| ▲ | jll29 7 hours ago | |
> You don't know about Epic's, or GE's, or Philips' security either. The argument that a new vendor's security is probably not worse than others misses the point that by opting in, there is one more database/vendor/server where sensitive data about you resides, and which eventually will get hacked. It's usually just a question not whether, but when. For instance, in the UK, on this very day news reported half a million British people's medical data has been offered for sale on Alibaba, the "Chinese E-Bay". Trivial security advice is to "reduce the attack surface", i.e. to reduce the chances of getting hit by reduce one's presence in places where personal data is concentrated (thus making an attractive target for hackers). For example, when the German healthcare system launched its central electronic patient record, I opted out. One more system that, once hacked, won't have anything on me stored in it. | ||
| ▲ | xxpor 5 hours ago | parent [-] | |
>For example, when the German healthcare system launched its central electronic patient record, I opted out. One more system that, once hacked, won't have anything on me stored in it. I'll be sure to say a prayer at your funeral when you died due to an unknown drug interaction because of the lack of knowledge of your medical history in the emergency department of the random city you happen to be traveling through and get in a car accident. I don't think people are good at estimating tail risks, let alone the 2nd order effects of them. If you opt out of the AI transcription, do you think the doc will spend a bunch of time doing it by hand for free? No, you'll just have a worse record. | ||