normiss 906 #1 September 10, 2010 Prescription database? Pay cash for books people! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #2 September 10, 2010 Quote Prescription database? Pay cash for books people! This is as bad as Jones wanting to burn that one book!I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #3 September 10, 2010 Quote Quote Prescription database? Pay cash for books people! This is as bad as Jones wanting to burn that one book! No, this is worse. I don't like a religious lunatic con-man doing something legal, but repugnant. But he is an individual. This is a law enforcement group that seems completely ignorant of Federal Law. Or simply doesn't care about privacy rights of individuals. The stuff in the "Cell Phone Tracking" thread that adresses privacy issues that have been eroded applies here too."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #4 September 10, 2010 Yeah, this is pretty onerous. Funny that the article doesn't mention HIPAA. I don't have the text of the HIPAA law in front of me now, but I'd be surprised if what they propose is legal under HIPAA (absent a subpoena or warrant). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #5 September 10, 2010 QuoteYeah, this is pretty onerous. Funny that the article doesn't mention HIPAA. I don't have the text of the HIPAA law in front of me now, but I'd be surprised if what they propose is legal under HIPAA (absent a subpoena or warrant). Would not the same restriction apply to mental health records, in regards to gun control (absent public records of involuntary commission)?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 906 #6 September 10, 2010 Nice. I think you're right too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #7 September 10, 2010 Quote Nice. I think you're right too. It seems like the same restriction would apply.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #8 September 10, 2010 Quote Quote Nice. I think you're right too. It seems like the same restriction would apply. Seems like and on the agenda are never the same thing. . . like logic and feeling are not the same.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,603 #9 September 10, 2010 QuoteWould not the same restriction apply to mental health records, in regards to gun control (absent public records of involuntary commission)? I also would agree with that. It's consistent. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #10 September 11, 2010 cops don't always know the details of the laws they're supposed to be enforcing. Nothing pisses some cops off more than quoting penal code to them. Had an officer tell me I was trespassing once. I asked if he was acting as an officer of the owner of the property. He looked at me funny until I noted that to be trespassing, you have to be informed through approved signage or verbally by the owner of someone reasonably assumed to be acting as an officer for the owner. Then his exact words were "don't argue with me boy!" Unlucky for me I was white, and he was black, not the other way around, or that belt tape would have made me some money.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #11 September 11, 2010 QuoteQuoteYeah, this is pretty onerous. Funny that the article doesn't mention HIPAA. I don't have the text of the HIPAA law in front of me now, but I'd be surprised if what they propose is legal under HIPAA (absent a subpoena or warrant). Would not the same restriction apply to mental health records, in regards to gun control (absent public records of involuntary commission)? Probably. Longer answer: I'd think that if whatever mental health records the authorities are seeking fall within the scope of the letter of the HIPAA statute, then the "default" position should be that the standard HIPAA restrictions apply. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
