You have a problem with your doctor googling you, possibly in order to know and cure you better while thousands of companies are crawling the net and harvesting this information for their profit?
If you leave sensitive personal data on the web, having your doctor finding it should be the last of your worries.
How is that illegal? Whatever is found in Google is public. It's like saying you are pirating books when you read them in library. I am not saying all the data that is indexed in Google is safe to use but that's your problem what you post on social networks and if sites you use have a crappy security/infrastructure.
Patients are, across the board, pretty rubbish at giving histories. They overlook things because they don't think it relevant or don't want to tell their doctors for some reason (even though itis relevant). This is especially true of drug and alcohol abusers.
A doctor should be allowed to go by what you tell them. Full stop. I may not want to tell someone about the fact I eat tons of red meat, for example. I may not want my test results to be shared with the insurance company, who will then charge me more. Too much shared information is dangerous.
A doctor already talks to family members when treating patients. Unless the patient has signed a release, the doctor can't talk back about the patient, their medical status, or history, but the family member is free to tell the doctor anything they want about the patient. This is especially good when the patient is very sick and doesn't know it, ie, mental illness. Or something along the lines of "he gets up every night and eats out of the refrigerator and he doesn't know he does it!" The family member who lives with the patient is sometimes better at observing symptoms that the patient misses. When I had a polysomnography (sleep study) done, there was a questionnaire specifically for the person who I shared a bed with, who observed me sleeping.
The family member might be able to tell the doctor a lot more about the patient then the doctor is able to get out of the patient. This has worked wonders in treating my dad, because he isn't able to really talk about his symptoms for whatever reason, he just can't describe them well, or doesn't think some of them are a problem that others are concerned about. My mom observes them, goes to the doctor with him, and tells the doctor what is going on with him.
>I may not want my test results to be shared with the insurance company, who will then charge me more.
That has nothing to do with this. If you don't want to share test results with insurance, then don't. Don't submit the claim to the insurance company, they don't pay for it, and nobody knows the results except you, the lab, and your doctor. If you want anyone else to know, you sign a release. That's how HIPPA works. This has nothing to do with doctors Googleing you.
So don't put "I eat tons of red meat" on the web under your real name then..?
I think you might be needlessly conflating the acts of googling someone's name and conducting a thorough investigation into them. Don't panic! :)
This is a double-edge knife. Could help the doctor treat you better or could turn him against you in the sense that he will not be comfortable treating you anymore.
What is fascinating here is that probably most people have no idea how easily accessible their data is from everyone today.
Making anything widely adopted illegal is not a solution. Educating people to be more careful about what kind of info they share online, eponymously seems like a winner. What people don't seem to get is that the internet stays here for ever, for the good and bad.
This is one of the reasons for being a fully independent distro with no ties to a "corporation". Debian comes to mind, as does Slackware, Arch, Gentoo, a couple of others. Being able to go about your business as a distro without corporate oversight is desirable these days.
CentOS now has a "master" where before, the GPL allowed them to simply take the source, remove trademarks, and re-compile as CentOS, getting the benefits of a corporately-funded distro without the legal constraints of evil IP and what not.
RH also may choose to play ball with certain organizations that I don't agree with. This may affect CentOS in some way. An indy distro can give them the finger and tell them to get bent. My goal is not money, it's freedom from oversight, freedom to do as I please, freedom to have an unencumbered distro not tainted by the likes of the false notion of IP, legal nonsense, you name it. Debian is growing for a reason. One of those reasons is because it's an indy distro.
I understand what you mean by independence from corporation, but from CentOS it's the other way round.
CentOS has always been a "slave" of Red Hat by design and, before this move, the master could even sue it for misappropriating trademarks. Now, QA of packages can be done in the open, because it would no longer be as problematic to ship test-quality packages that still happen to include a Red Hat trademark.
I see this as RH not wanting competition and/or wanting to somehow control CentOS. It's no wonder, honestly, that Debian is gaining in popularity as they are the last of the main Linux distros who control their own destiny. I feel very awkward about this news.
But think: how could Red Hat 'control' CentOS when CentOS is simply a clone of RHEL produced from the srpms that Red Hat have to distribute under the terms of the GPL?
As Karanbir says, 'we retain an upstream'.
There are other clones: Scientific Linux (CERN/Fermilabs and a lot of Universities) and Springdale Linux (Princeton/Institute of Advanced Study) are two other RHEL clones. And of course, there is Oracle Linux, a third clone, and one that provides commercial support.
The absolute worst that can happen is a return to the state of today. Also, CentOS didn't do anything new and creative and visionary that all. Their goal from the beginning was to replicate RHEL with all the non-free bits (mostly artwork and trademarks) replaced.
The concern isn't to have anything new and creative. That's not always the goal of OSS. The goal is the have free and open equal alternatives to corporate-controlled software. Debian, for example, is likely the last of the truly unencumbered distros.
The idea is to have a distro with no "corporate" oversight -- an independent distro. This is the reasons why I heavily lean Debian and OpenBSD, because they are independent.
I'm trying to get you to describe your reasoning about what actually differs if a corporation is involved. "Independent" is not in itself a word that confers any benefit.
Most Redhat customers use Centos (eg for build, test machines etc), and many Centos users are potential RH customers. Fedora does not fill the same niche, so having all three makes sense.
Don't worry, be happy. CentOS was never real competition to RH, instead it was providing an invaluable ecosystem. In a way RH always controlled CentOS since the latter is just a clone.
If CentOS gets shitty you can always move to SL, Puias etc or make your own.
And if you need multimedia codecs, a version of VLC that works properly, and if you live somewhere where it is legal to play a DVD on a machine running linux, there is the Nux desktop repository.
