Comments on: The New GM and Privacy

By: aphrael

aphrael — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 04:10:54 +0000

Wesson: that project is a nightmare, and fundamentally I think it’s a result of two incompatible goals.

Goal #1: have my medical records easily accessible to any doctor I see.

Goal #2: have my medical records not easily accessible to anyone else.

I think it’s impossible to resolve these two without an ironclad way to ensure that anyone trying to access the information is a doctor currently treating me (or someone else I have authorized). As far as I can tell, the tech doesn’t exist to do it.

By: aphrael

aphrael — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 04:08:45 +0000

DRJ, that’s a fair point, but given that the government is one of those parties in the case of the new GM, what should it do? Not share the information and be at a disadvantage at the negotiating table?

I guess what I’m saying is: the decision to nationalize GM has already been made and implemented. Whether that was a good decision or not, at this point it’s in everybody’s interest for the new GM to do whatever it can to be successful, thereby repaying the investment and making subsequent privatization feasible. So, if this kind of information-sharing clause is standard in the industry, and if it is there for an economically functional reason, then – absent a push to ban it in general – I want the new GM to do it.

By: Thomas Jackson

Thomas Jackson — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 04:04:32 +0000

I’d never buy a GM or Chrysler product after Presidente Zero has given these businesses to his supporters. I doubt many former patrons will buy into this new government entity.

By: Wesson

Wesson — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 01:13:05 +0000

Obama’s $50 billion centralized Electronic Health Records project has some privacy issues with it too. This comprehensive log of the time and location of every doctor visit, prescription transaction, and medical test has potential for abuse. TMZ.com is looking forward to this database coming online.

By: DRJ

DRJ — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 01:09:51 +0000

Government has power, authority and access that individual companies don’t. Thus, while I agree there are good reasons to make this information available to parties to a transaction, it’s another reason government should not be one of those parties.

By: aphrael

aphrael — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 00:56:27 +0000

It may also be shared in connection with the sale, transfer or financing of a significant part of a GM business.

That seems like a pretty standard clause to me. I’m all in favor of abolishing such clauses across the board, but unless we’re going to do that, I don’t see why releasing data to non-government buyers or financers should be ok but releasing data to the government, acting in the guise of a buyer or financer, shouldn’t be.

By: DRJ

DRJ — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 23:48:40 +0000

I’m curious if the government and/or New GM will use owner information to target big gas-guzzling, carbon-emitting vehicles for buyouts or carbon credit “offers.”

By: JD

JD — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 22:44:51 +0000

Since I refuse to do business with that dirty little socialist company, I am not worried about them getting my personal information. For “marketing” purposes, I guess they can give your personal info to the UAW. That ought to be comforting.

By: Soronel Haetir

Soronel Haetir — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 22:37:15 +0000

If either GM or Chrystler go back into bankrupcy within the next five years I don’t see the political will to bail them out again being present. I hope no one buys the UAW shares when those go on the market, would be sweet justice.

By: daleyrocks

daleyrocks — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 22:27:48 +0000

Suing the government is usually a snap, quick too.

/sarc