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.""

21 of 381 comments (clear)

  1. Is it just me by JamesRose · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Is it just me by clickclickdrone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You hit the nail on the head. As another poster noted, you can't stop this sort of thing. If you have x million guns in circulation and population/y disafffected people, it's going to happen.
      What this is instad is the government spotting an opportunity to shove through some more legislation that at any other time would be unpalatable but can be got through on a tide of 'we must do something!' sentiment from Joe Public.
      I suggest everyone watches the 3 parter BBC program 'The Power of Nightmares' which while primarily about the West's handling of the rise of Islamic Fundementalism, it does show clearly how the governments around the world manipulate public opinion in an alarming way to get to an endpoint they desire.

      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    2. Re:Is it just me by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's called "incrementalism". It's very effective because the majority don't realize it's happening, and those few that do are easily dismissed as paranoids and cranks. It's also been going on for a very long time.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    3. Re:Is it just me by bl8n8r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > If you have x million guns in circulation and population/y disafffected people, it's going to happen.

      If you have x million disafffected people in circulation, it's going to happen.

      Guns have little to do with motive. Motive is what should be dealt with; if the goal is to keep this from happening again.

      --
      boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
    4. Re:Is it just me by fyrewulff · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, but how many armed robberies were commited with other weapons? Knives? Swords? Bats? Hand? etc?

      Removal of gun crime != removal of overall crime. It just shifts it to other categories.

      --
      "We need to get over this notion, that, for Apple to win... Microsoft must lose." - Steve Jobs, 1997
    5. Re:Is it just me by grassy_knoll · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why does the state need so much control when it can so easily be voted out within 4 years?


      Bill Hicks might have been onto something:

      "I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here. "I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs." "I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking." "Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!""

      It doesn't matter that the politicians are voted out every 4 years if someone else, representing the same interests, is voted in.
  2. well by mastershake_phd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  3. Re:Privacy shcmivacy by Affenkopf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No. Free circulation of guns contributed to the Virgina Tech shootings. These kind of things just don't happen in countries that have sane gun laws, privacy laws or not.


    Really?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erfurt_massacre
    Blaiming guns for crazy people is just as wrong as blaming privacy laws.
  4. Re:Privacy shcmivacy by maxwells_deamon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

  5. Re:prevent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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)....

  6. And the most bothersome part of this by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  7. Re:Privacy shcmivacy by Speedracer1870 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!

  8. Nope, not just you: Re:Is it just me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.


    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

    Under the bill, states voluntarily participating in the system would have to file an audit with the U.S. attorney general of all the criminal cases, mental health adjudications and court-ordered drug treatments


    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

    1. Re:Nope, not just you: Re:Is it just me by brian0918 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "When you choose to go see a pshrink, or check yourself into a clinic, that is not an adjudication. When the cops talk you down from a ledge and Baker Act you for 72 hours, and you are ordered by a judge into a treatment program, that is a mental health adjudication. This bill cannot discourage the seeking of voluntary mental health care."

      Maybe the guy on the ledge was up there because he didn't understand this distinction, and would rather be dead than in another database.

  9. That Old Familiar Feeling by nobodyman · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Shortly after a national tragedy, the Bush administration is telling that it's that pesky notion of "privacy" that is getting in the way of protecting American lives. Had those privacy laws been "made less complicated", such a tragedy never would have happened. Or so they say. However, per the article

    After having made suicidal comments in December 2005, Mr. Cho was ordered by a judge to receive outpatient treatment on campus. But his condition does not seem to have been tracked afterward, and he does not seem to have received any treatment when he returned to campus.

    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.
    Its work has been hampered, however, because Mr. Cho's medical and academic records are protected under state and federal privacy laws and because relatives of the victims have threatened legal action against the panel for not permitting them to participate in its investigation.

    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!!!
  10. Re:Privacy shcmivacy by davmoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  11. The state of Mental Health in the USA by Stalyn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  12. Re:prevent? by Dragonslicer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For example, the article points out that he was supposed to be denied a gun due to his psychiatric diagnosis but the info was never forwarded from Virginia to the federal database.
    If there are already laws that would have prevented the person from legally purchasing a gun, why is the government focusing on passing new laws to remove even more citizens' rights instead of doing something to enforce the existing laws?
  13. Confused, or looking for a power grab? by davidwr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  14. Re:Slashdot Asplode by bwalling · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Tell me again why "personal" information should not be "free" as in speech?
    Because we have a right to privacy. It's real and it serves a real purpose. In case you missed history, people in power have a strong tendency to abuse that power and the population needs means to protect themselves from that. It's the reason we were given the right to have guns. It's the reason the government can't just collect private information and go trolling through it at will. We've been lucky so far in that the courts don't seem nearly as crazy as the politicians. Sometimes the courts are crazy, but the politicians are crazy pretty much all the time.
  15. Imagine this by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?