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

[Bryn]

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

With opposition to that sort of requirement, I concur,

[Dave2002]

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

I do wonder whether that's actually done, in countries which "require" that. It may have been a requirement in Sweden, but I didn't, and we were never stopped or questioned. It's possible that in some countries the "requirement" to carry id is mostly ignored, but perhaps failure to produce one would give enforcement officers a reason to take further action. I really just don't know.

I like the UK's position that it's OK not to have an id card, which would "have" to be carried.

[oddoneout]

When my last address change meant that I had a plastic driving licence I put it in my wallet and now always carry it with me. It is useful as ID proof for banks etc but also should anything happen to me as I live alone and have no family anywhere near. That is my choice but I wouldn't be happy with having to carry a form of ID and being expected to present it on demand.

[StephenMcK]

Mandatory organ donation was made legal by what is known as Max & Keira's Law passed in March last year. It would still require the consent of the family, but there are no safeguards against their wishes being overruled.

Here's an overview from a solicitor's website that I picked randomly from the internet and the ins and outs of it all: https://www.hcsolicitors.co.uk/news/...-you-in-or-out


This country has got on fine without id cards, so I see no need to change that. 'What about things like terrorism', people say. What about it?! The UK, and London in particular, endured decades of terrorism (courtesy of the IRA) far worse than has been seen with so called Islamic inspired atrocities. At no point would id Cards help.

If id cards ever were to be introduced, then they would be followed not long after by 'id chard checks', and we know very well where that would lead - to a disproportionate number of people of colour and ethnic origin being held back for further questioning.

Going back to the original theme of the thread, when we talk about 'being targeted', what we mean, predominantly, is the manner in which we are being monetised. As is said with the likes of Facebook, we, the users, are the product. Our medical data, our organs, our internet browsing are all being offered up as the basis for future retail and marketing purposes.

Note how Facebook offers no premium service by which for a monthly subscription you could opt out of being advertised to or your data being accessed.

That's the last thing, Mark Zuckerberg wants. How else he gonna make money outta ye.

[Dave2002]

TV via internet is a real pain, and a major privacy concern. For various reasons, mainly to do with very poor signal conditions, we can't get terrestrial TV - Freeview. We have limited access to Freesat, but the technology doesn't always work. What does work - though not always very well - is TV via internet.

All the major players, including the BBC, but also ITV, STV, Channel 4, C5 and some internet channels, such as YouTube - track users. There's a real pain to get to a channel/programme, and despite what each of the providers say, devices often have to be paired, and re-paired with "accounts" - nominally free, with a password.

Then of course all the programmes which one watches are tracked. OK - there's more choice than in the old days, but once upon a time we could turn on a TV, then hit buttons for almost instantaneous switching between channels/programmes. Now it's a lot slower than it used to be, and one might have to register, pair another device, give away yet more information, plus on top of that, despite BT's claims to the contrary, the internet isn't always glitch free.

Probably should give up on TV anyway, as mostly it seems aimed at the brain dead - and people whose main interest seems to be in Love Island. I'm not sure whether Ed Reardon approves, though it does sound as though he had some sneaky views of Celebrity Coach Trip.

[Flay]

Why do my browser say "Not Secure" on the for3 web page?

[LMcD]

Why do my browser say "Not Secure" on the for3 web page?

I asked the same question some time ago - can't remember which thread - and a representative of 'Forum Management' gave me a satisfactory explanation. I don't think it's anything to worry about. Our local Community Association is also 'not secure', and they've assured me it's safe to contact them online.

[Serial_Apologist]

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?

Since one year ago I have always been quizzed by the pharmacist where I obtain my repeat prescription in front of other customers. And it does seem strange that I am permitted to re-register this repeat prescription each year without first consulting with my doctor - or rather, one of the doctors at my local surgery: they seem to completely re-staff between my regular annual call-ins. I asked the chemist if my requirement to re-register was based on an age-based calculation that I am statistically likely to "peg it" before my next visit!

[Petrushka]

Why do my browser say "Not Secure" on the for3 web page?

It means that this site is not secure for purposes of taking card payments, I think. Not that anyone would, of course.

[Flay]

It means that this site is not secure for purposes of taking card payments, I think. Not that anyone would, of course.

Thanks for the info. I'm sure that any site that doesn't have "https" with a lock symbol is not safe for financial transactions. It makes sense.

[Dave2002]

Since one year ago I have always been quizzed by the pharmacist where I obtain my repeat prescription in front of other customers. And it does seem strange that I am permitted to re-register this repeat prescription each year without first consulting with my doctor - or rather, one of the doctors at my local surgery: they seem to completely re-staff between my regular annual call-ins. I asked the chemist if my requirement to re-register was based on an age-based calculation that I am statistically likely to "peg it" before my next visit!

I moved not long ago, and registered with another doctor's practice. I previously had a repeat prescription set up with a regular high street chemist, and having moved I asked for the same prescription. This has been done, without me seeing a doctor - yet when I went to pick up another supply a few days ago - having requested it from the surgery, the pharmacy people said that I didn't have the repeat prescription feature set up. Seems a bit odd that systems which could work via the internet (or maybe even more secure networks) fall apart as soon as there are changes, such as a patient moving. This does not help people to move around, either permanently or even temporarily - such as on holiday.

The UK health service does not seem to cope well with patients moving around the country.

[oddoneout]

I moved not long ago, and registered with another doctor's practice. I previously had a repeat prescription set up with a regular high street chemist, and having moved I asked for the same prescription. This has been done, without me seeing a doctor - yet when I went to pick up another supply a few days ago - having requested it from the surgery, the pharmacy people said that I didn't have the repeat prescription feature set up. Seems a bit odd that systems which could work via the internet (or maybe even more secure networks) fall apart as soon as there are changes, such as a patient moving. This does not help people to move around, either permanently or even temporarily - such as on holiday.

The UK health service does not seem to cope well with patients moving around the country.

All using different systems, which can't communicate with each other.

[ardcarp]

I moved not long ago, and registered with another doctor's practice. I previously had a repeat prescription set up with a regular high street chemist, and having moved I asked for the same prescription. This has been done, without me seeing a doctor - yet when I went to pick up another supply a few days ago - having requested it from the surgery, the pharmacy people said that I didn't have the repeat prescription feature set up. Seems a bit odd that systems which could work via the internet (or maybe even more secure networks) fall apart as soon as there are changes, such as a patient moving. This does not help people to move around, either permanently or even temporarily - such as on holiday.

The UK health service does not seem to cope well with patients moving around the country.

A nightmare for students having a home address (where they reside for long holiday periods) and student accommodation elsewhere. Registering hither and thither has been truly awful for one of our g-kids with medical needs.

[Serial_Apologist]

A nightmare for students having a home address (where they reside for long holiday periods) and student accommodation elsewhere. Registering hither and thither has been truly awful for one of our g-kids with medical needs.

I had this problem when I moved here and asked the previous surgery to de-register me there and send all my details on to my present one. After the new surgery phoned me saying they still hadn't received my records I got onto the old surgery, who apologised for the delay and said they were sending them on. I assumed this to be through a linked computer system. But when they still hadn't arrived a further week later, by whatever means, I went back in person to the old address and asked if I could physically take them myself, but after being demanded to produce evidence of my identity (!!!) which luckily I happened to have on me in the form of my driving license, was told that letting me have them would breach NHS security rules! Eventually everything was transferred. But all this was 15 years ago!!!

Fortunately, computerised connections linking my present surgery with Kings College Hospital and the East Dulwich District Hospital, where they now just do blood tests, are much better, as one would hope.

[Old Grumpy]

Why do my browser say "Not Secure" on the for3 web page?

As alluded to in a post above, I think that the response to the original query was to do with not being https. IIRC, the use of http for the for3 website was to do with cost and possibly extra hassle involved for https.

OG