Slashdot Mirror
Virginia Tech Report Cites Privacy Law Problems
RickRussellTX writes "A panel of Bush administration officials, including several bureau chiefs, concludes that confusing privacy laws contributed to the Virgina Tech shootings. The report claims that confusion over student privacy and medical privacy laws "has limited the ability of these officials to prevent the kind of violence that occurred at Virginia Tech.""
Or Does that translate as "We're going to review privacy policy" which is bush talk for "We're going to remove any of your rights to privacy under the name of virginia tech and anyone who complaigns is helping the murderers. Just a thought.
I know I'm being very pessimistic, but it's necessary with this goverment, they removed my rights to be anything else.
Complicated privacy laws have left education, health care, and law enforcement officials confused about what they can legally tell one another concerning dangerous and mentally ill people, and that confusion has limited the ability of these officials to prevent the kind of violence that occurred at Virginia Tech, according to a federal report released today.
Well should everyone who acts a little bit out of the ordinary end up on some list? Should their picture be in every squad car? Sure its easy to say, hey this kid was weird and unstable and someone should have seen it, but people say that about a lot of people. Freedom is dangerous and living in a police / nanny state isnt any safer / more desirable.
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
Really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erfurt_massacre
Blaiming guns for crazy people is just as wrong as blaming privacy laws.
Really. What country has sane gun laws? Japan? Australia?
I am not saying US gun laws make sense 100% but in this case I think they can not be blamed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spree_killer
The first sentence of your post appears not to actually be one, at least I can't find the predicate.
But the reason I'm replying is that you seem to have an omniscient view of how to fix gun violence. You posit unlikely scenarios in place of reasoned argument. I shiver to think what would happen if government tries to "protect" everything and everybody from every imagined danger. Have you heard of the Law of Unintended Consequences?
I'm still marveling over the idea of an "unreloadable-by-the-owner handgun". The Second Amendment aside, how could such a scheme work in, say, New Orleans, where we can't even fix the levees properly as the violence goes up?
You really want to stop something like this? How about actually stepping in when you see somebody picking on someone they perceive as "different"? How about forcing schools to mete out real punishment for bullying? How about trying to reach out to those who get picked on?
I'm not condoning Cho's actions, but you know something that both Cho and the Columbine shooters had in common? They all were picked on by popular kids so the kids could feel better about themselves, and the schools either explicitly or implicitly condoned this behavior. I used to be picked on all the time in elementary and middle school(fortunately in my own high school those immature people who did that were crowded out by more mature people, but I realize this is the exception rather than the rule) and you know what, it really, really sucked. Not to mention I was going through a lot of other problems, much like Cho was. Most people find creative outlets for their pent up anger, but some cannot. The best thing is to make them realize that the world isn't full of arrogant assholes, but alas this is America, where the arrogant assholes reign supreme(look at the White House and most board rooms)....
is that this is really a VERY rare thing to occur. And yet, it is certain that W. will use this to pry open the laws to allow the feds to see more about us (think patriot act) and he will be backed by both major parties. Few will have the courage to stand up and say that this is lose of rights is not worth the numbers of freak occurrence. And yet, these same ppl will use the argument that 1000's of American lives and 100K of Iraq lives was worth getting rid of Saddam. And overall, America will fall for it. Again. Sadly, we have too many citizens who ignore history elsewhere.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Rule of thumb: when peaceful citizens can't bring guns somewhere, you are fair game to be shot. If only professors were allowed to carry concealed weapons (pending background checks and the usual hoop jumping), Cho wouldn't have squeezed more than a couple shots off before he was taken down. This is the same situation seen over and over (Columbine another good example), when only the bad guys have guns (because law abiding citizens are obeying the law), the bad guys are left unchecked. That's why most mass murders happen in schools and universities, the shooter KNOWS that nobody righteous is going to fire back because they aren't breaking the law by carrying their weapons. Leave it to the gov't to create a problem where innocent citizens die and then try to take their rights away to 'fix' it without ever actually doing so.
Yes, yes... While you're at it, please take away the rest of the Constitution. Free speech can be dangerous; it may hurt someone's feelings. Maybe if someone on the campus had a gun they would have popped a cap in him and lives would have been saved. THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
Actually, you have it pretty close. It is House, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and other working on a bill in the house to collect medical/mental health records of ALL people, not just gun owners.
see http://tinyurl.com/23cgqn
Yup, a nice large federal database of anyone who has ever had a mental health issue.
So now anyone with a mental health issue who needs help will be forever in a federal database. This will only DISCOURAGE people who need help from seeking treatment.
How will this make us safer??????
PLEASE please please call your congress critter and let them know you appose this...
This is about your rights, stand up for them.
Thank you
Cho's treatment wasn't tracked or enforced due to Budget constraints. Privacy laws had nothing to do with it. In fact, privacy rights are only an issue now because the state panel panel investigating the tragedy wants access to Cho's records.
In other words, privacy laws only became a sticking point after the fact. Relaxing privacy laws would have done nothing to prevent this tragedy.
Once again Bush hides behind dead bodies to conceal his effort to destroy civil liberties. I swear, this man hasn't a single shred of human decency. Not a shred!!!
Really?
Would you please explain to me why, then, London England is having a problem with a rise in shootings? Guns are *far* more controlled there than in the US, so they should have no problem, right?
A proper and complete reply to your post can actually be stated in just two words...
Horse shit.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
I'm glad I'm not American, because your patriotism is just plain frightening, you may argue that gun control has nothing to do with this, that criminals will always get guns anyway, a lot of idiots will say that it's better to have a gun and not need it than to not have one around when the next maniac strikes.
That is all completely bullshit, when somebody snaps and goes on a rampage, over in the USA they can reach for a gun, if they don't own one they can go and buy one without any problems. Over here the chances of them having a gun in the first place is low, and to get a gun you need to go through a months long process, by that time it would be obvious they're not mentally stable enough to own a gun.
That leaves them with few options, a knife? a really big knife? How many people do you think a person can kill with a knife? Will they be able to blast their way into a room with a knife? I don't think so. It's quite simple really, killing someone with a gun is easier, the body count is lower if there is no gun.
Also I feel much safer walking down the street knowing that nobody around me is carrying any guns, for pretty obvious reasons I would say.
You're not "free" by carrying guns around, you're fucking delusional.
I know this post means nothing, but it sure feels good to rant sometimes.
"we've got trenchcoats and bad attitudes" - John Constantine, HellBlazer
I think what this incident reveals is the disastrous state of Mental Health in the United States. Mental illness is poorly understood by the public at large and trying to get access to health care for treatment is very difficult. Cho had many of the symptoms of a major mental illness yet he did not receive proper treatment. If anything his peers and teachers only worsened his condition by isolating him and feeding his paranoia.
Also if a person is eventually diagnosed trying to get the right medication and therapy without health care insurance can be a daunting task. While many of these people need immediate care, applying for public services is a very difficult and long process. Sadly I think this report will not result in a better Mental Health system but rather a system that profiles and stigmatizes those who suffer from mental illness.
The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
Yes ! The lone hero would have shot the crazy gunman, just like in the movies !
On the other hand, if there had been dozens, or hundreds, of terrified and confused people with guns on the campus, the shooter wouldn't have had to shoot anyone himself. Just create a scare and watch everyone shooting anyone else who has drawn their gun (or whom they suspect to have drawn a gun, or might draw a gun).
Were the laws really unclear, or were they just "inadequate?"
It's one thing if the laws are unclear or ambiguous. Clarify them so the original intent is clear.
On the other hand if you are trying to "close loopholes" remember those "loopholes" are there for a reason.
If a few dozen deaths every few years is the price for medical privacy for the millions who have mental illnesses, it's worth it.
To put things in perspective, many more people are killed each year by drunk drivers, yet there's no move to ban recovering alcoholics from driving. As any AA member will tell you, tomorrow could be the day they fall off the wagon.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
It barely talked about privacy. More about budget constraints. Little follow up after initial treatment. And short of putting this guy behind bars, I fairly doubt that therapy would have helped this kid.
I really feel for VaTech. I was at Penn State's main campus when some nut went nuts and shot at a bunch of people. Luckily it was done in the biggest open area at PSU (HUB lawn) and it was around 6 AM or so. We (Penn Staters) got lucky. VaTech didn't.
There are privacy laws, but I believe almost all of them if there are indications of suicidal or homicidal behavior in the subject. The article mentioned that this guy had already tried to commit suicide. To me, it seems that overburdened "officials"/"therapists"/whatever just pushed him through the system just to reduce backlog. Of course, there is not a lot of background yet, so.... I dunno.
But why does the Prez and Congress need to get into this? Why, PUBLICITY and PROTECT THE CHILDREN! (asswipes, politicians, not the children) Big national event, now it is time for the useless slugs in DC to mug for the camera. Apparently a whole bunch of different people knew about this wacko, but no one did anything about it. So if they (medical folks) had a big pow-wow, they would have a big "Oh geez, he may need help" ("but is it in the budget")? As if any single one of them couldn't figure out he probably needed a bit more help. You have to have a single point of saying toss him into an institution. Ever watch a trial? 2 shrinks, 1 on each side, opposite opinions. How is communication between groups going to help? They'll spend even MORE time arguing with each other. And probably more for ego than actual disagreements.
Anyway, to summarize, this really has nothing to do with privacy, all about how the health field is overburdened, how the field is pushing poeple through, and all about politicians wanting to puff their chests.
But, hey, just my 1/4 of a hogshead.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
1. Gunman comes to your location and squuezes off a few rounds.
2. Random student A sees this happens.
3. Random student B is around the corner and only hears it happen.
4. In the name of pubic service random student A whips out his large caliber hand gun and squeezes off a shot at the Gunman, wounding him/her
5. Random student B now comes around the corner with guns drawn and sees both Gunman and Random Student A with smoking handguns in their hands, and the Gunman suffering from a wound.
Questions:
1. Who does Random student B shoot at?
2. Whats sort of lawsuit would Random Student B face for killing Random Student A?
3. Students A and B are teenagers. How excitable are teenagers?
4. How does the response scale up from 1 Gunman and 2 Random Students, to 1 Gunman and 50 Random students running around with guns? Note that the majority of the students will be acting independently, but multiple students acting together has been a tactic used in a previous school shooting.
5. What does law enforcement do when confronted with this situation? (Hint: See question 2)
6. Given studies have shown that even trained soldiers can have trouble firing at living humans, why should non-military trained civilians suddenly be able to throw aside all qualms about doing so? Or should first person shooter games be required study when getting a gun license?
7. Assuming that all people now carry guns to protect against rare forms of crime (ie school shootings), how will turning all civilians into people wth no qualms about killing change society? In your reply compare/contrast shootings with other more common forms of anti social behaviour such as "road rage'.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Too add to that: it wouldn't be as if crazy people haven't used other methods that were equally or more destructive. Yes, a guy with a gun is worse than a knife, etc... but what about a bomb?
How about if Mr. Nutcase decides he's going to find some instructions online, then grab a bunch of fertilizer and make a little home-made explosives, then plant them near a gas pipe or something else in a building full of those he dislikes (or a random target, insane people don't make rational decisions after all). Would that be better or worse than guns?
While I don't agree with reducing the privacy of ordinary citizens, it wouldn't be a terrible thing to have better tabs on those that are diagnosed as mentally unsound+dangerous, denying them firearms and perhaps monitoring them for purchases of large amounts of explosive-potential material. The problem with that is that the government would then likely be happy to have some pet freuds declare anyone who doesn't agree with their policies as "mentally unstable"
A1. No one. It's my opinion that when confronted with this situation RS B will either save his own skin or (at most) call 911 from his cell. You don't normally see people running to join in a bar fight and those folks have all had a couple of drinks and aren't using deadly force against each other ;-)
Q2. Whats sort of lawsuit would Random Student B face for killing Random Student A?A2. That depends on whether a reasonable person exercising due care would have killed RS A. If RS A had his gun pointed in RS B's direction it would be reasonable for RS B to fire.
Q3. Students A and B are teenagers. How excitable are teenagers?A3. Now we've moved from the sublime to the ridiculous. Who's proposed arming teenagers?
Q4. How does the response scale up from 1 Gunman and 2 Random Students, to 1 Gunman and 50 Random students running around with guns? Note that the majority of the students will be acting independently, but multiple students acting together has been a tactic used in a previous school shooting.A4. In the stated example multiple = 2 and 2 != 50.
Q5. What does law enforcement do when confronted with this situation? (Hint: See question 2)A5. Slightly More Obvious Hint: Most likely what they've been trained to do.
Q6. Given studies have shown that even trained soldiers can have trouble firing at living humans, why should non-military trained civilians suddenly be able to throw aside all qualms about doing so? Or should first person shooter games be required study when getting a gun license?A6. This directly contradicts the argument you present in Q1. Having actually been a trained solder and actually fired a weapon at another person I'd say that the scenario in Q6 is considerably more likely to occur than the one in Q1. Ever taken a college-level course in logic? ;-)
Q7. Assuming that all people now carry guns to protect against rare forms of crime (ie school shootings), how will turning all civilians into people wth no qualms about killing change society? In your reply compare/contrast shootings with other more common forms of anti social behaviour such as "road rage'.Again, the parent poster might benefit from a course in critical thinking. There's no basis for the argument that just because someone defends themself or someone else that we've turned "all civilians into people wth no qualms about killing". That's such a leap of logic I'm not even gonna entertain it - which makes the road rage question moot.
we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
-- anais nin
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear