Slashdot Mirror


Gov't Proposes Massive Homeless Tracking System

Chris Hoofnagle writes "The Dept. of Housing and Urban Development is proposing a massive system of tracking for homeless people and others who are served by shelters and care centers. The system will track people by their SSN, and will collect health (HIV, pregnancy) and mental information. Secret Service and national security agents can gain access to the database by just asking for it! EPIC has released a fact sheet on HMIS, and the public can comment on the guidelines until September 22, 2003, but no electronic comments are being accepted."

54 of 808 comments (clear)

  1. No, we need to track politicians, dammit! by corebreech · · Score: 5, Funny

    WozNet suppositories for everybody on Capitol Hill!

    1. Re:No, we need to track politicians, dammit! by Uruk · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, we don't need to track politicians. We already know where all of the crack houses, bordellos, cheap motels, and liquor stores are. On the off chance that they're actually in session, we also already know where the Capitol is, thanks.

      --
      -- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
    2. Re:No, we need to track politicians, dammit! by zephc · · Score: 3, Funny

      Coming soon to a market near you: Soylent Hobo!

      --
      "I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
  2. Not to be cruel, but... by SoVi3t · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Couldn't this money be spent in a better way? Better shelters, lower income housing, etc. We don't need to track them. We need to help remotivate them, and get them back into society.

    --
    Defender of Microsoft and Communism!!!
    1. Re:Not to be cruel, but... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Funny
      You rotten Communist!

      Don't you think that if we had known who the penniless homeless were, we could have prevented the massive attack on 09/11/01? They are begging for spare change, and using it to buy AIRLINE TICKETS!

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    2. Re:Not to be cruel, but... by Bonker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I wish I had mod points for the above.

      20-25 percent of homeless people are seriously mentally ill.

      http://www.nrchmi.com/facts/facts_question_3.asp

      They're sick, get sicker, and cause more problems for everyone around them, including other homeless, because they can't really get treatment for their diseases.

      If we're spending money to try and improve the situation of the homeless, making more free mental and medical help available will do a hell of a lot more than a tracking system.

      --
      The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
    3. Re:Not to be cruel, but... by Magic+Thread · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Only for homeless, right?
      Sure, it's only for the homeless... for now. Don't count on it staying that way.
    4. Re:Not to be cruel, but... by gantzm · · Score: 5, Funny

      They're not homeless, they're residentially displaced.

      Somebody should the track the Politically Correct crowd, they're the ones to watch out for.

      --


      Excessive forking causes un-wanted children.
    5. Re:Not to be cruel, but... by Frymaster · · Score: 4, Funny
      The point of the tracking system is to prevent fraud.

      then we should have mandatory tracking for all major ceos! the enron debacle came in at about $4 billion... that's a lot of food stamps.

    6. Re:Not to be cruel, but... by Pxtl · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, being someone who actually lives in an urban environment (as opposed to suburbanite /.ers) I can say that these people do need to be tracked for their own benefit. Many of them cannot access social services precisely because they do not have a stable mailbox or other contact system. The government is unable to contact them with important information (such as the death of a family member).

      Many homeless don't want housing - there is little stable work for them, and a house ties them in place, while wandering from shelter to shelter allows them to be opportunistic with work (such as summer picking and carnival gigs that pop-up all over the place). Having a tracking system that would allow the government to stay in touch with them while they are on the move would be helpful.

      Still, this sounds like its being misused, tracking them like animals. They are human beings, and this violates their human rights to improper search. You would not want a police officer to be able to access your medical or personal information whenever they want - so why should the homeless be denied that?

    7. Re:Not to be cruel, but... by SoVi3t · · Score: 4, Insightful

      .....perhaps I assume they're unmotivated and not involved in society because they're homeless, not working or putting any money into the economy (unless you count the bottle of wine they buy every once a week). I have NOTHING against homeless people. I was homeless for a short period of time when I was younger, and it opened my eyes. There are more than enough ways for homeless people to get back into society. There are shelters, welfare, care programs, and so much more. It does take awhile, but you can get back on your feet. You just have to work for it.

      --
      Defender of Microsoft and Communism!!!
    8. Re:Not to be cruel, but... by TopShelf · · Score: 3, Informative

      Believe it or not, but there is actually some beneficial purpose to this endeavor. For instance (from HUD's document):

      "An HMIS offers many benefits to persons seeking and receiving homeless assistance services. Homeless clients can benefit from more effective and streamlined referrals from on-line information and referral and service directories. Clients can benefit from enhanced intra-agency coordination. For example, advanced HMIS software has been developed that both calculates client eligibility for multiple programs and generates ready-to-sign applications for those programs."

      This is a GOOD thing. I suppose the alternative is to maintain "privacy by obscurity" through a lack of coordination and reliance on manual processes to determine eligibility and prepare applications? Yeesh...

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    9. Re:Not to be cruel, but... by Dragon218 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To be fair, some of those lockdown mental institutions were cruel and unusual. The closing down of those were a good move, but not providing something else (i.e. assisted living, community houses, employment help) was just ignorant.

      You have to remember, the United States has a saftey net... it's called prison, and it's only getting worse.

      --

      "It's the little touches that make a future solid enough to be destroyed" --William S. Bourroughs
    10. Re:Not to be cruel, but... by Luscious868 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      20-25 percent of homeless people are seriously mentally ill.

      ...

      They're sick, get sicker, and cause more problems for everyone around them, including other homeless, because they can't really get treatment for their diseases.

      Ah, but therein lies the problem. We can only forcefully medicate people that are either a danger to themselves or others. If a person is neither a danger to himself nor to those around him, but is mentally ill and homeless and we can not force them to take medication. There will always be a percentage of the homeless who are mentally ill and choose to continue living that way and there is nothing that anyone can do about it.

      If we're spending money to try and improve the situation of the homeless, making more free mental and medical help available will do a hell of a lot more than a tracking system.

      I totally agree. While there will always be those that don't want help, the money would be much better spent helping those who want help rather than trying to track them. This just seems like a complete and total waste of tax dollars in addition to a total invasion of privacy. I wonder how many people might refuse to even go into a shelter if something like this was instituted.

    11. Re:Not to be cruel, but... by fishbowl · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "20-25 percent of homeless people are seriously mentally ill."

      But they aren't proposing tracking the diagnosed mentally ill. They are proposing tracking the *homeless* which includes a lot more than just "mentally ill" people. There are plenty of people who are homeless by choice. I know quite a few who live nomadic lives. And they are by no means mentally ill or incompetent.

      To suggest that they are not entitled to the same rights as anyone else is downright unamerican.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    12. Re:Not to be cruel, but... by MoggyMania · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Not just some of them, but actually the overwhelming majority. The support forums I run for cognitive disabilities have a number of people that were locked up in mental hospitals by idiots that misdiagnosed them as mentally ill -- and the one thing they *all* agree on is that the hospitals are full of cruel/unusual punishments. They also all said that they would rather be homeless (though most aren't) or dead before sent back to such places. The tales they've told about how they were treated literally make "One Flew Over A Coocoo's Nest" look like Disneyland. On top of that, there's a great deal of misinformation *within* the psychiatric industry. Common "treatments" for some things involve nothing more than physically punishing the person for showing any signs that she/he is different, and rewarding showing no sign of discomfort when exposed to physically painful stimuli. Ironically the aversives inevitably give rise to genuine mental illness in the form of severe depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. I agree, there should be a structured, *humane* safety net available -- one not based on forcing everybody into a one-size-fits all mold of blind obedience. Right now there's a sick duality: either you get almost no help at all, or you're basically abused. Also, a common problem for people with treatable mental illnesses (bipolar, schizophrenia,etc) is that they are stuck on various forms of financial assistance because they can't afford the medications. If they could afford the drugs, they could work, but because they can't afford them, they can't work.

    13. Re:Not to be cruel, but... by robogun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Good point... many of the homeless are quite content, unlike us wage slaves. Simply because we apply our values to their lifestyle, find it lacking, and wring our hands constantly over it, does not make it wrong.

      There have been beggars since the earliest city states sprung up out of the Mesopotamian mud and it will never be cured.

      My feeling is, if someone elects to "drop out" of society, he has the freedom to do so. Well, until this system is implemented, anyway.

    14. Re:Not to be cruel, but... by dubbage42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why would you think that wealth should be distributed? That is a load of socialist crap.
      Perhaps you should distribute some of your wealth around. Adopt a homeless person today! Make them live with you!
      And who pays most of the taxes? Not your precious poor, I can tell you that. So just who is it that is getting robbed?
      Most of the "homeless" people are there because of choices they have made over the course of their lifetimes up to that point. Not because someone is robbing them and giving their money to someone else.

    15. Re:Not to be cruel, but... by replicant108 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You don't know how many homeless people there are, but you know that the numbers are inflated? That's pretty impressive, dude.

    16. Re:Not to be cruel, but... by HiThere · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You were young, healthy, relatively well educated, and in an upturn economy. How many of those characteristics apply to the average homeless person?

      And that's ignoring the problems of mental health. Which are not minor by any means. E.g., I would personally estimate that many (not most, nor even close to most, but many) suffer from depression. I know that some suffer from advanced schizophrenia. etc.

      Another group of them need, more than anything, a safe place to call a permanent address. (It might be only a lock-box.) Access to some safe place to store a change or two of clothes. Access to a shower and a washer/dryer. The basic minimum that one needs to hold down a job. Or to get one.

      Other groups need other things. Few of them really need to be tracked. That's for somebody else's benefit. You have to really *trust* the government before you would feel that something like that was for your own benefit. And strangely enough, I don't think I know anybody who trusts the government that much. I've been employed by the govt. for 30 years, and I don't trust it that much.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    17. Re:Not to be cruel, but... by Politburo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What?! You mean the government will give me a number and keep track of how much money I make, how many kids I have, and what money they are giving me?

      Idiot. We're not next, we were first.

    18. Re:Not to be cruel, but... by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not exactly homeless, but have come close.
      I too have supposedly "refused to cooperate with treatment programs."

      Treatment programs that kept me locked up in a prison-like mental ward. Treatment programs that had lazy doctors put me on many psych drugs all at once to make me "manageable."
      Manageable, as in too fucked up to complain that the drugs had me too fucked up. As in too fucked up to complain that I had been imprisoned against my will for the "crime" of being depressed.

      These drugs fucked me up so much that they made me crave ANY kind of stimulation to let me know I was still alive - cutting my own flesh, doing any illegal drugs I could get my hands on, fucking anything that moved, running around naked in public.

      The drugs changed me from a depressed but sane person into a fucking LUNATIC. And no amount of complaining helped, I was told I would have to be on the drugs for the rest of my life because I was "bipolar" - this, determined after a 5 minute interview.

      I finally got into a position where I could get off the drugs on my own, and of course am now NOT running around like a fucking maniac, NOT cutting myself, NOT doing illegal drugs, and not only have no desire to do so, the very thought repulses me.

      They MADE me fucking nuts and made me suicidal by pumping me full of shit just to keep me from interrupting their coffee breaks.

      Some times the treatment is worse than the disease.
      I saw many, many chronic mental patients whose underlying problem was FAR worse than mine, and I saw the shitty treatment they received, how they got no respect, were treated as subhuman.

      People "choose to refuse treatment" NOT because being homeless and hungry is FUN, it's just better than the hellhole that most free institutionalized care is.

      --
      This space available.
  3. Works for me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now if only we could track spammers this way.

  4. Why do we kill Kenny? Because he's poor. by rdewald · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, the bottom line here is if you want government benefits you have to give up some privacy in order to get them. Why don't we just ear-tag the homeless with RFID's and track their migration like an endangered species?

    There are a significant portion of the hard-core homeless that will simply stay off-grid, that's why they're homeless in the first place, they decline to participate. Now, these people won't be able to stay anonymous and get fed or get medical care from the government. My suspicion is that the govt. knows this well and is anticipating a reduction in cost while being able to issue press releases about the decline in the numbers of homeless as they stop coming to the clinics and kitchens.

    This is analogous to the reports in the declining unemployment rate reflected in lower numbers of people collecting unemployment insurance. It doesn't count the people that have given up, or have turned to the black/gray market for a living.

    --
    The best way to do is to be.
  5. Sounds like a good plan. by Dr.+Bent · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Fine with me. So long as you also provide the list to Habitat for Humanity

  6. May be bad, but also good. by isa-kuruption · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While I understand how Privacy Advocates might go to arms over this, I think there are benefits to the people who are tracked.

    As I recall, there have been instances in the past where mentally handicapped have been confused by cops as criminals and shot or wrongly imprisoned. To be able to determine someone as mentally handicapped would be beneficial as the person may not him/herself be able to notify the officer he/she has a problem. Also, this would help hospitals treat patients they have never seen before, as it could assist them in identifying a mentally ill person that needs a specific form of medication.

    But I guess you could say that the risks outweigh the benefits, and you are possibly correct.

    1. Re:May be bad, but also good. by calethix · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "Also, this would help hospitals treat patients they have never seen before, as it could assist them in identifying a mentally ill person that needs a specific form of medication."

      That applies to everyone, whether they're homeless/mentally handicapped or not. Are you ready to be tagged?

      I might end up in a serious car accident some day leaving me unconscious. It would be really helpful if I have some implant so medical personel could find out who I was and see my medical history. That doesn't mean I'm going to volunteer to be tagged and tracked like an animal though.

  7. Good luck by Uruk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, it's good to want things like this, but I don't think it will really happen. Homeless people tend to be trasients, which means they're going to be hard to track. Additionally, most don't use legal names (preferring assumed names and nicknames), and may invent social security numbers. Others will be illegal immigrants who won't appear in any other record.

    Why can't we take the collective ingenuity that it would take to build a privacy invading system like this and bend it towards helping these people rather than tracking them? By helping them, there'd be fewer to track!

    --
    -- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
    1. Re:Good luck by kfg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Why can't we take the collective ingenuity that it would take to build a privacy invading system like this and bend it towards helping these people rather than tracking them? By helping them, there'd be fewer to track!"

      We're the government and we're here to help.

      For time immemorial these words have roughly translated as "Run away! Run away!" to the "helped." It's even become a joke cliche.

      Who determines what "helps" them? It seems unlikely it will be they themselves. God protect me from those that want to "help" me in ways I perceive as harmful.

      While many homeless are legitimately mentally ill many have simply fallen on temporary hard times, like the guy who actually has a job but gets locked out of his house by his drunken girlfriend and can't find an apartment in his large city for several months. This actually happens. I have a friend who ran a homeless shelter in SF for a year and he says people like this often made up half the residents. The worthless drunken girlfriend is treated like a valuable member of society and the poor guy is lumped in with the drug addicts and paranoid schizophrenics. Now they want to tag and track him?

      There are also people who simply live, by choice, outside the normal realm of behaviour, but aren't mentally ill. In fact, many of them are simply excesively sane to fit well in our idiotic society. Musashi Miyamoto and Euripides fell into this catagory once upon a time. Ghandi tried to. These people aren't sucking on the government tit. That's the whole point, they want to avoid all of that. They live or die on their own. These people are actually taking care of themselves in the true meaning of the phrase. I belive they make up a fair percentage of the homeless. They also scare the bejeezus out of the government. Round 'em up and track them. Them when something bad happens we can't explain we can just "round up the usual suspects" until we find one we can pin it on the make the populace feel secure and happy.

      In the old days these people would simply aquire a canoe, an ax and head out for the frontier to become a "fur trapper." Many of our treasured national heros, like Daniel Boone, were such people.

      Now there is no frontier and people with real independant gumption, the sort of people who could feed a tribe or conquer a continent are "mentally ill" or feared as criminals and terrorists.

      If humanity is destined to become a race of endentured clerks and marketing managers screw the whole lot of 'em and I'll join the homeless myself.

      Only problem is they don't make caves on the edge of town like they used to and the FBI is poised to track down anyone who deigns not to participate like rabid dogs.

      KFG

  8. Hey Mister! by LiftOp · · Score: 4, Funny
    "The government put a tracking device in my teeth!! No, seriously....!!"

    Think of all the money we'll save in mental institutions letting these guys we THOUGHT were nuts back out...

  9. Too Invasive by photoblur · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Entities that provide services would collect their names, Social Security Numbers, dates of birth, race, gender, health status (including HIV, pregnancy, and domestic violence), veteran status, and income information."

    This sounds way too invasive. It concerns me because once things like this are manditory for homeless people (it sounds like this system is moving that direction), then it will slowly be introduced to the masses.

    Start with the outcasts of society as to make a quiet entrance. Then work your way up.

    I don't like it.

  10. That's good.. by preric · · Score: 5, Funny
    Because one morning I came out to my parking space (I live in an apartment near the beach) to catch a homeless man 'cleaning' his ass crack on the corner of my truck's bumper.

    He quickly ran off... I was still in shock and not sure if I should chase him down, let alone know what to do with him once caught, but now I can track him down and do the same to his shopping cart.

    Sweet revenge!

  11. Read between the lines by rot26 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Dept. of Housing and Urban Development is proposing a massive system of tracking for homeless people and others

    They're not going to let this go away. This is just ANOTHER back-door version of TIA. We're going to see it introduced, again and again, under various disguises until they get it implemented. You can expect to see tracking systems suggested for the homeless, pedophiles, drug dealers, spouse abusers, bail-jumpers, tax evaders, etc etc and so on and so on, (each one being some particular organizations "most wanted") until it's actually implemented. And like stone soup, once it's in place, it will be "upgraded" to include everything that anybody ever wanted.

    --



    To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
  12. Re:For a safer society, we should track every one by arth1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why not slap a yellow star on them too, for easier identification from a distance?

    Excuse me, but are people completely blind to what's happening and deaf to the cries from history?

    Regards,
    --
    *Art

  13. Re:Why do we kill Kenny? Because he's poor. by namespan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There are a significant portion of the hard-core homeless that will simply stay off-grid, that's why they're homeless in the first place, they decline to participate.

    Dead right. And despite the fact we call it paranoia, slashdot paranoia is absolutely nothing compared to real paranoia. I have a paranoid schizophrenic aunt, and for the implication of every program like this, there's a very real chance she'd risk starvation before going to social services agencies.

    --
    Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
  14. Re:Great idea! by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And how long before they start tracking everyone in this way?

    What a naiive question. The reason they need to start tracking the homeless and not "the rest of us" is because they already are tracking "the rest of us." Try to buy a home or even rent an apartment without some sort of government ID. Hell, you can't even get electricity where I live without giving the electric company your social security number.

  15. RE: trade in your privacy now for some shelter! by King_TJ · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You're exactly right, and I think it's worth taking a long, hard look at just *why* our government feels a need to keep tabs on where its citizens are.

    The "standard" line of reasoning basically says they want your current address because they need to be able to bill you for their services (income tax).

    If, however, you're unemployed and don't have a physical address, you're by definition not a taxable citizen. Therefore, any "tracking" the govt. wants to do to these folks is for their own information-gathering purposes - and doesn't seem necessary to me at all.

    As you pointed out, there's also the (very likely) ulterior motive of trying to skew the statistics in their favor, while saving money on paying for care for folks insisting on remaining anonymous.

    As for the unemployment rate statistics, they're not really useful as anything more than a relative indicator of economic health. Consider this, though. Even those who turned to the "black or grey market" to scrape out a living are aiding the economy. They're providing goods or services (however questionably legal), and collecting money in exchange for those goods/services. Therefore, they cause others to spend some of their cash, which gives them incentive to keep working to earn more money to replace what was spent. The biggest thing that kills the economy is stagnation. The folks who have money are afraid to spend it, so the folks who don't have it find it very hard to get it.

  16. What a crock by jared_hanson · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This guy openly states that he thinks this is a good idea. How is this a troll?

    Wait, I have the answer. It is against the party line here on Slashdot. Anyone who thinks tracking anything is obviously trolling.

    New moderator rules:
    There will be no difference of opinion here on Slashdot. To become a moderator, you must become deeply familiar with the doctorine that Slashdot pushes. You must post pro-Slashdot-ideology to a number of stories. You're posts will be reviewed by those who have been deemed trustworthy. Once you have proven yourself acceptable, you will be given moderator access. At that point, you should mod down those with different opinions, and mod up those who push our agenda. If you are caught in violation, moderator access will be permanently removed.

    Yep, mod me troll, I am prepared. However, I am sick of this and am taking an open stand.

    --
    -- Fighting mediocrity one bad post at a time.
    1. Re:What a crock by diersing · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I also think its a good idea.

      Tracking the outpaying of social services, social security, disability, medication etc. Keep an accurate account of the numbers of the homeless and the economic trends that may affect those numbers. Althought without the economic means, how much do the homeless migrate? Even if its not state-to-state I would expect intra and inter city migration patterns would develop given time with this system.

      Where is the breech of civil liberties? Where is the invasion of privacy if the Secret Service know a homeless person collected food from this shelter on Monday AND got soup from a different shelter cross town on Wednesday?

      Honestly... I don't see the harm. They already track what I do based on my social security number, why should the homeless expect more privacy then I?

    2. Re:What a crock by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Where is the breech of civil liberties?

      It's in the implementation details. You can't possibly track the homeless without forcing the homeless to provide information and forcing the caretakers to collect that information. That's where the breech of civil liberties comes into place.

      Honestly... I don't see the harm. They already track what I do based on my social security number, why should the homeless expect more privacy then I?

      Because providing information allowing yourself to be tracked should be voluntary, not mandatory.

  17. Re:We can talk about them here by frodo+from+middle+ea · · Score: 3, Funny
    Obligatory Simpsons quote.
    old people don't need companionship. They need to be isolated and studied so it can be determined what nutrients they have that might be extracted for our personal use.

    I guess the same goes for homeless.

    --
    for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
  18. Re:Why do we kill Kenny? Because he's poor. by hmckee · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I fully support a person's right to privacy and their desire to not participate in society, however, getting government handouts and not participating in society are mutually exclusive.

    Why not track their benefits? The gov't and private agencies track all of my benefits: SS benefits, income tax, disability insurance, health care status. By tracking the "benefits" the homeless recieve, the gov't will be able to provide better care and make better plans and budgets thereby saving the taxpayer money.

    If they really want to live "off the grid" and not participate in society, screw 'em. They shouldn't get any gov't supplied and organized benefits from my taxes.

    I've chosen to participate in society and will not support an individual who wants to live outside society, they're on their own.

    As to the Secret Service getting the info at their own discretion, I'm against that.

    Harry

  19. operation homelesss by JimBobJoe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In the past the Libertarian Party has had somethign called "operation homeless" (at least, that's what I recall) that asked homeless people the questions from the world's smallest political quiz.

    They were overwhelmingly libertarian. The party marketed this by saying that the homeless know that the government is holding them back.

    I believe (and I happen to be an employee of the party in some capacity, so keep that in mind) that this was the wrong conclusion. The real reason is that the homeless don't like to be entangled, don't like to make agreements, and really just want to be left alone with no responsibility, no registration, no contractural obligations.) There is so much financial help that one can get in the form of welfare, food stamps, et cetera...and they choose not to do it, sometimes it is pride, but often it's this amazing resistance to being registered (and i should also think dependent on one entity.)

    Being homeless is the ultimate form of freedom (though the quality of life leave much to be desired.) I dunno if homeless in other countries are like this, but this often appears to be the case here. Nothing better than making your living "anonymously."

  20. Re:Good deal by walt-sjc · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yes, but we need to make it faster. I propose to tatoo a barcode on everyones forehead. Hey, at least facial recognition software will be easier... :-)

  21. Sure you are by missing000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes we do need to track them.

    Fine, but now I want to track you.

    Why? Because you fit in some economic group I don't really like. I think all of you need armbands too.

    We're tired of getting all those fake, inflated numbers of how many there are. Knowing how many homeless are really out there is a vital statistic.

    Here's an idea -
    Go take a walk in the city tonight. It won't kill you. There are lots of homeless. All you need to know is that there are a bunch of people starving in your backyard.

    If you really care about the numbers, I bet the census bureau could help you come up with something.

    The bullshit about this has gone on too long. Let's have some real numbers.

    Oh all right. In 2000 it was 280,527 people according to the census bureau, I'll let you search for it yourself if you don't belive me.

  22. Some of them pick it by anomaly · · Score: 3, Insightful

    My father in law is homeless and it is his choice. He has family that would take him in, but he is unwilling to:
    a) get a job
    b) pay taxes
    c) stop smoking pot
    d) stay sober

    Programs are not a solution for someone who does not want to be helped. He can't wait until he can start collecting SS checks that can help him sustain his "lifestyle." According to the SSA, he's scheduled to collect more benefits during the first year of eligibility than he has paid in taxes during his entire lifetime!

    Free medical and mental help won't help someone who doesn't want to change.

    Respectfully,
    Anomaly

    --
    But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
    1. Re:Some of them pick it by miguelitof · · Score: 4, Insightful
      My father in law is homeless and it is his choice. He has family that would take him in, but he is unwilling to:
      [...]
      Programs are not a solution for someone who does not want to be helped. He can't wait until he can start collecting SS checks that can help him sustain his "lifestyle." [...]

      Free medical and mental help won't help someone who doesn't want to change.

      So are you trying to create a logical fallacy here, stating that since your father-in-law is trying to scam the system, then every homeless person is trying to scam the system?

      There is good and bad everywhere. Take a group of 100 people, chosen by any criteria you want, and you will find good and bad people within that 100. But that doesn't mean that all 100 are bad.

      Yes, it sounds like programs offering free medical and mental health coverage would not help your FIL. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't help other homeless people.

      --
      --- Biffster.org
      "Bite my shiny metal ass."
  23. Bill Collectors already have this by CyberGarp · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Year ago I was homeless for a period of time, due to the fact that I was a teenager, my parents were dead and life is harsh. I fought my way back into society against it's better wishes.

    I actually managed to put my first year of college on credit. Then they figured out I was a bum without a job. Later I paid it back, got scholarships and managed to finish. It wasn't easy, but all this sob story has a point and it ain't for sympathy.

    I was hanging out in a particular location on a regular basis. I'm walking along and a payphone rings. Being bored and curious, I answer it. It was a bill collector! They had tracked me down to a payphone I frequently passed. Now tell me the government needs a new system, just give the homeless a credit card good for a nice sized bad debt. The bill collectors will track them for the government, no new system needed.

    --

    I used to wonder what was so holy about a silent night, now I have a child.
  24. Re:Good deal by Greedo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... or forearm.

    Oh wait. That's been done.

    --
    Tuus crepidae innexilis sunt.
  25. This has been planned for a while... by dr+bacardi · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I *knew* I had seen this before... From an article in the August 1997 Harpers:
    One of the key provisions of the bill is its five-year lifetime limit on welfare, the enforcement of which will require a vast investment in technology to track individuals, through name changes and geographical moves, for decades on end--creating a veritable Foucaultian panopticon of surveillance and a growth industry for the finger-imagists and information technologists.
    I had remembered the "veritable Foucaultian panopticon" phrase most vividly. I would not be surprised to find Lockheed and/or EDS behind this now as they were then... sounds too similar for mere coincidence.
  26. This would violate HIPAA by macdaddy · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Hasn't anyone else noticed that this would violate the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996? For those that haven't heard of HIPAA, let me explain:

    The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) was signed into law on August 21, 1996. This law includes important new protections for millions of working Americans and their families who have preexisting medical conditions or might suffer discrimination in health coverage based on a factor that relates to an individual's health. HIPAA's provisions amend Title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) as well as the Internal Revenue Code and the Public Health Service Act and place requirements on employer-sponsored group health plans, insurance companies and health maintenance organizations (HMOs). HIPAA includes changes that:

    limit exclusions for preexisting conditions;

    prohibit discrimination against employees and dependents based on their health status;

    guarantee renewability and availability of health coverage to certain employers and individuals; and

    protect many workers who lose health coverage by providing better access to individual health insurance coverage.

    Here are some useful links:

    HHS - Office for Civil Rights - HIPAA
    What is HIPAA?
    HIPAA.ORG
    HIPAA - Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996

    The dissemination of medical information without the explicit permission of subject. I don't have a problem with tracking information about how social services are used; that's expected of any service to maintain reliability. However providing medical information to law enforcement violates even the most basic principles of the doctor/patient privilege.

  27. Misrepresented facts by EricTheMad · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I work with a non-profit organization that provides services for the homeless. We are currently deciding on which HMIS database system to implement for the entire state. And from what I know of the HMIS requirements I can tell you that this arcticle is wildly misrepresenting the facts, and coming to conclusions that just aren't there.

    First of all, the HMIS database isn't meant to track the homeless at all. The government believes that the number people being reported is double the number of homeless that there actually are. So the reason for the databases existance is to get a more accurate count of the number of homeless and to track statistical information.

    Each persons is given a unique identifier that is associated with their information. They are not tracked by SSN. Every 6 months (I believe thats the time frame) a report is sent to HUD that contains the statistical information. There is no way to identify a specific person by looking at this information. HUDs guidelines are very strict on the matters of the persons privacy.

    Also, there is no central database. The state of Utah actually has 3 different sections that would be required to run their own databases. However, we have decided to run the system as a state.

    A person can refuse to give the information or not allow it to be shared with HUD. They can't be denied services if they do so. The majority of these databases are also encrypted to help ensure privacy.

    The suggestion that the Secret Service would have easy access to this information was an assumption on the part of the author of the arcticle. Even if they did have access to it, they wouldn't be able to track the information back to a specific person so it would be rather pointless.

    This could be a great tool for those organizations dedicated to helping the homeless. It will help point out locations and programs that need the most money.

    --
    -- Remember, we're not happy until you're not happy. -- Local FAA Inspector --
  28. I didn't say that there's NO problem by anomaly · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I just said that some folks like to scam the system.

    I have no problem with provision of treatment for people who want help, but I really believe that many folks take advantage of the system due to low accountability and the fallacy that substance abuse is entirely a medical problem.

    e.g. It's not my fault.....I'm genetically predisposed to [alcoholism,cocaine,crack,other chemical] -

    puhleeze - I have the apparent genetic tendency for alcoholism in my family. This is not an issue for me. I simply don't drink. Problem avoided.

    --
    But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
    1. Re:I didn't say that there's NO problem by qtp · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I really believe that many folks take advantage of the system due to low accountability and the fallacy that substance abuse is entirely a medical problem.

      And if these people fail your accountability test, what then?

      Even if substance abuse is not a medical problem, how do we handle those who clearly have a problem?

      What about the people who choose to not participate at all? Many people do not hold steady jobs, but do not collect benefits either. Often these are the people who are the most discriminated against, as in "they must be getting over somehow?"

      And how do you determine who is "taking advantage" of the system?

      Are the people who make lots of dough from government handouts, white collar crime, and profiteering from unecessary wars that were fought to defend us from non-existant Weopons of Mass Destruction (Cheney, Carlucci, others) that they advised the president about not "scamming the system" to a greater degree than the homeless?

      How can we claim that universal healthcare is unaffordable when our government not only promisses such healthcare to the Iraqis but also gives foriegn aid in the amount of $2.8 Billion to Israel, which also offers universal health care to its citizens?

      Do you think that your father in law really has paid less than $7,000.00 in his whole life as you claim? The maximum benefit for SSI is capped at $558.00 in most states. Or maybe you are talking about the retirement benefit, which is based on how much Social Security tax that you paid during the years that you worked.

      --
      Read, L