Re: OT: Feds want to drop protection of privacy regarding medical data
On Fri 22 March 2002 02:33 pm, Andrew Mathews wrote: > edj wrote: > > > > The US Constitution limits only the government, not private parties. > > Thus, while the US government would need a warrant to recover my > > "papers and effects", my doctor could disseminate my records to > > whomever he wished, absent statutory prohibition. The Bush > > administration wishes to amend the statute. No constitutional > > prohibition, I'm afraid. > > > > -- > > How so? I can't simply sieze documents belonging to you, anymore than a > doctor, attorney, private company or anyone else can sieze anything > that's considered a private record. Explicit permission has to be given > for such, such as a release consent, or warrant, regardless of the > pursuer's belonging to a government or private sector. Items of public > record that are available freely are not considered to be *private* as > are personal records, papers, and other things. No, you can't - but only because the legislature, or Bar Association says you can't. __Not__ because the Constitution says you can't As an employee of the > Supreme Court of New Mexico, though many records are available on a > public case lookup, there's specific prohibitions against me > disseminating those elsewhere, even though they're public documents and > I'm a private individual, let alone disseminating private information. Huh?? A "public case" - by which I assume you mean court records - can be gotten just by showing up the the clerk's office and requesting it. You can copy it, too - at exorbitant rates, usually. > Just because an individual or company doesn't fall under the category of > a government entity doesn't negate the right of an individual to be > protected from the dissemination of private information. Kevin Mitnick > spent a *long* time in prison for taking something he had no permission > or granted right to take (source code from Nokia and Sun) and was > considered a private record or effect and had no statutory prohibition, > e.g. no law stating that Nokia or Sun couldn't distribute their source > code without permission. Without the amendment's language there's no > defining line between theft and borrowing, legal and illegal, private > and public. The application of it provides equal protection, regardless > of the pursuer, government or private sector, though it's been distorted > sometimes to fit the situation as necessary. Kevin Mitnick broke the law - he didn't violate the Constitution. -- ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
Re: OT: Feds want to drop protection of privacy regarding medical data
On Fri 22 March 2002 02:07 pm, David A. Bandel wrote: > On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:49:11 -0500 > > begin edj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spewed forth: > > > > The US Constitution limits only the government, not private parties. > > Thus, while the US government would need a warrant to recover my > > "papers and effects", my doctor could disseminate my records to > > whomever he wished, absent statutory prohibition. The Bush > > administration wishes to amend the statute. No constitutional > > prohibition, I'm afraid. > > Not true. The doctor can't do that. You do, under laws and under > precedent set by those laws to a "reasonable right to privacy". The > doctor does _not_ have the right to disseminate that information to > third parties without your consent, but this is not a consitutional > protection. If the doctor gave those records to the newspapers (who say > they have a right to it) and it was published, you could prosecute the > doctor if he didn't have your permission. But just the doctor, not the > newspaper. You have the right to own a gun, but not the right to do > with it as you will. Try shooting someone on the street and see what > happens. Uhhh - that's what I said - it's statutory authority that protects privacy against disclosure by ordinary citizens. My point is just that the US Constitution doesn't forbid any actions except governmental ones. Well, there is one provision of the Constitution that does, indeed, apply to private parties. Wanna guess which? > I don't really want to start a "reasonable right to privacy" debate, > because those are generally settled in court on a case-by-case basis. > And what is reasonable to one judge often is not to another (and of > course that changes based on the circumstances). There's no debate here = we agree. Well, there is one provision of the Constitution that does, indeed, apply to private parties. Wanna guess which? -- ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
Re: OT: Feds want to drop protection of privacy regarding medical data
Typing furiously on March 22, Tyler Regas managed to emit: > I'm going to take a slightly different tack here... [...] > As they say, it's a dog eat dog world. And I'm wearing Milk Bone underwear... Kurt -- Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart, what is true. ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
Re: OT: Feds want to drop protection of privacy regarding medical data
On Friday 22 March 2002 21:56, Tyler Regas wrote: There are no grand, evil plots. > There's simply greed, and everyone is out to get their piece of the > share. > > As they say, it's a dog eat dog world. What worries me is that I think you're right. Terence ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
RE: OT: Feds want to drop protection of privacy regarding medical data
I'm going to take a slightly different tack here... Have you seen Gattaca (1997)? The film featured one mans struggle to break the bonds of his genetic limitations which caused him to be deemed unfit to go into space by the big, bad MegaCorporation, despite his skill and intelligence. He used the DNA bearing material of a cripple, who was otherwise genetically compatible with the companies requirements to gain access to the program. He was forced to leave nail clippings, dead skin flakes, and hair in his work area due to the constant, paranoid nature of the company's need to revalidate its candidates on a daily basis. His blood and urine were also tested daily, on both ingress and egress to the building. Sure, this may be only a movie, but consider this: The Running Man (1987) was about a fictional televised game show in the future. The show promoted direct physical violence and even death of human beings for sport and financial gain. Today's television includes programs like Survivor, The Amazing Race, Fear Factor, The Chair, and The Chamber. All of these shows are escalating what level of violence is acceptable to society. The internet has also, as a vehicle for large corporations, been able to mutate our favorite communications platform to their needs, claiming all the while that their actions and direction are in the interest of the consumer. Under that guise, big business has whittled at and begun to rub away the protections we have as private, American citizens. Making it easier to access medical records of individuals, preferably without their knowledge, will make it easier for corporations to determine any number of things and base their decisions on. The applications of this knowledge of countless and industry would love to have immediate, unregulated access to it, and all in the name of the allmighty dollar. I'm typically rather cynical, though not much for conspiracy theories. Mine follows: There is no such thing as free enterprise. There is no such thing as personal freedom. Government is a sham, whether intentional or not. Corporate America is a gigantic pyramid scheme that is feeding the top 10% of the nation, which also happens to be the richest. There are no conspiracies. There are no grand, evil plots. There's simply greed, and everyone is out to get their piece of the share. As they say, it's a dog eat dog world. ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
Re: OT: Feds want to drop protection of privacy regarding medical data
On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 11:57:58 -0600 Stuart Biggerstaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't really know the details (and don't really want to defend W.--or the > health insurance industry), but I'm not sure I can see this as a big > threat. I think most of the people involved have seen seeking treatment > and seeking payment for treatment as "prior approval" for release of > information as needed, but the courts have often not seen it that way. Hi Stuart! Perhaps you have not considered why the insurance industry wants these records...It's not so much the information that is available now, but the information that will be available through genetic testing for physical diseases, mental health diseases and such. Genetic testing for diseases will, in most instances, eliminate the use of statistics to calculate who you want to insure and who you do not want to insure. Imagine, if you will a world where you purchase health insurance and the insurance company tells you they will cover all aspects of you health until the year 2015, when they will no longer insure you for carcenoma melanoma because, sometime during the years 2015 to 1016 you going to develope the disease. This affects the entire insurance industy... Life insurance, home owners insurance and etc. The insurance industry is in essence positioning themselves to have access to gentic testing information that will start to be available in the next 5 to 10 years. This is very Orwellian. Best Peck ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
Re: OT: Feds want to drop protection of privacy regarding medical data
"David A. Bandel" wrote: > > OK, I'm not a lawyer, but I've been around enough of them to know a couple > of things: 1. Your (or my) interpretation of something as general as > what's written in the fourth (or any other) amendment is not necessarily > what you'd like to interpret it as. 2. Just because it looks like a duck, > quacks like a duck, walks and swims like a duck, doesn't make it a duck. > > It can be argued that "your" medical records aren't yours at all. That > those papers are the property of the physician, not you. If you write > "David Bandel is, in my considered opinion, an idiot" and sign it -- is > the paper that that's written on yours or mine? It has my name and an > "evaluation" about me. Ditto for your medical records. But that paper is > yours, not mine. If a physician is charged with malpractice, the records > in question are seized. The seizure papers are not served on you as the > patient, but on the Dr (whose records they are). Same is true if you go > to a lawyer and he puts together a file on you. It's not yours, so the > 4th Amendment doesn't pertain to "your" medical records. >>Snip Even worse. Drs and lawyers are under oath and required by law not to divulge information about their patience or clients without a court issued warrant. So even if the records are the property of the Drs or lawyers government cannot just take them without the proper warrant. Lee > > Again, I'm not a lawyer, just playing Devil's Advocate here. > > On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 11:07:46 -0700 > begin Andrew Mathews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spewed forth: > > > "David A. Bandel" wrote: > > > > > Not sure I'm up on this amendment to the Consitution. Which amendment > > > provides for right to privacy of medical records? > > > > > > Ciao, > > > > > > David A. Bandel > > > -- > > > > The fourth amendment. It states: > > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, > > and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be > > violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, > > supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place > > to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. > > > > While it does not contain the words "medical records" neither does it > > contain "financial records", "religous documents" or "political > > documents" but I'm sure that precedents have been set to determine that > > they're all inclusive as they do not have to be in your posession to be > > included as a protected paper or effect. Otherwise your safe deposit > > boxes, attorney's files, medical records, etc. would not require a > > warrant to be seized. > > Just IMHO. > > -- > > Andrew Mathews > > > > 10:55am up 5 days, 23:05, 5 users, load average: 1.01, 1.05, 1.00 > > > > It is better to be on penicillin, than never to have loved at all. > > ___ > > Linux-users mailing list - > > http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the > > above URL. > > Ciao, > > David A. Bandel > -- > Focus on the dream, not the competition. > -- Nemesis Racing Team motto > ___ > Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users > Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL. ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
Re: OT: Feds want to drop protection of privacy regarding medical data
from David A. Bandel: " It can be argued that "your" medical records aren't yours at all. That " those papers are the property of the physician, not you. If you write Strikes me that this spotlights the crux of the matter. That crux is not that it might be debateable whether or on what basis the records are the property of the physician or to the patient but that they do NOT belong to the Office of the President. Yet, incredibly, it is that Office which is taking unto itself the right to make the final determination as to the propriety of the use/disposition of that property. The political system which retains the facade of private ownership while reserving to the collective all of the essential elements of that ownership is facism. R -- "...what they whisper mostly is that 'no decent man will work for those people.' They mean the people in [the nation's capital]." -James Taggart (Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged) ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
Re: OT: Feds want to drop protection of privacy regarding medical data
The 4th Amendment against unreasonable search has been held to cover this by the Supreme Court. As Chief Justice (now deceased) Oliver Wendle Homes once said," The Constitution says what we (the high court) say it says. Andrew Mathews wrote: > > "David A. Bandel" wrote: > > > Not sure I'm up on this amendment to the Consitution. Which amendment > > provides for right to privacy of medical records? > > > > Ciao, > > > > David A. Bandel > > -- > > The fourth amendment. It states: > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, > and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be > violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, > supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place > to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. > > While it does not contain the words "medical records" neither does it > contain "financial records", "religous documents" or "political > documents" but I'm sure that precedents have been set to determine that > they're all inclusive as they do not have to be in your posession to be > included as a protected paper or effect. Otherwise your safe deposit > boxes, attorney's files, medical records, etc. would not require a > warrant to be seized. > Just IMHO. > -- > Andrew Mathews > > 10:55am up 5 days, 23:05, 5 users, load average: 1.01, 1.05, 1.00 > > It is better to be on penicillin, than never to have loved at all. > ___ > Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users > Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL. ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
Re: OT: Feds want to drop protection of privacy regarding medical data
"David A. Bandel" wrote: > > OK, I'm not a lawyer, but I've been around enough of them to know a couple > of things: 1. Your (or my) interpretation of something as general as > what's written in the fourth (or any other) amendment is not necessarily > what you'd like to interpret it as. 2. Just because it looks like a duck, > quacks like a duck, walks and swims like a duck, doesn't make it a duck. Very true. If it were as clear as we hoped, we'd still be writing it to include or exclude specific things and it wouldn't be reinterpreted constantly in courts of law. > It can be argued that "your" medical records aren't yours at all. That > those papers are the property of the physician, not you. If you write > "David Bandel is, in my considered opinion, an idiot" and sign it -- is > the paper that that's written on yours or mine? It has my name and an > "evaluation" about me. Ditto for your medical records. But that paper is > yours, not mine. If a physician is charged with malpractice, the records > in question are seized. The seizure papers are not served on you as the > patient, but on the Dr (whose records they are). Same is true if you go > to a lawyer and he puts together a file on you. It's not yours, so the > 4th Amendment doesn't pertain to "your" medical records. Also true in that the *owner* of the documents in question contain information relevant to the prosecution of such. That doesn't however provide a loophole in which that the information can be used for anything other than it's relevant purpose, thus the closure of courtrooms to the public when these issues arise. Usually a judge will not allow irrelevant or inadmissable evidence if it, when relesed to the public could be construed as slanderous. There's a CYA factor considered. > Go to the last hospital you were admitted to and tell them you want "your" > medical records because ... (take them home for study, etc.). Not! > They're not yours. They are the institutions for their mandated (by law) > requirement to keep records on treatment you (or anyone else) received at > their facilities. Not yours. Also true. Still doesn't mean they can do with them as they please though. You do have the right to them as copies of their originals, and they can't release them without compliance with their legal obligations, so your protection isn't negated by this. > What you're talking about is a reasonable right to privacy and that the > hospital, doctor, etc., will respect that reasonable right to privacy and > not show me, Joe Dipstick, medical information about you that I don't need > to know. > > Big difference here, reasonable right to privacy vs. 4th amendment > protection from unreasonable seizure (of your person, house, papers, > effects). > > Medical records are _not_ covered by the 4th Amendment. Try again. Quite possibly an interpretaion of the amendment itself. It's merely the one that is most closely applicable to this question. I'm sure that there are many more laws that are neither amendments, nor as broad in coverage as an amendment is intended to be. However, if it's not covered, why is the necessity of changing a law even being debated? There's obviously more that's applicable in relevance than simple definition. Do "right to privacy" and "unreasonable searches and seizures" not have more commonality than differences? I'll stand behind the first try. > Again, I'm not a lawyer, just playing Devil's Advocate here. > Ditto. I see it as a comparison between what we expect it to be, and what it really is, with no clear definition yet. Not really a difference of opinion, just a difference of interpretation and expectations. Debate is good for the soul and the mind. > Ciao, > > David A. Bandel -- Andrew Mathews 12:35pm up 6 days, 45 min, 5 users, load average: 1.03, 1.02, 1.00 ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
Re: OT: Feds want to drop protection of privacy regarding medical data
The confidentiality release form a patient signs prior to release of medical records to a third-party provider or whatever, bears a footnote which cites the federal regs involved, or rather the section of the Federal Register which embodies the publication of said regulation(s). -- Glenn Williams - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Registered Linux User # 135678 - since 1994 Powered by RedHat Linux 7.2 - KMail 2.2-11 On Friday 22 March 2002 12:07 pm, you wrote: > On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:49:11 -0500 > > begin edj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spewed forth: > > On Fri 22 March 2002 01:07 pm, Andrew Mathews wrote: > > > "David A. Bandel" wrote: > > > > Not sure I'm up on this amendment to the Consitution. Which > > > > amendment provides for right to privacy of medical records? [wholesale snippage] > > I don't really want to start a "reasonable right to privacy" debate, > because those are generally settled in court on a case-by-case basis. > And what is reasonable to one judge often is not to another (and of > course that changes based on the circumstances). > > Ciao, > > David A. Bandel ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
Re: OT: Feds want to drop protection of privacy regarding medical data
edj wrote: > The US Constitution limits only the government, not private parties. > Thus, while the US government would need a warrant to recover my "papers > and effects", my doctor could disseminate my records to whomever he > wished, absent statutory prohibition. The Bush administration wishes to > amend the statute. No constitutional prohibition, I'm afraid. > > -- How so? I can't simply sieze documents belonging to you, anymore than a doctor, attorney, private company or anyone else can sieze anything that's considered a private record. Explicit permission has to be given for such, such as a release consent, or warrant, regardless of the pursuer's belonging to a government or private sector. Items of public record that are available freely are not considered to be *private* as are personal records, papers, and other things. As an employee of the Supreme Court of New Mexico, though many records are available on a public case lookup, there's specific prohibitions against me disseminating those elsewhere, even though they're public documents and I'm a private individual, let alone disseminating private information. Just because an individual or company doesn't fall under the category of a government entity doesn't negate the right of an individual to be protected from the dissemination of private information. Kevin Mitnick spent a *long* time in prison for taking something he had no permission or granted right to take (source code from Nokia and Sun) and was considered a private record or effect and had no statutory prohibition, e.g. no law stating that Nokia or Sun couldn't distribute their source code without permission. Without the amendment's language there's no defining line between theft and borrowing, legal and illegal, private and public. The application of it provides equal protection, regardless of the pursuer, government or private sector, though it's been distorted sometimes to fit the situation as necessary. -- Andrew Mathews 11:55am up 6 days, 5 min, 5 users, load average: 1.06, 1.03, 1.00 ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
Re: OT: Feds want to drop protection of privacy regarding medical data
On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:49:11 -0500 begin edj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spewed forth: > On Fri 22 March 2002 01:07 pm, Andrew Mathews wrote: > > "David A. Bandel" wrote: > > > Not sure I'm up on this amendment to the Consitution. Which > > > amendment provides for right to privacy of medical records? > > > The fourth amendment. It states: > > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, > > and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be > > violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, > > supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the > > place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. > > > > While it does not contain the words "medical records" neither does it > > contain "financial records", "religous documents" or "political > > documents" but I'm sure that precedents have been set to determine > > that they're all inclusive as they do not have to be in your posession > > to be included as a protected paper or effect. Otherwise your safe > > deposit boxes, attorney's files, medical records, etc. would not > > require a warrant to be seized. > > The US Constitution limits only the government, not private parties. > Thus, while the US government would need a warrant to recover my "papers > and effects", my doctor could disseminate my records to whomever he > wished, absent statutory prohibition. The Bush administration wishes to > amend the statute. No constitutional prohibition, I'm afraid. Not true. The doctor can't do that. You do, under laws and under precedent set by those laws to a "reasonable right to privacy". The doctor does _not_ have the right to disseminate that information to third parties without your consent, but this is not a consitutional protection. If the doctor gave those records to the newspapers (who say they have a right to it) and it was published, you could prosecute the doctor if he didn't have your permission. But just the doctor, not the newspaper. You have the right to own a gun, but not the right to do with it as you will. Try shooting someone on the street and see what happens. I don't really want to start a "reasonable right to privacy" debate, because those are generally settled in court on a case-by-case basis. And what is reasonable to one judge often is not to another (and of course that changes based on the circumstances). Ciao, David A. Bandel -- Focus on the dream, not the competition. -- Nemesis Racing Team motto ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
Re: OT: Feds want to drop protection of privacy regarding medical data
OK, I'm not a lawyer, but I've been around enough of them to know a couple of things: 1. Your (or my) interpretation of something as general as what's written in the fourth (or any other) amendment is not necessarily what you'd like to interpret it as. 2. Just because it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks and swims like a duck, doesn't make it a duck. It can be argued that "your" medical records aren't yours at all. That those papers are the property of the physician, not you. If you write "David Bandel is, in my considered opinion, an idiot" and sign it -- is the paper that that's written on yours or mine? It has my name and an "evaluation" about me. Ditto for your medical records. But that paper is yours, not mine. If a physician is charged with malpractice, the records in question are seized. The seizure papers are not served on you as the patient, but on the Dr (whose records they are). Same is true if you go to a lawyer and he puts together a file on you. It's not yours, so the 4th Amendment doesn't pertain to "your" medical records. Go to the last hospital you were admitted to and tell them you want "your" medical records because ... (take them home for study, etc.). Not! They're not yours. They are the institutions for their mandated (by law) requirement to keep records on treatment you (or anyone else) received at their facilities. Not yours. What you're talking about is a reasonable right to privacy and that the hospital, doctor, etc., will respect that reasonable right to privacy and not show me, Joe Dipstick, medical information about you that I don't need to know. Big difference here, reasonable right to privacy vs. 4th amendment protection from unreasonable seizure (of your person, house, papers, effects). Medical records are _not_ covered by the 4th Amendment. Try again. Again, I'm not a lawyer, just playing Devil's Advocate here. On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 11:07:46 -0700 begin Andrew Mathews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spewed forth: > "David A. Bandel" wrote: > > > Not sure I'm up on this amendment to the Consitution. Which amendment > > provides for right to privacy of medical records? > > > > Ciao, > > > > David A. Bandel > > -- > > The fourth amendment. It states: > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, > and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be > violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, > supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place > to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. > > While it does not contain the words "medical records" neither does it > contain "financial records", "religous documents" or "political > documents" but I'm sure that precedents have been set to determine that > they're all inclusive as they do not have to be in your posession to be > included as a protected paper or effect. Otherwise your safe deposit > boxes, attorney's files, medical records, etc. would not require a > warrant to be seized. > Just IMHO. > -- > Andrew Mathews > > 10:55am up 5 days, 23:05, 5 users, load average: 1.01, 1.05, 1.00 > > It is better to be on penicillin, than never to have loved at all. > ___ > Linux-users mailing list - > http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users > Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the > above URL. Ciao, David A. Bandel -- Focus on the dream, not the competition. -- Nemesis Racing Team motto ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
Re: OT: Feds want to drop protection of privacy regarding medical data
On Fri 22 March 2002 01:07 pm, Andrew Mathews wrote: > "David A. Bandel" wrote: > > Not sure I'm up on this amendment to the Consitution. Which amendment > > provides for right to privacy of medical records? > The fourth amendment. It states: > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, > and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be > violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, > supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place > to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. > > While it does not contain the words "medical records" neither does it > contain "financial records", "religous documents" or "political > documents" but I'm sure that precedents have been set to determine that > they're all inclusive as they do not have to be in your posession to be > included as a protected paper or effect. Otherwise your safe deposit > boxes, attorney's files, medical records, etc. would not require a > warrant to be seized. The US Constitution limits only the government, not private parties. Thus, while the US government would need a warrant to recover my "papers and effects", my doctor could disseminate my records to whomever he wished, absent statutory prohibition. The Bush administration wishes to amend the statute. No constitutional prohibition, I'm afraid. -- ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
Re: OT: Feds want to drop protection of privacy regarding medical data
"David A. Bandel" wrote: > Not sure I'm up on this amendment to the Consitution. Which amendment > provides for right to privacy of medical records? > > Ciao, > > David A. Bandel > -- The fourth amendment. It states: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. While it does not contain the words "medical records" neither does it contain "financial records", "religous documents" or "political documents" but I'm sure that precedents have been set to determine that they're all inclusive as they do not have to be in your posession to be included as a protected paper or effect. Otherwise your safe deposit boxes, attorney's files, medical records, etc. would not require a warrant to be seized. Just IMHO. -- Andrew Mathews 10:55am up 5 days, 23:05, 5 users, load average: 1.01, 1.05, 1.00 It is better to be on penicillin, than never to have loved at all. ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
RE: OT: Feds want to drop protection of privacy regarding medical data
> It's a shame; we could have been a Great Country. Power corrupts. Absolutely. ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
Re: OT: Feds want to drop protection of privacy regarding medical data
Bill Campbell wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2002 at 12:41:40AM -0500, Marvin Dickens wrote: > >The Bush administration proposed today to drop a requirement > >at the heart of federal rules protecting the privacy of > >medical records. It said doctors and hospitals should not > >have to obtain consent from patients before using or > >disclosing medical information for the purpose of treatment > >or reimbursement. > > > >Full story: > > > >http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/22/politics/22PRIV.html?0321na5 > > >Apparently, the insurance industry gave more than a sh!t load of money to > >the GOP... So much so as to entice the Bush administration to attempt to > >violate the US constitution. I am absolutely disgusted. > > Snip The first three words of the Constitution, We The People, designated the People as the true owners of government, not rich special interests. Somewhere along the way we got lost. It's a shame; we could have been a Great Country. Lee ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
Re: OT: Feds want to drop protection of privacy regarding medical data
On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 00:41:40 -0500 begin Marvin Dickens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spewed forth: > The Bush administration proposed today to drop a requirement > at the heart of federal rules protecting the privacy of > medical records. It said doctors and hospitals should not > have to obtain consent from patients before using or > disclosing medical information for the purpose of treatment > or reimbursement. > > Full story: > > http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/22/politics/22PRIV.html?0321na5 > > Apparently, the insurance industry gave more than a sh!t load of money > to the GOP... So much so as to entice the Bush administration to attempt > to violate the US constitution. I am absolutely disgusted. Not sure I'm up on this amendment to the Consitution. Which amendment provides for right to privacy of medical records? Ciao, David A. Bandel -- Focus on the dream, not the competition. -- Nemesis Racing Team motto ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
Re: OT: Feds want to drop protection of privacy regarding medical data
OK - here's what we'll do: let's publish the medical records of the President and his cabinet and their family members as a trial of the proposed policy change, and then we'll see how it goes from there... Regards, Glenn -- Glenn Williams - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Registered Linux User # 135678 - since 1994 Powered by RedHat Linux 7.2 - KMail 2.2-11 On Thursday 21 March 2002 10:41 pm, you wrote: > The Bush administration proposed today to drop a requirement > at the heart of federal rules protecting the privacy of > medical records. It said doctors and hospitals should not > have to obtain consent from patients before using or > disclosing medical information for the purpose of treatment > or reimbursement. > > Full story: > > http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/22/politics/22PRIV.html?0321na5 > > Apparently, the insurance industry gave more than a sh!t load of > money to the GOP... So much so as to entice the Bush administration > to attempt to violate the US constitution. I am absolutely disgusted. > > > Peck > ___ > Linux-users mailing list - > http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users > Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the > above URL. ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
Re: OT: Feds want to drop protection of privacy regarding medical data
On Fri, Mar 22, 2002 at 12:41:40AM -0500, Marvin Dickens wrote: >The Bush administration proposed today to drop a requirement >at the heart of federal rules protecting the privacy of >medical records. It said doctors and hospitals should not >have to obtain consent from patients before using or >disclosing medical information for the purpose of treatment >or reimbursement. > >Full story: > >http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/22/politics/22PRIV.html?0321na5 >Apparently, the insurance industry gave more than a sh!t load of money to >the GOP... So much so as to entice the Bush administration to attempt to >violate the US constitution. I am absolutely disgusted. This is surprising? If all the elected people in Washington D.C. who have voted for laws that violate the Constitution, we would probably be left with one Congressman, Ron Paul. ``The fact is that the Constitution was indended to protect us from the government, and we cannot expect the government to enforce it willingly'' -- Dave E. Hoffmann, Reason Magazine March 2002 Bill -- INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC UUCP: camco!bill PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way FAX:(206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676 URL: http://www.celestial.com/ ``Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.'' -Thomas Jefferson ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
