lindavers

Didn't really find much substance in this beyond repetition of 'fraudster' and accusations of incompetence; rather disappointing.

Only real bit of argument appeared to be this:

Calling Facebook and its advertising “a fraud” because you choose to run a “like campaign” in a part of the world that is known for fraudulent links would be like calling Yahoo Stores “a fraud” because you chose to make your online shop visible in, say, Nigeria.

But the video _did_ include an experiment running in areas less known for fraud. A discussion of the merits and failures of that casual experiment would have been worthwhile!

I fully expected to read the details and see that the headline was some sort of hyperbole

It really is, see the source page for more details:

http://www.hscic.gov.uk/dlesaac

The misunderstanding going on in the comments seems to be stemming from a failure to distinguish between personal identifiable data and personal confidential data.

The former: "This includes patient identifiable data, such as:

NHS number Name Address Postcode Date of Birth Date of Death"

and the latter: "Personal confidential data also includes sensitive data which may include items such as:

Racial or ethnic origin Political opinions Religious or other similar beliefs Physical or mental health condition Sexual life Criminal record"

The patient identifiable needs explicit permission from the patient in order to obtain, patient confidential needs a good legal reason + reviewed application.