Using mined data, protected speech?

[Redfraggle]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13190004

An excerpt:

Selling data Pharmacies then sell the data to data mining companies, which then aggregate the information and sell it to pharmaceutical companies, which in turn use it in marketing to doctors the drugs they are prescribing (or should prescribe).
At some early point in this process, information which would identify patients is said to be deleted by the companies.
But in 2007, Vermont took its concerns about this commercial paradigm one step further. It enacted a law designed to protect the privacy rights of doctors and patients and to encourage the prescription of non-generic drugs (whose makers generally do not use data mining as a marketing tool).
Arguing that such a law violated their first amendment "commercial speech" rights to the use of the information, the data mining companies sued.


(bolding mine)



Am I understanding this properly? They say that using the mined data is part of their free speech??



The whole article is very interesting (though incomplete imo) and a little bizarre.



I get why information is collected, but I disagree with the extent and the following use. And I highly dispute that using private information like that is Constitutional. Also, I guess HIPAA has no impact on such collection and use?

 

[dmcowen674]

Am I understanding this properly? They say that using the mined data is part of their free speech??

The whole article is very interesting (though incomplete imo) and a little bizarre.

I get why information is collected, but I disagree with the extent and the following use. And I highly dispute that using private information like that is Constitutional. Also, I guess HIPAA has no impact on such collection and use?

But think of the profits

 

[Throckmorton]

LOL. Everything is "free speech" these days. Corporate campaign donations, data mining, harassing people at funerals...

 

[JTsyo]

Pretty soon you'll be able to discharge fire arms into the air as part of your "free speech" to celebrate. Then comes hitting people to show your displeasure at them.

 

[wuliheron]

We've got the best free speech money can buy. Just as Julian Assange. Vermont is just holding out for more money.

 

[Thump553]

NPR did an excellent feature on this case this morning and IMO fairly presented the gist of both sides arguments. Here's a link but the audio won't be on the web until after 7 PM. Well worth a listen:

http://www.npr.org/2011/04/26/135745195/supreme-court-hears-case-on-data-mining

My best guess: Since VT lets Medicare and insurance companies access to the same database they are going to have a rough time convincing the Supreme Court. This could throw open the floodgates to selling of all sorts of data mined info.

 

[Redfraggle]

This could throw open the floodgates to selling of all sorts of data mined info.

This is the problem I have with it. I don't agree with giving away my rights to my information. Just because you know it, doesn't give you the right to do whatever you want with it. Unless I am given the opportunity to opt out at some point (and visibly so, not in some obscure way), I consider it little more than theft to take my personal, private information and do whatever you want with it just because it was there.

Oh and thanks for the radio link, I'll give it a listen tonight.

 

[bfdd]

if you don't want your information mined by these data miners, keep it to yourself. i don't know why people think they have the right to privacy when using things or services others offer. Unless explicitly told they aren't going to do anything with the data, it should be assumed they will.

 

[wuliheron]

This is the problem I have with it. I don't agree with giving away my rights to my information. Just because you know it, doesn't give you the right to do whatever you want with it. Unless I am given the opportunity to opt out at some point (and visibly so, not in some obscure way), I consider it little more than theft to take my personal, private information and do whatever you want with it just because it was there.

Oh and thanks for the radio link, I'll give it a listen tonight.

You aren't giving away your rights. There's nothing in the constitution about the right to privacy. Gossip is what made American great and the right to sell juicy tidbits to whoever is an old tradition. If you want your medical information to remain entirely private you'll just have to pay for that privilege.

 

[Thump553]

if you don't want your information mined by these data miners, keep it to yourself. i don't know why people think they have the right to privacy when using things or services others offer. Unless explicitly told they aren't going to do anything with the data, it should be assumed they will.

In this particular case you have absolutely no control over it. The data is from pharmacies, and it is required to be kept by law (basically what each doctor prescribes, how often, what they switch from in Rxs, etc). The VT law permitted the doctors to opt out of the data mining-it is that opting out that the objection is about. The individual patient never had any rights to opt out (supposedly the data is set up so individual patients can't be identified).

 

[Redfraggle]

You aren't giving away your rights. There's nothing in the constitution about the right to privacy. Gossip is what made American great and the right to sell juicy tidbits to whoever is an old tradition. If you want your medical information to remain entirely private you'll just have to pay for that privilege.

No, but the Bill of Rights does, and that's where the article in question bases its argument as well.


For your edification:

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html

 

[Redfraggle]

if you don't want your information mined by these data miners, keep it to yourself. i don't know why people think they have the right to privacy when using things or services others offer. Unless explicitly told they aren't going to do anything with the data, it should be assumed they will.

I'd love to, but we aren't always given the choice. That's part of the problem. Just because you have the data, which was expressly gathered for one purpose, shouldn't give you the right to use it however you want simply because you can -- particularly when those two purposes have nothing in common. Gathering prescription data to keep statistics is one thing, using that information to market to specific doctors and patients without the patients' consent to use their information is another. Now you are profiting from my personal information without ever notifying me, nor giving me the choice to opt out.

Quite honestly, I would rather they didn't keep any of my information. However, I, like everyone, need medical services and prescriptions.

I don't agree, at all, that you taking my information without my knowledge or consent for profit is protected First Amendment speech.

 

[wuliheron]

No, but the Bill of Rights does, and that's where the article in question bases its argument as well.

For your edification:

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html

What a crock of shit. The fed has the entire internet and phone system plugged directly into their computers. Vermont might as well argue that someone digging through their trash is a personal violation while they bend over and grease their ass for the landlord.