It's not in the constitution it's an ACT like the civil rights act

I was addressing your misapprehension that the Constitution grants rights.

 

@joeyd999
It's not in the constitution it's an ACT like the civil rights act
@jpanhalt
But when the language used is above someones pay grade to understand this is the problem.
Why is there not an opt out or a delete my info and you can't sell it without my permission clause.
Brzrkr

It's a contract.

If you disagree, you can make a counter offer, which will likely be ignored (failure to respond is deemed rejection in every American jurisdiction). Ambiguities are presumably considered in the best light for the entity that did not write the contract. That's why expensive lawyers are hired to write them. It is an uphill battle. If you have the money, try it.

 

The purpose of class action is to hurt the perp, not enrich the victims.

So just how much did the perp get hurt when in order to collect the settlement you have to give the perp $18 instead of $0 (as opposed to the $20 that you weren't going to give them in the first place)?

Wouldn't it me much more honest to simply do away with any notion of the victims getting anything.

And the lawyers always get paid (both sides).

I don't have a problem with that, but I do think that the system (crafted by the lawyers) is highly skewed. It promotes a lawsuit lottery mentality in which firms file dozens of suits asking for millions of dollars each knowing that they will spend a few tens of thousands of dollars of most of them and lose but hoping that they will get lucky with a judge or jury on enough of them (and they will likely be as surprised as anyone regarding which ones pay off) to collect enough to cover the losses on all the others. It's basically gambling. The problem is that they aren't the only ones having to pay for the all of the lawsuits they lose -- that costs all of the winners of those suits (and, hence, their customers) as well since the plaintiff's and their lawyers seldom have to cover those costs.

I think that if you sue someone and lose that you should have to pay the other side's legal fees up to the limit of your own legal fees, unless you are a law firm taking a case on a contingency basis (which is where the big speculative settlements almost always come from) in which the law firm should be held accountable for the full cost of the winner's legal fees up to some fraction of the amount asked for in the suit.

 

So just how much did the perp get hurt when in order to collect the settlement you have to give the perp $18 instead of $0 (as opposed to the $20 that you weren't going to give them in the first place)?

Wouldn't it me much more honest to simply do away with any notion of the victims getting anything.



I don't have a problem with that, but I do think that the system (crafted by the lawyers) is highly skewed. It promotes a lawsuit lottery mentality in which firms file dozens of suits asking for millions of dollars each knowing that they will spend a few tens of thousands of dollars of most of them and lose but hoping that they will get lucky with a judge or jury on enough of them (and they will likely be as surprised as anyone regarding which ones pay off) to collect enough to cover the losses on all the others. It's basically gambling. The problem is that they aren't the only ones having to pay for the all of the lawsuits they lose -- that costs all of the winners of those suits (and, hence, their customers) as well since the plaintiff's and their lawyers seldom have to cover those costs.

I think that if you sue someone and lose that you should have to pay the other side's legal fees up to the limit of your own legal fees, unless you are a law firm taking a case on a contingency basis (which is where the big speculative settlements almost always come from) in which the law firm should be held accountable for the full cost of the winner's legal fees up to some fraction of the amount asked for in the suit.

I was just stating what is. Not that it is right.

 

Have you ever been a member of one of those lawsuits? I have, and have never ever received a payout from one.

Hi,

Actually i was. I was in the group that got payed for fake or just faulty electrolytic capacitors.

 

The Constitution grants nothing. It limits the Federal government's ability to infringe upon the natural rights that we all possess as a consequence of being born human.

Well in a matter of speaking.

 

@WBahn
It's known as the American system. Winner may get costs (excluding lawyers' fees). Not all countries have that system -- i.e., loser may be required to pay winner's lawyer fees. Both systems have advantages and disadvantages. The strongest argument for the American system, which begets contingency fee arrangements, is that it allows the little guy who has been been wronged by a big corporation to seek justice.

There is a trap in contingency fee arrangements that many people don't realize until it hits them. That is, the IRS will tax the entire award (with some exceptions). So, if the government gets 37% (or more) of the total for Federal and 10% for state, and the lawyers get 50% (just for example), that leaves the small guy who wins just 3% or less out of which he may be required to pay expenses. One of the exceptions is a civil rights abuse. Every plaintiff's lawyer will try to work a civil right's abuse (e.g., age, disability) into the pleadings, because everyone knows such cases rarely make it to trial. And of course, a settlement rarely admits wrongdoing, so each side is stuck with its costs. There are documented cases where after adjustment for taxes and costs, the aggrieved winner lost money.

 

Ownership of the medical record per se is based on a very long history. One can look at it as a "work product" (WP) of the physician and others as it contains more than just numbers and images from tests. It contains professional opinions and observations making it the WP of those professionals. The same applies to attorneys, architects, and many other professionals. As the electronic record has evolved, there have been questions raised, but I don't think a physician will ever be required to release and erase a medical record, barring a court order.

Can you be more specific about how getting a copy of the EHR "...is one of many reasons for the issues in healthcare today?" What issues?

https://medicopy.net/who-we-are/blog/who-owns-my-medical-record

As this states, the information contained is yours. You are paying the hospitals and the physicians for formatting and storing it. It is an administration fee. The issue is exactly that, when they forward incomplete record to other doctors, when your data gets lost in transit because their EMR does not communicate properly etc. It is about charging you for shuffling your information around and charging you for access to your information.

I view it like this - you comissioned a professional to do work for you. You own that work, not them. This is even more so since this work is done on you. Do you feel good knowing there is a doctor walking around with a USB thst has your diagnostic images on it in his pocket?

 

Well in a matter of speaking.

"Manner", no?

 

https://medicopy.net/who-we-are/blog/who-owns-my-medical-record

As this states, the information contained is yours. You are paying the hospitals and the physicians for formatting and storing it. It is an administration fee. The issue is exactly that, when they forward incomplete record to other doctors, when your data gets lost in transit because their EMR does not communicate properly etc. It is about charging you for shuffling your information around and charging you for access to your information.

I view it like this - you comissioned a professional to do work for you. You own that work, not them. This is even more so since this work is done on you. Do you feel good knowing there is a doctor walking around with a USB thst has your diagnostic images on it in his pocket?

Well, the solution is simple. Next time you go for medical services, demand that the provider agree to give you complete ownership and control of your medical record. Of course, you will be paying from your own pocket, not insurance, not government subsidized care.

Of course, such an agreement would force the provider to violate laws in the US and Canada (and many more places) about medical practices. There may be some place in the world where it is not required.

Good luck.

As for the USB stick with your information on it, I would not worry about my physician doing that, as I know he would not do it. I would be more worried about some functionary at an insurer (government or private) doing it.

 

Well, the solution is simple. Next time you go for medical services, demand that the provider agree to give you complete ownership and control of your medical record. Of course, you will be paying from your own pocket, not insurance, not government subsidized care.

Of course, such an agreement would force the provider to violate laws in the US and Canada (and many more places) about medical practices. There may be some place in the world where it is not required.

Good luck.

As for the USB stick with your information on it, I would not worry about my physician doing that, as I know he would not do it. I would be more worried about some functionary at an insurer (government or private) doing it.

Agree to disagree. Facebook has your interests at heart as well. If hospital can claim ownership of your xrays, so can all the other companies. Afterall they provided you with the platform.

You should have complete ownership over your mwdical data. It is as personal as it gets. I am paying for it, either through insurance or through taxes.

https://www.fastcompany.com/9031747...t-your-health-data-privacy-will-make-you-sick

 

Agree to disagree. Facebook has your interests at heart as well. If hospital can claim ownership of your xrays, so can all the other companies. Afterall they provided you with the platform.

You should have complete ownership over your mwdical data. It is as personal as it gets. I am paying for it, either through insurance or through taxes.

https://www.fastcompany.com/9031747...t-your-health-data-privacy-will-make-you-sick

It is very simple, you don't understand the difference between ownership and control. That is a distinction you need to learn sooner, rather than later.

 

It is very simple, you don't understand the difference between ownership and control. That is a distinction you need to learn sooner, rather than later.

Data ownership means the owner has complete control over data, how it is shared and distributed. This is why there it is an issue - who owns medical data?

 

All I can say is you guy's, wbahn and mr.al have been luckier than me.

 

Data ownership means the owner has complete control over data, how it is shared and distributed. This is why there it is an issue - who owns medical data?

Thank you for the legal advice. Maybe you should consult a lawyer.

 

Thank you for the legal advice. Maybe you should consult a lawyer.

You are welcome. I charge by the bit.

 

Hello,

Anyone read up on the 'permissions' given to applications (apps) on a typical Android cell phone?
The lack of privacy is astonishing to say the least. The apps can access almost everything on the phone and even make phone calls from your phone. What the heck is that all about?
An app can even access your contacts and call them.
It's nuts.
I found out when i went to use YouTube on my phone for the first time. It would not let me use YouTube it would try to force me to 'accept' the new terms which meant YouTube could have access to contacts and everything else it wanted to in the name of 'advanced features'. It's mostly Google doing this as they are the ones that wanted to upgrade YouTube and would not allow the old version to run (that came with the phone).

Any ideas what can be done about this nuts? I cant use YouTube without allowing all kinds of nutty permissions like those.

Back to the beginning here. We do have the thread Privacy Lost which is interesting stuff.

Sitting here looking at Alexa and wondering how much she really hears and sends back to the mother ship. Think I'll put her in a quiet box and only use her to listen to music. She does have a button to turn off her listening but can I trust that?

Then too I believe I just was reading how here in Cleveland, Ohio they are adding more cameras to all those they already have. This of course in the name of public safety.

I always wondered how the US Government can locate a mad cow half way around the globe but can't find out who is stealing someone else's identity? Sometimes I wonder about that.

My cell phone? No clue what it is up to. Maybe it is in a conspiracy with Alexa? They are collaborating against me?

Slowly, over the years, privacy has been lost. I guess because I am older and figure I won't be around too much longer it concerns me less but I am concerned for my children and grandchildren.

Ron

 

You are welcome. I charge by the bit.

Oh, so it just cost him a little bit then?
(just kidding ha ha)

 

Back to the beginning here. We do have the thread Privacy Lost which is interesting stuff.

Sitting here looking at Alexa and wondering how much she really hears and sends back to the mother ship. Think I'll put her in a quiet box and only use her to listen to music. She does have a button to turn off her listening but can I trust that?

Then too I believe I just was reading how here in Cleveland, Ohio they are adding more cameras to all those they already have. This of course in the name of public safety.

I always wondered how the US Government can locate a mad cow half way around the globe but can't find out who is stealing someone else's identity? Sometimes I wonder about that.

My cell phone? No clue what it is up to. Maybe it is in a conspiracy with Alexa? They are collaborating against me?

Slowly, over the years, privacy has been lost. I guess because I am older and figure I won't be around too much longer it concerns me less but I am concerned for my children and grandchildren.

Ron

Hi Ron,

Interesting that you should mention Alexa. I read back maybe 2 years ago that OTHER people could tap into Alexa and hear what is going on in someone else's house. Let's hope they fixed that.
But then i read that Google can have control over the speaker and microphone on the cell phone too. Not sure how much they can get away with there but that would mean they could hear person to person conversations in the room as well as cell connected chat.

Unfortunately it has come down to i need my cell phone now.
This is the interesting point i was trying to outline but could not remember the argument i came up with some time ago. It goes like this...
Companies were not allowed to take a Trade Name that was too common (i mixed that up before with something else) because it was necessary for others to use that name also. Now we have the cell phone AND computer software, where i think it has become necessary to use both so there should be some laws that dont allow companies to monopolize the technology because it is now necessary. This might be hard to understand at first but if you think about it, it makes sense. If we NEED something then it should have higher priority than just a fancy thing to play with.

So then were does it end. I think i know. It's when we start to force Google to agree to our terms and conditions or we wont use their products. They will immediately reconsider. The only problem is getting a group boycott together.
Alternately, let's find a way to spy on Google

 

Good luck with that. Years ago I got into a huge row with AT&T over having to transmit data long distance using one of their old relay switch frames which would only support 1200 baud. The telecommunications law at that time specified (if I remember right) 4800 baud minimum so I was paying a big penalty because of their outdated equipment. It went all the way up to the GA Public Service Commissioner who pointed out to AT&T that they were not in compliance with the law and cheating GA customers. AT&T reached into their bottom drawer and produced a document indemnifying them against it and that basically said if their customers didn't like it they just didn't have to use the phone. The State Commissioner couldn't believe what they were getting away with. And that is the corporate bottom line which is extremely well written by their corporate attorneys. Basically "Take or Leave it, we don't care either way and please get out of our way and stop wasting our extremely valuable time." Go ahead, sue them, they don't care and will lawyer you to death and have lots more money than their individual customers do. They own their lawyers and would love to see them working in court instead of just sitting around getting paid huge dollars to lollygag around waiting for something to do.