Many of us are being tracked ... far more than we thought ..

[DracoM]

I did, because I am ultra wary of the big bad cyber world.

Ditto squared.

[Dave2002]

Doesn't inspire confidence.

That could be because the UK is rubbish at computer technology!

[StephenMcK]

What we're seeing is not some 'sharing and learning' altruism, but straightforward 'we can flog your data for dosh'.

I have similar concerns about organ donation which is due, effectively, to become organ appropriation.

"This means that all adults in England will be considered to have agreed to be an organ donor when they die unless they have recorded a decision not to donate or are in one of the excluded groups." (Source NHS)

I find it a little bit grotesque that the state has made a moral claim on our organs and and I'm not sure how this was not more hotly contested in Parliament.

If it was, I missed out on that coverage.

I say this, I'll point out, as a registered donor who always has his card card about him and my family members informed of my choice.

I recognise that there is a shortage of donors all round, but that can surely be tackled by prominent advertising campaigns and the like.

Bear in mind, the new government we have in power for the next five years are capable of anything, selling their own grandmas being something they'd not give a second thought. So, currently, organ trading is illegal, but what will life start to look like for the NHS the other side of a trade deal.

[Dave2002]

What we're seeing is not some 'sharing and learning' altruism, but straightforward 'we can flog your data for dosh'.

I have similar concerns about organ donation which is due, effectively, to become organ appropriation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Island_(2005_film)

[Frances_iom]

one significant difference between the UK and continental Europe is our attitude to identity cards - possession of an ID card with its unique id allows for relatively easy sharing of data, no doubt helped by generations of being subject to bureaucracy the state managing the national database possibly is more trusted than would be typical in an Anglo-Saxon country.

[muzzer]

If I was starting again I’d go into data protection law, it’s massive and interesting and travels widely. Plus I’d have some idea what’s going on.

[Dave2002]

I have to confess that tonight I enabled Youtube on one of my TVs. Youtube has been recommended by others around here. It is now effectively owned by Google, and the T&Cs about what information "they" are allowed to trawl and what data they can even alter on one's own computer, are interesting. That also assumes that this company, and others like them, actually do follow the rules which they set out. It is not unkown for procedures to be set out, giving an appearance of reasonableness, but then totally disregarded.

The section on Privacy is quite detailed, and does highlight the risks, which of course one is signing up for by viewing the videos.

Not that that firm would ever do anything really dishonest, or immoral, would it?

[Bryn]

Re Identity Cards, around 76% of the population of England and Wales hold a valid UK passport. A further 7.4% hold a non-UK passport. Only around 17% report as having no passport. With a passport or driving licence being demanded as proof of identity for a wide range of entitlements, including taking delivery of some items on Amazon, it seems the aversion to identity cards is somewhat deluded thinking.

[StephenMcK]

Just the merest mention of 'ID cards' and I'm automatically hurled into a daydream that has me on a train or a bus and the suddenly there's the Stasi making their way down the aisle ... 'Papers? ... Papers ... your papers, pleeze'.

I automatically break out into a Gordon Jackson sweat!!!

[LMcD]

Some pharmacists have apparently been instructed to discuss repeat medications at regular intervals with their 'customers'. This is surely not a matter for dispensers of medicines? It is for a GP and his/her patient. I mention this because I spoke to someone only yesterday who was cross because our local pharmacist had quizzed her about her pills in the shop in front of other customers. This is surely wrong on both counts?

Nearly a year ago I switched to an online pharmacy and they have consistently provided an excellent service. They have never quizzed me, but I can phone them if I wish to discuss anything.

[muzzer]

I have to confess that tonight I enabled Youtube on one of my TVs. Youtube has been recommended by others around here. It is now effectively owned by Google, and the T&Cs about what information "they" are allowed to trawl and what data they can even alter on one's own computer, are interesting. That also assumes that this company, and others like them, actually do follow the rules which they set out. It is not unkown for procedures to be set out, giving an appearance of reasonableness, but then totally disregarded.

The section on Privacy is quite detailed, and does highlight the risks, which of course one is signing up for by viewing the videos.

Not that that firm would ever do anything really dishonest, or immoral, would it?

Depends if you think compiling a profile of you from your internet habits so that you can be sent targeted ads is immoral or not. I happen to think it is, particularly when said ads are for political parties.

[Bryn]

Some pharmacists have apparently been instructed to discuss repeat medications at regular intervals with their 'customers'. This is surely not a matter for dispensers of medicines? It is for a GP and his/her patient. I mention this because I spoke to someone only yesterday who was cross because our local pharmacist had quizzed her about her pills in the shop in front of other customers. This is surely wrong on both counts?

Wrong indeed. A few months ago, when I went to collect my repeat prescription package, I was advised that the pharmacist needed to review my medication. This review was carried out in a small consulting room, in strict privacy. It was particularly useful. Nowhere in the advice leaflets which came with the various medication was the need to delay taking one for 2 hours after taking another which was to be taken weekly mentioned. Neither had my GP advised of the need for the delay. A later search online revealed that the pharmacist gave the correct advice. The delayed medication would not have been effective if taken at the same time as the weekly one, or indeed until a couple of hours had passed. Such consultations with the pharmacist should always take place in private.

[oddoneout]

What we're seeing is not some 'sharing and learning' altruism, but straightforward 'we can flog your data for dosh'.

I have similar concerns about organ donation which is due, effectively, to become organ appropriation.

"This means that all adults in England will be considered to have agreed to be an organ donor when they die unless they have recorded a decision not to donate or are in one of the excluded groups." (Source NHS)

I find it a little bit grotesque that the state has made a moral claim on our organs and and I'm not sure how this was not more hotly contested in Parliament.

If it was, I missed out on that coverage.

I say this, I'll point out, as a registered donor who always has his card card about him and my family members informed of my choice.

I recognise that there is a shortage of donors all round, but that can surely be tackled by prominent advertising campaigns and the like.

Bear in mind, the new government we have in power for the next five years are capable of anything, selling their own grandmas being something they'd not give a second thought. So, currently, organ trading is illegal, but what will life start to look like for the NHS the other side of a trade deal.

It's one of those difficult problems where any solution throws up difficulties, but I agree the current political situation does not help. There are several factors affecting the rate of organ donation, but I suspect a major one is that of not wishing to contemplate death - in the same way that people don't make wills or draw up attorney powers - and the mistaken belief that there will always be time to deal with it 'later'. Even where an individual has expressed a wish for organ donation the family can - and frequently do I believe - over-ride that consent, so if there are too few donors to begin with the available pool gets further reduced. There is a great deal of publicity around the good that comes from donation, and stories of lives extended or cut short appear regularly in the media. A child or young person in need of a new heart will generate column inches and may result in a brief flurry of interest in organ donation; whether that carries through into action is another question, and in any case tends to be brief. As this article points out the reduction in traffic deaths reduces the pool of suitable organs https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/0...-organ-donors/. If family opposition further reduces those available then one can see the argument for trying to increase the numbers available.
This is the summary of the consultation https://assets.publishing.service.go...on-consent.pdf
What is somewhat worrying is that this was supposed to come into use in Spring 2020, following a year long publicity campaign. I haven't seen any significant publicity about the change, has anyone else? Will it be brought in anyway, has it been sidelined/forgotten about - another casualty of that which cannot be spoken?
I signed up to the register years ago, and had the discussion with family, so it's not of immediate concern to me, but there are certainly questions to be answered now.

[Dave2002]

Just the merest mention of 'ID cards' and I'm automatically hurled into a daydream that has me on a train or a bus and the suddenly there's the Stasi making their way down the aisle ... 'Papers? ... Papers ... your papers, pleeze'.

I automatically break out into a Gordon Jackson sweat!!!

I don't really mind some form of identification, though these can be a nuisance sometimes. I think the notion that in some fast developing emergencies these could really be helpful is farcical, as the time taken to check them would be far too long, and the chances are that any criminals who were involved would have "valid" ids anyway. Passports, driving licences, bus passes can all serve a similar purpose. Id checks are not always good enough, even if the ids are valid, or people's identities can be swapped over due to human error.

Re pharmacies, sometimes the pharmacists can be very helpful. Once mrs d went to a pharmacist - possibly to pick something up - maybe not even anything to do with medication. The pharmacist looked at her, and said "You're about to get shingles. I can't prescribe anything, but if you go to the surgery your doctor will probably prescribe antivirals, and send the prescription straight over, and I can supply these on your return." The surgery was hadly any significant distance away, and the pharmacist had given very helpful and seemingly correct advice. The antivirals were supplied as suggested, and the worst problems of shingles were avoided.

[ardcarp]

it seems the aversion to identity cards is somewhat deluded thinking.

...but I don't think being obliged by law to carry an ID card at all times is something I'd be happy about.