Lobbying against data protection reform will now concentrate on national governments
Well, the European Parliament voted overwhelmingly in favour of reforming the Data Protection Directive with a new Regulation that ensures standard data protection rules across the entire EU, strengthens people’s privacy, increases sanctions against transgressors, and provides some rights to have personal data removed from databases. It is not yet, however, a done deal since the Council of Ministers (that is the EU’s national governments) must also agree.
Industry lobbying against national governments will now intensify. Here’s an article from PharmaTimes published two days ago:
The multi-stakeholder Healthcare Coalition on Data Protection has stepped up pressure on lawmakers in the EU to preserve, re-instate or clarify research-friendly provisions in the European Commission’s proposal for a General Data Protection Regulation.
Why?
According to the Royal College of Physicians, the net impact of the LIBE amendments has been to introduce much more stringent requirements for explicit consent to use personal data for health or scientific research than under current legislation.
Furthermore, the EU totally irresponsibly demands that personal data used for research purposes (which they want to take without asking us) be “anonymised or, if that is not possible for the research purposes, pseudonymised under the highest technical standards, and all necessary measures shall be taken to prevent re-identification of the data subjects.”
This, according to the Healthcare Coalition on Data Protection “would make much valuable research involving personal data at worst impossible and at best unworkable.”
So why do they need to know who we are? To improve our health (not to mention the pharmaceutical industry’s profits, and indeed, it doesn’t mention them) through data-driven approaches.
These include large disease databases, personalised medicine, medical imaging, eHealth, mHealth, human genome decoding, disease prediction, biobanks, biomarkers and many more.
I’m not sure why they need to know who I am for any of that other than ‘personalised medicine’; and frankly I’d rather get my personalised medicine from my GP than through an advertising campaign delivered to my door by the pharmaceutical industry… who knows who I am, where I live, how old I am, what’s wrong with me, my sexual preferences and any past (or present) STDs, whether I’m pregnant or have had an abortion, and probably (through alignment with other databases) how much I can spend on medicine. All of which they want to know without asking my consent.
Share this:
Related
Leave a comment Cancel reply
Freelance author and journalist. One time news reporter for Infosecurity Magazine. See Sample Work for sample work; and Editorial Services for, well, editorial services. Then contact me.
This blog is moving to ITsecurity.co.uk, where it will be bigger and better than ever. Please join us.
The all-time most popular stories on this site
Is it safe to carry on using Dropbox? Yes and No: Part II
FBI, CIPAV spyware, and the anti-virus companies
Anonymous owns the California State Law Enforcement Association (CSLEA) website
Recent Posts
- What’s with the TrueCrypt warning?
- ITsecurity.co.uk went live
- We’re moving and expanding!
- More on the Avast breach and the hash used
- Avast forum hack demonstrates we need password storage disclosure
- Hector ‘Sabu’ Monsegur to be sentenced while Hammond sits in prison
- The eBay hack, the loss of 140 million records, and the PR fiasco
- The Master Troll, Weev, delivers a masterpiece of trolling
- FBI indicts five members of the Chinese military for hacking US companies
- Worldwide crackdown on BlackShades RAT users
Blogroll
Archives
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
Dear Sir, I assure you that you are misinformed and unenlightened when it comes to the need for medical research. Without the fine academic studies conducted in the past without explicit consent, very few of the treatments/medicines of today would be available. All new discoveries begin with hypothesis generating evaluation of medical data. So this “personalised medicine” you seek from your GP (? this sentence does not even make sense if you knew what personalised medicine was…) will no longer be available from any source if Data Reform doesn’t recognise medical research as a primary source of Healthcare data processing. Perhaps if you need clarification on this matter, you should ask your GP?
LikeLike