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.
"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.''
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.
Really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erfurt_massacre
Blaiming guns for crazy people is just as wrong as blaming privacy laws.
Agreed. Blaming, even partially, "privacy laws" for this massacre is just plain dishonest.
n g/ )
(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.counseli
Seems clear to me that no sharing of medical information with law enforcement would have helped here.
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!!!
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.
What country has sane gun laws? Japan? Australia?
- rapid-decline-since-buyback/2006/12/13/11656857524 21.html
a -gun.html
/ 12/6/365
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
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/12/14/australi
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/short
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
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?