal data for a government data mining excerise is a
serious matter esecially as it potentially breaches privacy but aren't
you the same Spike who completely fabricated quote in uk.politics.misc
and when asked about the misleading quote insisted it was real? How do we
know you're not crying wolf again?

Message-ID:

On 22/05/2021 19:17, Pamela wrote:
On 09:14 22 May 2021, Spike said:

The group might like to be aware of this forthcoming data-mining
exercise, whereby your data will be extracted from your GP record
unless you opt out by the cut-off date. The entire thread, and the
links contained in them, are worth reading.

Providing personal data for a government data mining exercise is a
serious matter especially as it potentially breaches privacy

The system pseudo-anonymises your data by removing your name and the
first line of your address.

While that is wonderful, is that what is left is your NHS number, which
identifies you uniquely, and your post code, which can help locate you.

"Hey, look at this! There's someone in this street that's had an
abortion at 15, got genital herpes, been vaccinated against yellow
fever, had a broken engagement, and been divorced but shares the house
with the ex-partner. Not a ball-buster to work out who that is!"

but aren't
you the same Spike who completely fabricated quote in uk.politics.misc
and when asked about the misleading quote insisted it was real? How do we
know you're not crying wolf again?

Message-ID:

You would need to prove the quote was completely fabricated.


--
Spike

Yes one of the problems with annonamising data is that given enough of it it
can easily be mined to find out with a pretty good accuracy, who any given
person actually is, and you can bet there will be a market for that to sell
you even more crap. I am already being annoyed by disability product spam
even though I do not use a wheelchair, since I'm blind, but it does show
that some dangerous stereotypical assumptions are made by these so called AI
data aggregators.
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Spike" wrote in message
...
The group might like to be aware of this forthcoming data-mining
exercise, whereby your data will be extracted from your GP record unless
you opt out by the cut-off date. The entire thread, and the links
contained in them, are worth reading.

Once out there, there is no way back.

There has been very little publicity. You won't get a letter in the junk
mail, like last time.

The medconfidential site has a list of some 2000 codes, nearly all of
which refer to STDs and related conditions, but there are very many more
codes.

Note that you might need two opt-outs, one being a letter to your GP
(medconfidential has a pro-forma) and an online one for hospital-related
opt-outs. Links are in the thread.

The discussion on 'anonymising' is worth noting.

Message-ID:

Posted by Jeff Layman in UKLM

Quoted in full

=====

For those who thought the care.data fiasco was no more, beware! There is
an even more extreme move to sequester our medical records for "data"
purposes. More information at:

https://www.theregister.com/2021/05/13/nhs_data_grab/

"According to an official announcement on the NHS Digital website
(https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/data-collections-and-data-sets/data-collections/general-practice-data-for-planning-and-research),

data held in GP medical records will be collected via a new service
called the General Practice Data for Planning and Research data
collection. It will replace the General Practice Extraction Service
(GPES), which has operated for over 10 years."

The "General Practice Data for Planning and Research" (GPDPR) data
collection, eh? No intention to invoke confusion and make it appear that
it's part of GDPR and so all above board?

It's all being done very quietly with the hope that it will take place

=====

--
Spike

On 23/05/2021 07:02, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:

Yes one of the problems with annonamising data is that given enough of it it
can easily be mined to find out with a pretty good accuracy, who any given
person actually is

Look at this short list of non-medical conditions from the very long
list of items to be collected (or grabbed). You could probably work out
who is who in your post code:


Divorced couple sharing house
Marriage
Separation
Divorce
Marital problems
Marital reconciliation
Single parent
Unwanted pregnancy
Illegitimate pregnancy
Imprisonment record
Battered wife €“ history
Battered husband €“ history
Violent spouse
Engaged
Broken engagement
Broken with partner
Legal problem
Criminal record
Boyfriend relationship problem
Girlfriend relationship problem
In prison
On probation
On remand
Extra-marital problems
On conditional probation
Subject to Anti Social Behaviour Order
Imprisonment of family member
History of abuse
Suspected child abuse
Prison medical examination
Complaints about care
Child maltreatment syndrome
Maltreatment syndromes
Place of occurrence of accident or poisoning, prison
Homicide and injury purposely inflicted by other persons


--
Spike

On 23/05/2021 09:33, Spike wrote:
On 23/05/2021 07:02, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:

Yes one of the problems with annonamising data is that given enough of it it
can easily be mined to find out with a pretty good accuracy, who any given
person actually is

Look at this short list of non-medical conditions from the very long
list of items to be collected (or grabbed). You could probably work out
who is who in your post code:


Divorced couple sharing house
Marriage
Separation
Divorce
Marital problems
Marital reconciliation
Single parent
Unwanted pregnancy
Illegitimate pregnancy
Imprisonment record
Battered wife €“ history
Battered husband €“ history
Violent spouse
Engaged
Broken engagement
Broken with partner
Legal problem
Criminal record
Boyfriend relationship problem
Girlfriend relationship problem
In prison
On probation
On remand
Extra-marital problems
On conditional probation
Subject to Anti Social Behaviour Order
Imprisonment of family member
History of abuse
Suspected child abuse
Prison medical examination
Complaints about care
Child maltreatment syndrome
Maltreatment syndromes
Place of occurrence of accident or poisoning, prison
Homicide and injury purposely inflicted by other persons

Which scaremongering source please?

On 23/05/2021 10:54, Richard wrote:
On 23/05/2021 09:33, Spike wrote:
On 23/05/2021 07:02, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:

Yes one of the problems with annonamising data is that given enough of it it
can easily be mined to find out with a pretty good accuracy, who any given
person actually is

Look at this short list of non-medical conditions from the very long
list of items to be collected (or grabbed). You could probably work out
who is who in your post code:

Divorced couple sharing house
Marriage
Separation
Divorce
Marital problems
Marital reconciliation
Single parent
Unwanted pregnancy
Illegitimate pregnancy
Imprisonment record
Battered wife €“ history
Battered husband €“ history
Violent spouse
Engaged
Broken engagement
Broken with partner
Legal problem
Criminal record
Boyfriend relationship problem
Girlfriend relationship problem
In prison
On probation
On remand
Extra-marital problems
On conditional probation
Subject to Anti Social Behaviour Order
Imprisonment of family member
History of abuse
Suspected child abuse
Prison medical examination
Complaints about care
Child maltreatment syndrome
Maltreatment syndromes
Place of occurrence of accident or poisoning, prison
Homicide and injury purposely inflicted by other persons

Which scaremongering source please?

https://medconfidential.org/for-pati...nsitive-codes/

"Sensitive codes to be collected

Below is a list of the sensitive codes relating to information held in
patients GP records that the Government will copy, knowing that they
are sensitive. There are other groups of codes not currently listed,
which include things like abortion codes. The NHS did have an
€˜Information Standard defining such sensitive codes, but the existing
one was out of date, no-one did the work to replace it, and it was
deprecated in March 2021€¦

This list is a (small!) subset of the complete set of codes that will be
extracted from the GP records of every man, woman and child in England
by the €˜GP Data for Planning and Research or €˜GPDPR programme. We
provide a way to check what is in the longer list.

Everyone who has not fully opted out by the time their data is first
extracted for GPDPR €“ uploads of patients data are currently intended
to begin from 1 July 2021 €“ will have their entire GP history extracted,
processed, and disseminated to those given access to any GP records:"

--
Spike

On Sun, 23 May 2021 08:02:32 +0100, "Brian Gaff \(Sofa\)"
wrote:

Yes one of the problems with annonamising data is that given enough of it it
can easily be mined to find out with a pretty good accuracy, who any given
person actually is, and you can bet there will be a market for that to sell
you even more crap. I am already being annoyed by disability product spam
even though I do not use a wheelchair, since I'm blind, but it does show
that some dangerous stereotypical assumptions are made by these so called AI
data aggregators.
Brian

I can tell you exactly when I realised the power of metadata: it was
Tuesday 1st May 2001 and I think it was at about eight o'clock in the
evening.

Paul Vickers was presenting a programme on BBC Radio 4 called "What Do
They Know About Us?" As an example, he had picked a person at random
and whilst carefully avoiding naming them, showed examples of how the
little bits of their life appeared all over this exciting new thing,
the World Wide Web. I'm not going to repeat exactly what he said
because even without the name I immediately knew that I knew who he
was talking about and the same information would identify them today.
Long story short: I contacted the person, they contacted the Beeb,
Mark Savage (the programme producer) edited that section out of the
programme repeat and AFAICT no actual harm was done. But it remains
that surprisingly little innocuous information from different places
can combine into a very powerful tool.

Nick

On 22/05/2021 09:14, Spike wrote:
The group might like to be aware of this forthcoming data-mining
exercise, whereby your data will be extracted from your GP record unless
you opt out by the cut-off date. The entire thread, and the links
contained in them, are worth reading.


snip

For those who thought the care.data fiasco was no more, beware! There is
an even more extreme move to sequester our medical records for "data"
purposes. More information at:

https://www.theregister.com/2021/05/13/nhs_data_grab/

"According to an official announcement on the NHS Digital website
(https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/data-collections-and-data-sets/data-collections/general-practice-data-for-planning-and-research),

snip

It's all being done very quietly with the hope that it will take place

OK. Having rummaged around the net to glean a bit of info, it is very
easy to opt out should one want to.

Some links other than those provided by the OP:

To manage your options
https://your-data-matters.service.nhs.uk/

The counter to "people of concern" views
https://digital.nhs.uk/services/nati...al-media-posts

In message , Richard
writes
OK. Having rummaged around the net to glean a bit of info, it is very
easy to opt out should one want to.

Some links other than those provided by the OP:

To manage your options
https://your-data-matters.service.nhs.uk/


Thanks.

That was relatively painless.

Adrian
--
To Reply :
replace "diy" with "news" and reverse the domain

If you are reading this from a web interface eg DIY Banter,
DIY Forum or Google Groups, please be aware this is NOT a forum, and
you are merely using a web portal to a USENET group. Many people block
posters coming from web portals due to perceieved SPAM or inaneness.
For a better method of access, please see:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

Adrian wrote:

Richard wrote:

https://your-data-matters.service.nhs.uk/

That was relatively painless.

But I think that only stops that data being slurped from NHS Digital's
central servers, you ought to check how to stop it being slurped from
your GP's servers too.

On 23/05/2021 19:14, Andy Burns wrote:
Adrian wrote:

Richard wrote:
https://your-data-matters.service.nhs.uk/

That was relatively painless.

But I think that only stops that data being slurped from NHS Digital's
central servers, you ought to check how to stop it being slurped from
your GP's servers too.


And there is this little bit:
q
Currently national data opt-outs will be considered on a case by case
basis but may not apply during the emergency period due to the public
interest and legal requirements in sharing certain data. For example, in
the case of the Shielded Patients List, the opt-out was not applied due
to the public interest in those patients receiving advice and support -
we thought it was important that at-risk patients are protected.
/q

from he
https://digital.nhs.uk/services/nati...al-media-posts

So it seems that no matter how much one protests, the data will be
shared if deemed necessary.