Why would a nurse have 14,000 patient records?
http://www.ihealthbeat.org/index.cfm?Action=dspItem&itemID=126056
Stolen Laptop Contains Thousands of Minnesota Patients' Personal Data
October 23, 2006
Allina Hospitals and Clinics in Minneapolis last week began contacting obstetrics patients after a laptop containing the names and Social Security numbers of about 14,000 people was stolen from a nurse's car on Oct. 8, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reports.
It does not appear that any data have been accessed, according to Allina spokesperson David Kanihan. He added that the information on the laptop is protected by two passwords.
Allina is providing identity protection resources to affected patients and is offering them one year of credit monitoring at no cost, according to the letters sent to the patients.
The laptops will not contain Social Security numbers in the future, Kanihan said (Lonetree, Minneapolis Star Tribune, 10/20).
Sony details battery problems
Manufacturing problems with stray metallic particles are expected to lead to the replacement of 9.6 million laptop batteries
By Martyn Williams, IDG News Service October 24, 2006
Sony has provided greater detail about a battery manufacturing problem that is expected to see the replacement of up to 9.6 million laptop computer battery packs.
The problem was first acknowledged in August when Dell issued a recall for 4.1 million batteries and until now had been explained as metallic particles that got into the battery during the manufacturing progress. On Tuesday, Sony expanded on this and said the particles, believed to be nickel, likely got into the battery during two stages in production: when a groove was created in the battery case and when the electrolyte was poured into the cell.
But that alone wouldn't be enough to cause the fires that have been reported by laptop owners. For that to happen Sony believes that the particles would have to fall into a small triangular gap in the cell body right at the point where the cathode ends between two layers of spacer material. Then, depending on system configuration, the conditions could be right for a fire to start in the battery.
... Last week Sony said it anticipates costs of ¥51 billion ($429 million) as a result of the battery problems.
... The replacement batteries won't all come from Sony because it doesn't have the manufacturing capacity to produce them all in the time required, [another risk/cost consideration... Bob] said Nakagawa. As a result Sony will source some cells from rival companies. Nakagawa said as a result there is a general possibility that Sony might not win back all the business it had before the battery problems occurred. Its success or failure in keeping business very much depends on how well Sony does to persuade customers that the problems are behind it, he said.
Well, that's resolved then...
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=40605
Coverage & Access
Wall Street Journal Examines Concerns Over Limits of HIPAA Medical Privacy Rule
[Oct 23, 2006]
The Wall Street Journal on Saturday examined how forms that outline the medical privacy rule under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act "essentially detai[l] the many ways a doctor can use and disclose medical information -- often without a patient's consent or knowledge" -- and how patients who visit physician offices, hospitals and pharmacies mistakenly "assume signing somehow protects their privacy" (Francis, Wall Street Journal, 10/21). The HIPAA Federal Privacy Rule allows health care providers to share patient medical records for the purposes of treatment and other "health care operations." Providers do not have to obtain written consent before they disclose medical records but are required to inform patients of their rights and make a "good-faith effort" to obtain written acknowledgment from patients that they have received the information. Providers must obtain consent from patients before they can disclose medical records in "nonroutine" cases (Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, 3/11/05). According to critics, the rule allows providers "to put medical information to myriad uses," the Journal reports. For example, providers can hire outside companies to survey patients on customer satisfaction or hire third-party marketers to advertise their products. Although the rule allows patients to extend restrictions on the use of their medical records through written agreements, providers do not have to agree to the terms under federal law. In addition, although violation of the rule can result in fines, the Office for Civil Rights, which received more than 22,600 complaints between mid-April 2003 and Sept. 30, to date has not issued any fines. Karen Hinton, a spokesperson for Patient Privacy Rights, said, "It's impossible to violate HIPAA." However, Thomas Wilder, vice president for private market regulation at America's Health Insurance Plans, said that the rule encourages "the appropriate use of information" and discourages "inappropriate sharing" (Wall Street Journal, 10/21).
What exactly is Thompson's agenda?
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6160340.html
Bully's boy-on-boy scenes causing a stir
Rockstar's latest lets players experiment with same-sex make-out sessions; ESRB says that content was considered in assigning the game a T-for-Teen rating.
By Brendan Sinclair, GameSpot Posted Oct 23, 2006 10:46 am PT
Rockstar Games' Bully has been the subject of controversy since it was first announced more than a year ago. The game shipped to retail last week after a failed 11th-hour attempt by Florida lawyer Jack Thompson to have it banned.
However, the controversy surrounding the game might not be over with just yet. In navigating the angst-filled halls of Bullworth Academy as 15-year-old Jimmy Hopkins, players can participate in some extracurricular tonsil hockey with significant others. But while these significant others are typically female, there's at least one other boy in the game whom Jimmy can successfully court, as documented by this in-game video from GameBrink.
The Entertainment Software Rating Board surprised some people last month when it issued a T-for-Teen rating for the game. The content descriptors listed for the game on the ESRB's Web site are crude humor, language, use of alcohol and tobacco, violence, and sexual themes. When asked about the boy-on-boy make-out sessions, the ESRB told GameSpot, "That content was considered in the assignment of the rating."
Thompson addressed ESRB president Patricia Vance in an e-mail he claimed to have sent to "every major news organization in America and the UK," as well as a host of lawmakers and industry representatives.
"Dear Ms. Vance," Thompson wrote, "We just found gay sexual content in Bully, as Jimmy Hopkins makes out with another male student. Good luck with your 'Teen' rating now, Patty."
A representative from Bully publisher Take-Two had not responded to a request for comment as of press time.
Again, the comments are more interesting than the article...
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/23/1815239&from=rss
Jack Thompson To Face Contempt Charge
Posted by Zonk on Monday October 23, @03:32PM from the hahahahahahahah dept.
Gamasutra has the story (by way of the currently-down GamePolitics) that Jack Thompson could be facing a contempt charge over his antics during the Bully fiasco. From the article: "According to the report, the contempt of court request could find Thompson facing jail time, though it is more likely that 'fines, judicial admonishment or censure' would result from this most recent turn of events. The report also notes that attorneys representing the Philadelphia law firm Blank-Rome have filed a 'Petition for Order to Show Cause,' which requires Thompson to illustrate to a judge why he should not be held in contempt."
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/24/047209&from=rss
US Slips Again In Freedom of the Press Ranking
Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Tuesday October 24, @07:39AM from the gosh-at-least-citizen's-rights-aren't-being-eroded dept. The Media Censorship Politics
npwa writes to tell us Reporters Without Borders has released their annual worldwide press freedom index. While developing nations like Haiti and Mauritania continue to gain ground developed nations like France, Japan, and the US continue their downward spiral. From the article:
"The United States (53rd) has fallen nine places since last year, after being in 17th position in the first year of the Index, in 2002. Relations between the media and the Bush administration sharply deteriorated after the president used the pretext of 'national security' to regard as suspicious any journalist who questioned his 'war on terrorism.' The zeal of federal courts which, unlike those in 33 US states, refuse to recognise the media's right not to reveal its sources, even threatens journalists whose investigations have no connection at all with terrorism."
Anyone want a voucher for a free copy of Windows 95?
Microsoft agrees to Arkansas settlement
Redmond will offer Arkansas residents $37.8 million in vouchers for free software, hardware to settle antitrust class action suit
By Jeremy Kirk, IDG News Service October 24, 2006
The next 'cause célèbre?' Doing for video what AllofMP3 did for music?
http://news.com.com/2100-1025_3-6128775.html?part=rss&tag=6128775&subj=news
TVUPlayer: Another Napster?
By Greg Sandoval Story last modified Tue Oct 24 06:22:37 PDT 2006
By streaming video of popular television programs over the Web, a self-described peer-to-peer service called TVUPlayer has begun to draw a loyal worldwide following.
The service, however, could also become an enticing target for Hollywood legal eagles with an eye out for copyright infringement.
Indeed, TVUPlayer, offered by a Chinese company called TVU Networks, looks to some like it could draw legal challenges similar to those faced by the early Napster peer-to-peer service, which became a pinata for litigious lawyers because of what some described as copyright violations on a massive scale.
TVUPlayer transmits TV shows, including pay-for-view broadcasts, from U.S. and international broadcasters such as ABC, HBO, the Disney Channel, The Comedy Channel, Al Jazeera and Telecapri Sports of Italy.
It's easy to see why it's becoming popular: In addition to a big selection, the TVUPlayer's pictures are usually clearer than the choppy and grainy images that often mark streaming video. Viewers can't upload their own videos.
But copyright experts say that unless TVU Networks executives have permission to use the content they transmit, the company can't legally rebroadcast the shows. And representatives of three organizations whose content was found on the TVUPlayer said they don't have any deals with TVU Networks.
... The TVUPlayer appears to have gained attention in the United States following the 2006 FIFA World Cup tournament in Germany. Thousands of soccer fans downloaded the software in order to watch matches not available on U.S. stations.
More importantly, TVU Networks has made watching online programming as easy watching a TV. After downloading the TVUPlayer, a menu appears with anywhere from 40 to 50 channels. Among the available channels available on Friday were Comedy Central, Animal Planet and the CNBC broadcast in India.
... Because TVU displays each broadcaster's commercials, some early reports have said TVU Networks is operating in a gray area of the law.
But some lawyers think the law is fairly clear-cut. "What gray area? The courts have already decided that you can't do this," said Mark Litvack, a copyright attorney for the Los Angeles law firm Manatt, Phelps & Phillips.
Litvack cited a 2000 U.S. district court decision that Canadian company iCraveTV was in violation of copyright law when it captured broadcast signals from the likes of ABC, NBC and CBS and retransmitted them over the Web. The company was forced to shut down.
According to Litvack, the case demonstrated that the courts don't care whether a service retransmits commercials. The most important factor in whether a site is operating legally is whether it has permission from content owners to be transmitting their material.
... "You shut down this site and another one will crop up," Martin said. "This tells entertainment executives that they have to create opportunity for consumers to legally access content. Most people will pay the $1.99 for the download or watch the commercial. They just need an opportunity to do that."
How would they handle the volume of information (just look at the pictures – ignore the article describing them) or encryption (welcome to Guantanamo -- until you give us the key)
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1161335118318
Computer Search Turned Back at the Border
By Amanda Bronstad The National Law Journal 10-23-2006
Government officials must have reasonable suspicion under the Fourth Amendment to search someone's laptop at U.S. borders, according to a recent ruling in Los Angeles.
The decision by U.S. District Judge Dean D. Pregerson of the Central District of California is the first within the area of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to address whether searching a person's laptop is more than routine and therefore subject to the search and seizure protections of the Fourth Amendment. U.S. v. Arnold, No. 2:05-cr-00772 (C.D. Calif.).
The Oct. 2 ruling expands upon a previous decision by the 9th Circuit that permitted the search of temporary cache files in a man's laptop. U.S. v. Romm, 455 F. 3d 990 (9th Cir. 2006). The decision could lead to a potential circuit split, given a conflicting 4th Circuit ruling last year in a similar case.
Under existing law, border officials must have a reasonable suspicion to conduct a nonroutine or invasive search, such as a body cavity search or X-rays. In most cases, that standard of proof is relatively low given the nation's heightened security concerns at the borders.
Previously, the only other case that addressed whether a laptop search is intrusive was U.S. v. Ickes, 393 F.3d 501 (4th Cir. 2005.) In that case, the 4th Circuit upheld a man's conviction in ruling that a laptop search at the border did not violate his First Amendment right of expression.
In July, the 9th Circuit upheld the conviction of a man with a prior criminal record in ruling that border authorities could search the temporary cache files in a laptop. But the circuit declined in Romm to address the issue of whether searching a laptop was routine or intrusive.
The recent case involves Michael Timothy Arnold, a 43-year-old man with no previous criminal record who was indicted on child pornography charges after customs officers searched his laptop and other computer equipment at Los Angeles International Airport in July 2005.
The government contended that the search was routine and therefore not subject to Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches.
"While not physically intrusive as in the case of a strip or body cavity search, the search of one's private and valuable personal information stored on a hard drive or other electronic storage device can be just as much, if not more, of an intrusion into the dignity and privacy interests of a person," Pregerson wrote. Given that conclusion, the government failed to prove reasonable suspicion.
Marilyn Bednarski of Pasadena, Calif.-based Kaye, McLane & Bednarski, who represents Arnold, hailed the ruling. "The search of a computer is different because it's like looking into somebody's mind," she said.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Elizabeth Carpenter said prosecutors are deliberating about whether to appeal.
Wimps! So, will Belgium become the next North Korea? If nothing can go out, will the courts hold that nothing can come in?
http://news.com.com/2100-1030_3-6128104.html
Microsoft bows to the Belgians
Company agrees to remove links to articles from Belgian papers to avoid copyright lawsuit threatened by publishers.
By Elinor Mills Staff Writer, CNET News.com Published: October 20, 2006, 1:43 PM PDT
Microsoft said on Friday it would remove links to articles in Belgian newspapers rather than be sued for copyright violation like Google was.
Doesn't winning against weak lawsuits result in weak precedents?
http://techdirt.com/articles/20061023/080823.shtml
Lawsuits Against Google Only Make It Stronger
from the what-doesn't-kill-it dept
As Google has grown to take top billing among internet based companies, it's been the target of numerous lawsuits, many of which have been filed by small companies with weak cases. You might think that all of these suits might be a distraction to the company. But in fact these cases may be playing right into the company's hands. By racking up court victories against small opponents that make weak arguments and have unsophisticated legal teams, it's helping to build up a body of case law that will come in handy when it has more serious legal challenges. So, for example, in acquiring YouTube, it is inheriting one lawsuit, from an individual who says his video was posted illegally to the site. But Google believes that YouTube's actions were legally grounded; if it can dispatch with this case, it sets a precedent if larger, better-heeled content owners try taking Google to court with similar arguments. Much of Google's success is due to its scale and building up reinforcing network effects; it seems it's going to apply that strategy to the legal arena as well.
Is this just part of a patent reform strategy?
http://techdirt.com/articles/20061023/105908.shtml
IBM Wants To Change The Patent System, But Before They Do, They Might As Well Sue Everyone
from the they've-patented-the-internet dept
There's a famous old story about IBM accusing Sun of patent infringement back in the 1980s, when Sun was still a small company. IBM sent a bunch of lawyers with a list of patents that they claimed Sun infringed on. Sun's team looked over the patents and pointed out how most weren't valid and the ones that were, Sun didn't infringe on at all. The response from the lawyers? "OK, maybe you don't infringe these seven patents. But we have 10,000 U.S. patents. Do you really want us to go back to Armonk [IBM headquarters in New York] and find seven patents you do infringe? Or do you want to make this easy and just pay us $20 million?" This is still one of the more popular examples of "patent extortion" our there, though it happens all the time with firms that don't necessarily have 10,000 patents. Anyway, in more recent years it had seemed that IBM had softened a bit on patents, recognizing that they can do quite a bit of damage -- though, that still hasn't stopped them from applying for and getting a huge number of patents every year. However, for all their newfound "openness" on patents, it seems they still can send in the lawyers to companies and demand payment.
Damon writes in to point out that they've sued Amazon over a bunch of fairly obvious and excessively broad patents. If you look through the patents, they seem to basically describe nearly everything that you might see on the internet today, from presenting an application online to storing data on a network to presenting an ad online to presenting weighted hyperlinks to organizing items in an online catalog. Broad enough for you? They could basically sue just about any online company with this batch of patents, nearly all of which never should have gotten passed the "obviousness" test (oh, that's right, the USPTO doesn't do an obviousness test, despite it being required by the Constitution). IBM, however, brushes off complaints about these patents claiming they're "high-quality patents" and "to not enforce our patent rights would be a discredit to those who fairly and lawfully use these licenses." Let me get that straight. Because you've suckered some people into licensing your extremely broad and obvious patents, you need to sue everyone else just to be fair?
The kid is amusing...
http://techdirt.com/articles/20061023/154503.shtml
If You Add DRM To Circumvent DRM, Is It Circumvention At All?
from the follow-the-logic dept
Earlier this month, we wrote about "DVD Jon" Lech Johansen's latest effort to reverse engineer Apple's FairPlay DRM so that others could offer copy-protected downloadable music that would play on the iPod, basically in an attempt to get rid of the walled gardens of music we discussed earlier today. Plenty of people wondered if Apple would sue, but in a Fortune article, Johansen makes it pretty clear that he did everything according to the law. Specifically, they didn't "circumvent" the copy protection, but reverse engineered it, creating a clone. As he says, they're not removing DRM from anything, but actually adding DRM to other content -- and that appears to be legal by the letter of the law. The Fortune article, though, raises plenty of questions about whether or not that will keep Apple from suing and (perhaps more importantly) whether or not anyone will seriously be willing to license the cloned DRM and risk pissing off Apple or being sued themselves. Considering that it really would be easier to follow the eMusic path of offering unencumbered MP3s rather than this convoluted path of adding DRM to get around DRM restrictions, hopefully there really isn't a big need for this DRM to route around DRM. Still, if it does go to court and is found legal, it raises questions about where the borderline is between circumvention and reverse engineering. If you reverse engineer copy protection, but then open up more rights using it, which does it fall under?
Free is good (if you don't have business cards?)
http://digg.com/design/Skype_Mini_Cards
Skype Mini Cards
webtech submitted by webtech 10 hours 2 minutes ago (via http://www.moo.com/skype/ )
Create unique designs, and share your Skype Name, email, blog, and vital statistics with friends and attractive strangers, in the real world
No comments:
Post a Comment