Slashdot Mirror
DEA Argues Oregonians Have No Protected Privacy Interest In Prescription Records
schwit1 writes "Like emails and documents stored in the cloud, your prescription medical records may have a tenuous right to privacy. In response to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) over the privacy of certain medical records, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration is arguing (ACLU response) that citizens whose medical records are handed over to a pharmacy — or any other third-party — have 'no expectation of privacy' for that information."
Oregon mandates that pharmacies report information on people receiving certain drugs to a centralized database (ostensibly to "...help people work with their health care providers and pharmacists to know what medications are best for them."). State law does allow law enforcement to access the records, but only with a warrant. The DEA, however, thinks that, because the program is public, a citizen is knowingly disclosing that information to a third party thus losing all of their privacy rights (since you can always just opt out of receiving medical care) thanks to the Controlled Substances Act. The ACLU and medical professionals (PDF) don't think there's anything voluntary about receiving medical treatment, and that medical ethics override other concerns.
crack (they're on it, apparently)
DEA, meet HIPAA and HITECH.
The DEA has become the enemy of the American people and needs to be disbanded, or at least have it's house cleaned.
Arguably, it would be more amusing to apply genetic engineering techniques to construct a virus that splices in cannaboid synthesis mechanisms when it infects and organism. Then release it into their ventilation system.
An entire department full of psychoactive DEA agents whose bodies synthesize Schedule I controlled substances would be the ultimate in zany stoner comedy.
Revolutions are not always violent. "Revolution" just means "turning around" -- some kind of major reversal of the social order. I would say the Civil Rights movement in the US was a revolution. Nelson Mandela's election in South Africa was a revolution. (OK, there was violence in both cases, but the violence was mostly aimed at *suppressing* those revolutions, and it failed.)
The US is a long, long way from needing actual bloodshed to improve its society. A few hundred thousand people marching in the streets would be plenty effective.
if lots of people marching was all that was required then both the tea party and occupy would have sucseeded at something niether has.
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
This is a trend that has been going on more-or-less continuously since the J. Edgar Hoover administration and will continue to go on long after you die of old age.
I honestly can't tell if you're implying that Hoover, the first FBI director, was really the man pulling the strings of one or more US Presidents, or if you meant to type "Herbert Hoover".
I am not a crackpot.
Obama is a conservative Reaganite republican 5th column plant who masqueraded as a liberal during his first campaign. And the only reason we didn't kick is gestapo ass out of office for the second term was that the alternative was even worse.
C) And their last letter isn't 'A'.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry