I'm surprised the AMA, insurance companies or the US government haven't built a simple website that compares the drugs used to treat various conditions to combat the problem of people switching drugs because they are new or are heavily advertised.
While a layman can't be expected to fully understand the benefits/drawbacks/interactions of a drug in detail, it seems like it should be possible to have an easy to understand grid of positives, negatives, retail price, etc. that would make comparing say, the brand new bipolar drug to old generic lithium.
> The first rule of sales is to pitch the decision maker. You can't buy prescription drugs without a doctor's authorization, so basically the ads are asking people to go beg their doctors for medicine they may, or may not, need. The doctor, in turn, may give in to the patient's emotional pleas, since they are, in effect, in a customer service business. This would be an ethical violation.
I think most of these ads are targeted to people who are already taking a drug for a condition. They want people to ask their doctor to switch to their drug - something a doctor would have far less ethical issues with.
The problem of course is people switch away from a drug that has worked for 40 years to something new because of advertising and their insurance (and in turn, all of us) ends up picking up the cost for something that may have no benefit whatsoever to the patient.
Others are so brutally generic that they could apply to almost anyone: "Do you feel tired regularly? Have trouble getting going? Talk to your doctor about xxx".
Whilst I realize a lot of this is coded talk for "Do you suffer depression?" for people who might not have realized or be willing to acknowledge it as such, the sheer number of conditions for which "lethargy" is a symptom...
An Italian citizen can hold Germany accountable for implementing and enforcing EU privacy laws and directives (through the EU courts). If that doesn't give him sufficient legal standing he can vote for representatives to pass stricter EU legislation.
Even if the US passed identical data protection laws as the EU, the NSA would still have the ability to do what they did legally since EU data protection laws have exceptions for national defense and national security.
It appears that the EU wants the US to pass laws that are stronger than their own.
There are exemptions for national security, but they have to be proportionate (and if you read the judgment of the court, they're pointing at a high bar there) and non-discriminatory with regards to citizenship.
Part of the problem with SH was the fact that there was no legal recourse at all for EU citizens.
Also, let's not forget that the CJEU stuck down the Data Retention Directive recently - so they are enforcing this human right against EU member states. They just have to wait for the right referral to their court.
I think it would be very interesting if the civil courts of the US and EU each forced the other entity into passing stronger privacy protections than they have currently. Specifically, I'm thinking of a scenario where the collapse of Safe Harbor helps force Congress into passing meaningful privacy legislation and drastically curtailing the NSAs overbroad powers and mandates, and the US then turns around to the EU and says "ok, now it's your turn. If we can't spy on everybody, then neither can you."
In this case, the notebook was long known to be there, but the relevant section had been cataloged as a "verse-by-verse bible commentary". What was discovered was that the verses are part of a draft for a new bible, instead of just being verses copied from an existing bible.
Fun fact about archives: a lot of the time, people have no idea what's actually stored in them. Obviously the University didn't know they had the bible or didn't know what it was because of a lack of bookkeeping. Now they know.
I feel compelled to mention here that archives and libraries aren't the same thing.
Libraries do (or should do) collections management, whereby the librarians go through the records and find out which resources aren't being used and weed them. Ideally, if it isn't used, it's taking up space, and it's gone. This is balanced by acquisition, such that the net effect is a constant churn of what's there, so there shouldn't be much chance for anything to sit and molder where nobody knows where, let alone what, it is.
Archives don't do collections management of that sort. They do preservation, and ideally they never get rid of anything. Moldering (in a metaphorical, but hopefully not physical!) sense is very possible in an archive.
well, the University of Cambridge was founded in 1209 and presumably their libraries have been collecting moldy old books ever since (it is the second-oldest university in the English-speaking world, after Oxford).
It's not exactly surprising that they might have forgotten or misplaced a few things.
The EU's data protection laws have exemptions for the prevention, detection and prosecution of criminal offenses as well as national security and defense. I don't see why law enforcement in Europe couldn't do the exact same thing as was done here.
> and be assured that Amazon won't move your data into another region.
Is this true? If Amazon received a US subpoena requiring them to provide a copy of data on EU-West-1, is violating EU privacy laws a reason to deny a seemingly lawful court order? After all, it is against the law in the US to withhold the information.
The U.S. did exactly that with some data Microsoft had stored on Irish servers, which was subpoenaed by an American court. Microsoft lost initially, because while the data was in Europe, the subpoena was only served to Microsoft US, which had access to the data, and could therefore validly be required to hand it over under US law. The appeal is still being litigated . Microsoft is very interested in fighting the case, because they've been heavily advertising cloud services to European customers on the promise that the data will be stored in Europe and accessed only according to European laws. If they lose, they may have to either give up that claim, or move to a more fully segmented model where access credentials to data in EU-based datacenters are restricted to EU-based employees.
Spot on. If Microsoft lose this case then both Azure and AWS have major problems. I do wonder though whether they can simply restructure their corporations so that they have a European arm that is completely independent legally from the US one. Maybe that will solve the NSA and EU legal problems.
1. You can still (as a user) avail yourself of user of AWS (aka "you") controlled encryption for most of the relevant data at rest.
2. There is still a legal hurdle for the US to provide a subpoena for data which doesn't reside in the US to be brought into the US and provided. I'm no legal expert, but I doubt that's going to be as simple as "because we said we want to look at it" as this is an issue of sovereignty of the counterpart nation, particularly given that the EU high court has just ruled that the export of this data is contrary to EU law.
Of the two, #1 has significant mathematical assurance.
#1 doesn't really help if you also want to use EC2, Lambda, etc.
#2 assumes that the US national security apparatus is playing by international law, which the EU may not want to assume. Like the EU cookie law, regardless of the intentions behind the ruling/law, what matters for me as a developer is what the law thinks I should do to protect my users, not what I think I should do.
Yeah, but there's unfortunately a difference between wanting to use Lambda and needing to use Lambda, and I'm pretty sure that even an EU court can tell the difference. "We hosted in America because only Amazon supports Lambda." "OK, and what does Lambda do?" "It runs code for us when we tell it to." "And there are no European services that run code for you when you tell them to?" "Uhh...."
My point was that when you're considering what technology/hosting/cloud provider to use, you are balancing a variety of factors and very few people should weigh "can be attacked legally by the US govt" with weight of 1.0 and all other factors with weight 0.0.
Some businesses will weigh the US risk as 0.1; others at 0.001 and even those that weigh it at 0.1 might be better off choosing a provider with a higher risk of that in exchange for a richer catalog of building block services.
I don't know. The EU's own website on data protection refers to your name and photographs as private information that is subject to privacy protection laws.
> Individuals regularly disclose personal information such as their names, photographs, telephone numbers, birth date and address while engaged in a whole range of everyday activities.This personal data may be collected and processed for a wide variety of legitimate purposes such as business transactions, joining clubs, applying for a job, and so on.
> Nonetheless, the privacy rights of individuals supplying their personal data must be respected by anyone collecting and processing that data.