Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Virginia Tech Report Cites Privacy Law Problems

Posted by samzenpus on from the pass-the-buck dept.

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.""

61 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 n3tcat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If this were a perfect representative democracy, we'd not have to worry about this. Basically they would say "The laws were too sketchy. We're going to make things very clear in favor of privacy, but with defined lines to allow the government to know exactly what it can and cannot do."

      However with the past few years having been as bad as they were, I wouldn't be surprised if something similar to what you are suggesting comes true.

    3. Re:Is it just me by dintech · · Score: 3, Interesting

      it does show clearly how the governments around the world manipulate public opinion in an alarming way to get to an endpoint they desire.

      But what I can't understand is why they want to get this endpoint in the first place. Why does the state need so much control when it can so easily be voted out within 4 years? It just doesn't make any sense.

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

      It depends how paranoid you like to be. If you take the long term view there is an argument that people in power want to keep that power and if it needs to be done in stages ie. voted out this time, back in next time, so be it. A scared population is a compliant one and if there's no bogyman, it's a good idea to invent one. You'd really need to see the program as it's quite a complex series of steps to get to where we are now.

      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    5. 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.
    6. Re:Is it just me by smittyoneeach · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why does the state need so much control when it can so easily be voted out within 4 years?
      Precedent.
      As you slide the Overton window, people become acclimated to whatever arguably wrongheaded idea you want to implement.
      Just to drop an example, it is practically impossible to float a serious policy question along the lines of "should the federal government tax the income of individual citizens?".
      Regardless of your opinion of whether a more states-rights approach would make sense the IRS is here to stay. "The savage civil servant's beady eyes"[1] glow with pleasure at the thought of shaping public behavior through tax policy. The change of administration, like a shift of wind at sea, has no effect on the current below the whitecaps.
      However, Al Gore's little internet invention may become a feedback loop to restore some liberty, if http://porkbusters.org/ has any impact.

      [1]http://www.google.com/musics?lid=8yCLpO47IjD&ai d=SJuXU29t9uD&sid=SiGK3i_JPcK
      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    7. Re:Is it just me by RMH101 · · Score: 4, Funny

      CRANK!

    8. Re:Is it just me by nkv · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why does the state need so much control when it can so easily be voted out within 4 years? It just doesn't make any sense.
      Because it doesn't matter who's in power. The "Republicrats" are going to keep winning. They might have internal disagreements on some issues but on the overall, the "democratic process" as it exists right now (drop a piece of paper in a ballot box once in four years) is pretty much a sham.

    9. 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
    10. Re:Is it just me by badasscat · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

      Japan has about 40 gun crimes per year. That includes misdemeanors like possession. They have less than ten gun deaths per year. You really think nobody there has "motive" to commit random mass murder? (And what possible "motive" could there be for such an action?)

      Funny how taking away guns takes away the potential for gun crime, isn't it?

      Let me put it another way - which would you rather lose, your guns or your privacy? Losing your guns only affects gun owners; losing privacy affects everyone. And I don't want to give up my privacy so some caveman in Virginia can keep his guns.

      Arguments like yours are the way gun owners try to pretend they don't have blood on their hands.

    11. 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
    12. Re:Is it just me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is the natural course of every government to expand in both power and revenue throughout its existence. This is the cold hard truth which no "believer" wants to admit: every government is destined to oppress, and the power elite who control government do this not for the good of the people, but for the good of themselves. Your loss (of freedom) is, naturally, their gain.

      No government in history has ever significantly and permanently reduced its power or revenue through the process of democracy. There's a reason for that, and it's not because making government bigger is unprofitable for those in the business of government.

      There's a lesson to be learned here, and it ain't pretty.

    13. Re:Is it just me by EMeta · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I would personally rather see lots of bat crime rather than a little gun crime. Unless you're extraordinarily big, or rather unlucky, you have to really mean it to kill someone with a bat. Or even a knife for that matter. With a gun you just have to be distracted.

      And as far as swords go, how much cooler would it be if we had sword toting bad guys instead of gun toting ones? If our nightly cop dramas (or mob dramas) had lots of guys pulling katanas or rapiers at each other?

      But on a more practical level, let's just get the automatics & semi-automatics out of circulation, and shit like at VA Tech won't happen.

    14. 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.
      --
      A Human Right
    15. Re:Is it just me by zarkill · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It reminds me of the oft-quoted Claire Wolfe from the book 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution:
      "It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."

    16. Re:Is it just me by LokiSteve · · Score: 2, Informative

      You are blaming a chunk of metal for the shortfalls of a culture. Japan has fewer murders as a whole. It has nothing to do with firearms. If it did then Switzerland would be awash in blood since there is virtually no firearm legislation there. The culture of the USA is more violent then many countries, therefore there are more murders. There are also countries with a near to complete prohibition on firearms that are much more violent then the US, such as Brazil.

      --
      END OF LINE.
    17. Re:Is it just me by CasperIV · · Score: 2, Informative

      I would personally rather see lots of bat crime rather than a little gun crime. Unless you're extraordinarily big, or rather unlucky, you have to really mean it to kill someone with a bat. Or even a knife for that matter. With a gun you just have to be distracted. And as far as swords go, how much cooler would it be if we had sword toting bad guys instead of gun toting ones? If our nightly cop dramas (or mob dramas) had lots of guys pulling katanas or rapiers at each other? But on a more practical level, let's just get the automatics & semi-automatics out of circulation, and shit like at VA Tech won't happen.
      What keeps a person from making an automatic then? I laugh at people who think taking a gun from someone would solve the problem. MOST OF THE PEOPLE THAT COMMIT CRIMES USE GUNS THEY POSSESS ILLEGALLY! If you told every person in the US right now they had to hand in their guns, do you think it would make a difference on crime statistics? Do you really think the crack head in LA is going to show up and hand over his hand gun? The law abiding people are the only people the law affects. The people committing the crimes couldn't care less if you tell them to give up their guns.

      How about we get to the root of the problem, rather then making our selves feel better. The vast majority of murders are committed by people that are A) crazy or B) desperate. Those are the two we need to focus on because they are the highest risk to the general population. Someone killing someone because they are a scorned lover or because they had a face to face altercation are not as great of a risk to the greater population. Crazy people are generally the number one demographic for killing people on a large scale and are the greatest threat for random acts of violence. They should have far more restrictions placed on their interaction with society, and that alone would seriously cut down on incidents such as this. There also needs to be far better diagnosing and monitoring of people who are either troubled or potentially troubled. A kid such as the one involved in the VA Tech shooting had no business being in class, let alone around other kids.

      I for one value the life of the functional member of society over those who are dysfunctional and dangerous. Those who have medical or psychological conditions that limit their ability to function in society need to be isolated and monitored. They may have rights, but their rights should not endanger other peoples rights and lives.
    18. Re:Is it just me by Darlantan · · Score: 2, Funny

      Your statement reminds me of a joke I once heard...

      "In the United States, there's a law on the books for everything but premature ejaculation...and I hear it's coming soon."

      --
      Fill in your four or five-letter word of wisdom here _ _ _ _ _.
    19. Re:Is it just me by Darlantan · · Score: 2, Funny

      He really should've known that. I mean, come on, who hasn't heard of the Sumo Killings of 1985?

      The worst part is that the killer is still at large.

      *badum-ching!*

      --
      Fill in your four or five-letter word of wisdom here _ _ _ _ _.
    20. Re:Is it just me by stickfigure · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I laugh at people who think taking a gun from someone would solve the problem. MOST OF THE PEOPLE THAT COMMIT CRIMES USE GUNS THEY POSSESS ILLEGALLY! If you told every person in the US right now they had to hand in their guns, do you think it would make a difference on crime statistics? Do you really think the crack head in LA is going to show up and hand over his hand gun? The law abiding people are the only people the law affects. The people committing the crimes couldn't care less if you tell them to give up their guns.


      This is such a tired argument. It uses the false assumption that the illegal guns in circulation would remain circulating through the criminal underworld forever. If it were illegal to own an automatic or semi-automatic firearm, anyone caught with one in their possession would be arrested and the gun would leave circulation. Would there be a period of time where where only the criminals have guns (ignoring all the guns that law enforcement has)? Yep. Paradigm shifts can be painful. After the transition period, would that disparity stabilize so that only the most organized criminals (the ones who are going to have these guns no matter what) have the outlawed guns? Yep to that too.

      Honestly, how often are gun crimes stopped by a random civilian who happened to be armed? It happens, but not frequently. I'm not arguing we should ban all automatic and semi-automatic weapons, but the argument "if guns are criminalized, only criminals will have guns" just annoys me. If that's the best argument you can come up with, then the anti-gun crowd's position is stronger than I've thought. It's like the people who were arguing that fewer people would have been killed if one of the teachers or students was armed and well trained in the use of their firearm. The assumption that makes the situation ideal is being "well trained." If that were the case, yes, that would have been great, but if there were several people armed but not as well trained as they thought, there could have been as many if not more friendly fire casualties.

      I don't really know what the solution is, but whatever it is, it has to factor the innate arrogance and stupidity of people. It also needs to scale over time.
  2. prevent? by joe+155 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "has limited the ability of these officials to prevent the kind of violence that occurred at Virginia Tech.""

    You can't prevent this sort of thing. It really is impossible. Unless, that is, you want to start treating people who haven't committed a crime but seem a bit "different" as criminally insane. But you'd have to lock them up forever, because if you steal someones life and then let them go... well, he'd be more pissed off than ever before - if he even could do something like these shootings you should bet your arse this would trigger it off.

    I suspect that the response will be what we can usually expect from pretty much any government though, "this generates bad headlines, "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" generates good headlines regardless of the consequences, therefore we should do the whole think of the children thing to an even greater degree". And if they do remove a large section of privacy from people - especially if they go as far as to interfere with doctor/patient privacy - then you can expect more shootings as people who could have been stopped with help and support are forced back upon themselves.

    --
    *''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
    1. 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)....

    2. 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?
  3. 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.

    --
    Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
  4. diagnosis by symes · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Cho had barn-door schizophrenia, from what I've read no one would doubt be had some pretty serious mental health issues. However, there will always be schizophrenics in the community and a great number will do nothing more serious than a bit of mumbling, etc.. Spotting the very few who will become violent (having had little of no prior history, a very rare breed) and pose risk to others is enormously difficult and takes a great deal of experience. Coupled with the problems of getting it wrong, basically curtailing someones future, stigmatizing them indefinitely, etc., when they haven't actually committed a crime I can understand why clinicians are reluctant to act without very definite evidence this person will harm others. So with Cho, I can understand why no one did anything...

    The issue of prohibiting access to firearms is moot - if he hadn't had access to a gun he probably would have used a sword, or a knife, or burned a few buildings down, etc.. The point is, he was dangerous and the only reasonable form of prevention would have been to remove him from society - but the risk of false positives probably means all the hand wringing in the world will not stop another Cho.

    1. Re:diagnosis by Cadallin · · Score: 4, Interesting
      The Virginia Tech shooting may have been unpreventable, but that doesn't mean that our mental health system in the USA isn't shit. There were definitely signs that Cho was dangerously unstable, with the potential for violent behavior. Another thing I think is amazing is how often schizophrenia goes undiagnosed, at least in my area. I have a personal friend who works in the Public Defender's Office, he has very little psychological training, a Psych minor as an undergrad, but he regularly encounters clients who have a simple diagnosis of Depression, that just interviewing them, he can tell something much more serious is wrong with them (apparently, a client who has difficulty focusing on an interview because he's "talking to the voices" is a very good sign, imagine! These are clients that have seen multiple counselors, and none of them noticed anything!). He then requests a Psych eval from a Clinical Psychiatrist, he has a very good success rate at guessing what comes up in diagnoses.

      It is frightening to me that these people just slip through the cracks, with some of them caught by somebody not even in the field. It angers me because I think society has an obligation to take better care of these people, if only for the safety of society at large.

    2. Re:diagnosis by vorpal22 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Keep in mind that some high-functioning schizophrenics are likely to deliberately lead mental health professionals to believe that they are not schizophrenic because of the possible consequences. My best friend works in mental health, and they are very adamant that their "clients" take their medications, which often have very distressing and unpleasant side effects. For a schizophrenic who is able to lead a moderately productive life, the medications will probably be worse than the schizophrenia itself, and thus they may seek to hide their condition.

  5. Privacy and Violence Linked by Nymz · · Score: 3, Funny

    For example, linking to a private story that requires registration with the NYTimes could make anyone violent. On the up side, at least it's FREE EXCLUSIVE ONLINE ACCESS!!!

  6. Chris Rock makes more sense than this by Seiruu · · Score: 5, Funny
    Chris Rock: Bigger & Blacker (1999) (TV)

    Chris Rock: [On the US school shootings] Everybody is wanting to know what music were the kids listening to, or what movies were they watching. Who gives a fuck what they was watching! Whatever happened to crazy? What, you can't be crazy no more? Should we eliminate crazy from the dictionary?

    Chris Rock: Everybody is talking about gun control. Got to control the guns. Fuck, that, I like guns. If you've got a gun, you don't need to work out! Cause, I ain't working out. I ain't jogging. No, I think we need some bullet control. I think every bullet should cost five thousand dollars. Five thousand dollars for a bullet. Know why? Cos if a bullet cost five thousand dollars, there'd be no more innocent by-standers. That'd be it. Some guy'd be shot you'd be all 'Damn, he must've done something, he's got fifty thousand dollars worth of bullets in his ass!' And people'd think before they shot someone 'Man I will blow your fucking head off, if I could afford it. I'm gonna get me a second job, start saving up, and you a dead man. You'd better hope I don't get no bullets on lay-away!' And even if you get shot you wouldn't need to go to the emergency room. Whoever shot you'd take their bullet back. 'I believe you got my property?'
  7. 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.
  8. Privacy law problems?? by olden · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Agreed. Blaming, even partially, "privacy laws" for this massacre is just plain dishonest.
    (if anything, the problem with privacy laws is that they're facing extinction)

    Snippets from a news report written shortly after the tragedy:
    "A medical examination found that (...) [Cho's] insight and judgment are normal"
    "Although Cho's writings were disturbing, mental health professionals say the student's behavior didn't reach the threshold that would have demanded more aggressive intervention."
    "You can't do anything unless there's imminent risk that's somewhat foreseeable to take away someone's civil rights"
    (source: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/student.counselin g/ )

    Seems clear to me that no sharing of medical information with law enforcement would have helped here.

  9. 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

  10. Re:Yeah, and the most important privacy law was... by MollyB · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?

  11. 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.
  12. 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!

  13. 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 indifferent+children · · Score: 2, Informative
      This will only DISCOURAGE people who need help from seeking treatment.

      No. This database will hold information from "mental health adjudications". 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.

      --
      Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
    2. 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.

  14. 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!!!
  15. 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.
  16. Re:Yeah, and the most important privacy law was... by Kymri · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The idea of an 'unreloadable by the owner' gun is ludicrous. For one thing, how on earth are you going to expect the owner of this 'wonderful' piece of technology to be able to get enough practice to be able to reasonably hit what he needs to? After all, he's only got ten shots before he has to go back to town!

    That and, if it's only reloadable by a factory/technician/expensive-and-heavy machine... how do you unload it to render it safe, perhaps for storage? If you're going in to town because you used it to shoot a fox that went into your hen-house, and you fired two rounds, do you just blow off the other 8 (yay, practice!) before driving to town with it?

    While guns can indisputably make killing people easier, they are, in the end, merely tools. It's much easier to kill someone with an AMC Gremlin than it is with your bare hands. Sort of. Crazy people are the problem, and a lack of education and control. Many violent firearms-related crimes are committed with weapons that are obtained illegally - you don't think that the gang-bangers pick up their AKs at Wal-Mart after a 10-day waiting period, do you?

    Everyone and their brother having access to guns isn't the problem as much as everyone and their brother having access to guns without any education about or respect for them. Belt-fed, 40mm grenade launchers? No, I can't really see any logical reason to have one of these unless you're, you know - the military. Nevermind the fact that I can only imagine the cost of shooting the thing. But it seems to me that there are as many arguments against 'gun control' (say more clearly, gun restriction - because illegal weapons are still every bit as available and out of control) legislation as there are for it. Statistics from both sides can be brought to bear with alarming facility.

    But there's one thing we all ought to be able to agree upon: crazy, disturbed individuals are more dangerous than any 'assault weapon'. I can't find a citation at the moment, but a guy in the UK went into a church and killed a bunch of people with a SWORD. Guess he really meant to get all 'old school', but it certainly proves that if you're disturbed, you don't need a gun to commit multiple murder.

    Let's ban crazy people! Just don't worry too much about who gets to define what 'crazy' is. Is disagreeing with the current administration's position on the 'war on terror' crazy?

    --
    Evolution ceases when stupidity can no longer be fatal.
  17. Re:Privacy shcmivacy by Eudial · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.


    You're right. Over here, where we have sane gun laws, kids just cook up home made bombs instead.
    --
    GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
  18. Re:Obligatory gun control comment.... by gd23ka · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Over here in Germany I can get an Uzi and more than I can carry in rounds for
    2000 EUR. How many people do you think I can kill within 15 mins. with a light
    machine gun like the Uzi?

    Over in the US none of the legal weapons available in stores are automatic nor are easily converted back to automatic operation. How many people can I kill in half and hour with a legal weapon?

    Downplaying the angle that with gun bans only criminals have guns regularily leads
    your argumentation down that blind alley. Try something new.

  19. 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
  20. If most people on the campus had had a gun ... by Ihlosi · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Maybe if someone on the campus had a gun they would have popped a cap in him and lives would have been saved.



    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).

    1. Re:If most people on the campus had had a gun ... by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It is a social problem.

            Yes, people will always try to kill each other.

            However your chances of surviving a hit with a blunt object, or a stab with a knife, are FAR greater than surviving a gunshot.

            In countries with tight gun control, overall violence is pretty much the same. Mortality, however, is FAR lower.

            Yes criminals will have the guns. Even if you take the guns away, they'll have knives, or SOME sort of weapon. After all, that's the whole point of being a criminal. However a mugger is not likely to shoot up a school or a McDonalds. The most he'll do is kill his victim.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:If most people on the campus had had a gun ... by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So, if you're that victim... guess it just sucks to be you, eh?

            Yes it does. And if you rewrite the laws and create a police state, people will STILL get killed. So please, don't use this as an excuse to "change the world".

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  21. Wildly misleading summary by pvanheus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yes, the fine article talks about privacy laws. It also states that because of "budget constraints" the state mental health system can't handle the number of patients it needs to handle, with month-long waiting lists for counselling and "local health agencies" that don't follow up on patients. So Cho was a mentally ill man, far away from home, with a possibly history of untreated mental illness for several years.

    Also from the article, the state of Virginia never passed on the information that Cho had been "adjudicated as a mental defective" to the "National Instant Check System", but it seems the state was not funded for its part in keeping this system up to date - the proposal is now to fund this activity.

    So... all of this in the article, and the resultant /. summary is basically the first paragraph about privacy laws? Congratulations in promoting the culture of knee-jerk response!

  22. 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.
  23. Fire-arms moot? by TheSciBoy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I find it amusing that you think the point of having access to fire-arms is moot. How many people do you think he could have killed with a sword? Let me tell you: One, and he could have injured a couple more. Consider the time and effort it takes to actually kill someone with a sword. It is damned hard.

    We had a madman going into a RFSL-clinic (an organisation for the equal treatment of gays and lesbians) and attacking a woman with an axe (she got hit in the head). The woman survived. Do you honestly think she would have been the only victim if he had had access to a handgun of any sort? Do you think she would have survived?

    Having access to guns doesn't make a person a murderer. But a murderer with access to firearms (or other kinds of similar weapons, grenades, explosives, poison gas) will be way more effective than one without them.

    Also, the old "If everyone had guns they could have defended themselves" NRA-rhetoric is also stupid. Would you have wanted to be in a classroom full of scared kids with handguns when the rumors of a madman going from room to room killing kids gets going? It would be a massacre of biblical proportions of people shooting each other by mistake.

    --
    Badgers, we don't need no stinking badgers! - UHF
  24. Ok, the article, IMO, was crap by bryan1945 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
  25. Re:Privacy shcmivacy by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 4, Informative

    What country has sane gun laws? Japan? Australia?

    If you care do do a bit of research you'd find that Australian gun laws changed after the Port Arthur Massacre, and semi-automatic weapons were banned. The results? No mass shootings since 1995.

    http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gun-deaths-in- rapid-decline-since-buyback/2006/12/13/11656857524 21.html

    http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/12/14/australia -gun.html

    http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/ 12/6/365

    http://www.physorg.com/news85298565.html

    Now while it is true there's been an increase in armed robberies in Australia in the last 11 years, it must be remembered that it has always been illegal to carry handguns here, so there has never been the deterrent of an armed citizenry; the change in laws had absolutely no effect in that regard.

    --
    Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
  26. 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.
  27. Re:Privacy shcmivacy by chrb · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What country has sane gun laws? Japan? Australia? Maybe the UK?

    New York City: 6.9 murders per 100,000 people (2004)
    London: 1.7 murders per 100,000 people (2005)

    The cities are comparable in size, population and prosperity.
  28. 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?
    1. Re:Imagine this by Archr5 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      1. Who does Random student B shoot at?
      Noone, he isn't in direct danger and will have been trained to go get help instead of jumping in the middle of a gun fight.

      2. Whats sort of lawsuit would Random Student B face for killing Random Student A?

      You've already assumed that student B will choose to shoot student A, and that student A's wounds will be fatal. You're assuming an awful lot here. but anyway... student B would face civil and criminal charges most likely If student A were found to be a law abiding person who presented no threat to student B. And student B would deserve to face charges because he had no business running in to the middle of a gun fight as an armed civilian.

      3. Students A and B are teenagers. How excitable are teenagers?

      This is the most brilliant part of your post... if student A and B are teenagers they are not carrying legally. because in the united states federal law states you have to be 21 years old to carry a concealed weapon.

      Also you're making the assumption that all teenagers are excitable... again you're making a lot of assumptions.

      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.

      More assumptions, You're assuming the students are "running around with guns" instead of just going about their business as normal, as hundreds of thousands of legally carrying Americans do every day.

      you're also assuming that the students will not be communicating with eachother as they are trained to do in their carry classes.

      5. What does law enforcement do when confronted with this situation? (Hint: See question 2)

      Hint: question two was bogus just like this one.
      Law enforcement does what they always do when confronted with an armed suspect, they give directions to the armed people and only shoot if necessary... this is not a video game, cops don't mow people down just because they're carrying a gun.

      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?

      being a trained soldier ordered to attack another human is completely different than being a trained civilian making a personal decision to defend your own life by shooting someone who is a threat to you.

      Also I'm not sure what first person shooter games have to do with this at all and comments like this make it difficult to take you seriously.

      7. Assuming that all people now carry guns to protect against rare forms of crime (i.e. school shootings), how will turning all civilians into people with no qualms about killing change society? In your reply compare/contrast shootings with other more common forms of anti social behavior such as "road rage'.

      Defending ones self and making the decision to kill someone who you feel is going to kill you does NOT mean you have "no qualms about killing". It means you've made the decision to protect your own life using whatever means necessary...

      your question is equating a self defense shooting with "anti-social" behavior... protecting your own life has nothing to do with being antisocial, it has everything to do with our basic instinct to stay alive.

      In summary, all your questions are biased and slanted and I highly doubt you'll accept any of the answers I've given because the nature of the question precludes any answer that isn't "anti-Gun" and the tone of your questions are very near rhetorical.

  29. One major problem IS the guns... by gweihir · · Score: 2

    Of course you can kill people by other means. But not in these numbers. Ever tried to murder 40 people with an axe or a kitchen knife? Does not sound to probable, does it. People can fight back successfully against other weapons, they can gang-up on the weapon wielders, police can immediately go in to stop the attackers (they have guns after all) and it takes real effort to kill somebody with other weapons.

    Guns make it possible for people without commando-training to kill a lot of others in a short time and with little effort. Because of this amplification property, guns are direcly responsible for, say, 80%-90% of the deaths in mass shootings. Maybe more. This fact is conveniently glossed over by the gun nuts. Sure, "Not guns kill people, people do". Exactly right. But guns make it far, far to easy to do it in the large.

    Of course guns are not the only problem. If you marginalize a large part of your population, many will kill themselves, and some will just decide not to go alone. There is a price to pay for dropping those that have bad luck or are not too capable like trash, as US society does.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  30. Because guns are the only danger by phorm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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"

  31. Oh, come on now... by pointbeing · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Nice straw men we've got lined up here ;-)

    Q1. Who does Random student B shoot at?

    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
  32. Re:Amazing what we think is normal now by smittyoneeach · · Score: 2, Insightful

    old hallowed traditions
    Are you making my point from the other direction?
    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear