Stimulus / Social Security Folks

Yanche wrote:

mikeandgerry wrote:It isIf they want to standardize record keeping and transmittal formats....wonderful. But, central databases....NG.

The implementation of the medical records will use a distributed database. There will be no central database for all records; the amount of data to be stored is much to large to have in one central location. Clearly the devil will be in the details, but the issues like privacy, data accuracy and access control are technical design constraints that have solutions. The government roll will be to define the standards. Notice the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is specifically mentioned. It's in Germantown, MD and it has many competent civil servants. I have every reason to believe they will meet the goals laid out in the law.

Don't be confused with the hysterical linkage of this rather narrow task to all the politics of US healthcare.

In an interconnected computerized world, standardization makes for centralization. The point is academic. The database will be, in effect, centralized. The intent is access to information ostensibly for your medical reasons but in all likelihood, for the use of the federal government in promoting and implementing a socialized health care system and, in a more evil possibility, implementing an additional control over the populace on an individualized basis should they desire to violate privacy laws. Without doubt, the pervasiveness of the federal intelligence gathering system will be vastly increased.

Personally I think this violates the Constitution. We know that computers are hackable and also that a forced measure to require that your records be kept on a searchable electronic computer network, per government formatting standards, REDUCES your security. As an individual, you won't even know if your "papers" have been searched if you are forced to keep them in an electronic file on a network that you don't have control over.

In other words, would you let the government dictate how and where your personal records are stored and then allow them to have the key? Recall that all encryption keys are owned or readily accessible by the government.

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

If you understood public key cryptography you would realize it's possible to create a standards based data base system the increases your privacy. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-key_cryptography Only you and the persons (your doctor) you provide the key could see your data.

Much of the idea behind the medical data standards is for cost savings. A good fraction of the cost of providing routine medical care is to pay for the paper based data transfer between medical providers, insurance companies and pharmacies. For example it's cheaper to send an e-mail than mail a letter. The big challenge is developing a system that allows the medical researchers to see medical data in the aggregate but not in sufficient detail to identify individuals. Aggregate health data would be a big benefit to public health issues.

As with any issue it's a half empty vs. half full. Some see it as all bad especially those with anti-government views. Fortunately, it's still possible for those that don't like this country to move else where, no matter what side of the half full, half empty side of the issue they are on.

mikeandgerry wrote:

As an individual, you won't even know if your "papers" have been searched if you are forced to keep them in an electronic file on a network that you don't have control over.

How much control over your medical records that are stored at your doctor's office and hospital? Whats to stop the police or FBI from walking into the office and copying your records? How about the records at your health insurance company, what is the guarantee that your records are secure? When I was working I had an operation on a personal part of me and I was out of work for several days. Before I came back my boss knew all the personal details because all he had to do was pick up the phone and ask the insurance company.

mikeandgerry wrote:

Black_And_Blue wrote:Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force.
Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

Good quote.....yours?

One of our Founding Fathers, pull a dollar bill out of your wallet, gaze at his portrait and ponder his wisdom.

Yanche wrote:If you understood public key cryptography you would realize it's possible to create a standards based data base system the increases your privacy. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-key_cryptography Only you and the persons (your doctor) you provide the key could see your data.

Much of the idea behind the medical data standards is for cost savings. A good fraction of the cost of providing routine medical care is to pay for the paper based data transfer between medical providers, insurance companies and pharmacies. For example it's cheaper to send an e-mail than mail a letter. The big challenge is developing a system that allows the medical researchers to see medical data in the aggregate but not in sufficient detail to identify individuals. Aggregate health data would be a big benefit to public health issues.

As with any issue it's a half empty vs. half full. Some see it as all bad especially those with anti-government views. Fortunately, it's still possible for those that don't like this country to move else where, no matter what side of the half full, half empty side of the issue they are on.

I would be the first to admit that my knowledge of encryption is limited. I was referring to an old article in PC magazine which discussed the two encryption keys, public and private and neither refers to what I was thinking of! Please forgive my error. I was thinking of what the article was saying about the government having a way to easily break encryption. I am referring now to a "back door" to the encryption algorithm. There is also a slang term called a "skeleton key".

Since you are enthusiastic about standards, you would likely know that the NSA, being the most clever group of mathematicians in the world, develops the best algorithms for encryption and sets standards for such. It also monitors the import and export of software products. Additionally, it is likely that they provide themselves, for US security reasons, back doors to the algorithms they design which are widely used standards in software development. I think it is not only likely, it is damned likely that the US government would not allow our adversaries to defeat us using our own technology. Therefore, any government standards are going to include full accessibility for the government.

http://www.wired.com/politics/security/ ... tters_1115

http://www.windowsvistaweblog.com/2006/ ... -backdoor/

I think it is naive to believe that the government doesn't have an ulterior motive in its enthusiastic move to fix something that isn't broken, namely the private health record keeping system. Despite all the reasons you state, which I am well aware have certain small cost benefits as well as research benefits, their efforts remain highly suspicious. They simply don't need to be doing this unless their aim is something else entirely.

And by the way, my views are not anti-government, they are anti-totalitarianism which is a US Constitutional viewpoint. Those who believe the US Constitution is a framework for totalitarianism, as reflected in such measures as forced private records consolidation outside of the individual's control, are usually referred to as fascists.

mikeandgerry wrote:I would be the first to admit that my knowledge of encryption is limited. I was referring to an old article in PC magazine which discussed the two encryption keys, public and private and neither refers to what I was thinking of! Please forgive my error. I was thinking of what the article was saying about the government having a way to easily break encryption. I am referring now to a "back door" to the encryption algorithm. There is also a slang term called a "skeleton key".

Since you are enthusiastic about standards, you would likely know that the NSA, being the most clever group of mathematicians in the world, develops the best algorithms for encryption and sets standards for such. It also monitors the import and export of software products. Additionally, it is likely that they provide themselves, for US security reasons, back doors to the algorithms they design which are widely used standards in software development. I think it is not only likely, it is damned likely that the US government would not allow our adversaries to defeat us using our own technology. Therefore, any government standards are going to include full accessibility for the government.

A lot has happened in the last few decades in encryption. No longer are the government agencies the only ones that understand the technology. The university and software business community is now on a par with the government encryption experts. In 1991 Phil Zimmermann wrote a freely available encryption program. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Zimmermann
He's a controversial man. He wrote the program because he's paranoid about the government. In any event the mathematics of cryptology is now well understood by many. In the case of public key cryptology the math formula is public, known by all. What's not known are the keys. This promotes good review, because everyone wants to find a flaw. This leads to improvements, improvements that make it impossible in any reasonable time to break the encryption, even a government with unlimited resources. Rest assure that it's possible to secure electronic records that only those with the keys can access it. The problem then becomes a key management problem. Who do you give keys too and what do you do when keys get lost or forgotten? It's not a trivial problem and it will be interesting to see NIST's solution for a medical record system.

Unfortunately, the good methods of encryption are known worldwide and our adversaries do use them against us by encrypting their e-mails and other communications. The intelligence agencies are reduced to using traffic analysis and deductive reasoning to foil plots.

Yanche wrote:

mikeandgerry wrote:I would be the first to admit that my knowledge of encryption is limited. I was referring to an old article in PC magazine which discussed the two encryption keys, public and private and neither refers to what I was thinking of! Please forgive my error. I was thinking of what the article was saying about the government having a way to easily break encryption. I am referring now to a "back door" to the encryption algorithm. There is also a slang term called a "skeleton key".

Since you are enthusiastic about standards, you would likely know that the NSA, being the most clever group of mathematicians in the world, develops the best algorithms for encryption and sets standards for such. It also monitors the import and export of software products. Additionally, it is likely that they provide themselves, for US security reasons, back doors to the algorithms they design which are widely used standards in software development. I think it is not only likely, it is damned likely that the US government would not allow our adversaries to defeat us using our own technology. Therefore, any government standards are going to include full accessibility for the government.

A lot has happened in the last few decades in encryption. No longer are the government agencies the only ones that understand the technology. The university and software business community is now on a par with the government encryption experts. In 1991 Phil Zimmermann wrote a freely available encryption program. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Zimmermann
He's a controversial man. He wrote the program because he's paranoid about the government. In any event the mathematics of cryptology is now well understood by many. In the case of public key cryptology the math formula is public, known by all. What's not known are the keys. This promotes good review, because everyone wants to find a flaw. This leads to improvements, improvements that make it impossible in any reasonable time to break the encryption, even a government with unlimited resources. Rest assure that it's possible to secure electronic records that only those with the keys can access it. The problem then becomes a key management problem. Who do you give keys too and what do you do when keys get lost or forgotten? It's not a trivial problem and it will be interesting to see NIST's solution for a medical record system.

Unfortunately, the good methods of encryption are known worldwide and our adversaries do use them against us by encrypting their e-mails and other communications. The intelligence agencies are reduced to using traffic analysis and deductive reasoning to foil plots.

John, I hope you are right about the encryption algorithms but I doubt it. I believe the strongarm tactics of the federal government can most likely influence Bill Gates and major software encryption algorithm experts, directly or indirectly, to provide a backdoor for national security purposes that can no doubt be exploited when needed.

I don't trust the federal government with things they are not constitutionally empowered to do. There is no constitutional mandate for this measure. To force the the people collectively to place their medical records on an electronic medium that affords others data access, individually or in aggregate, without consent is a violation of the fourth amendment.

I view this action as a means of control toward a totalitarian end. Eventually, you will only be able to buy the healthcare of the federal government. If that isn't putting faith where it isn't due, I don't know what is.

Revelation 13:16-17 "And he causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves to be given a mark on their right hand or on their forehead, and he provides that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name."