DEA Argues Oregonians Have No Protected Privacy Interest In Prescription Records 455
schwit1 writes "Like emails and documents stored in the cloud, your prescription medical records may have a tenuous right to privacy. In response to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) over the privacy of certain medical records, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration is arguing (ACLU response) that citizens whose medical records are handed over to a pharmacy — or any other third-party — have 'no expectation of privacy' for that information."
Oregon mandates that pharmacies report information on people receiving certain drugs to a centralized database (ostensibly to "...help people work with their health care providers and pharmacists to know what medications are best for them."). State law does allow law enforcement to access the records, but only with a warrant. The DEA, however, thinks that, because the program is public, a citizen is knowingly disclosing that information to a third party thus losing all of their privacy rights (since you can always just opt out of receiving medical care) thanks to the Controlled Substances Act. The ACLU and medical professionals (PDF) don't think there's anything voluntary about receiving medical treatment, and that medical ethics override other concerns.
America is fucked ... (Score:5, Insightful)
You've lost sight of your own Constitution and what you stand for.
Now you're a bunch of witless idiots cowering in the dark.
Re:America is fucked ... (Score:5, Insightful)
The DEA lost sight of the oath they took a long time ago.
Can't go along with that. I think corrupt morons is closer. Egotistical Assholes might also fit the bill.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think if DEA were serious about their oath it would have dissolved long time ago.
I think if DEA were serious about use of common sense at daily work they would have dissolved long time ago.
Re:America is fucked ... (Score:5, Interesting)
The moment they started.
It took a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol. Where is the one that bans any other drugs or enables the DEA?
Re:America is fucked ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
They've decided the taxing authority allows them to do anything and everything now. You can buy and sell illegal drugs with a tax stamp, they just won't sell you a tax stamp. Bang, banned product. Don't want to buy health insurance? We'll tax you if you don't. It's small now, but if that authority holds they can tax you at any rate they want. Don't buy product X? Bang, we're adding a tax penalty of 100% of your income. Better yet, 1000%. Now you either don't work or you're an indentured servant since taxes
Re: (Score:3)
Why not?
We needed one to ban Alcohol, was that previously separately protected somewhere in the constitution?
Re:America is fucked ... (Score:5, Insightful)
To answer your question (though I suspect you know the answer already) an amendment was required to prohibit alcohol because the constitution gives the feds no power to do such a thing. And the only reason it didnt require a constitutional amendment to outlaw cannabis and cocaine and opium is simply racism - our ancestors were willing to let the government expand its power unconstitutionally in this way after being re-assured this would only be used to outlaw drugs that "others" used. Cannabis was primarily used by chicanos, cocaine by blacks, opium by chinese immigrants.
That racism is something we are paying the price for still today.
Re:America is fucked ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:America is fucked ... (Score:4)
The feds will fall back on the Interstate Commerce Clause. That's one thing that has them upset with the attempts by several states to legalize marijuana. Since it can be grown and consumed locally, the Interstate Clause doesn't necessarily apply.
Not that it will stop them. If medical insurance is a bit of Interstate Commerce, than pretty much anything is - 'Hey - that air molecule crossed a state border. We're in charge now....'
Re:America is fucked ... (Score:5, Interesting)
> That's one thing that has them upset with the attempts by several states to legalize
> marijuana. Since it can be grown and consumed locally, the Interstate Clause doesn't
> necessarily apply.
Oh, they'll find a way to make interstate commerce apply to just about anything.
See Wickard v. Filburn for an example.
If you don't care to google, the short version is that some congressman had driven through the notion that there should be a minimum price for his constituents' grains. So congress imposed a quota on how much grain a farmer could grow. Filburn (another farmer) was growing grain (wheat, IIRC) in excess of his quota... for his family's personal and private consumption. In other words, this grain was never destined for commerce, interstate or otherwise.
He was fined and ordered to destroy his crops, fought it all the way to the SCOTUS, and lost. Their reasoning was that by growing his own grain he was not buying it on the open market, which could potentially include grain grown in other states. Therefore he was taking part in "interstate commerce" and could be regulated.
Interstate Commerce Clause = Instrastate Powers (Score:5, Informative)
Indeed, the Interstate Commerce Clause is one of the most abused sections of the Constitution. If something is grown and consumed locally, you and I might deny it has much to do with interstate commerce. Indeed, it would seem to be the very definition of intrastate commerce. But the sophists, er... sorry, the Constitutional lawyers will argue that growing drugs locally rather than buying them from other states will affect the markets in those other states. Since the activity has interstate effects it will be counted as interstate commerce.
So it's not just that an air molecule might cross the state border. It's also that by having air within the state borders, we have no vacuum within the state. Our lack of a vacuum in the state means that we will not draw on other state's supply of air, so affecting the air market in those states. We're in charge now...
Lest what I say seem to absurd, consider this from the font of all knowledge [wikipedia.org]:
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:America is fucked ... (Score:5, Informative)
Well, Timothy Leary [wikipedia.org] got the Marijuana Tax Stamp act thrown out before Nixon signed in the DEA acts.....so, we just need someone else to come up and get the laws for drug scheduling struck down.
I know it takes more money to do that these days, but surely there are some big money types on the left (and maybe some on the right too) that could fund this for some poor sap that is caught up on these draconian laws.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:America is fucked ... (Score:5, Insightful)
How about vicious and cruel thugs? Dangerous madmen? Sick, twisted fucks? Reprehensible monsters?
I don't think there's invective too severe for the DEA. They'd rather see ill people waste away to their deaths in prison than get comfort from a medication they disapprove of. That's just plain evil.
Re:America is fucked ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Furthermore, this probably isn't related to our paranoia. Oregon has legalized medical marijuana. I'm going to assume this isn't about fighting terrorism so much as it is relating to the government wanting to know who is taking medical marijuana so they can make more arrests and send more "criminals" to perform slave labor for their campaign donors in the private prison industry.
That said, thank you for the reminder that I need to donate again to the EFF and ACLU.
Re:America is fucked ... (Score:5, Insightful)
A parallel between the East German Stasi and the DEA comes to mind. Both felt you had no right to privacy, and that they had unlimited surveillance and enforcement powers. And the mission-statement for both organizations seemed to be to perpetuate their own power. as an end in itself.
Re:America is fucked ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess HIPAA just doesn't fucking matter. I work with medical records daily. If I fuck up I'm liable for $10k per incident. Fuck these guys.
DEA's drug of choice (Score:5, Funny)
crack (they're on it, apparently)
If the DEA wins, it loses (Score:5, Interesting)
If the DEA wins, then surely Oregon's database (PDMP) is in violation of HIPAA, which means the database should be shut down, which means that there would no longer be any data for the DEA to collect.
So, great work DEA. Shut down a useful database.
Re: (Score:3)
Is it a useful database? The database doesn't appear to have many uses beyond the prohibition-oriented ones. The claimed uses don't necessitate a state run database.
It seems like law enforcement involvement was the whole point of it. Maybe Oregon just didn't want to share with the DEA.
Re:DEA's drug of choice (Score:5, Insightful)
Just another example... (Score:5, Interesting)
Of these three-letter-agencies twisting the law to fit their needs. And, without any of the necessary oversight that we were promised.
So, I guess my question is, are things going to get better because we have a more aggressive flashlight for exposing these secret interpretations of our law, or, will this just keep getting worse until something significantly worse happens? Something like, Egypt, Syria, etc...
Revolutions are nothing new... I just wish they weren't so damned violent and terrifying.
Re: (Score:2)
Revolutions are not always violent. "Revolution" just means "turning around" -- some kind of major reversal of the social order. I would say the Civil Rights movement in the US was a revolution. Nelson Mandela's election in South Africa was a revolution. (OK, there was violence in both cases, but the violence was mostly aimed at *suppressing* those revolutions, and it failed.)
The US is a long, long way from needing actual bloodshed to improve its society. A few hundred thousand people marching in the street
Re:Just another example... (Score:4, Funny)
Revolutions are not always violent. "Revolution" just means "turning around" -- some kind of major reversal of the social order. I would say the Civil Rights movement in the US was a revolution. Nelson Mandela's election in South Africa was a revolution. (OK, there was violence in both cases, but the violence was mostly aimed at *suppressing* those revolutions, and it failed.)
The US is a long, long way from needing actual bloodshed to improve its society. A few hundred thousand people marching in the streets would be plenty effective.
if lots of people marching was all that was required then both the tea party and occupy would have sucseeded at something niether has.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, the Tea Party simply couldn't get enough people to believe in the cause - being exposed as a scheme for the rich to get richer at the expense of the public certainly didn't help
Re:Just another example... (Score:4, Interesting)
There was plenty of violence and even assassinations in those fights. More recently, OWS protesters were tear gassed, maced, and beaten with clubs.
Re:Just another example... (Score:5, Interesting)
I find it immensely depressing that the same generation that fought so hard and paid such a dear price for civil rights when they were young was the exact same generation to sell them back so cheaply when they were old.
Re:Just another example... (Score:4, Interesting)
All courtesy of the PATRIOT act.
Repeal that and all the crap that has been going on falls like a deck of cards.
Sadly not one of the spineless scumbags in washington dares to even talk of repealing it.
Re: (Score:3)
Revolutions are nothing new... I just wish they weren't so damned violent and terrifying.
They don't have to be nor always are. We just remember the terrifying ones. A revolution can be as simple as the prime minister's medic giving him the wrong medicine, a senator being stabbed in the kidney with a small icepick, or an official car just turning the wrong corner into a bottleneck from which one less passenger gets out.
The aspect of the revolution isn't important, only the strength and extension of the idea. If half the population of a country wants someone dead, that person is dead. The law is
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In the IRS's defense ... A) they are NOT that bad. Contrary to the stories your grandpa told you about how evil they were. I've never seen an example of the IRS going after anyone who didn't deserve it or wasn't just a random audit (I was randomly selected for audit, which was awesome as I netted about $5500 out of the deal in the end) B) most of the people who want to reduce or eliminate the IRS are evading taxes, which is they feel is justified and is part of their reduce or eliminate the IRS kick.
You'
Re: (Score:3)
The demonization of tax collectors goes way back.
There's the Sheriff of Nottingham.
Then there's Judas Iscariot.
People really don't like the tax man.
Re:Just another example... (Score:4, Funny)
C) And their last letter isn't 'A'.
Re:Just another example... (Score:4)
And the only group to actually be denied tax-exempt status was a "liberal" group. Didn't heart much about that, either.
Re:Just another example... (Score:5, Insightful)
So what? "The DEA gotta catch shady doctors" does not translate to "you have no expectation of medical privacy". Especially when there are federal laws laying out that we do, in fact, have the expectation of privacy. In fact, those laws require anyone touching our medical information to provide us with a statement saying "hey, this is going to be kept private".
Re:Just another example... (Score:5, Insightful)
there are lots of doctors writing prescriptions which are then resold on the street. the doctors are in on the scam since they cannot possibly see all these patients.
the DEA is just trying to catch shady doctors
And this is relevant to the DEA's desire to see my medical records why exactly?
Sure, I'm so worried that some pillhead will be buying opiates or amphetamines of standardized purity and potency produced by (somewhat) law-abiding companies according to FDA industrial heigine standards, rather than getting the good shit from biker gangs or mexican cartels or whatever that I'm willing to let the DEA have a rummage through my medical records (which are, of course, totally impossible to infer with nontrivial accuracy from my prescription history).
(As it is, why don't we cut the criminal distribution networks off at the knees by referring addicts straight to the higher-quality product, and accompanying opportunity for medical care and cessation assistance, provided by medical-grade drugs?)
Re:Just another example... (Score:5, Insightful)
I would rather have thousands of junkies getting clean safe prescription drugs to feed their habit than have even one person condemned to a life of agony because the DEA makes doctors scared to prescribe pain meds.
The DEA needs to stop practicing medicine without a license.
Re:Just another example... (Score:5, Insightful)
I would rather have thousands of junkies getting clean safe prescription drugs to feed their habit than have even one person condemned to a life of agony because the DEA makes doctors scared to prescribe pain meds.
The DEA needs to stop practicing medicine without a license.
Ding ding ding. Let me comment again about the two hours I had to wait in the emergency room for pain meds for IBS because standard practice is to make the patient wait to weed out the morphine addicts. That's right, all across the country people are waiting in emergency rooms in crippling pain because morphine addicts can't get their fix.
Re:Just another example... (Score:5, Interesting)
the DEA is just trying to catch shady doctors
First of all, even if this was true, it wouldn't justify violating the privacy rights of third parties.
Secondly, the DEA considers any doctor who prescribes a lot of painkillers to be a "shady doctor", even if there is a legitimate medical reason. Doctors who treat people with chronic pain are in real danger of being prosecuted by these witch-hunters.
That's the state's job. Also, get a warrant. (Score:5, Insightful)
Repeat after me "the federal government does not have general police power". "The federal government does not have general police power".
See United States v. Dewitt, Employers' Liability Cases, Keller and the 10th amendment, which reads:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
"Find scam doctors" is not one of those delegated powers, which are listed in article 1, section 8.
This part of the filing on page was interesting:
The DEA is not required to obtain a court order based on probable cause to issue a subpoena or to have it enforced.
Fourth amendment, anyone?
Re:Just another example... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't particularly care what they are trying to do. Perhaps those "shady doctors", as you put it, are doing what doctors who prescribed alcohol during prohibition did: Realizing that arrest and jail is more harmful to the health of their patient than the drugs.
However, in any case, it doesn't matter what they are trying to do....ends do not justify means. Maybe I am "just trying to catch child pronographers" so I break into your house and inspect every file on your computer. Sure its wrong but hey, I am trying to catch child pornographers, so you should be happy I violated your privacy. As long as the intention is good, all is good in your mind right?
DEA, meet HIPAA and HITECH. (Score:2, Funny)
DEA, meet HIPAA and HITECH.
Re:DEA, meet HIPAA and HITECH. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:DEA, meet HIPAA and HITECH. (Score:5, Insightful)
The DEA jumped the shark a while back. If marijuana is a Schedule I drug (no accepted medical use, high probability of harm) and Marinol (concentrated, synthetic THC, the active ingredient in marijuana) is a Schedule III (Like low dose hydrocodone - Vicodin) then something's pretty wacky.
They have no interest in doing anything but increasing their fiefdom. Which is a shame. There is a complex interplay between useful and dangerous drugs and uncontrolled drug abuse is dangerous (witness the bath salts issue). But no one wants to work the with the DEA since administratively they're still mired in the Reefer Madness [wikipedia.org] mindset.
The executive branch, ie. Obama, needs to slap on some testosterone patches (a Schedule III drug) and knock some upper level bureaucrats silly. There really is no possible law enforcement reason for this. If you are looking for the few doctors that really are the bad apples, the pill mill guys, then all you need to do is track the docs prescription volumes. Start looking at the folks, say two standard deviations from the mean. That should give you enough homework. You don't need to drill down to the individual patient level - that's not where the public health issue is.
Re: (Score:3)
Jumped the shark presumes they had a legitimate purpose at some point. The DEA is evil, it has always been evil, and has never had any purpose other than oppression.
Re: (Score:3)
Dude, the DEA was founded on a shark jump.
It all came out of alcohol prohibition and the FBN having precious little bit of jack shit to do after it ended. So they started drumming up support for giving themselves more work, and...it worked. The path to making marijiana illegal was a farce so comical that nobody would believe it were it fiction.
You have Harry Anslinger, a name everyone should read up on.... first he tells congress marijiana makes people violent and how just one joint could make a person kill
Re: (Score:2)
Re:DEA, meet HIPAA and HITECH. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how long it will be before armed 'security' teams from DEA and DHHS get in a firefight over medical records.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. The fact that patents may know about HIPAA is sufficient grounds to believe they do have an expectation of privacy as well as a legal right to it..
Simply put: (Score:2)
The DEA has become the enemy of the American people and needs to be disbanded, or at least have it's house cleaned.
Re:Simply put: (Score:4, Funny)
The DEA has become the enemy of the American people and needs to be disbanded, or at least have it's house cleaned.
Arguably, it would be more amusing to apply genetic engineering techniques to construct a virus that splices in cannaboid synthesis mechanisms when it infects and organism. Then release it into their ventilation system.
An entire department full of psychoactive DEA agents whose bodies synthesize Schedule I controlled substances would be the ultimate in zany stoner comedy.
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like a great way to reign in the deficit while we're at it.
Medical records privacy act? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm puzzled; I'd think that this was covered by the Medical Records Privacy laws.
Personal information you give to your doctor is shared with insurance companies, pharmacies, researchers, and employers based on specific regulations.
http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/index.html [hhs.gov]
https://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs8-med.htm [privacyrights.org]
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
HIPAA specifically permits law enforcement to request PHI through a variety of means [hhs.gov]. A court order is probably the fool proof way to get it. Or they can just ask for it and say that it's for a specific investigation in a written letter...because no one would ever lie on a written letter. Or just claim that it's for national security. You don't want the terrorists to win do you? Will someone think of the children!?!?
Re:Medical records privacy act? (Score:5, Informative)
That deceitful, misleading hhs.gov page doesn't tell you that there are many exceptions to HIPAA, including law enforcement access, which is buried within links that are difficult to get to:
Covered entities may disclose protected health information to law enforcement officials for law enforcement purposes as required by law (including court orders, court-ordered warrants, subpoenas) and administrative requests; or to identify or locate a suspect, fugitive, material witness, or missing person. http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/summary/index.html [hhs.gov] Summary of the HIPAA Privacy Rule (emphasis added)
What that means is that a cop can go into a hospital, flash his badge, and copy all your medical records if he feels like it, without violating HIPAA. Individual hospitals may have different policies, but nothing in HIPAA prevents that.
There are also no penalties under HIPAA for releasing private health information to third parties like that. All those big fines that HHS is touting are for structural problems with their databases, not for improperly releasing information about specific individuals.
Re:Medical records privacy act? (Score:4, Informative)
It's not hyperbole. There are cases like that. (There may be a few cases cited on the Wikipedia HIPAA or Electronic Medical Record pages.)
Law enforcement access is explicitly permitted by HIPAA. I don't think that a law enforcement officer needs a court order, warrant or subpoena to get access to medical records. If you know of any regulation or cases to the contrary, I'd like to see the citation.
Hospitals can impose stricter access than HIPAA , but they don't have to.
Disband the DEA (Score:2)
Medical Treatment and Confidentiality (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmmm, let's see...if I'm being treated for a condition, any condition not involving an illegal act, and someone walks into my doctor's office and says "Give me Example Guy's current medical records", the first words out of my doctor's mouth will be "Show me your warrant or get out of my office."
So if the doctor prescribes medication to treat my medical condition, that comes under doctor-patient confidentiality. The ONLY people I have to share that information with are the pharmacy tech and pharmacy manager who do not share that information with anyone else outside that doctor's office.
So why do authority and police organizations think it's okay to grab my records at a whim because I'm taking, say, Ritalin to treat severe ADHD? They have no business or right to be pawing through peoples' records looking for criminals unless they serve a warrant to every physician involved. There is no condition under which legally prescribed medication falls outside of those parameters unless the patient himself gives said organization written authorization gained in a legal manner to search their own records.
So take your 'public disclosure' bull and stick it up your backside along with badge, Mr. Policeman. The rules apply to EVERYONE, not just the people who don't own their very own cheap tin badges.
Re:Medical Treatment and Confidentiality (Score:4, Interesting)
Hmmm, so if my records are made available to a third party, I lose my right to privacy . . .
Well, my medical insurance requires access to my records or at least to medical information in order to process claims for coverage, including condition, diagnosis, tests, medication, etc., etc. etc.
So by logical extension, the medical records of everyone are public?!?
DEA cannot win this. Why bother? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why would the DEA waste their time and money on this? HIPAA thoroughly establishes prescription records as being contained within the scope of medical privacy.
Re:DEA cannot win this. Why bother? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ask a silly question...
Re:DEA cannot win this. Why bother? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, the DEA enforces more than just marijuana laws.
They enforce laws against opiates. This jacks up the price, and driving addicts to commit crimes to get a fix. This also decreases the quality and consistancy of the supply, killing people.
They enforce laws against cocaine, turning people towards more easily obtained, yet far more harmful stimulants like meth.
The enforce laws against psychedelics, depriving most of the country from one of the most awe inspiring, and still incredibly safe experiences life has to offer.
And to top it all off, they drive these industries underground, enriching violent cartels at great human cost.
The DEA serves no desirable purpose whatsoever. I challenge anyone to put forth a single well meaning, well informed argument for prohibition of any drug.
Re:DEA cannot win this. Why bother? (Score:4, Insightful)
That is not hyperbole in the least. They are both examples of the exact same thought process in different contexts. Both are wanton cruelty justified by a twisted sense of morality. In both cases, the agressor believes that he is doing the right thing while harming individuals and his community.
If I'm wrong, what exactly is the difference?
This fails the "well meaning" test. Whether or not they have to use drugs, or can get clean is irrelevant. What matters is what policy yields the best public health outcomes. Prohibition has absolutely failed on this measure. It has no effect on rates of addiction, and makes addiction far more dangerous. Continuing prohibition in light of this fact is simply being cruel because "those people deserve it".
Also, consider that an islamist could use the same argument. "She didn't have to get an education/refuse the veil/drive a car/etc." This is just blaming the victim.
Oh, and "Addiction is no excuse for breaking the law." is begging the question. Presuming that opiates should be illegal because addicts should be punished for breaking the law is circular reasoning.
He's wrong in the first case, as you'd expect from a police officer lecturing about pharmacology. Cocaine and methamphetamine both act at the norepinephrine and dopamine transporters. Cocaine blocks reuptake, while methamphetamine runs the transporter in reverse. Both lead to extra neurotransmitter in the synapse of stimulatory/pleasure systems. The main pharmacological difference is that methamphetamine is metabolized much more slowly.
He's right in the second case, but the reasons for that are largely cultural and economic. If everything is equally available at reasonable prices, and people are educated properly, cocaine would likely displace a lot of meth use, leading to better public health. You'd also eliminate meth labs in one fell swoop.
As if nobody ever dies at the Grand Canyon? As if psychedelics that unlock corners of the mind and put us in touch with the closest thing to divinity that can be scientifically reproduced are not a natural wonder of the world, every bit as worthy of experiencing as the Grand Canyon? As if I couldn't say "If your life is so boring that you MUST see some giant hole in the ground, you need to
Re: (Score:2)
I have an idea... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What about HIPAA? (Score:2)
Isn't this a direct violation of HIPAA?
Big Profits (Score:3)
Step 2: Get a database of everyone to their plates from the DMV
Step 3: Get a list of all drugs that you should not drive if you are on.
Step 4: Get a database of what drugs people are on.
Step 5: for every plate you see, check if they can be driving
Step 6: pull over anyone who fits the profile. If their picture matches,
Step 7: Issue tickets and jail time
Step 8: profit!
Re: (Score:2)
Profit for the companies who supply the equipment and run the prisons. Loss for the taxpayers.
Monkey Business (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, the DEA would argue against Orangutan rights. The DEA's run by a bunch of baboons!
Replace Pharmacy (Score:3)
Or perhaps:
And if we can work our way around the Fourth and Fifth amendments, let's have at the First as well.
This is foolish and hopefully the laws will overturn it. If I could support only two bills this year, one would be a bill that would henceforth hold accountable corporate heads who engage in the sort of shenanigans that led to the recession. It would require jail-time. But if I could only support one bill, it would require jail-time for the heads of alphabet soup agencies whose policy decisions are found to violate the Constitution. A judge might yet throw this out, but if the people who make such decisions do not suffer they'll just try again in a different way. If he wishes to sit on the throne, let Damocles sit under the sword.
How does this not violate HPAA? (Score:2)
HPAA, from what I've seen, is taken pretty seriously. And the rules about what you can and can't disclose because of it are pretty strong. But how does this not flagrantly violate the protections it's supposed to offer? I'm not saying HPAA is perfect or implemented perfectly, but if you know what someone is taking, you know far more about them than if they simply see a doctor.
Seeing a general physician could mean you've got the flu, an infected cut, a torn muscle, or be the first step towards a cancer diagn
HIPPA (Score:4, Interesting)
2c
Re: (Score:3)
No, it applies to all healthcare professionals and those handling the information.
What's ambiguous? (Score:2)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against ... ...and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
How is this ambiguous?
Take them at their word (Score:2)
Good morning, Anonymous.
In an ongoing court case, the US Drug Enforcement Agency has argued that citizens have no "expectation of privacy" for any medical records that are ever provided to any third party.
You mission, should you choose to accept it, is to take them at their word. Find the medical records of as many of the following people as possible: members of the DEA, attorneys for the DEA in this case, and any judge at any level of the US judiciary who has ever ruled against citizens' privacy. Publish s
Easy solution (Score:2)
Defund the DEA. We would literally save $billions on the actual DEA budget, and there would be knock-on effects in not having to turn cities into war zones combating something that's a public health problem. Take half the money we spend on DEA, and earmark it for addiction treatment under Obamacare. Drug problem solved (to the extent that it can be solved). DEA Agents? Don't worry. There are food stamps and Obamacare for you. We'll treat you well, and help you to find a new productive career; but if
Someone at the DEA needs to be fired (Score:2)
(Actualy, I think that everyone at the DEA needs to be let go, but that is a different political argument.)
This argument is so brain-dead and politically DOA that you have to wonder if something is not being mis-represented. However, if it is as the ACLU (generally a reliable source) relates, whoever is heading the DEA legal team is both dangerous and incompetent, and needs to go.
Not a violation of HIPAA (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
" Obama has proven himself to be even worse than Bush"
sigh, no he hasn't been.
Now I'm going to say the same thing I have said about every president during the last 30 years: They aren't Omnipotent. They do not know what everyone under them is doing, and they aren't really hands on running each agency beneath them.
No that doesn't absolve them from their actions, it's jut a reminder that people do things of their own will and not everyone in the federal government emails the president asking them for permissi
Re:The Obama Administration... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think its ludicrous that there are classes, defined by a bunch of stuffy old politicians, few of whom have any medical credentials.
Simple fact is, marijuana use is drug use. Period. There are more pot users than the next 3 major illicit drugs COMBINED. You take pot out of the mix and it is hard to justify any of this crap.
Even worst is the drug related crime, an entire class of petty crimes that happen really, for no other reason, than the artificially inflated price of drugs. Just look at portugal or the swiss heroin study. Criminality amongst drug users is clearly driven not by drug use but by drug high prices.... prices which prohibitionist tactics aim to raise.
Just look at alcohol problems today, and tell me that they are real problems when compared to the alcohol problems during prohibition. When was the last time some people were executed by a street gang over alcohol distribution? When was the last rash of people blinded by methanol added to bootleg liquor?
Its not just bad scheduling of marijiuana, its the very idea that the government should regulate what people can choose freely to put into their own bodies that was wrong.
Re:The Obama Administration... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh I disagree entirely, I see no evidence that government involvement actually helps. Drug abuse is, at its worst, a medical problem. Prohibition does jack shit to address the real issues. In fact, what it really does is create these drugs.
Yes create them. Over and over we see prohibitionists setting their sights on whatever happnes to be popular at the moment, disrupting the market, and then something else crops up. Prohibition encourages increasing potency, encourages ignoring safety protocols and releasing untested and unsafe drugs onto the street.
Many of these drugs would never have gained any serious popularity at all if not for prohibitionists creating the market for them.
And beyond all that.... my body my choice. Fuck you for even having an opinion about what I, or anyone else, might or might choose to use.
Re:The Obama Administration... (Score:4, Interesting)
Prohibition works quite well when alternatives are available for the same market - it works so well that you only notice it in cases where there is no or poor alternatives, and so a black market is created. The FDA bans lots of drugs because they're just too dangerous for the goal they achieve, and that's a worthwhile goal - it's effectively fraud prevention. That's quite different from drugs like pot that are banned because of the goal they achieve.
Re:The Obama Administration... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now I'm going to say the same thing I have said about every president during the last 30 years: They aren't Omnipotent. They do not know what everyone under them is doing, and they aren't really hands on running each agency beneath them.
If *I* know about it, what's the President's excuse for not knowing about it? When he finds out about these issues, what's his excuse for not firing the head of the agency? Why is Eric Holder still AG, when he violated Obama's promise to respect state laws on medical marijuana? Why is James Clapper still DNI, when he lied to Congress? For that matter, has Obama disciplined ANYONE underneath him for well established abuses of power?
Obama doesn't give a shit about us, our rights, or America. All he cares about are his cronies.
Re: (Score:3)
You know about it because you read a one-sided story fed to you by the media.
If the media story is so one sided, how do you know that "In this case, the DEA claims their actions are justified by a SCOTUS ruling"? Does the President not have access to the same newspapers I do? Or does he not read them, because he doesn't care?
The President's office is exactly the same. They get their updates through thousands of periodic reports, and each one comes with a ready-built rationale for what they're doing.
Right,
Re: (Score:3)
I read TFA, and the linked FAs, and one of them gave the DEA's reason as background.
Right, so the media may not be as one sided as you initially claimed.
Then I used a bit of critical thought, and realized that the ACLU might not be wholly unbiased, so I read more, mentally emphasizing the DEA's justification.
And the DEA isn't biased? Why do you only apply critical thinking to the ACLU and not to the arguments of the DEA?
Then, applying Hanlon's razor, I assume that the DEA believes their own justification,
Re:The Obama Administration... (Score:5, Insightful)
Judging from the AC post below, I think you have your answer: deflect, deflect, deflect.
Nevermind the fact that Obama lied to the nation, repeatedly, about the extent of NSA spying.
Nevermind the fact he's still, still pushing for a war with Syria, despite the opposition of pretty much every single American citizen.
Nevermind the fact that Obama claimed to want the "most transparent adminstration in history," he's prosecuted more whistleblowers than even Bush did.
Obama makes Bush look like a regular champion of civil liberties.
Re: (Score:3)
So the question becomes does he know about it or not. If not lets make him aware, if he does than he approves of it by the mere act of letting it proceed this way.
His job as CiC is to know what his government is doing, and making sure it does things right.
Re:The Obama Administration... (Score:4, Funny)
Obama is a conservative Reaganite republican 5th column plant who masqueraded as a liberal during his first campaign. And the only reason we didn't kick is gestapo ass out of office for the second term was that the alternative was even worse.
Re:The Obama Administration... (Score:4, Funny)
This is a trend that has been going on more-or-less continuously since the J. Edgar Hoover administration and will continue to go on long after you die of old age.
I honestly can't tell if you're implying that Hoover, the first FBI director, was really the man pulling the strings of one or more US Presidents, or if you meant to type "Herbert Hoover".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That is for me and the doctor to decided, not the government.
You mean you, the doctor, and the insurance company? Because that's the current situation, is it not? It constantly amazes me how a profit-making private company can be more trusted than a non-profit public organisation.
But then I live in one of those communist European states that have had universal healthcare for 60 years, what would I know.