Let's be clear, the intention is for the UK Government to make money off your medical data.
If Seagate wanted to make money off your RMA'd hard drive and they thought the data on it would do the trick, you can bet it would be for sale on the open market.
If the law says that is illegal, Seagate does not have the option to change it. However, the Government can simply change the law to make whatever they want to do 'legal' and their problem is solved. That's essentially what they've done here.
Large 'healthcare' companies interested in this data are more than just health providers, they have multiple divisions with multiple competing and tangential aims and targets. Just because a piece of paper says it can only be used in one way, that is not going to stop the re-use (and leaking) of the data.
Remember the UK had bankers totally screwing the country and got rewarded with massive bail-outs - I don't recall any jail time for their bad behaviour [in the UK]; quite the reverse. Any social science student will be able to cite many examples of companies shielding individuals from the consequences of their bad behaviour - it's a whole subject area.
The UK government sets up QUANGOs specifically to shift liability and risk to prevent consequences; a Scottish care home where elderly people were burned to death escaped prosecution as the legal entity was simply shut down and dissolved prior to the court case starting [this did bring about legislation changes to close that avenue in Scotland http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-17740645]. There are dozens of ways to get away with abusing the data and walk away free - if you're going to make a lot of money, you can afford good lawyers to help you prepare well ahead.
Sorry, but I don't agree with the premise and the first line of your comment. Much of the rest I do agree with.
The NHS (not "the government" - which is an emotionally charged noun in this sort of circumstance) is selling the data. They are in financial difficulty, yes, but they are also responsible for broad social-health in the UK.
The NHS is in an almost unique position world-wide, in that they have access to high quality data that can dramatically improve health at an international level. They aren't, however, a research group. Companies just do research better than government departments, and finding a balanced way to improve access to the data and improve social health is critical to the NHS's future as the population ages.
This is why they are selling health data, imho.
I think there's a balance to be struck. The global and NHS specific improvements in health need to be balanced against individual privacy.
Unfortunately, the only way to do this is through "pieces of paper" (again, an emotive term).
It's also worth mentioning that many of these pieces of paper have already been in place for years, where they have been sharing hospital data. So to some degree this extends an exiting structure that is already working. It's just more emotive to many people since it involves a centralised location, and their local GPs.
I'd rather have a centralised location with oversight fighting down a multinational, than my local GP trying to manage legal contracts with them.
It's difficult to respond to your specific examples. Some are completely valid. Some are (imho) not. "Mistakes were made" and mistakes will be made in the future.
It's complicated, and it's a balancing act. Personally, I think it's the right balance.
If Seagate wanted to make money off your RMA'd hard drive and they thought the data on it would do the trick, you can bet it would be for sale on the open market.
If the law says that is illegal, Seagate does not have the option to change it. However, the Government can simply change the law to make whatever they want to do 'legal' and their problem is solved. That's essentially what they've done here.
Large 'healthcare' companies interested in this data are more than just health providers, they have multiple divisions with multiple competing and tangential aims and targets. Just because a piece of paper says it can only be used in one way, that is not going to stop the re-use (and leaking) of the data.
Remember the UK had bankers totally screwing the country and got rewarded with massive bail-outs - I don't recall any jail time for their bad behaviour [in the UK]; quite the reverse. Any social science student will be able to cite many examples of companies shielding individuals from the consequences of their bad behaviour - it's a whole subject area.
The UK government sets up QUANGOs specifically to shift liability and risk to prevent consequences; a Scottish care home where elderly people were burned to death escaped prosecution as the legal entity was simply shut down and dissolved prior to the court case starting [this did bring about legislation changes to close that avenue in Scotland http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-17740645]. There are dozens of ways to get away with abusing the data and walk away free - if you're going to make a lot of money, you can afford good lawyers to help you prepare well ahead.
Why would it be different for your health data ?