No privacy at all from the Feds.
Posted By: New Stimulus wants your medical history. on 2009-01-28
In Reply to:
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=87322
A little-discussed provision in President Obama's economic stimulus plan would demand that every American submit to a government program for electronic medical records
without a choice to opt out, and it has privacy advocates more than a little alarmed.
Patients might be alarmed, too, privacy advocates said, if they realized information such as documentation on abortions, mental health problems, impotence, being labeled as a non-compliant patient, lawsuits against doctors and sexual problems could be shared electronically with, perhaps, millions of people.
Without those protections, Americans' electronic health records could be shared – without their consent – with over 600,000 covered entities through the forthcoming nationally linked electronic health-records network," Blevins said.
There is more in the link.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
No privacy at all from the Feds.
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=87322
A little-discussed provision in President Obama's economic stimulus plan would demand that every American submit to a government program for electronic medical records
without a choice to opt out, and it has privacy advocates more than a little alarmed.
Patients might be alarmed, too, privacy advocates said, if they realized information such as documentation on abortions, mental health problems, impotence, being labeled as a non-compliant patient, lawsuits against doctors and sexual problems could be shared electronically with, perhaps, millions of people.
Without those protections, Americans' electronic health records could be shared – without their consent – with over 600,000 covered entities through the forthcoming nationally linked electronic health-records network," Blevins said.
There is more in the link.
you are right - but it is the privacy laws -
women's bodies are their own - if they are old enough to see a gynecologist they have their privacy. Now, they can go next door and get treated by the general physician and get the same thing done and mommy or daddy can be involved, just not in the gyno's office.
What people do in the privacy
of their own homes is spilling over into the schools, daycares and churches. They want support and affirmation of a nasty, immoral behavior. People are not happy that this type of behavior is being promoted to their children. It has NOTHING to do with love, unity and giving your life to another. There are consequences of this lifestyle and none are good. No decent parent wants that for their children. Give it a rest already.
If your kid's in colleged, the feds might visit you.
Agents' visit chills UMass Dartmouth senior
By AARON NICODEMUS, Standard-Times staff writer
 NEW BEDFORD -- A senior at UMass Dartmouth was visited by federal agents two months ago, after he requested a copy of Mao Tse-Tung's tome on Communism called The Little Red Book.
Two history professors at UMass Dartmouth, Brian Glyn Williams and Robert Pontbriand, said the student told them he requested the book through the UMass Dartmouth library's interlibrary loan program.
The student, who was completing a research paper on Communism for Professor Pontbriand's class on fascism and totalitarianism, filled out a form for the request, leaving his name, address, phone number and Social Security number. He was later visited at his parents' home in New Bedford by two agents of the Department of Homeland Security, the professors said.
The professors said the student was told by the agents that the book is on a watch list, and that his background, which included significant time abroad, triggered them to investigate the student further.
I tell my students to go to the direct source, and so he asked for the official Peking version of the book, Professor Pontbriand said. Apparently, the Department of Homeland Security is monitoring inter-library loans, because that's what triggered the visit, as I understand it.
Although The Standard-Times knows the name of the student, he is not coming forward because he fears repercussions should his name become public. He has not spoken to The Standard-Times.
The professors had been asked to comment on a report that President Bush had authorized the National Security Agency to spy on as many as 500 people at any given time since 2002 in this country.
The eavesdropping was apparently done without warrants.
The Little Red Book, is a collection of quotations and speech excerpts from Chinese leader Mao Tse-Tung.
In the 1950s and '60s, during the Cultural Revolution in China, it was required reading. Although there are abridged versions available, the student asked for a version translated directly from the original book.
The student told Professor Pontbriand and Dr. Williams that the Homeland Security agents told him the book was on a watch list. They brought the book with them, but did not leave it with the student, the professors said.
Dr. Williams said in his research, he regularly contacts people in Afghanistan, Chechnya and other Muslim hot spots, and suspects that some of his calls are monitored.
My instinct is that there is a lot more monitoring than we think, he said.
Dr. Williams said he had been planning to offer a course on terrorism next semester, but is reconsidering, because it might put his students at risk.
I shudder to think of all the students I've had monitoring al-Qaeda Web sites, what the government must think of that, he said. Mao Tse-Tung is completely harmless.
Contact Aaron Nicodemus at anicodemus@s-t.com
This story appeared on Page A9 of The Standard-Times on December 17, 2005.
The feds should use the bank & Wall St.
Then put a lien on, and sell, their fancy mansions in upstate NY, their yachts, their Mercedes, etc. Let their kids to go public school instead of fancy private ones. They're the greedy ones who got us into this mess, let THEM pay for it, not us.
Here's hoping the feds will mobilize appropriate
keep their eyeballs unpeeled on such screwball organizations.
privacy for publicity seeking
nobody, no talent Joe. Where was/is your concern about the government listening in on our military members phone calls home to their loved ones? The government paid listeners who passed the private love messages around the office for entertainment? If you wish to be in the spotlight, you have to stand the scrutiny.
And the beat goes on...$21M from feds for airport
...that already has an airport!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/25/federal-government-funds-new-million-airport-alaska-town-residents/
Never think that you've seen the stupidest waste of our money by the government. There's something even dumber coming tomorrow.
If you are so interested in Palin family privacy,
nm
Hillary Clinton Calls for Privacy Bill...sm
Now I agree with Senator Clinton on this and I have said all along wire tapping should have checks and balances, goverment 101.
Also, living in an information society there has to be something in place to protect citizens privacy. This past week I read a blog with pictures of unknowing obese or tacky dressed people posted in the blog with comments about them. These people were enjoying a private day at the pool and this blogger was snapping their pictures. Not only was this downright evil and disrespectful but it should be illegal.
---------------
(AP) Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, drawing on her experiences as a young Watergate lawyer who decades later was investigated as first lady, urged creation of a privacy bill of rights Friday to protect people's personal data.
Modern life makes many things easier and many things easier to know, and yet privacy is somehow caught in the crosshairs of these changes, Clinton said in a speech to a left-leaning legal group.
Clinton's speech on protecting consumers from identity theft and citizens from government snooping was the latest in a series of talks billed as major addresses by aides. Previous speeches were on energy and the economy.
A potential presidential candidate in 2008 whose eight years as first lady were marked by numerous investigations, Clinton noted her work on a House committee investigating the Nixon administration's illegal snooping and other abuses.
And she ruefully called herself an expert in the loss of privacy.
Having lost so much of my own privacy in recent years I have a deep appreciation of its value and a firm commitment to protecting it for all the rest of you, she said, prompting laughter from the audience of the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy.
Clinton wants to create a privacy czar within the White House to guard against recent problems like the theft of personal data from the Department of Veterans Affairs.
She also wants legislation to let consumers know what information companies are keeping about them and how it is used, and create a tiered system of penalties for companies who are not careful with consumer data.
Clinton also waded into the debate over anti-terror eavesdropping. For months Democrats have hammered at the Bush administration over the National Security Agency's program of domestic wiretapping without warrants from judges. The administration insists it is both legal and necessary.
Clinton said any president should have the latest technology to track terrorists, but within laws that provide for oversight by judges.
The administration's refrain has been, Trust us,' said Clinton. That's unacceptable. Their track record doesn't warrant our trust. ... Unchecked mass surveillance without judicial review may sometimes be legal but it is dangerous. Every president should save those powers for limited critical situations.
MMVI The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Feds paying $millions in stimulus checks
Next time you make some colossal blunder at work, here's your excuse: "I was rushed". Apparently, that's good enough for the feds, who have sent around 10,000 checks to dead people...some of whom were never even in the Social Security system. Wonder where they're getting the names?
Of course, we knew that the fraud, abuse and waste would be gargantuan since the government has never been able to handle our money without fraud, waste and abuse.
http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/your_money/consumer/090514_Dead_People_Get_Stimulus_Checks
|
