I've had chance to look again at this letter @medConfidential >
http://medconfidential.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/2014-02-18-Reply-from-Mark-Davies.pdf …
I'm unconvinced the opt-out has changed.
#caredata
-
-
Replying to @C7RKY
@C7RKY How so? Have you read: http://www.hscic.gov.uk/article/3915/What-we-will-collect-from-GP-records-under-caredata … vs p9 PIA: http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CC8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.england.nhs.uk%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F01%2Fpia-care-data.pdf&ei=yBcaU9HqJ8aohAeO04GYCw&usg=AFQjCNF399wdy4TN9adUNwXGragpVqhGDg&sig2=fFgkxMQjJaP3xcODdla86Q&bvm=bv.62578216,d.ZG4 … ?1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @medConfidential
@medConfidential Because the letter (& both of those links) are laced with wordplay, which creates plausible deniability to take data anyway1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @C7RKY
@medConfidential Opening sentence in letter qualifies & limits crucial 1st paragraph, so can relate to requirement to apply obj codes only.2 replies 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @C7RKY
Means the phrase "No other additional data will be extracted" can be claimed to relate only to this purpose. Needs clarity
@medConfidential1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes
@medConfidential I don't think they're stupid at all. On the contrary. Whilst I agree 'currently' is a concern, opt-out validity is more so.
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.