Author Archives: Emma

Facebook asked users if pedophiles should be able to ask kids for ‘sexual pictures’

25th July 2018

Facebook is under fire for asking users whether pedophiles should be able to proposition underage girls for sexually explicit photographs on the giant social network.

The survey is the latest in a series of missteps by the Silicon Valley company, which has been criticized for allowing content that exploits children.

From violence on its Live streaming service to hate speech to divisive messages sent by Russian operatives trying to to meddle in the U.S. presidential election, toxic content flowing through its platform has heightened scrutiny of Facebook.

Facebook scrapped the survey that posed questions about teens being groomed by older men after it was spotted by media outlets in the United Kingdom. It now says the survey could have been better “designed.”

The company routinely uses surveys to get feedback from the social network’s more than 2 billion users. More recently, Facebook has been relying on user surveys to take their pulse on everything from the “fake news” epidemic to whether Facebook makes them happy as people have stopped spending as much time there.

But the two questions in Sunday’s survey shocked and angered Facebook users.

“In thinking about an ideal world where you could set Facebook’s policies, how would you handle the following: a private message in which an adult man asks a 14-year-old girl for sexual pictures,” Facebook asked.

Sexual contact with minors online, part of a “grooming process” in which adults seek to gain trust and lower inhibition, is often a precursor to sexual abuse.

The possible responses Facebook offered to the question ranged from “this content should not be allowed on Facebook, and no one should be able to see it” to “this content should be allowed on Facebook, and I would not mind seeing it.”

Another question asked who should decide whether an adult man can ask for sexual pictures on Facebook, with options ranging from “Facebook users decide the rules by voting and tell Facebook” to “Facebook decides the rules on its own.”

Jonathan Haynes, digital editor at the Guardian newspaper, tweeted: “I’m like, er wait is making it secret the best Facebook can offer here? Not, y’know, calling the police?”

“That was a mistake,” Guy Rosen, a vice president of product at Facebook, responded.

“We run surveys to understand how the community thinks about how we set policies,” he wrote on Twitter. “But this kind of activity is and will always be completely unacceptable on (Facebook). We regularly work with authorities if identified. It shouldn’t have been part of this survey.”

 

 

 

source/read more: https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2018/03/05/facebook-asked-users-if-pedophiles-should-able-ask-kids-sexual-pictures/395535002/

Dangerous Gardasil drug should be banned in US (An Aunty’s letter)

25th July 2018

To the editor

My 11-year-old great niece was a happy, healthy child until — upon the recommendation of her pediatrician — she received a Gardasil shot. The next day she woke up with bruises all over her body. Blood work found ITP — a rare blood disease that can be fatal. She bled from her mouth and nose; she was put into the Intensive Care Unit when the doctors feared that she would bleed on her brain and die.

A week of IVIG treatments were unsuccessful, and she was discharged. The next month she had chemo treatments — 10 hours of infusion each time. Today — 6 months after her vaccination, her blood platelets have gone from a low of 100,000 to 132,000 (150,000 to 400,000 is normal).

Her pediatrician filed a report with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention about the effects Gardasil had on her; her doctor recommended that she not get the second dose. Believe it or not, Gardasil is still being promoted in America as safe, effective and vital for ages 9 to 26.

Very few parents know that Gardasil has come under intense scrutiny from medical professionals around the world in the past few years. Very few know that the Federal Drug Administration reported 85 deaths from Gardasil between June 2006 and June 2013. Very few have ever watched the many YouTube videos that reveal the deaths, paralysis and serious side effects Gardasil has brought to many young women all over the world. Very few have searched on websites where renowned doctors and medical journals question everything about Gardasil.

Dr. Dianne Harper, one of 50 HPV experts in the world, said Gardasil is neither safe nor effective. She told CBS it is essentially useless. Dr. Chris Shaw — professor at the University of British Columbia — said Gardasil “is a vaccine that’s been highly marketed, the benefits are overhyped, and the dangers are underestimated.” The American College of Pediatricians has linked Gardasil to premature menopause in girls. Studies in medical journals like Pediatrics, Cancer Epidemiology and Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics conclude that doctors have issues with Gardasil.

Perhaps most telling are the revelations of Dr. Bernard Dalbergue, a former pharmaceutical industry physician with

Gardasil manufacturer Merck. In an April 2014 interview published in Principes de Sant (Health Principles) he said, “The full extent of the Gardasil scandal needs to be assessed: everyone knew when this vaccine was released on the American market that it would prove to be worthless. I predict that Gardasil will become the greatest medical scandal of all time because at some point in time, the evidence will add up to prove that this vaccine has absolutely no effect on cervical cancer and that all the very many adverse effects which destroy lives and even kill, serve no other purpose than to generate profit for the manufacturers. Gardasil is useless and costs a fortune!”

Gardasil has been banned in Japan. The people of Spain are crying out for its removal from their country. Sadly, it is still used in 100 countries, including this great United States of America.

Chris Dutil,

Stockbridge

 

 

 

source/read more: https://www.berkshireeagle.com/stories/letter-dangerous-gardasil-drugshould-be-banned-in-us,544073

By 2050 humans will attend own funerals as robots

25th July 2018

On top of planning your pension and future financial security, now’s the time to put money aside for downloading your brain data, according to a leading futurologist who says we’ll be attending our own funerals as robots by 2050.

Dr Ian Pearson, who has a self-proclaimed 85 percent accuracy record when looking 10 to 15 years ahead, says humans will one day (and in the not too distant future) hook their minds up to external machines while alive to boost intelligence, improve memory and sensory capacity.

External IT capabilities mean the technology can connect to your brain seamlessly so it feels exactly the same, says Pearson. Furthermore, the scientist says that when you physically die, almost all of your brain will still be functioning… as a machine.

“By around 2050, 99 percent of your mind is running on external IT rather than in the meat-ware in your head,” claimed Pearson in his blog, Futerizon.

When your human body eventually gives into inevitable fatal deterioration, Pearson says “assuming you saved enough and prepared well” you can simply transfer your brain data to an android: “attend your funeral, and then carry on as before, still you, just with a younger, highly upgraded body.”

“Some people may need to wait until 2060 or later until android price falls enough for them to afford one,” he says. “In principle, you can swap bodies as often as you like, because your mind is resident elsewhere, the android is just a temporary front end, just transport for sensors.”

 

 

 

source/read more: https://www.rt.com/news/434151-robot-funeral-future-brain-pearson/

Austria rejects registering Jews for kosher meat

21st July 2018

ustria rejected Friday registering Jews who want to purchase kosher meat after a far-right politician proposed introducing stricter controls on ritual slaughtering to reduce the practice citing animal rights.

Gottfried Waldhaeusl, a cabinet minister of Lower Austria and member of the Freedom Party (FPOe), made headlines this week when he called for controls, including registration, to rein in the slaughtering of animals without first stunning them.

But Austrian government spokemsan Peter Launsky-Tieffenthal said the country would “protect the freedoms and fundamental rights of our Jewish fellow citizens and can assure that they will be upheld and in no way limited”.

“The Austrian Federal Government rejects any form of personal registration in connection with the purchase of kosher meat, such an idea is out of question and will certainly not take place in Austria,” he tweeted.

Waldhaeusl had cited animal protection, saying registration was necessary to ensure ritual slaughtering was done only for those who show they belong to a religious community and need the meat.

Austria’s Jewish and Muslim community groups condemned the proposal.

A coalition of the centre-right People’s Party (OeVP) and the far-right FPOe has governed Austria since December after winning votes on an anti-immigration platform.

On Thursday, a man was arrested after assaulting three people — with at least one of them wearing Jewish headgear — in Vienna.

Following the attack, Chancellor Sebastian Kurz of the OeVP said on Twitter that the government was doing “everything so that Jews can live safely in Austria and is determined to fight against any form of anti-Semitism”.

The FPOe was founded by former Nazis in the 1950s but in recent years has sought to clean up its image, with its leader saying the party rejects all extremism.

But since its entry into government in December, the party has been embroiled in a string of controversies that critics say show it has not stamped out extremism.

 

 

 

source/read more: https://www.yahoo.com/news/austria-rejects-registering-jews-kosher-meat-155301942.html

Doctors Give Patients 11 Seconds To Explain Reason For Visit Before Interrupting

21 July 2018

Ever feel like your doctor is in a rush to get you out the door when you come in for a visit? You’re not just imagining things. A new study finds physicians give a patient an average of just 11 seconds to describe their issue before cutting them off.

Researchers from the University of Florida determined that for all the waiting we do after we arrive at a medical practitioner’s office, its the doctors who seem to have the least amount of patience. The study showed that just a third of physicians give patients adequate time to explain why they’re there.

“Our results suggest that we are far from achieving patient-centered care,” says study co-author Naykky Singh Ospina in a release, adding that medicals specialists proved to be in the biggest hurry, compared to primary care physicians.

Singh Ospina, who led the research team, sought to examine the flow of conversation between clinicians and patients, and more importantly, see how viable it was for the most important person in the room — the patient, of course — to lead the discussion. Her researchers secured videos of consultations that were filmed in clinics across the U.S. as training sessions for the physicians between 2008 and 2015.

The team specifically analyzed the first few minutes of the 112 consultations, looking to find out how frequently doctors let the patients dictate the conversation through inquiries such as “Tell me what brings you in today,” or “What can I do for you today?” If patients were given the opportunity to set the agenda, the researchers then timed the responses to see how long they could speak before the doctor interrupted them.

The results showed that just 36% of doctors ask questions that allowed patients to set the agenda, but two-thirds (67%) of those patients were interrupted after responding. Researchers calculated the doctors cut patients off 11 seconds on average into a response, while those who were able to describe their issue in full needed only six seconds to do so.

“If done respectfully and with the patient’s best interest in mind, interruptions to the patient’s discourse may clarify or focus the conversation, and thus benefit patients,” says Singh Ospina. “Yet, it seems rather unlikely that an interruption, even to clarify or focus, could be beneficial at the early stage in the encounter.”

The results also showed that only 20% of specialists give patients the opportunity to describe their issue at the onset of a consultation, though it’s certainly possible because they’ve already been briefed on a patient’s problem through a referral or a nurse’s inquiry. Conversely, half of primary care physicians reviewed in the study inquired about a patient’s agenda off the bat.

 

 

source/read more: https://www.studyfinds.org/doctors-give-patients-11-seconds-describe-visit/

 

Full study here: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11606-018-4540-5

Behind closed doors, Guantánamo secret court talks about the CIA, torture and rights

21st July 2018

The CIA used an alleged accomplice in the Sept. 11 terror attacks as a test subject to train new interrogators. Agents diapered or left naked a one-legged CIA captive during his time in secret overseas detention. Taking showers still traumatizes the alleged USS Cole bomber, whom the CIA waterboarded in 2003.

These and other details emerged from McClatchy’s review of 1,300 pages of partially declassified transcripts of Guantánamo’s secret death-penalty case sessions that have been gradually made public since February.

Although still heavily redacted, the transcripts show a consistent theme across 30 hours of closed war-crimes hearings: When the public and accused terrorists aren’t allowed to listen, the legal arguments are often about the CIA’s secret overseas prison network, the circumstances of Guantánamo detention and how now outlawed Bush-era interrogation methods might affect future justice.

In 2002 and 2003, “Essentially the United States government is running a Turkish prison. And that’s an insult, probably, to Turkey, frankly,” Navy Cmdr. Brian Mizer, a defense attorney, told a judge in a May 2014 court argument initially labeled top secret.

To mount a proper death-penalty defense in the USS Cole bombing case, Mizer said, his team needs “the gritty, granular detail” of what U.S. agents did to Abd al Rahim al Nashiri, the Saudi man accused of plotting al-Qaida’s suicide bombing that killed 17 American sailors on Oct. 12, 2000. His jury needs to “smell the urine, the feces, the blood, the sweat and see just how vile and disgusting this process was.” Then, if Nashiri were convicted, defense lawyers can ask the jury, “Do you have to kill him now?”

The transcripts come from a renewed Pentagon effort to clear a four-year backlog of transcripts at the Guantánamo court. In December, the Sept. 11 trial judge, Army Col. James L. Pohl, complained to prosecutors that the government wasn’t following his order to “expeditiously” release an unclassified version of the transcripts for the public to see, according to the declassified tranche.

Before the transcripts were released, security officials blacked out portions that remain classified and began posting redacted versions on a Pentagon website in February.

What has emerged is a puzzling patchwork of information. Some full pages are blacked out. Sometimes the censors released only fragments of sentences, making for quirky reads like this, which came at the end of four full pages of remarks that are entirely blacked out: Army Brig. Gen. Mark Martins, the chief prosecutor, declares on Jan. 11, 2018, “When the transcript comes out, they’ll all be able to see all the stuff I just said because [REDACTED].”

Still, the transcripts yielded some intriguing information from hearings that were closed to both the public and the defendants:

  • Guantánamo’s covert lockup, Camp 7, was built in 2004. That was two years before the CIA delivered Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the accused chief plotter of the Sept. 11 attacks, and 13 other black-site captives to the island prison for trial. The year of construction, revealed in June 3, 2016, testimony, was long considered secret — so much so that the prison commander declined to answer the question during a meeting with reporters in June, even as he made a pitch for money from Congress to build a more efficient $69 million version, complete with a hospice wing for aging captives.
  • A defense attorney declared in May that from their September 2006 arrival at Guantánamo until January 2007, those accused of planning the Sept. 11 attacks were “essentially entirely CIA prisoners” — not strictly detainees of the U.S. military. “I’ve never disclosed that information to anybody,” defense attorney Jay Connell told the judge, according to a declassified transcript. In open court he had used an approved intelligence-community talking point that Camp 7 “continued under CIA operational control for some period of time.” Those four months matter because in January 2007 FBI agents interrogated the terror suspects to gather evidence apart from their years of CIA abuse. And now defense lawyers want the judge to exclude those so-called clean-team interrogations from trial as tainted by torture.
  • In CIA custody, alleged 9/11 plot deputy Walid bin Attash “was stripped of his clothes and photographed while nude; he was subjected to long periods of nudity; he was interrogated while nude,” defense attorney Cheryl Bormann told a war court judge on Feb. 25, 2016, a description that was not contained in the declassified section of the torture report released by the Senate intelligence committee. “When not forced to urinate and defecate into a diaper, he was forced to urinate and defecate into a bucket while monitored.”
  • In a January hearing, Air Force Capt. Brian Brady, a defense lawyer, told the judge that defense lawyers need to know what U.S. intelligence agencies are operating at Guantánamo. If there was an active presence of the National Security Agency or Defense Intelligence Agency at the detention center, Brady argued, lawyers might be able to argue that some trial evidence was manipulated by the intelligence community.
n an image obtained by McClatchy. The 9/11 charge sheet says he went by “Khallad,” an alias.

Pohl inquired: “Let’s say, for example, either the CIA or the detention facility themselves record a conversation, and then they forward the recording or the information to the NSA or the DIA. Would that be the type of involvement you’re talking about, or are you talking about the direct involvement at the time?” Brady replied: “Both, judge.”

In February 2007, Khalid Sheik Mohammed reportedly boasted to a military panel that he personally beheaded Wall Street Journal correspondent Daniel Pearl “with my blessed right hand.” Mohammed has never been charged with the 2002 murder in Pakistan. But in a passing remark at the same closed January session, prosecutor Bob Swann told the judge that Mohammed “has provided many statements” about the grisly beheading — leaving unclear whether they were obtained through surveillance or interrogations.

The transcripts also provide new details about day-to-day operations at Camp 7, for high-value detainees, such as the 9/11 plotters, who were waterboarded, sleep-deprived, had their heads slammed into walls and were subjected to forced rectal feeding or rehydration during their years of secret CIA custody:

  • A Navy medic and nurse are on duty around the clock but there generally is no after-hours doctor on site.
  • Each cell has an adjoining outdoor recreation yard that each inmate can open or close, one commander said.
  • At times the detention center has allowed communal prayer.
  • The U.S. military videotapes “forced cell extractions,” a tackle-and-shackle technique to remove a defiant inmate from a cell but troops don’t record when guards force a defiant captive into his cell.

In early 2016, two Pentagon intelligence programs classified above top secret called ACCMs, Alternative Compensatory Control Measures, were operating at Guantánamo. They were so highly classified that only the few officials who were deemd ACCM “indoctrinated” were allowed to stay in the courtroom while the measures were discussed. Any discussion of the program is blacked out in the released transcripts. Later that year, a transcript shows, one of the ACCMs had been disbanded. Their code names, however, are still secret.

Ecuador to hand over Assange to UK ‘in coming weeks or days,’

21st July 2018

Ecuador is ready to hand over the WikiLeaks founder to the UK in “coming weeks or even days,” RT editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan said citing her own sources, as prospects of his eviction from the embassy are back in the media.

“My sources tell [Julian] Assange will be handed over to Britain in the coming weeks or even days,” Simonyan wrote in a recent tweet which was reposted by WikiLeaks. “Like never before, I wish my sources were wrong,” she continued.

Simonyan’s message comes, as speculations Ecuador is in talks with the UK over the future of Assange are back again in British press. Earlier this week, the Times reported Britain is locked in top-tier discussions with the Ecuadorians in a bid to remove Assange from their London embassy.

Sir Alan Duncan, the Foreign Office minister, is said to be spearheading the diplomatic effort. Sources close to Assange said he himself was not aware of the talks but believed that America was putting “significant pressure” on Ecuador, including threatening to block a loan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) if he continues to stay at the embassy.

The Times report comes just weeks before a visit to the UK by the newly-elected Ecuadorian president Lenin Moreno, who has labeled Assange a “hacker”, an “inherited problem” and a “stone in the shoe.”

There have been other worrying signs indicating Assange is steadily becoming a troublemaker for Ecuador. In late March this year, the Ecuadorian government has suspended Assange’s communication privileges with the outside world, cutting off his Internet connection at the embassy.

The move was sparked by Assange’s alleged breach of an agreement to refrain from interfering in other states’ affairs. Previously, he blasted the Spanish government for cracking down on the Catalan independence movement.

Assange has been holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy since 2012 when he asked the Latin American state for asylum. The 47-year-old was wanted by Sweden on sexual assault allegations, but feared the extradition would lead to him being transferred to the US and prosecuted without a fair trial.

The US has been saying that Assange was “engaged in terrorism,” with Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, last year calling his arrest a “priority.” Over the years, WikiLeaks has published hundreds of thousands of classified US files, including the cables on the Iraq War, leaked by whistleblower Chelsea Manning in 2010.

 

 

 

 

source/read more:https://www.rt.com/news/433783-wikileaks-assange-ecuador-uk/

My Health Record: the Government wants to access your data until 30 years after you die

16th July 2018

Unless you opt-out by mid-October, the Federal Government will create an online record of your health details that it can access for the rest of your life and beyond – even if you ask for it to be deleted.

The Federal Government has budgeted more than $370 million to make digital health records for all Australians by the end of the year.

But privacy advocates are warning people to opt out of the database and IT specialists say it’s impossible to completely safeguard the information.

Every Australian will soon have a My Health Record — an online summary of their health information — unless they opt out over the next three months.

From Monday, Australians will have until October 15 to tell the Government they don’t want one. Otherwise, a record will automatically be created.

The project aims to give patients and doctors access to timely medical information — test results, referral letters and organ donation information, for starters — but there are concerns about the safety of some of our most personal, sensitive data.

We asked for your questions about the project on social media, and they ranged from police access to the platform’s cybersecurity.

The ABC sat down with Tim Kelsey, the head of the Australian Digital Health Agency (ADHA) and the man in charge of the initiative, to get them answered.

The way the record works

As a patient, how can I know if my My Health Record information is being maintained by my doctor?

You can choose to opt out and have no My Health Record.

But once you have one, doctors can upload health information into it unless you ask them not to.

When you see a doctor, you can discuss adding (or not) documents such as an overview of your health, a summary of prescribed medications and referral letters.

Remember, it’s not a comprehensive picture of your health — it will only contain what you and your doctors choose to upload, and will depend on the quality of those records.

When you first access the system, you’ll be asked to decide whether you want two years of Medicare Benefits Schedule, Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, Australian Immunisation Register, and Australian Organ Donor Register data to be uploaded.

But if your doctor accesses your record first before you make the selection yourself, this data will be uploaded automatically — unless you’ve opted to have no record at all.

If you want, you can delete or restrict access to those documents later.

Not all Australian hospitals and health services are connected to My Health Record yet, so that’s something to check during your next visit.

When I get a prescription, how do I know whether I need to ask to make an update to my My Health Record? Does this vary by provider?

Doctors can upload information about prescribed medications, but as discussed above, it’s worth discussing this each time you see your doctor.

What happens to your My Health Record after you die?

My Health Record information will be held for 30 years after your death. If that date isn’t known, then it’s kept for 130 years after your birth.

Will any private health insurance companies have access?

Insurers shouldn’t be able to access your record — it’s reserved for people who work for a registered healthcare provider and who are authorised to provide you with care.

There are plans to use aggregated, anonymised My Health Record data for research and other purposes — this is known as “secondary use”.

“My Health Record information can be used for research and public health purposes in either a de-identified form, or in an identified form if the use is expressly consented to by the consumer,” a Department of Health spokesperson said.

Currently, users of the platform can tick a box on the web portal to opt out of secondary use.

Secondary uses must be of public benefit and cannot be “solely” commercial, and insurance agencies will not be allowed to participate.

However, “the impact of this exclusion” will be considered when the Department of Health’s framework governing secondary use of My Health Record data is reviewed, according to the framework document.

Australian organisations (and some overseas, in certain circumstances), including Australian pharmaceutical companies, will be able to apply to access My Health Record data for approved secondary purposes.

“We don’t expect any data to flow until 2020,” Mr Kelsey added.

The opt-out period

How can I opt out?

There are three key ways:

  • By visiting www.myhealthrecord.gov.au and opting out using the online portal.
  • Over the phone by calling 1800 723 471.
  • Or on paper by completing a form and returning it by mail. Forms will be available in 2,385 rural and remote Australia Post outlets, through 146 Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations and in 136 prisons.

What happens to the people who end up with a My Health Record, and then decide to opt out?

If you don’t opt out between July 16 and October 15, then a record will be automatically created for you.

After October 15, there will be a “one-month reconciliation period” before new My Health Records are registered. These new records will be created mid-November.

You can then cancel that record, but the data it contained will still exist (although inaccessible to you or health providers) until 30 years after your death.

Is a record automatically generated if a doctor uploads a document during the opt-out period, even if you did not create one yourself?

According to the ADHA, doctors can’t upload any clinical documents to the My Health Record system unless the patient record exists.

What about children who aren’t born yet — can they opt out?

After the opt-out period, newly eligible healthcare recipients, such as immigrants to Australia and parents of newborn children, will be given the chance to elect not to have a My Health Record as part of their Medicare registration.

Protection of your data

Which service provider will manage the infrastructure to ensure it isn’t vulnerable to a cyber-attack?

The platform was built by the technology provider Accenture, however the ADHA is starting discussions about “re-platforming” it.

Independent third parties audit the system’s security and undertake penetration testing, according to Mr Kelsey, but security experts warn that it’s impossible to make any online database entirely bullet proof.

Remember too, that documents created or downloaded by your doctors may be stored in their local IT system too and depend on that system’s security.

If a doctor downloads files from My Health Record, what’s to stop her from sharing those files within the practice?

By default, your online documents will be accessible to your healthcare providers.

If you have privacy concerns, you can log onto My Health Record and restrict who sees it:

  • You can set a Record Access Code and give it only to healthcare professionals you want to access your record.
  • If you want to restrict certain documents, you can set a Limited Document Access Code.

These controls may be overridden in an emergency.

As mentioned above, if a document is removed from the My Health Record system, it’s beyond the reach of your access controls.

If a GP were to allow another staff member to access a record, what is the potential punishment?

If someone accesses your My Health Record without legal authorisation and the person “knows or is reckless to that fact”, criminal and civil penalties may apply.

Where can users see information about who has accessed their record?

My Health Record users will be able to see who has looked at their record by checking its access history online.

They’ll be able to see when it was accessed, which organisation accessed it and what was done — documents being added, modified or removed, for example — but not the individual doctor who accessed it.

You can also set up an email or SMS alert for when a healthcare organisation accesses your record for the first time.

The privacy commissioner recommends checking regularly for unexpected or unauthorised access. You can call the ADHA on 1800 723 471 if you think something’s gone wrong.

Several apps can connect to My Health Record. How will the ADHA ensure they are secure?

Apps such as Healthi and Health Engine, which recently ran into trouble, are authorised by the ADHA to “show” people their health record.

According to Mr Kelsey, third party app developers can only display your My Health Record — “at the moment, it’s view-only” — and cannot store that data.

OPT OUT HERE: 1800 723 471.  https://optout.myhealthrecord.gov.au/pext/optoutextweb/views/getStarted.xhtml

 

source/read more: http://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/am/my-health-record-data-access-for-30-years-after-death/9989172

and

http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-07-15/my-health-record-questions-answers-security-privacy-police/9959622

 

New road signs can detect mobile phones are being used in vehicles

 

11th july 2018

Road signs that know when a mobile phone is being used in a moving vehicle are being installed in Norfolk, in a bid to tackle usage behind the wheel.

The system, which can tell the difference between active phone calls and other activities based on the strength of a signal and how long it lasts, flashes up a red warning signal to drivers when it detects a call.

The technology cannot yet log number plates or be used to help catch offending drivers, but it is hoped it will act as a deterrent.

Holding a phone while driving was outlawed in the UK in 2003 but 23% of people admitted to taking a call in last year’s RAC Report on Motoring.

Inspector Jonathan Chapman from Norfolk Roads Policing said: “This scheme is a good example of how we can work with local authorities to make using a mobile phone whilst driving as socially unacceptable as drink or drug-driving.

“Any scheme which prevents this kind of behaviour is welcomed. Using a mobile phone at the wheel is one of the fatal four road offences which can have devastating consequences if it causes a fatal or serious collision.

“We will be using the information provided by Norfolk County Council’s road safety team to help us target drivers in the future but the message is simple – leave your phone alone whilst you’re behind the wheel.”

Norfolk County Council’s road safety team have worked with speed and warning sign specialists Westcotec on deploying the next-level signs, which are a first for UK roads.

The system is able to simultaneously detect bluetooth signals so that anyone legally in a call via their car’s speakers is not wrongly issued a warning.

Although the signs are unable to log offending number plates, such a feature is being considered for development in the future. There is also no facility for the signs to record footage.

For now, a counter will keep track of phone usage on the road to help authorities understand driver habits.

Diane Steiner, deputy director of public health said: “Our priority in public health is to make Norfolk a healthy and safe place to live and the new technology enables us to provide a reminder to drivers who may be using their handset whilst driving.

 

 

 

 

 

source:http://home.bt.com/tech-gadgets/tech-news/new-road-signs-can-detect-mobile-phones-are-being-used-in-vehicles-11364282956723