privacy and identity

We met with Anne Marie Cunnigham in sunny Cardiff and asked her what she thought about the guidance issued by the GMC regarding doctors' use of social media,...

Using Facebook, I can very tangibly present myself as a certain kind of person. If I am thoughtful enough and approach it from a marketeers perspective, I can put up the right kind of photos, the right kind of statuses, timeline attributes and career positions to have myself be regarded in a certain way. I can produce something that is a visceral representation of my life that other people regard with real legitimacy that says to me and them, this is who I am. On some level, I believe that most people already do this, whether subconscious or not. Surely that can be more convincing as a tool for corroborating our self-imposed linear narrative structures than what we merely tell ourselves in our inner dialogues? Subversive non-linear narrative structures need not prevail.

Offline people say things appropriate to the group they are in. That doesn’t mean they are two-faced, insincere or liars. It means people are context aware. People observe walls, clocks, furniture, fashion and music. These things guide us as to the appropriate way of acting. The guy writing his novel at the bar on Friday night is out-of-place. The guy who shows up to work drunk on Monday morning has a problem. Offline people don’t have to worry about their real name, because their behavior is tied to the context and the impressions the foster in that context. In fact, I’ll say that even more strongly – if your speech is not confined to the context you are in – but available to a potentially unknowable audience – you are online

Why does Twitter allow users to have pseudonyms, while Google and Facebook require real names? Because Twitter realizes it can provide plenty of value for both users and advertisers without having to know your real name.

I think that the advice should’ve been much clearer as if you follow the guidelines to the letter (any material written by a Doctor could “reasonably be taken to represent the views of the profession more widely” and it is appreciated that “content uploaded anonymously can, in many cases, be traced back to its point of origin“) there really should be no GMC registered Doctor posting content online anonymously.

I think this isn’t very well thought through. Some of the very best contributors to social media discussions (not just about healthcare) are Doctors who wish to remain anonymous or just want to be allowed to share their opinions as a member of society when they’re not working. The workload of Doctors is tough enough that there should be some capacity in this guidance for them to be able to use social media when taking time out from work.

I can also see a multitude of ways that this could impact on Patient safety as it’s quite clear that whistle blowing Doctors don’t have an easy time. It’s possible that this guidance document itself could make any Doctor who leaks a Patient safety issue anonymously liable to not meeting their duties as a Doctor (because they will have run foul of guidance by trying to do it anonymously in the first place).

Comment fromPeter Saunders "I suspect it would only come into play if there was a genuine complaint about people failing to maintain professional boundaries or confidentiality, being defamatory or insulting or giving incorrect information."

Everyone’s abuzz with the “nymwars,” mostly in response to Google Plus’ decision to enforce its “real names” policy. At first, Google Plus went on a deleting spree, killing off accounts that violated its policy. When the community reacted with outrage, Google Plus leaders tried to calm the anger by detailing their “new and improved” mechanism to enforce “real names” (without killing off accounts). This only sparked increased discussion about the value of pseudonymity. Dozens of blog posts have popped up with people expressing their support for pseudonymity and explaining their reasons.

The General Medical Council in Britain released new guidelines on social media for medicine. Essentially, if you are a doctor in the United Kingdom Big Brother the GMC does not believe that you sho...

Establishing one’s company as the de facto digital identity layer is the single biggest business opportunity in history. Any company that acquires this status could become the world’s credit card, the world’s gate keeper to all transactions and the world’s main source of digital security in all its myriad forms.

I think Apple can succeed where the social networks failed.

Read more at http://www.cultofmac.com/225352/why-the-i-in-iphone-will-stand-for-identity/#PDG77tAJVpDLfr2u.99

Privacy in social networks (and privacy literacy) are critically important concepts in the digital age. Educators and social media users debate a range of issues about privacy in social media but especially whether privacy has changed as a result of our newly-acquired social habits or whether it is as strict as ever. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg argued in 2008 that "privacy is dead". In response, boyd said that when Facebook makes "data visible in a more ‘efficient’ manner, it is startling, prompting users to speak of a disruption of ‘privacy’." Clearly, there's a deep need to examine citizens' attitudes towards the use of personal information whether it's for sharing with advertisers or making it available for social networking purposes.

 

'Right to be forgotten' laws, giving users – rather than services such as Facebook – control of personal data will save billions of euros and thickets of red tape. So why is Britain resisting?

Have the GMC made a slight omission and are they in fact acting in a very discriminating fashion towards certain doctors? We appreciate that totalitarian control freaks who consider themselves above all laws both British and European never make mistakes but a glance at some old GP magazines and BMJs reveals that some doctors dare to write anonymously or use pseudonyms in these journals. 

Is therefore according to GMC non-logic an article in paper format allowed to be published anonymously while the exact same content published on social media has to have the author identified if they are a doctor? Of course paper is always easier to burn than the internet so maybe the GMC feels it has more control here as it can send the stasi round with some matches to a warehouse far more easily than have to observe the legal niceties that would have to be followed for phone and internet tracing/hacking and buildings do sometime burn down spontaneously, mi lud. Perhaps they will invoke anti terror legislation to track down those they do not like as there is a clear threat in their "guidance"?

First things first - I’m not a doctor, but the surprise new rules issued by the GMC (the British regulator for doctors) still worry me. Not just because I might perhaps one day be a doctor, but because I certainly will one day be a patient.

There are valid reasons to be anonymous

This is something I do agree with.  Particularly with whistle blowing and for doctors working in small communities.  Additionally, if you want to actively debate controversial emotive topics that can truly put ones safety in danger such as abortion issues, this is also a valid reason.  These doctors have good reason to not comply with 'should' and could make good argument to the case.  To quote the GMC guidance:-

'You should’ is used when we are providing an explanation of how you will meet the overriding duty. ‘You should’ is also used where the duty or principle will not apply in all situations or circumstances, or where there are factors outside your control that affect whether or how you can follow the guidance.
CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, I think that for most this will end up being just a storm in a teacup.  Several commentators are propagating the argument that 1+1=3.  The suggestion that doctors who say that they are doctors 'should' (not MUST) use their real name is my opinion perfectly reasonable.