Yes, but the report seems to demonstrate that a) the vast majority of stakeholders were pro opt-out as long as there were pilots (which there were) and b) I don't know what you mean by 'ignored' there are suggested fixes in the report many of which the ADHA did
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @joshuabadge
In all honesty, that report appears to exonerate the ADHA almost entirely, because many of the suggested solutions are the exact things they (ineffectively) implemented
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @joshuabadge
I'd guess that the ADHA would argue about the relative efficacy of their advertising strategy, and while I haven't found it to be particularly effective I'm not sure it's fair to say that they "didn't engage" in such a campaign
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @joshuabadge
Moreover, they absolutely did cater to many of the concerns outlined in the report. They had quite extensive pilot schemes that involved attempting to solve many of these issues
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @joshuabadge
In fact, many of the security controls currently in MHR appear to be based on such consultations. I do not believe that they were originally included in the PCEHR. The main issue appears to be legislation that the ADHA had no control over set by a previous government!
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
Putting in place an ineffective solution is not in any way the same as 'ignoring' the issue. And much of the ADHA marketing has focused on trying to get individuals to set up their own privacy controls - likely in response to this evaluation!
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.