Export thread

Free speech=money and now data mining too

Jun 27, 2011#1

@Li3n

http://consumerist.com/2011/06/supr...prescription-drug-records-is-free-speech.html

n 2007, the state of Vermont passed a law forbidding the data mining of prescription drug records (i.e., which drugs are being prescribed and how frequently) for marketing purposes. But earlier today, the Supreme Court ruled that the Vermont law interferes with drug makers' right to free speech.
The law had been intended to protect the privacy of doctors and patients, but six of the Supremes said Big Pharma's right to hone its marketing pitches is more important.
Writes Justice Kennedy for the majority:

“
Speech in aid of pharmaceutical marketing... is a form of expression protected by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment... As a consequence, Vermont's statute must be subjected to heightened judicial scrutiny. The law cannot satisfy that standard.
”
Justices Breyer, Bader Ginsburg and Kagan dissented.

So does that mean now Sony can just sell their customers info instead of waiting for it to get hacked?

Jun 27, 2011#2

Chibibar

From what I can understand is that, the big pharma wants to sell the list (i.e. drug prescribe and sold) to other companies for marketing, but Vermont is trying to protect those individual private info.

It would be like Sony wanting to sell, but Government said, no you can't sell that list.

The court just states that if a company want to sell that list, they can, regardless of privacy (to a certain degree. Can't sell SS number.......... yet)

Jun 27, 2011#3

@Li3n

No, Big Pharma wants to buy the list from local doctors/practices/whateveryoucallthem...

Seriously thought, i don't see how they shouldn't at least need permission from the patients themselves...

Jun 27, 2011#4

Chibibar

@Li3n said:
No, Big Pharma wants to buy the list from local doctors/practices/whateveryoucallthem...

Seriously thought, i don't see how they shouldn't at least need permission from the patients themselves...

well, don't doctor have the confidentiality clause or something like that?

Jun 28, 2011#5

Covar

@Li3n said:
No, Big Pharma wants to buy the list from local doctors/practices/whateveryoucallthem...

Seriously thought, i don't see how they shouldn't at least need permission from the patients themselves...

oooh big pharma, scary.

Do you really believe that a company doesn't have information on the product it sells? They don't need to get that from doctors.

Your own biased article said:
(i.e., which drugs are being prescribed and how frequently)

Jun 28, 2011#6

@Li3n

The way i read it was that they buy the data about individual users, while they would only have the data about what they sold to the hospitals, local pharmacies, practices etc...

Jun 29, 2011#7

SpecialKO

Sony (and other companies like them) could always sell that info.

In this case, it sounds like the information was always available, but Vermont was placing legal restrictions on how it could be used. If that's right, then I can see how the Supreme Court ruled the way it did.

Jun 29, 2011#8

Krisken

Fuck it, sell the country to the corporations already and be done with it.

Jun 30, 2011#9

@Li3n

SpecialKO said:
Sony (and other companies like them) could always sell that info.

I'm assuming they'd at least have to include you agreeing to it in the EULA...

SpecialKO said:
In this case, it sounds like the information was always available, but Vermont was placing legal restrictions on how it could be used. If that's right, then I can see how the Supreme Court ruled the way it did.

If it was why did they mention selling it...

Jun 30, 2011#10

SpecialKO

@Li3n said:
I'm assuming they'd at least have to include you agreeing to it in the EULA...

Not really, no. All they need to say is "how we use your information is available in our privacy policy" and have the policy listed somewhere. Most people don't check, and very few privacy policies cover all the loopholes.

If it was why did they mention selling it...

Because the law that got struck down prohibited using that info specifically for marketing purposes, which includes selling it. It didn't prevent the actual acquisition of that data, it prevented it from being acquired for use in promotions.

Jul 6, 2011#11

@Li3n

SpecialKO said:
Not really, no. All they need to say is "how we use your information is available in our privacy policy" and have the policy listed somewhere. Most people don't check, and very few privacy policies cover all the loopholes.

Same thing really, they just put the text somewhere else...

SpecialKO said:
Because the law that got struck down prohibited using that info specifically for marketing purposes, which includes selling it. It didn't prevent the actual acquisition of that data, it prevented it from being acquired for use in promotions.

Oh, i see... they could still sell it for something else...

Forums