| | |
|
SharmilaAchariPaper1 3 - 10 Dec 2008 - Main.DavidHambrick
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
-- SharmilaAchari - 03 Dec 2008 | | | Embedded advertising may also infringe on the user’s sense of autonomy. This term signals the ability to govern our own actions without restriction. Though viewing advertisements does not limit the user’s ability access or view records, these advertisements are still an invasion of personal space and impose an additional, an potentially unwanted, experience on the user. Such imposition can threaten autonomy as equally as a restriction because it does not allow the user to have full control over their experience.
One counterargument is that these concerns are irrelevant because patients voluntarily store their sensitive information on these sites. No one objects to the public availability of information or embedded advertising on sites such as Facebook, or even within Gmail. However, personal medical information is a much more important type of knowledge to individuals than other personal details. Moreover, though PHR systems are subscribed to voluntarily now, it is feasible that in the next 20 years these systems will become the standard method for patients to communicate with their doctors and insurers about their care, rendering them a necessity. With such sensitive information at stake, it is imperative that the integrity of the storage systems cannot be compromised. PHR systems can benefit users and providers alike, but this benefit should not risk exposing our most personal information to scrutiny by system administrators and whoever else they allow into the communications between the individual, his body and his doctor. | |
<
< | -- JohnPowerHely - 09 Dec 2008 | >
> |
| | | Sharmila, this is an area that I've not thought about, and I thank you for enlightening us. I wonder, if information stored on these sites is not covered under HIPAA, does that make it discoverable in criminal and civil litigation without the usual protections? If so this seems to be an even greater cause for concern than targeted ads. | |
>
> | -- JohnPowerHely - 09 Dec 2008
Sharmila, This is a great topic and I really enjoyed reading your essay. I wasn't entirely clear, though, about your position with respect to the counterargument raised toward the end, to the effect that the voluntary nature of these sites mitigates some of the privacy concerns. Are you taking the position that people should not be able to entrust their information to these sites at all as they are now set up or would you just argue that notice of the risks should be improved? If the former, I would be curious to know why people shouldn't be allowed to make that choice. Maybe there is an argument to be made on fairness grounds, because those with certain diseases or disabilities would have more to lose? I'm also not sure you've convinced me that medical information is different in kind from other kinds of personal information. Doesn't it just depend on the individual and the information? Couldn't the revelation of a medical condition, financial information, or a particularly personal email have equally damaging effect? As long as the taking of the privacy risk in exchange for the use of the service is voluntary and fully informed in each case, why should we treat them differently?
-- DavidHambrick - 09 Dec 2008 |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |