Advertisement
'Just because most people wouldn't bat an eyelid in your situation doesn't mean you're wrong to focus on it. Some health professionals clearly have a blind spot when it comes to confidentiality and treat you like you've got a lack of humor when you complain. You're obviously cross - I'd be as well. '
Chapeau. Or perhaps Chap-yeux.
You're obviously cross - I'd
Chortle, you win the internet for today 
... Which it does because:i spend a considerable part of my job pointing out to people what regulations (including these ones) don’t say. It’s very easy to provide “safe” legal advice that says if you assume every aspect of a patients interaction with a provider is sensitive data but that doesn’t mean it’s actually what either the spirit or the letter of the law means; although ultimately only a court can decide if your very expensive legal advice was right. Needs glasses is within the definition; but if that is in the public domain (and I think we can assume his wife knows that as the OP wasn’t complaining he’d been outed a closet spectacle wearer) then I still insist the brand is not sensitive data (but is personal data). In extremis the brand may indicate a level of sight defect, and I am sure there was no care to make sure it didn’t. More likely they reveal more about his wallet than his eyes. Do you think this would be a reportable breach post GDPR?(a) it identifies a physical condition
(b) it gives an indication of the seriousness of that condition because some brands are only available in some strengthsI'm doing this for a job at the moment so I get quite expensive legal advice for free. "Needs glasses" and "blood group O-" are also sensitive data for the purposes of DPA and GDPR.
AmbroseI fully understand that it is a minor problem in the grand scheme of things and I'm quite surprised by the approbation I'm seeing in the thread.
Are you new here? some folk love to parrot this line about being outraged / offended even if you are not. I have been accused of being offended on behalf of others many times. Utter nonsense of course. Its a way of belittling people used by many on here when they don't like your stance but have nothing to combat it
any contentious subject like this you will get thoughtful opinions from people who understand the issues on both sides of the debate but its often hard to see this from all those who want to belittle you as they disagree but don't have the information to actually make an arguement.
...any contentious subject like this...
Advertisement
OP: I stopped posting after you said you weren’t going to raise this with the opticians. If this wasn’t the internet and was real life, discussion would have ended there for everyone. As it is, some people may have missed that post and continued to admonish you. And for some people they want to continue the debate on a technical interpretation of the law. I personally find that debate interesting (although I have no speciality in this subject that allows me to participate). Hopefully you don’t take offence that this thread has grown arms and legs.
Surely transparency is important when dealing with lenses.
Chapeau. Or perhaps Chap-yeux.
Thanks. I did think of going for something cornea, but wanted to retin-a few shreds of dignity.
nice post fanatic
BigJohn - Member
Surely transparency is important when dealing with lenses.
Yes, but there is a lot of stigmatism around this delicate subject.
Advertisement
You must log in to post.
Premier Dealers
Advertisement