▲ 1143 ▼ Woman Calls Out Doctor Wearing Smart Glasses During Consultation Where She Had To Take Off Her Clothes: 'They Need To Be Banned' (www.fashiontimes.co.uk) submitted 3 days ago by sanitation@lemmy.today to c/technology@lemmy.world 350 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] mursejoy@lemmy.zip 77 points 3 days ago (2 children) Especially since whatever footage is shot is certainly going to meta servers. Insane to even think this is remotely okay. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] grepe@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago* (2 children) ianal but that alone is probably a serious breach of hipaa for which the doctor should be slammed edit: i just realised that article is not from the u. s. and a. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] trebach@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 day ago The UK has the Data Processing Act of 2018 and this would violate that law as well. It's probably stricter because it includes the GDPR by reference. permalink fedilink source parent [–] rumba@lemmy.zip 4 points 3 days ago (1 child) The HIPAA rules are full of "Observe best practices" and "Take reasonable precautions" terms. This obviously flies in the face of that, but they use weasel terms for a reason. They'll have a compliance officer, who would note these kinds of things, but honestly, it's not until there's a breach and investigation that anything actually happens. Nobody gets slammed about HIPAA until someone's records are actually visibly seen by someone else. The corporation involved would need to take preventive action against the doctor for being reckless, which honestly never happens anywhere I've been. Because this made the news, he might get a talking-to and a policy put in place. I'd give it 70:30 because it's a particularly bad look on wherever he was practicing. Now if he was also the compliance officer for the practice, or it was a one-man band, nothing will actually happen. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago Nah, something like this, they'd have to fire him at the least to save face. Plus it opens him up to personal liability in a civil suit. permalink fedilink source parent [–] radiofreebc@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (1 child) Yeah, you'd think that all recordings would have to be local...and not on the cloud. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 0x0@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 days ago Most likely they've outsourced their infrastructure anyway... permalink fedilink source parent
[–] grepe@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago* (2 children) ianal but that alone is probably a serious breach of hipaa for which the doctor should be slammed edit: i just realised that article is not from the u. s. and a. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] trebach@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 day ago The UK has the Data Processing Act of 2018 and this would violate that law as well. It's probably stricter because it includes the GDPR by reference. permalink fedilink source parent [–] rumba@lemmy.zip 4 points 3 days ago (1 child) The HIPAA rules are full of "Observe best practices" and "Take reasonable precautions" terms. This obviously flies in the face of that, but they use weasel terms for a reason. They'll have a compliance officer, who would note these kinds of things, but honestly, it's not until there's a breach and investigation that anything actually happens. Nobody gets slammed about HIPAA until someone's records are actually visibly seen by someone else. The corporation involved would need to take preventive action against the doctor for being reckless, which honestly never happens anywhere I've been. Because this made the news, he might get a talking-to and a policy put in place. I'd give it 70:30 because it's a particularly bad look on wherever he was practicing. Now if he was also the compliance officer for the practice, or it was a one-man band, nothing will actually happen. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago Nah, something like this, they'd have to fire him at the least to save face. Plus it opens him up to personal liability in a civil suit. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] trebach@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 day ago The UK has the Data Processing Act of 2018 and this would violate that law as well. It's probably stricter because it includes the GDPR by reference. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 4 points 3 days ago (1 child) The HIPAA rules are full of "Observe best practices" and "Take reasonable precautions" terms. This obviously flies in the face of that, but they use weasel terms for a reason. They'll have a compliance officer, who would note these kinds of things, but honestly, it's not until there's a breach and investigation that anything actually happens. Nobody gets slammed about HIPAA until someone's records are actually visibly seen by someone else. The corporation involved would need to take preventive action against the doctor for being reckless, which honestly never happens anywhere I've been. Because this made the news, he might get a talking-to and a policy put in place. I'd give it 70:30 because it's a particularly bad look on wherever he was practicing. Now if he was also the compliance officer for the practice, or it was a one-man band, nothing will actually happen. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago Nah, something like this, they'd have to fire him at the least to save face. Plus it opens him up to personal liability in a civil suit. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago Nah, something like this, they'd have to fire him at the least to save face. Plus it opens him up to personal liability in a civil suit. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] radiofreebc@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (1 child) Yeah, you'd think that all recordings would have to be local...and not on the cloud. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 0x0@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 days ago Most likely they've outsourced their infrastructure anyway... permalink fedilink source parent
[–] 0x0@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 days ago Most likely they've outsourced their infrastructure anyway... permalink fedilink source parent