[ Date Index ][
Thread Index ]
[ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
> Okay the script snippet you gave worked fine on my Debian Woody > box, stable distro, which is Python 2.1.3, ldapobject v 1.18 > (dated 2002/02/02), and openldap (rats the laptop battery just > died but 2.0.23 I think - email if this is important). > eg l = ldap.initialize() versus ldap.open() OK, it may be the implementation of LDAP which is on another box. I'll look harder at that end. > Iterating over the search results to print them out was beyond > my (non-existent) python skill, > Curiously one of my friends is now working on a project at NHSIA > to build something on top of the planned patient records system, > I did ask what their plan was if the patient record system never > happens - my cynicism wasn't appreciated. It would be nice if certain open source groups were in a position to offer a fallback suggestion on that. > Has anyone actually asked what proportion of patients want to > have their records securely transferred, as a lot of security > effort could be saved for those of us who aren't overly > concerned over the privacy of the data Yes. Depending who you are and what you would like to be the result the answers reported are divergent. I think that most people feel that most of their records are not sensitive as far as getting them to most doctors and nurses with whom they have, or at a pinch _have had_ or _may have_ clinical contact with. However many people feel there might be some things they don't want easily leakable, occasionally or in unlikely circumstances, and a considerable plurality felt that the first efforts at a provacy policy:- "Your notes can only be accessed by members of the NHS family" NHS family = 1 000 000 people working in the NHS "Sometimes the NHS will be liasing with social services and other agencies and your notes will only go that far.." Getting a bit loose there... > ... being treated by someone who has my medical record is > more important to me). There was the Exmouth Care Card trial a few years ago - well, finished 1990 I think. The Honeywell Bull cards didn't have enough storage space then, but do now, to keep a set of results, a list of medication and a summary on for instance. I favour smart arse technology - a chip in the buttock read and written through a loop antenna in the patient chair - but there are a few problems with it. > At least I'm not sure I'd want to be the first person to have my > records spread on the Internet for all to see, How about encrypted with a 4096 bit key by GNU PG and you carry the private key required around with you as a bar code? The actual deliberate sabotage of any encryption project outside the inner club of powerful ministries (DoH isn't powerful, not in that sense) is thought to have ceased, however the knowledge that interest in the use of encryption, coupled with apparent understanding of it leads to career malprogression had become ingrained into the managerial culture in the manner of the experiment with the monkeys, bananas step ladder and firehose, and the behaviour persists to this day. > What was it Scott McNealy say "privacy is dead, get over it" ? You have _no_ privacy. Get over it! was how I recalled it, but the top quote on it seems to be "You have zero privacy anyway -- get over it," Scott McNealy told a group of reporters and analysts Monday night at an event to launch his company's new Jini technology. "Privacy is dead, deal with it " is also visible. It is fair to say that this did not meet with universal agreement nor approval, and that his nickname no doubt affectionate appears to be "the mouth". -- From one of the Linux desktops of Dr Adrian Midgley http://www.defoam.net/ -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG Mail majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe list" in the message body to unsubscribe.