@C7RKY @tianran @Jarmann @Freedland for me there are far greater risks and on balance I support it.
@Cleverestcookie @tianran @Jarmann @Freedland Sure, but private companies don't always follow the rules. Big pharma being a pointed example.
-
-
@C7RKY@tianran@Jarmann@Freedland 'trusted' recipient of non-anonymised data without patient agreement eg for trial participation -
@Cleverestcookie@tianran@Jarmann@Freedland Exactly. Trusted by whom? Not the person who's data is being shared if they aren't aware of it -
@C7RKY@tianran@Jarmann@Freedland ok, let's share nothing. Zero risk. That was easy -
@Cleverestcookie@tianran@Jarmann@Freedland It was, wasn't it? And I'm sorry to say it, but that would suit me just fine vs alternative. -
@C7RKY@tianran@Jarmann@Freedland if we accept that sharing is unsafe then we need to remove existing sharing as unsafe too. -
@Cleverestcookie@tianran@Jarmann@Freedland I'd agree with that tbh. But I think the risk increases hugely when data sent to private orgs. -
@C7RKY@tianran@Jarmann@Freedland but some is going now. IME private orgs no less trustworthy than public ones - plenty of data leaked! -
@Cleverestcookie@tianran@Jarmann@Freedland Fair point. I think knowing how industry worships profits over all else, makes me nervous tho. - 8 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
@C7RKY@tianran@Jarmann@Freedland but that's why robust decisions on what level of info is released is necessary. Big pharma wouldn't be..Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.