If you store the blood type of a patient hashed, the problem is that there are only so many blood types. So the same blood type will have the same hash value and attackers could (1) just infer statistically which are which, (2) crack one and get the rest and (3) group users even without cracking the hash.
That means we need to ensure the input values are getting more complex by prefixing them with secrets from elsewhere.
If you have one secret (e.g. stored in an environment variable) that would be the pepper. Adding pepper just makes cracking harder, but since it is the same for each value, it is not enough. But since it is not stored next to the input value it makes attacks harder.
A salt would be a per value secret that is stored for each blood type and prepended on hash.
The two in combination make it much harder to get from the hashed value to the input value without having both salt and pepper.
That’s encryption at rest, but not anonymization, unless you throw away the salt and pepper, at which point the record becomes meaningless since it cannot serve for future comparisons.
Set an alarm on your phone for when you should take your meds. Snooze if you must, but don't turn off /accept the alarm until you take them.
Put daily meds in cheap plastic pillbox container labelled Sunday-Saturday (which you refill weekly). The box will help you notice if you skipped a day or can't remember if you took them or not today. Seeing pills not taken from past days also serves to alert you if/that your "remember-to-take-them" system is broken and you need to make conscious adjustmemts to it.
I'm not going to say it's 'simple' to have hobbies or find people, but realistically if you don't regularly meet strangers in real life, you'll never date strangers so it's a catch 22.
Unless we all want to set ourselves up for arranged marriages in the future, we need to confront this reality.
Speaking as a pariah for most of his life; I doubts it would ever be so dire.
There's always going to be social circles and people coupling up no matter what. But if anything I wonder if, for people like me who aren't really worthy of intimacy, living in a society has options to live a solitary life while still contributing is actually a net positive overall. For me to self select out of the dating pool would mean less noise for someone else looking for a worthy partner.
There's less chaff that people in said said pool would have to wade though. The people that want to couple and are capable of doing so will continue to so with less distraction. That seems an overall good thing, no?
HIPAA only applies to covered healthcare entitites. If you walk into a McDonalds' and talk about your suicidal ideation with the cashier, that's not HIPAA covered.
To become a covered entity, the business has either work with a healhcare provider, health data trasmiter, or do business as one.
Notably, even in the above case, HIPAA only applies to the healthcare part of the entity. So if McDonald's collocated pharmacies in their restaurants, HIPAA would only apply to the pharmacists, not the cashiers.
That's why you'll see in connivence stores with pharmacies, the registers are separated so healthcare data doesn't go to someone who isn't covered by HIPAA.
**
As for how ChatGPT gets these stats... when you talk about a sensitive or banned topic like suicide, their backend logs it.
Originally, they used that to cut off your access so you wouldn't find a way to cause a PR failure.
Under Medical Device Regulation in the EU, the main purpose of the software needs to be medical for it to become a medical device. In ChatGPT's case, this is not the primary use case.
Same with fitness trackers. They aren't medical devices, because that's not their purpose, but some users might use them to track medical conditions.
Then the McDonalds cashier also becomes a medical practitioner the moment they tell you that killing yourself isn't the answer. And if I tell my friend via SMS that I am thinking about suicide, do both our phones now also become HIPAA-covered medical devices?
I'm not sure what people are considering instructions but it talks about the topics that I tell it to talk about, and when parsing prose it will take specific instruction as to word choice, or tone.
People who don't live in countries with mandatory conscription for all don't really understand: everyone is connected to the military but it means nothing.
Judging an Israeli citizen on their IDF ties is like judging a US citizen on the fact that they went to public school.
> everyone is connected to the military but it means nothing.
No, people who live in tiny countries with mandatory conscription don't really understand that it means that their entire country is militarized. It's not surprising that fish can't see water.
> is like judging a US citizen on the fact that they went to public school.
It's exactly like that. If public school in the US trained people to kill and spy, it would be entirely safe to assume that the US was full of killer spies. For example, if you know that US public school taught a view of world history that was distorted in particular ways, and had very little emphasis in foreign languages, it would be safe to assume that Americans have a distorted view of the world, and largely don't speak foreign languages.
According to google, 87% of Americans go to a state-funded school, so yes judging an American based on the fact that they could afford to be in the top 13% and go to a public school instead is legitimate. This doesn't seem to match what you're trying to say.
You’re using the British definition of “public school” here, which is a “private school” in the US. US public schools are equivalent to UK state schools, in that both are run by the state.
It doesn't matter if it's accurate or not, such judgements are made by most people every day. Someone who was professionally formed somewhere has a higher probability of ties to them later on. Being intelligence services this might be even more true.
In today's political climate where people around the world see Israel judging (and sentencing, and carrying out the punishment) every Palestinian as terrorists, I think this wide brush of judging Israelis on their ties with the IDF is probably widely accepted as "only fair". When it comes to Unit 8200 the implications are even stronger.
But I don't get the US public school system reference. You have to start with a baseline and if you see a private Ivy League school on someone's CV and a random public school on someone else's I'm sure you'll probably make the obvious assumption about which one is better, even if sometimes the obvious is wrong.
