Quote Of The Year

Timeless Quotes - Sadly The Late Paul Shetler - "Its not Your Health Record it's a Government Record Of Your Health Information"

or

H. L. Mencken - "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

Wednesday, September 11, 2019

It Seems The Government Might Have Detached Itself From Its Citizens On What Can Reasonably Be Done With Their Personal Data.

This appeared last week:

Consent removed from Australia's proposed data-sharing legislation

The National Data Commissioner won't be able to prevent data from being shared, rather they are tasked with capabilities to 'encourage' data custodians and accredited users to 'safely and respectfully share personal information'.
By Asha Barbaschow | September 3, 2019 -- 02:06 GMT (12:06 AEST) | Topic: Security
The Australian government has released a discussion paper on Australia's Data Sharing and Release Legislative Reforms, tweaking what it proposed last year by removing a fundamental element of privacy -- consent.
The paper [PDF] proposes the Data Sharing and Release legislation not require consent for the sharing of personal information.
"Instead, we are placing the responsibility on Data Custodians and Accredited Users to safely and respectfully share personal information where reasonably required for a legitimate objective," it says.
The paper says that following feedback, the government has "nuanced" its position on consent.

"While consent is important in certain situations, the societal outcomes of fair and unbiased government policy, research, and programs can outweigh the benefits of consent, provided privacy is protected," it says. "The Office of the National Data Commissioner will encourage the use of consent where appropriate when applying the Data Sharing Principles, although the legislation will not require it in all circumstances."
According to the government, requiring consent for all data sharing will lead to biased data that delivers the wrong outcomes.
"The Data Sharing and Release legislation is about improving government policy and research by helping government and researchers use a better evidence base. If we required consent, then data would only be shared where consent was given," the paper says.
"This will skew the data which is shared, leaving it unfit for many important purposes in the public benefit; it also runs the risk of leading to flawed policy and research which impacts negatively on society."
This decision to not include consent comes despite the paper saying that many involved in the process supported efforts to progress the public conversation around consent.
The Data Sharing and Release framework has been touted by the government as setting a new direction for how public sector data in Australia is used and reused.
Vastly more here:
There is also coverage here:

Breach notification rules for new government data scheme, but no consent for sharing

Data sharing legislation likely to hit parliament in mid-2020
Rohan Pearce (Computerworld) 03 September, 2019 10:06
New legislation that will enable data collected by public sector agencies to be more easily shared is expected to be accompanied by new rules for data breach notifications, a discussion paper released today by the government said.
The government in May 2018 said it would introduce a new data sharing and release framework as part of a package of reforms sparked by the Productivity Commission’s report on the availability and use of data.
Development of the proposed framework is inspired partly by the UK ‘Five Safes’ principles.
The Office of the National Data Commissioner (ONDC), which was established last year by the government, today released a consultation paper on the development of data sharing and release legislation. The paper states that the ONDC is still considering the kind of data breach scheme that is needed for the new framework.

In February 2018, the Notifiable Data Breaches (NDB) scheme, which is overseen by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) and covers a range of personal information about individuals, came into effect.
“The Data Sharing and Release legislation requires a different kind of notification scheme for the vast range of data falling outside the Privacy Act 1988 notifications scheme,” the ONDC consultation paper states.
“For example, we are considering options to ensure appropriate protection and notification of breaches involving sensitive data that is not personal information, such as data that is of a legally privileged, commercial-in-confidence, security classified, or environmental nature,” the paper states. “We will continue to engage on what the breach notification scheme may look like in the coming months.”
More here:
Here is the direct link to the discussion paper:
Here is what the Minister says he is up to.

Ministerial Forward.

Whether it is claiming a Medicare rebate, having a passport checked before an overseas trip, lodging a tax return or simply looking at the weather forecast, every day millions of Australians rely on services delivered by the Australian Government.
Australians expect government services to be seamless, easy and fast—just like their normal experience of shopping and banking. This fuels the need for the government to keep pace with the private sector—and aspire to be a market leader—when it comes to delivering services for Australian people and businesses.

The Morrison Government is committed to making it easier and faster for Australians to access the services they need by ensuring people and businesses are at the very heart of service design and delivery.

As the Minister responsible for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Government Services, I have been talking with people right across Australia about how even the smallest improvement to government services can have a big impact on people’s lives. Improvements such as fewer questions on an aged care form, making it easier to report income online, or even a single, clear point of access—such as an app on your phone—can all have an immediate and lasting positive impact.

We can and will do more for improving people’s experience when dealing with government—and data plays an important role in achieving this goal. The government already holds significant amounts of public data collected as part of our everyday work delivering services to Australians. Government, in many respects, is the custodian of Australia’s data and this data is already being used to inform policy development and the delivery of services—yet much more can be done with this truly national asset.

Through better use and sharing of public data across government, Australians will no longer have to tell us the same basic information over and over again, and we will be able to create a connected and seamless user experience for those accessing government services. Additionally, Australia’s research sector will be able to use public data to improve the development of solutions to public problems and to test which programs are delivering as intended—and which ones are not.

The sharing of public data has incredible potential at both the national level and at the individual level, but it must be done prudently and safely. Maintaining trust with the Australian community is fundamental to realising the full potential of this national asset. That is why the Government will ensure any public data sharing arrangements are underpinned by enhanced safeguards, privacy and security protections. The Australian Government is developing new public sector data sharing and release legislation that will enshrine these protections, along with a clear, consistent and transparent approach to the sharing of public data. It is crucial we get the legislation right—which is why feedback on our approach is so important.
This Discussion Paper acknowledges the feedback and perspectives we have heard so far during the extensive engagement undertaken with privacy experts, researchers, legal experts, businesses and all levels of government over the past 12 months.
I would like to thank all who have worked with us to identify concerns and opportunities, and for providing valuable advice and insights into how public sector data can help solve problems of national and individual significance.
We will continue to engage with you and the broader community as we work our way through the development of the new legislation and how we deliver not just better services, but also a better experience for Australian people and businesses. I encourage you to read the Discussion Paper and generously contribute your time, ideas and feedback so we can ensure we make the most of this important national asset to benefit all Australians.
The Hon Stuart Robert MP
Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme
Minister for Government Services
----- End Forward.
Three paragraphs from the full report pretty much summarise the outstanding concerns
p6
Competing views on the benefits and risks of the legislation
There were divergent views on the balance of benefits and risks of sharing and release of public sector data. For example, while understanding the importance of privacy, the research community highlighted the enormous benefits that come from providing them with controlled access to rich and detailed public sector data: developing life-saving research, testing the outcomes of public policy programs and government policies and improving the accuracy of data. On the other hand, privacy stakeholders point to the risks of eroding individuals’ privacy, the importance of protecting the personal information government collects compulsorily, and the expectation that government be accountable and transparent in its data use.
p7
Competing views on consent
There were robust discussions and debate in roundtables about consent. Views ranged widely and often expanded into debates about the role of consent in general (beyond just data sharing) and international developments. The benefits of consent were highlighted: giving individuals control of data and how it is used, as well as greater visibility and transparency. Many participants noted the inherent complexities of consent: what constitutes consent, when does the wider societal benefit outweigh the individual’s right to consent, and whether it is reasonable to place the burden on individuals to read long privacy policies or if the government should regulate to a higher privacy standard.
Particular to our system, many warned that a consent model could create biases in data and result in the allocation of government services to where citizens who had consented rather than to citizens in greatest need. Many supported efforts to progress the public conversation around consent, especially with the rise of different international approaches. In the context of the Data Sharing and Release legislation, we heard that it was important we be clear on how consent is understood and integrated into our scheme to ensure the public is not taken by surprise. Some discussed other schemes that did not use a consent model but were accepted by the public, such as the health research consent waiver in the Privacy Act 1988, and the role of ethics processes in those schemes, including the National Health and Medical Research Council (see Section 4.6 for a longer discussion of consent).
p19
We also acknowledge many datasets should never be released as open data. As more information is released publicly it increases the risks around re-identification of sensitive information by combining multiple datasets. As the risks are heightened, we need to be careful of new releases of data over time. Sharing under the Data Sharing and Release legislation provides a way to use data without losing control, while providing appropriate oversight (see Section 1.2) so the benefits continue to be realised.
---- End Extracts.

For a pretty excited view on how all this might affect the #myhealthrecord you can go here:

https://independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/-the-data-sharing-and-release-act-is-coming-for-your-data,11761
The full discussion paper is well worth a read. To me we have yet to get the balance right here and it is hard not to think some of the positions have been wrought through furious University lobbying without adequate consideration of privacy and consent. It is pretty clear the Government is aware all this may provoke a #myhealthrecord style backlash and is hoping to proceed slowly and carefully to avoid such problems.
What do others think about all this?
David.

Sepsis Alerts Are Becoming Much More Common In EHRs Overseas. What Is Happening Here?

This appeared a few days ago.

Guthrie to use AI-based system to help anticipate sepsis

September 06, 2019, 3:05 p.m. EDT
A four-hospital health system will implement the POC Advisor clinical intelligence platform of Wolters Kluwer Health to aid in quicker detection and treatment of sepsis.
Combatting sepsis is an ever-present challenge, says Terri Couts, vice president of Epic program applications at Guthrie, an integrated delivery system serving parts of Pennsylvania and New York. Based on feedback from providers, the organization sought a sepsis detection product with meaningful alerts that provide more accuracy and specificity than what could be achieved by the electronic health record, she adds.
 “Using natural language processing with POC Advisor can help us maximize the value of our EHR investment by using both patient data and extensive clinician notes to trigger alerts accurately and earlier, so our care team can effectively intervene to improve sepsis outcomes,” Couts explains.

More stories here:
There was also this last week:

Duke leverages AI to identify patients with early stage sepsis

September 03, 2019, 1:27 a.m. EDT
Time is of the essence when it comes to detecting sepsis—the deadly condition has no clear time of onset and no clear biomarker, making it difficult to diagnose.
To address the problem, the Duke Institute for Health Innovation has developed an artificial intelligence system to help clinicians identify patients in the early stages of sepsis so that they can intervene before it’s too late.
The early warning system leverages a machine learning model, a custom dashboard to present risk scores, and a rapid response team to monitor patients at-risk of sepsis and deliver appropriate treatment.
The AI system, called Sepsis Watch, was initially implemented in November 2018 at Duke University Hospital’s emergency department—this past May, the pilot phase was completed.

Will Ratliff, innovation program manager at the Duke Institute for Health Innovation, reported the pilot’s preliminary bundle compliance results for patients with sepsis at last month’s Machine Learning for Health Care conference in Ann Arbor, Mich.
The pilot’s primary outcome measures were the rate of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services bundle completion for patients with sepsis (within 96 hours of emergency department arrival), and the proportion of patients with sepsis that complete CMS treatment bundle.
More here:
These are only 2 of a number of similar articles I have seen over the last few months – and the systems do seem to be working and making a difference.
The question. Which hospital in Australia are leveraging their EMRs with similar decision support. Looks like many more than are should be don’t you think? Sepsis is such a lethal condition if not recognized and treated early the onus is on the health departments to get on with it!
David.

Tuesday, September 10, 2019

Commentators and Journalists Weigh In On Digital Health And Related Privacy, Safety And Security Matters. Lots Of Interesting Perspectives - September 10, 2019.

-----
This weekly blog is to explore the larger issues around Digital Health, data security, data privacy and related matters.
I will also try to highlight ADHA Propaganda when I come upon it.
Just so we keep count, the latest Notes from the ADHA Board are dated 6 December, 2018! Secrecy unconstrained! This is really the behavior of a federal public agency gone rogue!
-----

Why using HIT standards fails to achieve interoperability

Posted on 06/09/2019 by wolandscat
I started working in the Health IT area in 1994, on a major European Commission funded project. I attended years of standards meetings at HL7, CEN and occasionally OMG and ISO from 1999 to about 2012. And I’ve observed the constant failure of standards (through inappropriate hopes and expectations) to provide anything like a sustainable solution for interoperability. Here are the lessons I draw from this.
  • Premise #1: interoperability is an outcome (i.e. an emergent quality), not a created input. You can’t achieve true (automatic) interoperability by trying to engineer for it. Why? Because interoperability happens at the touchpoints between parts of a system. To achieve it, you have to have a) knowledge of and b) some say in the architecture of those components – only then will you understand how to create interoperability at the interfaces in question.
  • Premise #2: de jure standards should not be mistaken for architecture. Today’s HIT standards are attempts to engineer interoperability with no knowledge of the system components – they are essentially various forms of message on the wire. The result is O(10,000) mutually inconsistent interoperability points, not an interoperability-enabled architecture. Bureaucrats routinely mistake standards for architecture, saying things like ‘we must base our system on standards x, y, z’, or ‘we’ll design the system based on standards’. Only do that if you want to repeat the cycle of death.
-----

Government mulls greater role protecting private sector from cyber threats

Prepares for 2020 refresh of cyber security strategy
Rohan Pearce (Computerworld) 06 September, 2019 10:21
The government is seeking feedback as to whether its role in fighting cyber crime should change in order to offer “greater assistance to Australian businesses to defend against highly sophisticated malicious actors”.
“State actors target Australian businesses for a range of reasons, including access to intellectual property and espionage. In these situations, it might not be possible for businesses to fully defend themselves given the skills and expertise of those targeting them,” a government discussion paper released today states.
“The Government is most concerned about threats to Australian businesses that provide essential services, such as energy, water, telecommunications and transport.”
-----

Government kicks off AU$15m pilot using data on Australians living with disability

The latest initiative from Minister for Government Services and the NDIS Stuart Robert.
By Asha Barbaschow | September 6, 2019 -- 04:39 GMT (14:39 AEST) | Topic: Innovation
A group representing the interests of Australia's state, territory, and federal governments has agreed to establish a National Disability Data Asset, which will compile data on those in the country living with disability.
The Australian Data and Digital Council, chaired by Minister for Government Services Stuart Robert, on Friday agreed to the initiative as the council believes it can pave the way for a federation-wide view of the lived experience of Australians with disability.
A pilot of the Disability Data Asset will initially compile data from the Commonwealth, New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, and South Australia.
The pilot will receive up to AU$15 million in federal government funding, with part of the money to be used by government to explain why they think the initiative is a great idea to the people whose data will be used.
-----

Breach notification rules for new government data scheme, but no consent for sharing

Data sharing legislation likely to hit parliament in mid-2020
Rohan Pearce (Computerworld) 03 September, 2019 10:06
New legislation that will enable data collected by public sector agencies to be more easily shared is expected to be accompanied by new rules for data breach notifications, a discussion paper released today by the government said.
The government in May 2018 said it would introduce a new data sharing and release framework as part of a package of reforms sparked by the Productivity Commission’s report on the availability and use of data.
Development of the proposed framework is inspired partly by the UK ‘Five Safes’ principles.
The Office of the National Data Commissioner (ONDC), which was established last year by the government, today released a consultation paper on the development of data sharing and release legislation. The paper states that the ONDC is still considering the kind of data breach scheme that is needed for the new framework.
-----

Consent removed from Australia's proposed data-sharing legislation

The National Data Commissioner won't be able to prevent data from being shared, rather they are tasked with capabilities to 'encourage' data custodians and accredited users to 'safely and respectfully share personal information'.
By Asha Barbaschow | September 3, 2019 -- 02:06 GMT (12:06 AEST) | Topic: Security
The Australian government has released a discussion paper on Australia's Data Sharing and Release Legislative Reforms, tweaking what it proposed last year by removing a fundamental element of privacy -- consent.
The paper [PDF] proposes the Data Sharing and Release legislation not require consent for the sharing of personal information.
"Instead, we are placing the responsibility on Data Custodians and Accredited Users to safely and respectfully share personal information where reasonably required for a legitimate objective," it says.
The paper says that following feedback, the government has "nuanced" its position on consent.
-----
6 September 2019

Time may be nigh for some medical software vendors

Posted by Jeremy Knibbs
At the most recent Wild Health Summit in Sydney there were some subtle warnings in play for some of the country’s major healthcare software vendors, and indeed, even some for some of the major global vendors.
The people who pay for healthcare – mainly the government, but in the end, patients as well – aren’t going to tolerate specifying or using systems which do not have future-proofed, open architectures built in.
Until now, healthcare has stubbornly resisted the “open economy” technologies that have driven transformation in other markets. And many have expressed a view that healthcare is different and won’t transform like other markets because it is too complex, regulated, risky and culturally awkward.
But the new open economy is cheaper, safer, more efficient and much more patient friendly. Procurement by big government departments is now driving a change towards open technologies which offer safer and more efficient patient outcomes.
-----

Dutton to warn of evolving cyber threat to transport and power

Power stations, transport systems and industrial plants are likely to be the target of a new and ­potentially deadly threat from cyber attacks­, forcing an overhaul of the nation’s cyber security strategy to repel state-sponsored hackers and criminals.
A surge in the scale and severity of malicious cyber activity — including­ the “hack and release’’ of sensitive information intended to embarrass targets, influence public opinion and interfere in democratic processes — will be revealed in a consultation paper to be released today by Home Affairs­ Minister Peter Dutton.
Self-driving cars in the future are also expected to be vulnerable to cyber attacks, with experts warning they could be forced off the road by hackers.
The paper, to kickstart the replacement of Malcolm Turnbull’s strategy drafted only three years ago, says state actors are “growing more organised, confident, and sophisticated in using cyber espionage and interference to promote their national interests”.
-----
Rosie Williams
September 4, 2019

Govt is coming for your data

Data structures: Big changes that you'd hardly know were happening
If you have never heard of the proposed Data Sharing and Release Act you are not alone.
The new legislation, which will over-ride the Privacy Act (where there are conflicts), has been quietly planned for the past year or so, without much fanfare and little media interest.
When it has been subject to reportage, the focus has been on the Consumer Data Right, which will require businesses to give consumers data they hold about us so we can transfer it to competitors for a better deal. The Consumer Data Right will be initially implemented in the banking sector, telecommunications and energy sectors.
But this new right is only one aim of the Data Sharing and Release Act, which has far wider implications and consequences. The new Act creates an entirely new system to govern what both government and private sector organisations will be able to do with the information they hold about us.
Anyone remotely interested in the ramifications of MyHealthRecord need to keep reading because what is being done to your health data is only one small piece of the puzzle when it comes to government plans for sharing our data.
-----
Thursday, 05 September 2019 11:32

Customer loyalty schemes under scrutiny from ACCC for ‘poor disclosure’, sharing consumer data

Australia’s competition regulator the ACCC has raised concerns over customer loyalty schemes including poor disclosure about how consumer data is used and shared, and the selling of insights from the data to other parties without consumer knowledge.
In a new draft report focussing on credit card operators, frequent flyer schemes and supermarket operators, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission also questions whether consumers receive the benefits advertised by loyalty schemes and unilateral changes by loyalty schemes to their terms and conditions, including poor communication about how their schemes work.
The report also raises concerns about the “opaque terms and conditions of loyalty schemes” preventing consumers from making informed choices that align with their privacy preferences – and that consumers also have limited control over how their personal information and other data could be used by loyalty schemes and who it could be shared with.
“The privacy policies of these schemes are frequently very vague and don’t tell consumers who their data is being shared with or how it is being used, shared or monetised,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said.
-----

YouTube fined for collecting data on children

YouTube has agreed to provide new protection for children on its platform and pay a $US170 million fine, in a settlement that sharpened government debate over how to rein in technology giants.
The US Federal Trade Commission and the New York state Attorney-General announced the penalty for YouTube following a year-long investigation in response to complaints from consumer groups, which said the video platform illegally collected data on children to sell ads for products such as Barbie dolls and Play-Doh. The FTC said YouTube tracked internet activity for children under age 13, with the goal of keeping viewership high.
YouTube neither admitted nor denied wrongdoing as part of the settlement. No executives at YouTube or its parent, Google, were penalised. Democratic commissioners on the FTC, including the outspoken Rohit Chopra, voted against the action, losing in a 3-2 vote.
YouTube chief executive Susan Wojcicki said YouTube would make changes to its platform, including switching off comments on children’s videos and cutting off data collection on videos aimed at kids. These changes, YouTube said Wednesday, would take effect in January to give video creators time to adjust.
-----
Wednesday, 04 September 2019 11:08

Smart devices raise fear of privacy invasion for Australians

Australians are concerned about their privacy with smart devices listening in on their conversations, and allowing organisations to extract personal information from their digital footprints.
According to a report from Unisys, 41% of Australian smart device owners say they started receiving social media posts and ads about a topic they had recently talked about aloud - and almost two-thirds of them say it concerns them.
And just over a quarter (28%) report that, while they were talking aloud, the virtual assistant in their smartphone or smart watch had asked them for more information or to repeat themselves even though they had not turned it on.
Similarly, 26% say that, while they were talking aloud, a voice-activated smart speaker had asked them for more information or to repeat themselves even though they had not turned it on.
-----

Government set to reform data-sharing policies

Yolanda Redrup Reporter
Sep 3, 2019 — 12.01am
The Coalition is endeavouring to tackle a "labyrinth" of more than 500 separate privacy and secrecy provisions that have prevented it from sharing data between departments, as it tries to keep pace with international standards.
Government Services Minister Stuart Robert will announce the launch of a discussion paper on Tuesday, with the government seeking submissions from the community on how to streamline its data-sharing protocols while maintaining appropriate privacy and safety provisions.
Mr Robert told The Australian Financial Review the government wanted to be able to get to a point where citizens could go to one website or one app for all of their needs.
"If you go to your Telstra app you can login biometrically, move to their CRM system and see all of the services that you have with Telstra and you can do everything from one place ... Citizens are saying where is the one app for government?" he said.
-----

National framework needed for ethical AI

Sassoon Grigorian
It’s timely a new study by the Australian Council of Learned Academies has shown that 79 per cent of Australians surveyed want artificial intelligence to be programmed to be ethical.
The report posed pertinent questions from some of Australia’s top scientists: “what kind of future society do we want to be?”, and “how prepared are we to harness and regulate AI?”
Trust and ethical AI go hand in hand and that’s why we believe now is the time to put in place ­Australia’s first framework for ­ethical AI.
The recent first step by the Australian government to consult with industry and experts earlier this year is a welcome one. However, more can be done to create a national framework.
-----

Porter’s office in privacy breach

Who knew the one thing that could unite Australia’s diverse multicultural leaders was a privacy breach by the Attorney-General’s office? Christian Porter gathered religious leaders and journalists at The Great Synagogue in Sydney’s CBD last Thursday to read his draft religious discrimination bill. Not all attended — the Catholic Church and Australian Christian Lobby boycotted the event and other faith groups were told to avoid being used for a photo opp with Porter. As the Attorney-General gave his 11-page speech, an email was sent at 11:31am with a link to the draft bill. But Porter’s office forgot to hide the more than 100 recipients, exposing the private emails of some of the most senior members of Australia’s religious, faith, legal and human rights communities. Including: the Grand Mufti of Australia, Ibrahim Abu Mohammed; Anglican Archbishop of Sydney Glenn Davies; Sydney’s Catholic Archbishop, Anthony Fisher; the executive council of Australian Jewry co-CEOs Peter Wertheim and Alex Ryvchin; Justice Stephen Rothman SC; Australian National Imams Council spokesman Bilal Rauf; NSW Liberal president Philip Ruddock; and Scott Morrison’s legal adviser Daniel Ward. “It just looked really sloppy, and a bit odd, given this was all about protecting religious communities,” one religious leader who received the email tells Strewth. “It took me about five seconds to see everyone on the list there. It’s bizarre because the invitation to the event that was sent beforehand BCC’d everyone. The vibe I got from that email was that it was poorly handled, especially as it was sent out midway through his speech.” After we alerted Porter’s office to the mistake, they issued an apology to those caught up by the “administrative error”.
-----

'Orwellian police state': London's top cop warns of dangers of policing in digital age

By Lucy Cormack
September 3, 2019 — 6.00am
The UK’s most senior police officer says modern law enforcement must grasp the ethical dilemmas of data, robotics and artificial intelligence or risk sleepwalking "into a ghastly, Orwellian, omniscient police state.”
Commissioner of London’s Metropolitan Police Service, Cressida Dick made the comments in an address to the Lowy Institute in Sydney on Monday evening, where she described data as vital “kit”, but only to enable humans “to make better decisions.”
 “We’re now tiptoeing into a world of robotics, AI and machine learning ... the next step might be predictive policing,” she said.
“People are starting to get worried about that ... particularly because of the potential for bias in the data or the algorithm, [like] live facial recognition software."
-----

Secret penetration tests, fines for banks under PayID security crackdown

NPP deploys ‘unilateral’ protections to harden network.

Australian banks and credit unions will have their transactional systems secretly penetration tested to arrest deficiencies and stop fraud and abuse of institutional infrastructure plugged into to the New Payments Platform after two PayID look-up attacks.
The NPP on Monday confirmed it was quickly taking its own steps to look for security holes among participants, a move bolstered by looming designation of particular security settings, like PayID address query limits, under its scheme rules.
The designations, which will go before the NPP board within a fortnight, can attract fines of $500,000 for non-compliant institutions.
-----

Is a mobile phone a computer? The Federal Court says no

The Federal Court of Australia recently found in Luppino v Fisher that a mobile phone should not be treated as a “computer” or a “data storage device”. This had the effect of invalidating an earlier order made under s3LA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) requiring the plaintiff to assist police to access data stored on a mobile phone, on the basis that the mobile phone was not a computer. The Australian Federal Police (AFP) has appealed this finding, with the appeal to be heard at a date to be determined.
Background
The case concerned an order made in October 2018 under s3LA of the Crimes Act requiring the plaintiff in the case to provide to the AFP information (specifically, a password) to enable the AFP to access data held on a Samsung mobile phone.
Notwithstanding the October order, the plaintiff continued to refuse to provide the password to the AFP and commenced proceedings alleging that the order had been made erroneously.
-----

Employment and privacy: can employees be made to divulge personal information?

In the digital world, data is an asset. It can be one of the most important assets an organisation has because it defines each organisation's uniqueness. This can of course include employee data. There are, however, detailed rules regulating the collection of employees' personal data. The Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission in Jeremy Lee v Superior Wood Pty Ltd [2019] FWCFB 2946 (the "Lee Case") recently delivered a decision which highlights that employers need to be careful when handling employee data, particularly if an employee's refusal to provide information is used as a grounds for dismissal.
This update will first discuss the privacy rules most relevant in an employment context and then explore how these principles were applied in the Lee Case, before giving some key takeaways.
Privacy principles in an employment context – a summary:
The collection, use and disclosure of data in Australia is governed by the Privacy Act 1988 (the "Act") and by the Australian Privacy Principles (APPs) which are contained in the Act. In relation to private-sector employers, the APPs only apply to "APP Entities", (as defined in section 6 of the Act). This definition includes most organisations that are not classified as "Small Business Operators". "Small Business Operators" are generally businesses that have an annual turnover of $3,000,000 or less.
-----

Machine learning in clinical practice: prospects and pitfalls

Ian A Scott, David Cook, Enrico W Coiera and Brent Richards
Med J Aust 2019; 211 (5): . || doi: 10.5694/mja2.50294
Published online: 2 September 2019
Machine learning has huge potential to enhance clinical decision making, but there are still many limitations
Machine learning (ML), a subdiscipline of artificial intelligence, encompasses a family of computerised (machine) methods that identify (learn) patterns in large (training) datasets not detectable to humans (Box 1). Identified patterns are then encoded in a computer model or algorithm which is then tested and validated on new data. Three basic ML types exist (Box 2), with supervised and reinforcement learning being used most frequently.
-----
Comments more than welcome!
David.