Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Privacy Protection (privacy + protection)
Selected AbstractsPrivacy protection, health care and quality controlQUALITY ASSURANCE JOURNAL, Issue 3 2002Rudolf Bruppacher Abstract In the past three decades, patient rights on the one hand, and health care and research activities in health services on the other hand, have experienced unprecedented development. Requirements of privacy protection, particularly the restrictions on ,secondary analysis' of health data, have become a problem in an increasingly complex health care environment and have become a hindrance to research. Legal regulations have developed differently in different countries. Recent attempts, such as the European Community directive on privacy protection promise effective harmonization, at least for developed countries. However, many questions regarding their interpretation remain and they are discussed in this article. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source] Privacy and Commercial Use of Personal Data: Policy Developments in the United StatesJOURNAL OF CONTINGENCIES AND CRISIS MANAGEMENT, Issue 1 2003Priscilla Regan In the online and offline worlds, the value of personal information , especially information about commercial purchases and preferences , has long been recognised. Exchanges and uses of personal information have also long sparked concerns about privacy. Public opinion surveys consistently indicate that overwhelming majorities of the American public are concerned that they have lost all control over information about themselves and do not trust organisations to protect the privacy of their information. Somewhat smaller majorities favour federal legislation to protect privacy. Despite public support for stronger privacy protection, the prevailing policy stance for over thirty years has been one of reluctance to legislate and a preference for self-regulation by business to protect privacy. Although some privacy legislation has been adopted, policy debates about the commercial uses of personal information have been dominated largely by business concerns about intrusive government regulation, free speech and the flow of commercial information, costs, and effectiveness. Public concerns about privacy, reflected in public opinion surveys and voiced by a number of public interest groups, are often discredited because individuals seem to behave as though privacy is not important. Although people express concern about privacy, they routinely disclose personal information because of convenience, discounts and other incentives, or a lack of understanding of the consequences. This disconnect between public opinion and public behaviour has been interpreted to support a self-regulatory approach to privacy protections with emphasis on giving individuals notice and choice about information practices. In theory the self-regulatory approach also entails some enforcement mechanism to ensure that organisations are doing what they claim, and a redress mechanism by which individuals can seek compensation if they are wronged. This article analyses the course of policy formulation over the last twenty years with particular attention on how policymakers and stakeholders have used public opinion about the commercial use of personal information in formulating policy to protect privacy. The article considers policy activities in both Congress and the Federal Trade Commission that have resulted in an emphasis on "notice and consent." The article concludes that both individual behaviour and organisational behaviour are skewed in a privacy invasive direction. People are less likely to make choices to protect their privacy unless these choices are relatively easy, obvious, and low cost. If a privacy protection choice entails additional steps, most rational people will not take those steps. This appears logically to be true and to be supported by behaviour in the physical world. Organisations are unlikely to act unilaterally to make their practices less privacy invasive because such actions will impose costs on them that are not imposed on their competitors. Overall then, the privacy level available is less than what the norms of society and the stated preferences of people require. A consent scheme that is most protective of privacy imposes the largest burden on the individual, as well as costs to the individual, while a consent scheme that is least protective of privacy imposes the least burden on the individual, as well as fewer costs to the individual. Recent experience with privacy notices that resulted from the financial privacy provisions in Gramm-Leach-Bliley supports this conclusion. Finally, the article will consider whether the terrorist attacks of 11 September have changed public opinion about privacy and what the policy implications of any changes in public opinion are likely to be. [source] Privacy protection, health care and quality controlQUALITY ASSURANCE JOURNAL, Issue 3 2002Rudolf Bruppacher Abstract In the past three decades, patient rights on the one hand, and health care and research activities in health services on the other hand, have experienced unprecedented development. Requirements of privacy protection, particularly the restrictions on ,secondary analysis' of health data, have become a problem in an increasingly complex health care environment and have become a hindrance to research. Legal regulations have developed differently in different countries. Recent attempts, such as the European Community directive on privacy protection promise effective harmonization, at least for developed countries. However, many questions regarding their interpretation remain and they are discussed in this article. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source] A social network service solution based on mobile subscriber contact-booksBELL LABS TECHNICAL JOURNAL, Issue 1 2010Xiang Feng Telecom carriers today are focused on finding ways to leverage their resources and capabilities to transform themselves into integrated service providers. Provisioning of social networking services is one of their considerations; however, the Web 2.0 social networking paradigm is not a good fit for carriers. This paper introduces a solution to address this need. The solution integrates the contacts list subscribers maintain within their cell phone contact-book with a subscriber profile maintained by the telecom carrier to provide a social network and social networking service built upon real world relationships rather than digital world relationships. It uses a built-in communication mechanism and subscriber-driven privacy management system to ensure subscriber privacy protection. It also provides an avenue for a new operator service model. In short, the solution lets carriers provide their customers with useful and reliable social networking services in a trusted and secure environment. © 2010 Alcatel-Lucent. [source] U.S. Federal Regulations for Emergency Research: A Practical Guide and CommentaryACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE, Issue 1 2008Andrew McRae MD Abstract Emergency medicine research requires the enrollment of subjects with varying decision-making capacities, including capable adults, adults incapacitated by illness or injury, and children. These different categories of subjects are protected by multiple federal regulations. These include the federal Common Rule, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) regulations for pediatric research, and the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Final Rule for the Exception from the Requirements of Informed Consent in Emergency Situations. Investigators should be familiar with the relevant federal research regulations to optimally protect vulnerable research subjects, and to facilitate the institutional review board (IRB) review process. IRB members face particular challenges in reviewing emergency research. No regulations exist for research enrolling incapacitated subjects using proxy consent. The wording of the Final Rule may not optimally protect vulnerable subjects. It is also difficult to apply conflicting regulations to a single study that enrolls subjects with differing decision-making capacities. This article is intended as a guide for emergency researchers and IRB members who review emergency research. It reviews the elements of Federal Regulations that apply to consent, subject selection, privacy protection, and the analysis of risks and benefits in all emergency research. It explores the challenges for IRB review listed above, and offers potential solutions to these problems. [source] Data Governance and Stewardship: Designing Data Stewardship Entities and Advancing Data AccessHEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH, Issue 5p2 2010Sara Rosenbaum U.S. health policy is engaged in a struggle over access to health information, in particular, the conditions under which information should be accessible for research when appropriate privacy protections and security safeguards are in place. The expanded use of health information,an inevitable step in an information age,is widely considered be essential to health system reform. Models exist for the creation of data-sharing arrangements that promote proper use of information in a safe and secure environment and with attention to ethical standards. Data stewardship is a concept with deep roots in the science and practice of data collection, sharing, and analysis. Reflecting the values of fair information practice, data stewardship denotes an approach to the management of data, particularly data that can identify individuals. The concept of a data steward is intended to convey a fiduciary (or trust) level of responsibility toward the data. Data governance is the process by which responsibilities of stewardship are conceptualized and carried out. As the concept of health information data stewardship advances in a technology-enabled environment, the question is whether legal barriers to data access and use will begin to give way. One possible answer may lie in defining the public interest in certain data uses, tying provider participation in federal health programs to the release of all-payer data to recognized data stewardship entities for aggregation and management, and enabling such entities to foster and enable the creation of knowledge through research. [source] Privacy and Commercial Use of Personal Data: Policy Developments in the United StatesJOURNAL OF CONTINGENCIES AND CRISIS MANAGEMENT, Issue 1 2003Priscilla Regan In the online and offline worlds, the value of personal information , especially information about commercial purchases and preferences , has long been recognised. Exchanges and uses of personal information have also long sparked concerns about privacy. Public opinion surveys consistently indicate that overwhelming majorities of the American public are concerned that they have lost all control over information about themselves and do not trust organisations to protect the privacy of their information. Somewhat smaller majorities favour federal legislation to protect privacy. Despite public support for stronger privacy protection, the prevailing policy stance for over thirty years has been one of reluctance to legislate and a preference for self-regulation by business to protect privacy. Although some privacy legislation has been adopted, policy debates about the commercial uses of personal information have been dominated largely by business concerns about intrusive government regulation, free speech and the flow of commercial information, costs, and effectiveness. Public concerns about privacy, reflected in public opinion surveys and voiced by a number of public interest groups, are often discredited because individuals seem to behave as though privacy is not important. Although people express concern about privacy, they routinely disclose personal information because of convenience, discounts and other incentives, or a lack of understanding of the consequences. This disconnect between public opinion and public behaviour has been interpreted to support a self-regulatory approach to privacy protections with emphasis on giving individuals notice and choice about information practices. In theory the self-regulatory approach also entails some enforcement mechanism to ensure that organisations are doing what they claim, and a redress mechanism by which individuals can seek compensation if they are wronged. This article analyses the course of policy formulation over the last twenty years with particular attention on how policymakers and stakeholders have used public opinion about the commercial use of personal information in formulating policy to protect privacy. The article considers policy activities in both Congress and the Federal Trade Commission that have resulted in an emphasis on "notice and consent." The article concludes that both individual behaviour and organisational behaviour are skewed in a privacy invasive direction. People are less likely to make choices to protect their privacy unless these choices are relatively easy, obvious, and low cost. If a privacy protection choice entails additional steps, most rational people will not take those steps. This appears logically to be true and to be supported by behaviour in the physical world. Organisations are unlikely to act unilaterally to make their practices less privacy invasive because such actions will impose costs on them that are not imposed on their competitors. Overall then, the privacy level available is less than what the norms of society and the stated preferences of people require. A consent scheme that is most protective of privacy imposes the largest burden on the individual, as well as costs to the individual, while a consent scheme that is least protective of privacy imposes the least burden on the individual, as well as fewer costs to the individual. Recent experience with privacy notices that resulted from the financial privacy provisions in Gramm-Leach-Bliley supports this conclusion. Finally, the article will consider whether the terrorist attacks of 11 September have changed public opinion about privacy and what the policy implications of any changes in public opinion are likely to be. [source] | |||||||||||||