Basically, yes. The article says it plainly: If you read it again, that's not what it says.
An acknowledgement of information released by a patient is not a HIPAA violation.
Had the provider made this acknowledgement without prior patient statement, then yes, a violation did occur.
I'd need to see the Yelp review in question before I can make the actual determination.
It's unfortunate that HIPAA was another law rushed without regarding the consequences. The changes of the past few years has made it more and more difficult to speak about anything regarding patient data outside of a hermetically sealed, padded, sound-proof room and it's getting atrocious.
I'm all for protecting one's privacy, but an email address is not a privacy violation, yet it's one of the key words tagged for "privacy info" in a growing list of absurdity.
Providers should take extreme care to mention any information that may be patient related and stick to using generic replies.
I also feel patients should be forced to waive their rights if they make these same privacy-ending remarks on any site to which the provider shares.
Oh, boy. Karl writes another article, I get angry at his lack of understanding, and yet another pointless post will be made given I know damn well he's not going to change his opinion.
Karl, how is this any different than current entertainment licenses today?
Exclusive is what supports the consumer's purchase. Fair? Probably not, but it's been this way for centuries.
Let's put this in perspective so you can understand it better. Disney recently purchased both the Marvel and Star Wars franchises.
Prior to the announcement from Netflix, where could anyone stream any movies of these franchises? I'll tell you: No where.
Now, for the first time ever, in the history of both Marvel and Star Wars, people can actually stream these shows.
First. Time. EVER!
Yes, the industry is moving like a glacial landmass to work towards providing people what they want to see and are willing to pay for.
But the reality of the situation is people do not have to hunt and peck because there are only three services: Amazon Netflix Hulu
Maybe 4, if YouTube can figure out what the hell it wants to do, but those are the big three.
Just like the big three in "radio" are: Apple Spotify Pandora
Yes, there are others out there, but if you're looking to license exclusive content, you're going to go with the bigger players who have established the customer base.
What we should be taking away from this isn't criticism, but appreciation that maybe, just maybe, the rest of the movie industry will get off its lazy ass and do what Disney is doing, even if this means we have all three subscriptions which is still cheaper than cable.
PS: there's still no such thing as unlimited data. >:]
He* was convicted by a military court, not a criminal court.
While many will argue his chances were slim because of a stacked deck (along with me), it's irrelevant.
The rules are much different. He should have waited until he was discharged before blowing the whistle, to which 1) he could have found more secure ways of whistle blowing and 2) he would be facing charges in criminal court, not military.
I wish her luck, but it's pointless. No way is any judge going to grant an appeal.
*Manning was male during the whistle blowing arena, hence the use of "his" in the context during that time.
I'm sorry, but how did "I don't see any bad guys here" derive from the moron-in-a-hurry test as to not differentiate "Pilot House" from "House Spirits"?
I'd definitely call House Spirits the bad guys here, especially that it's reasonable to see Cary is now paying for the license to use the name (which is probably more expensive in the long run than it is to pay $10k immediately).
I can definitely see a potential for confusion for the first, not the second.
Though, I'm going to be frank here: Cary shouldn't be in business. If he couldn't even take a day to cursory check the open, free to use trademark website to ensure he wasn't even close to a lawsuit, then he certainly deserved to pay for that lesson he clearly didn't learn from.
As we've long noted, cable operators could pretty easily defeat cord cutting by competing on price and value.
It's very rare I defend the cable industry, but in this context, I believe it's important to do so.
I've said for many years our cable industry isn't the problem. Hollywood is the problem and until this monopoly is shattered, every other business pays for it.
Myth: Cable companies force people to bundle Not true. Hollywood forces cable companies to bundle, and most do so via blackmail. It's well known many of the top viewed channels come straddled with east/west coast channels (which simply redistribute the same shows but for different time zones) or "sister" channels no one wants or uses (Viacom forces cable stations to pick up VH1 and/or MTV if they want the popular Nickelodeon)
Myth: Prices increase because cable companies say "Why not" There is more proof to show prices go up after contract negotiations than we can store in a 100 PB database yet this common knowledge is ignored because "It's Comcast". While I certainly won't disagree there are shady price increases on things like hardware, the reality remains that it's Hollywood demanding more money, not the cable companies.
Myth: Cable companies can do whatever they want to the shows they offer THE FUCK THEY DO. Yeah, I capitalized it and screamed the f-word, but as you've just read, Cable companies cannot innovate because they don't own the content.
Don't believe this? Stop and ask yourself this: What does your cable company actually offer you if it's not for the shows you want to see?
Bzzz. Time's up!
The mere fact cable companies are trying pushing their own "hulu/netflix/prime" isn't because they can do so, it's that Hollywood has finally given them the rights to do it.
Oh, and Hollywood will be taking a cut of of the profits as generated by... the cable bill. You know, the very same cable bill we're already paying for the exact same content but delivered on a station, not a website.
There's a very good reason why many cable companies bought distributors over the past decade: it's the only way to keep the licensing costs down.
Myth: Stations own the shows they air Rarely does this happen. Most people forget how TV shows and movies are made, but the gist is this: Producers invest in a script and try to sell the script to the studio. For TV, this usually means a pilot episode.
If the show is greenlit, production is started. Contracts are signed where the show is distributed to the network. However, the station does not own the show.
When the initial airing is over, the production company which owns the show can then license it for further distribution, such as online sites or syndication.
This market is why prices for cable is atrocious because many people are paying for the exact same content despite being on several networks.
Cable companies cannot control this. To re-iterate: Cable companies have never been able to control this.
This will be the only time you see me defend cable companies. As Tom Wheeler mentioned many times, the cable industry used to be the disruptive force in entertainment.
Now, their world is being disrupted by the very cancer that makes it impossible for them to compete or innovate: monopoly licensing of content distribution.
Hope is on the horizon, but it's going to get worse before it gets better.
Many new partners are entering the scene were content isn't owned by a network or Hollywood, but rather Hulu, Netflix, or Amazon.
Great, until you realize how we get to those sites: through the cable company.
Take away cable's primary source of revenue, content, and what's left: a wire that costs consumers $100+/mo.
Who is going to manage that $100+/mo wire when the cable companies fold because of Hollywood bullshit.
It's going to get far, far worse before it ever gets better.
That may well be true. But the question is, are we ready to do so? So long as the public is ready to clink three same-colored jewels together to reap a score, the answer to this question is "The rest of us are now screwed" (aka: yes).
Judge Alsup, who demonstrated some proficiency with programming Java in the first leg of the case, came to the same conclusion. That's because Alsup did what many programmers do: They come to the wrong conclusion.
APIs are covered by copyright, and no amount of wishful thinking makes this go away.
It's unfortunate, but what Alsup did was conflate the API with the ABI, and that's a fundamental problem.
It's extremely easy to conflate the two. After all, if we use (or write) an API, we expect that the system will compile that code so that it's executed by the hardware. This compilation is the responsibility of the ABI and it's this responsibility that is not covered by copyright.
Read the above again because it's extremely important. An API cannot be designed without an ABI. The API is exclusive to the ABI but the ABI is not exclusive to the API.
That's because we can create the API but we cannot create the ABI.
Alsup simply learned the application layer and it's extremely unlikely he looked (or cared) about the processing layer.
While it's true Java has its own APIs, it's important to realize that Java has its own set of compilers.
Note the "s" on "compiler". Plural, and there's a reason for that.
The Java Runtime Engine, or JRE, is what makes Java work. No amount of code written in Java works without the compiler and it's this where API separates from ABI.
Note how there's a version for each operating system.
While each and every API in those downloads may be identical regardless of OS, the JRE is not identical! Read this until it sinks in: The JRE is not identical between OS versions.
With that out of the way...
This doesn't mean I'm defending Oracle. Oh, hell no. But, what Oracle is doing is not against the law but it is against the cardinal rule of software development: you don't sue users of your APIs because it's win-win.
The likely reality is that Oracle will win this case, but like the article above, doom and gloom hover over the development world as though it's the End of Days.
If Oracle wins, there's a great, great chance software copyright ends because it would take about 0.0000001 seconds (and that's being generous as most are probably already preparing should Oracle win) for companies to band together and force Congress to rescope copyright and remove APIs (as well as code itself, because technically, all code is an API) from copyright law.
Of course, the maximalists will freak out so there's only one viable option left: copyright the design, not the source.
By the way, this isn't a joke. The very reason software is copyright is because the US Copyright Office took an extremely stupid analogy and used it for software: "A blueprint to a bridge is the same as the bridge itself."
Yep, that's what they said, and now both blueprints and software are covered under copyright.
If you're wondering why the analogy is stupid, it's because all blueprints will share a commonality on the safety and engineering requirements to make the bridge safe.
Those elements on a blueprint are not copyrighted just as ABIs are not copyrighted on computers (aka, the "system").
Before I close, I'd like to remark on another facet of software development which proves APIs are covered under copyright: The GNU/GPL licenses.
Has anyone actually read them? If not, I'd ask you do because you'll note something unique about them. However, if you don't have the time or care to do so, here's what a typical GNU/GPL licenses says: "You can use our software and do what you want with it, but you can't sell it and you need to keep it open".
That's the gist. But here's something most people don't get about those licenses: they're still a copyright license. In fact, they're written to purposely remove the restrictions of copyright.
Ask yourself this: how much of the GNU/GPL software uses APIs, do you guess? Quite a few, which means if there's a license to open the use, this means there's a license on APIs, which means they're covered by copyright.
It's a disgusting pill to swallow, but that's the reality of the situation.
And then they wonder why the public doesn't respect copyright law?
Having read the article, I was taken aback by the closing sentence, which I included in bold above. Perhaps it's just me, but shouldn't the sentence have ended with: "And then they wonder why the public doesn't respect copyright law."
Note the end punctuation. Rather makes a bolder statement of truth, rather than question.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to check my torrent to see if I have the latest episode of "Boobs and Dragons".
This was because consumers don't own the servers on which the product is entirely dependent. What you don't seem to understand, and the point about Nest makes perfect sense, is that because we don't "own" the software running our product, it can be made useless.
With the video game examples above, not a single one of my products has stopped working despite: -game servers are long gone, which only affects those games -account(s) are no longer valid, but do not affect the hardware -disks still play and don't require a single authentication with a server
In the past 3 years alone, almost every physical product has been pushed to find a server simply to allow companies to control the hardware.
My refrigerator should never, ever stop working simply because Samsung decides it has had enough of running an app no one uses.
My car had better not stop working simply because the ODB computer software is no longer supported by the manufacturer.
These are but two examples of a growing problem. Hell, I can't even play a single game on my console anymore unless I'm connected online.
The "interconnected" world and the false belief people don't own hardware is a perpetual war just waiting to explode, because one day, when consumers finally pull their heads out of their asses, are going to realize the problem.
The most terrifying piece of this IP bullshit: HOAs now have the "legal" authority to take away your house simply because A) you don't own the land it's on and B) you failed to pay the fees.
Your own damn home now part of this IP bullshit.
Welcome to the United States of North Korea. All praise our might corporate overlords.
FBI: "We need some paperwork cleared up." Atty: "What paperwork."
FBI: "Uh... hold on a second." Atty: [gets dial tone]
FBI: "Us again. Your client, we need her again." Atty: "Why?"
FBI: "Just... get her here." Isis: "WTF, FBI?!?"
All in all, if someone can have the feds come slamming down on an innocent person over ISIS beer funds, I can only imagine the abject horror of anyone actually named Isis, who is probably now on more watch lists than a TV guide.
That's probably what the FBI wants to confirm, but are too fucking stupid just to say it.
Prince, the artist, will be missed. I concur with the article's accolades of his achievements.
However, Prince himself destroyed any chance anyone will "fondly remember him" who didn't grow up in an era where his videos were plastered on MTV every 12 seconds or on the air with this old thing call "radio".
The majority of Prince fans come from this era, not the current digital era. Sure, a handful will mostly know him (death does wonders for an artist's career), but the many more simply won't care as they ask "Prince who?"
That's not a shame. That's precisely what happens when an artist punches their fans in the face while trying to hit back against the record label, or worse, pretend they have control over what can and cannot be used by the fans they're trying to serve.
So, a cautionary tale for you imbeciles out there who think it's possible: IF YOU WANT TO KEEP CONTROL OF YOUR WORKS, KEEP THEM TO YOURSELF.
Trust me when I say there's more than enough to go around and we certainly don't want your nasty attitude.