It's kind of frightening to think of Nedap operating in the healthcare industry. This is the same company responsible for the insecure and unverifiable voting machines that were eventually banned in at least the Netherlands, Ireland and Germany. I really hope they're not processing any privacy sensitive information.
Indeed, it's a weird way to pose this. As I recall, it was never the company or their specific voting machines that was the subject of discussion, but rather the idea of using closed (and thus unverifiable) voting machines produced by a commercial company for general elections. Stating that this makes the company evil or unreliable seems a bit dishonest to me.
Full disclosure: I am a former employee (I worked on the product mentioned in this article), but I joined the company much after the voting machines were in the news, so what I know is pretty much what was in the media at the time.
Being able to use a radio to know who voted what because of electronic interference emitted by a voting machine is not just a "closed voting machine by a commercial company" problem, but one of pure negligence, ignorance and poor workmanship. If you design a voting machine, you design and test for those requirements.
Either way, you have a point. If anything, the efforts of hackers have upped the requirements of anyone who still has the guts to produce voting machines (and created awareness of the increased costs with their customers) and this is a good thing.
I find your explanation somewhat disingenuous, which kind of illustrates why I distrust this company and it's culture.
Nedap voting machines were proven to be insecure, and Nedap tried everything to keep that quiet, including legal threats against those who disclosed those vulnerabilities. The way Nedap tried to manipulate political opinion with half truths and misdirection was also rather dubious.
And yes, it was very specifically Nedap's machines that were the subject of discussion in the Netherlands, Ireland and Germany.
You did read the last line where I said that I joined the company years after the voting machines were in the news, and never had anything to do with them?
Of course Nedap's machines were the ones in the news, as they were the only machines that were used. I was simply saying that my impression at the time (as a normal person watching TV) was that the discussion was more about how voting machines should not be used for elections unless they can be proven to be secure and have guaranteed integrity (something the Nedap machines failed by public opinion). I am sure that if The Netherlands, Ireland and Germany had used machines with similar issues from another manufacturer, the same discussion would have taken place. This is a good thing™, shit like this scares the living daylights out of me: http://www.truth-out.org/new-court-filing-reveals-how-2004-o...
I cannot speak for the company's conduct at the time, because I simply don't know enough about it :)
Diebold, the company famous for making horrendously engineered voting machines, also makes all of the (completely awesome) ATMs for the bank I use. It was a little unnerving at first, but I came to the conclusion that it's not that bad.
The big reason: regulation. The banking industry, as with the health care industry, is highly regulated. The election industry is not, because no one's really been making them until recently.
Part of me wants to snark back at you (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=NFC), but I had to look it up too, and the larger issue is: this page really should have told us. I'm familiar with the general concept, but the acronym is not yet in mainstream use!
Primarily because tracking people 24/7 through GPS in their phone is a privacy no-no. Next tot that: GPS is really unreliable in buildings and oldfolks tend to live in appartment blocks. Also hight (floor) is an issue as well as battery life.
Why would nurses, who have been given the phones in the first place (and do the billing) not be able to run 24/7 GPS on their own phones? Also, it wouldn't even have to be 24/7, if they work from 9-5 then its only during those hours.
Also, why would this be a no-no? How do you think map applications work? And 'local recommendations' apps?
Currently the battery of the phone lasts for at least a week. With GPS this would be reduced to a day or less. Also location services are opt in. You would not be able to opt-out of time tracking through GPS, which makes a big difference. The article you linked actually to explains the dangers of location tracking in great detail. You should read it :)
I have read it and linked to it because it is actually happening. You suggested its a 'no-no', which is definitely not the case.
I think you may believe I want the patient to carry the phone, but I am suggesting the nurse.
My father worked in Public health for 40 years, two decades ago we explored the idea of cards such as this for patients, but came to the conclusion they fell short for a variety of reasons, including patients losing the devices, patients transferring to different clinics and not having their original card etc etc. As is the case with current medical records, there is a stronger guarantee the doctors will be able to review existing case history is the data and files are stored with the hospital or care provider, not receiver.
Finally, I am pretty sure the nurse can charge a phone daily.