New Jersey Rejects Request For Dolphin Necropsy Results, Cites "Medical Privacy" (muckrock.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Jersey Rejects Request For Dolphin Necropsy Results, Cites "Medical Privacy" (muckrock.com)

Posted by samzenpus on Monday January 11, 2016 @07:33AM from the won't-somebody-please-think-of-the-dead-dolphin's-privacy? dept.

v3rgEz writes: When a dolphin died in New Jersey's South River last year, Carly Sitrin wanted to know what killed it. So she filed a public record request to the NJ Department of Agriculture in order to get the necropsy results. The DOA finally responded last week with the weird decision to deny the release of the record on grounds of medical privacy. The response reads in part: "We are in receipt of your request for information (#W101407) under the auspices of the State’s Open Public Records Act (O.P.R.A.). Specifically, you requested any and all reports associated with the necropsy of the dolphin that strayed into the South River on August 5, 2015 in Middlesex County, New Jersey. This request is denied as it would release information deemed confidential under O.P.R.A., specifically information related to a medical diagnosis or evaluation. (E.O. 26, McGreevey)"

228 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

How about cows? by nospam007 · 2016-01-11 07:33 · Score: 5, Funny

Let's hope when Governor Christie eats his next cow, nobody will tell him that it has mad cow's disease, since that would violate the privacy of the dead cow.
1. Re:How about cows? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-11 07:38 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It's not the dolphin's privacy that would be violated...but the privacy of all the people who are on antidepressants and birth-control, the after-effects of which pass through sewage treatment and into the river.
  That's my theory, anyway. The truth might be something far more insidious.
2. Re:How about cows? by jklovanc · 2016-01-11 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  I always love comments like this that assume all such decisions are made by the Governor and not some low level bureaucrat.
3. Re:How about cows? by blue+trane · 2016-01-11 07:49 · Score: 1
  
  The buck don't stop here!
4. Re:How about cows? by jklovanc · 2016-01-11 07:57 · Score: 2
  
  You miss the point. No leader of any large organization makes all decisions. What the Governor is on the hook for is not the initial decision but what he does once he is made aware of the decision.
  What "the buck stops here" means is that once the person knows about an issue they are responsible to deal with that issue in that they can not pass it on to someone else.
5. Re:How about cows? by fustakrakich · 2016-01-11 08:05 · Score: 1
  
  What "the buck stops here" means is that once the person knows about an issue they are responsible to deal with that issue in that they can not pass it on to someone else.
  Yes, so people should be careful who they vote for.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
6. Re:How about cows? by mspohr · 2016-01-11 08:22 · Score: 2
  
  It's highly unlikely that this twisted logic decision was made by a "low level bureaucrat". More likely a "high level bureaucrat" (i.e. Christie) is hiding something which would be politically embarrassing.
  
  --
  I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
7. Re:How about cows? by Firethorn · 2016-01-11 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, so people should be careful who they vote for.
  Who's voting for low level bureaucrats? Seriously, when I was in this would have been a decision made by a SSgt, if that, backed up by a Lt and maybe a Capt.
  The Base Commander wouldn't have a clue, and he's a lot lower than a Governor.
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
8. Re:How about cows? by jklovanc · 2016-01-11 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  People should always be careful who they vote for.
9. Re:How about cows? by ShanghaiBill · 2016-01-11 08:42 · Score: 1
  
  You miss the point. No leader of any large organization makes all decisions.
  They do set policies and expectations. The bureaucrat that made this decision appears to have assumed his duty was to deny any request and then make up a reason to justify it. If Christie was the type of politician that believed in transparency, he would have made it clear that information should be public unless there was a very good reason to withhold it. This, along with BridgeGate, is an indicator of the type of politician Christie is. I, for one, am very happy to see his poll numbers at low single digits.
10. Re:How about cows? by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2016-01-11 08:49 · Score: 2
  
  What politically embarrassing item could that be? That this dolphin had secret information about the bridge closure surgically implanted into its cerebral cortex, and it was returning the plans to the princess?
  
  --
  If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
11. Re:How about cows? by mspohr · 2016-01-11 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  www.cowspiracy.com
  
  --
  I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
12. Re:How about cows? by lgw · 2016-01-11 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  The general (or governor) owns the culture: the sense everyone has of what's normal, acceptable behavior, and what deserves the attention of somewhere higher on the chain. The base commander owns "implementing" that culture - if there's a pattern of behavior not in line with the culture, it's his problem. Notice I say "culture", not "regulations", as the former is what people actually do.
  If this sort of obfuscation is normal in NJ, if it's the expectation that anything embarrassing should be hidden from the public by whatever excuse works, then that is really the governor's responsibility. While I can't say for sure that's the culture of the NJ bureaucracy, it's not a crazy suggestion.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
13. Re:How about cows? by ColdWetDog · 2016-01-11 08:59 · Score: 2
  
  That's no dolphin.
  I'm not saying it was aliens, but ...
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
14. Re:How about cows? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-11 09:07 · Score: 0
  
  Perhaps that New Jersey isn't just the capital of medical waste washing up on the beaches but also the capital of medically active compounds in dosages high enough to affect dolphins in the water?
15. Re:How about cows? by IgnitusBoyone · 2016-01-11 09:12 · Score: 1
  
  That comes with a heavy assumption that the current 4 year politician some how can affect the entire culture of 250ish year old state. Even if a new Governor came in with the sole attempt to stop silly request like this from being denied he would run in to opposition from career employees who thought they could just wait him out. Now that an event has occurred the current individual in charge as a chance to access and retaliate in a proportional manor as deemed necessary.
  
  --
  Momento Mori
16. Re: How about cows? by ferret4 · 2016-01-11 09:25 · Score: 1
  
  You know how the UK PM was in thw press for making sweet love to a dead pig? Well...
17. Re:How about cows? by tnk1 · 2016-01-11 09:32 · Score: 2
  
  Agreed. I knew someone in the NY State government who was a low level bureaucrat. She basically said, "Albany doesn't care unless something goes wrong, so we make sure that nothing goes wrong."
  What she meant by that is that they ensure that no one makes noise about things and the upper level bureaucrats could not be bothered to care unless someone with clout complained.
  I don't think this is because the bureaucrats don't care, mind you. Many of the people in various state services got into the business because they care about their field. The problem is that they're underfunded and when someone makes a stink, some political boss in the state capital starts some stupid program or worse, uses you to make an example out of. So you keep your head down, do what you can, and count how many years of seniority you have that goes against your eventual pension. This tends to reinforce the bureaucratic culture at lower levels.
  And I don't think politics really matters. Your Democrats and Republicans at the state level are pretty much equally assholes. There are just differences in how many new programs they create which will later be defunded when the populace realizes that they can't pay for them and get mad at taxes.
18. Re:How about cows? by tnk1 · 2016-01-11 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  I sincerely doubt that the Governor would ever make a decision at that level, even in a cover-up situation. It was either a bureaucrat who was either following the letter of the regulations too closely, or they decided that they couldn't be bothered.
  If it was really that big a deal, there would be a troubleshooter who would deal with that who is a political appointee attached to some executive office.
  If you think this trivial stuff bubbles up to the Governor regularly, you have no idea at the scale at which the government really operates at.
19. Re:How about cows? by cheater512 · 2016-01-11 09:45 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Hey at least the dolphin wasn't depressed when it died and could have lots of unprotected sex.
20. Re:How about cows? by mspohr · 2016-01-11 09:46 · Score: 2
  
  Christie has demonstrated (Bridgegate) that he has lots of minions to provide him with plausible deniability. So, yes, you are right it asserting it was probably not Christie himself. Most probably one of his minions covering up for the failings of government. I still doubt that it was a "low level bureaucrat" who came up with that tortured logic for denial... they're just not (allowed to be) that creative.
  
  --
  I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
21. Re:How about cows? by cyberchondriac · 2016-01-11 09:53 · Score: 1
  
  That must be it. It's irksome when one figure is blamed for absolutely everything, it shows a lack of scope and understanding. I'm no fan of Obama, but I don't blame him for absolutely everything happening in DC right now. Same applies to Christie.
  
  --
  
  Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
22. Re:How about cows? by mrclevesque · 2016-01-11 09:57 · Score: 2
  
  What politically embarrassing item could that be?
  That the water quality led directly or indirectly to the dolphins death, kind of like the beluga situation in the St-Laurence river
23. Re:How about cows? by omnichad · 2016-01-11 10:07 · Score: 1
  
  How large of a manor is proportionately necessary? And for how long do they have access?
24. Re:How about cows? by Firethorn · 2016-01-11 10:47 · Score: 1
  
  And I don't think politics really matters. Your Democrats and Republicans at the state level are pretty much equally assholes. There are just differences in how many new programs they create which will later be defunded when the populace realizes that they can't pay for them and get mad at taxes.
  At the low levels which party a bureaucrat belongs to doesn't matter much either. My problem with taxes is how, in any proposed tax cuts, the 'sacred cow' is offered up first.
  Oh, no, we can't shut down or even offer to defund a state park that sees 20 visitors a year. We have to defund the schools. Specifically by firing teachers, not the 3rd vice principal. Who has 3 secretaries and earns as much money in his salary as 5 teachers.
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
25. Re:How about cows? by jklovanc · 2016-01-11 10:57 · Score: 1
  
  Doubt is far from proof.
26. Re:How about cows? by mspohr · 2016-01-11 11:10 · Score: 1
  
  Doubt is what keeps that large scumbag in office. Apparently most people in NJ are too stupid to see what's going on... then again, they're too stupid to move someplace else so it's a match made in heaven.
  
  --
  I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
27. Re:How about cows? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-11 11:16 · Score: 0
  
  Huh. Vice-principals got cut at several levels here, now the high schools only have one at most, with one administrative assistant to share for the school's front desk and the principal and the rest of the office staff. Maintenance and custodial has been axed to the point they're having to spread over multiple schools. But at least the teachers got another 5% pay raise this year to add to the cumulative 5% one they had over the past three years.
28. Re:How about cows? by JaiWing · 2016-01-11 11:28 · Score: 1
  
  Yet, there is a legal requirement that ultrasounds of actual pregnant HUMAN female are to be sent to the STATE GOVERNMENT in several states. So, now we know that female HUMANS (i.e. women) have less status than a mammalian aquatic animal (not that I am knocking dolphins, they rock).
29. Re:How about cows? by jklovanc · 2016-01-11 11:43 · Score: 1
  
  Doubt is what keeps baseless conspiracy theories going and erodes people's trust in each other. There are conspiracies going on; just not as many as some people think. Just because something could be a conspiracy does not mean it is.
30. Re: How about cows? by kenh · 2016-01-11 12:21 · Score: 2
  
  This request is denied as it would release information deemed confidential under O.P.R.A., specifically information related to a medical diagnosis or evaluation. (E.O. 26, McGreevey)
  Uhm, that "E.O 26, McGreevey" means the decision was based on an Executive Order, #26, enacted by former NJ Gov. Jim ("I am a gay American") McGreevey.
  Ultimately the decision was made by a Gov., it was the Executive Order that led (required) the bureaucrat to deny the request.
  
  --
  Ken
31. Re: How about cows? by jklovanc · 2016-01-11 12:42 · Score: 1
  
  The bureaucrat interpreted the Governor's EO and decided the action based on that interpretation. An EO does not make decisions on specific instances.
32. Re:How about cows? by Bing+Tsher+E · 2016-01-11 12:45 · Score: 1
  
  The 'culture' is an infestation that the Governor has very little control over. We could only wish that elected officials had that control over the government bureaucracy they are elected to 'run.' Lots of festering bullshit could be flushed out if elected officials had that sort of power.
  The auctions of surplus office furniture in the District of Columbia and the surrounding area would probably put new Office Furniture manufacturers out of business for years.
33. Re:How about cows? by Bing+Tsher+E · 2016-01-11 12:48 · Score: 1
  
  Schools are funded by local school districts. State Parks are funded by the State government. Totally different revenue bases, so it's a poor example.
34. Re:How about cows? by Bing+Tsher+E · 2016-01-11 12:50 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, we get it. You hate Christie and are going to cite him as many times as you can in this discussion.
  How boring. Yes, we know you're just a Democratic flack.
35. Re:How about cows? by Zero__Kelvin · 2016-01-11 13:10 · Score: 1
  
  "What "the buck stops here" means is that once the person knows about an issue they are responsible to deal with that issue in that they can not pass it on to someone else."
  No. I'm pretty sure it means If you are a lazy ass hunter who doesn't want even a semblance of fairness then set up you tree stand over there ---> O and then point the barrel right here --> X
  
  As far as I know, bucks aren't issues, nor can they deal with issues very well (they are in fact, quite surprisingly perhaps, highly disorganized and have a propensity for anarchy.)
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
36. Re:How about cows? by Zero__Kelvin · 2016-01-11 13:11 · Score: 1
  
  "Yes, so people should be careful who they vote for."
  I think it would be better if they were careful for whom they vote.
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
37. Re:How about cows? by MillionthMonkey · 2016-01-11 13:21 · Score: 1
  
  I guess you don't live in New Jersey- this guy is horrible. I wouldn't trust him any further than I can throw him. He's having more success campaigning in other states- but in his home state, even Republicans hate him. He injected himself into the Exxon settlement and let them off for pennies on the dollar, and now their environmental disaster in North Jersey will never be cleaned up. Covering up a necropsy on a dolphin to hide disturbing news about that river is exactly his style.
38. Re:How about cows? by fustakrakich · 2016-01-11 13:39 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, an' dat too!
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
39. Re:How about cows? by Firethorn · 2016-01-11 13:46 · Score: 1
  
  Schools are funded by local school districts. State Parks are funded by the State government. Totally different revenue bases, so it's a poor example.
  Not really, as most schools are actually funded by a mix of local property taxes, as well as state and federal funding.
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
40. Re:How about cows? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-11 15:04 · Score: 0
  
  Why would anyone care about eating beef from an animal with BSE? It doesn't infect humans.
41. Re:How about cows? by Obfuscant · 2016-01-11 15:13 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, no, we can't shut down or even offer to defund a state park that sees 20 visitors a year. We have to defund the schools.
  This behavior is not the fault of the bureaucrats or politicians. It is learned behavior fully ingrained by years of conditioning from the voters. If you close things nobody cares about, nobody will vote for the next tax levy. If you threaten to close the library, the public pool, and the senior center, you will have a ready and willing base of voters more than happy to increase taxes upon everyone to support the things they want.
  
  Specifically by firing teachers, not the 3rd vice principal.
  1. Children interact with teachers, and therefore parents (voters) interact with them, too. "Those bastards" cannot fire the best teacher little Billy has ever had! Vote for the next tax levy!
  2. Students don't like assistant principals, so parents (voters) don't care if one of them is fired.
  3. The teacher's union is stronger than the vice principal's union, so there is going to be more "grass-roots" support for a tax levy to fund keeping teachers vs. vps.
42. Re:How about cows? by TechHSV · 2016-01-11 15:17 · Score: 1
  
  I agree. Defund state parks, because Americans are currently too lazy to get out of the house. This means that the next several generations probably won't even want to leave their rooms. If the next generation does want a park, they can build it for themselves just like we did.
43. Re: How about cows? by mspohr · 2016-01-11 16:18 · Score: 1
  
  I thought this was about cows. I really don't like cows. They are big and fat and unhealthy. Maybe that's why I don't like Christie. Maybe it s just because he's corrupt. Have I mentioned cowspiracy.com ?
  
  --
  I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
44. Re:How about cows? by Aighearach · 2016-01-11 22:05 · Score: 1
  
  What "the buck stops here" means is that once the person knows about an issue they are responsible to deal with that issue in that they can not pass it on to someone else.
  Yes, so people should be careful who they vote for.
  In this case it doesn't matter, because the courts are the ones that settle disputes over public records.
45. Re:How about cows? by nospam007 · 2016-01-12 02:58 · Score: 1
  
  "I always love comments like this that assume all such decisions are made by the Governor and not some low level bureaucrat."
  That's not the reason, he just eats a lot of cows.
46. Re: How about cows? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-12 06:00 · Score: 0
  
  You sure about that? Do you have prion knowledge?
47. Re:How about cows? by Firethorn · 2016-01-12 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  I agree. Defund state parks, because Americans are currently too lazy to get out of the house.
  I disagree. You consider shutting down a park due to lack of interest. There are plenty of parks that get sufficient visitors to justify their existence; Americans aren't that lazy.
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
48. Re:How about cows? by Firethorn · 2016-01-12 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  This behavior is not the fault of the bureaucrats or politicians. It is learned behavior fully ingrained by years of conditioning from the voters.
  Like I said, sacred cows.
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
49. Re:How about cows? by ChrisMaple · 2016-01-12 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  Wrong.
  
  The disease may be most easily transmitted to human beings by eating food contaminated with the brain, spinal cord or digestive tract of infected carcasses.[3] However, the infectious agent, although most highly concentrated in nervous tissue, can be found in virtually all tissues throughout the body, including blood.[4] In humans, it is known as new variant Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease (vCJD or nvCJD), and by June 2014 it had killed 177 people in the United Kingdom, and 52 elsewhere.
  wikipedia.
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
The water? by phishybongwaters · 2016-01-11 07:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

That has to be it right, the results would show how toxic the water is, forcing the state to step in and clean it up. That's the only logical reason for denying this request.
1. Re:The water? by Rick+Zeman · 2016-01-11 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  That has to be it right, the results would show how toxic the water is, forcing the state to step in and clean it up. That's the only logical reason for denying this request.
  Yep. Another case of "follow the money."
2. Re:The water? by jklovanc · 2016-01-11 07:45 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Or the bureaucrat could have been lazy and decided it was easier to deny the request that get the information. Never ascribe to malice what can easily be ascribed to incompetence.
3. Re:The water? by The+Grim+Reefer · 2016-01-11 07:49 · Score: 1
  
  It could be the air. Dolphins are mammals after all, and this was in NJ. Or some high ranking political hit it with his boat and it left an imprint of the boats registration on the dolphins skin.
4. Re:The water? by DarkOx · 2016-01-11 07:49 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Personally, If I lived in NJ I would be really annoyed the state wasted money performing a necropsy on a non-food non endangered animal, that had stayed from its usual habitat anyway.
  Seems like pretty stupid allocation of resources.
  
  --
  Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
5. Re:The water? by The-Ixian · 2016-01-11 07:51 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Or it could be that this is the rubber stamp that is always applied to medical records when they are requested.
  It is above the pay grade of the low level bureaucrat to make the distinction between animal and human (if there is one).
  
  --
  My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
6. Re:The water? by gstoddart · 2016-01-11 07:57 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
  Laziness to the point of making up non-existent rights? That's pretty much malice.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
7. Re:The water? by yodleboy · 2016-01-11 08:02 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Look at this another way, someone with the state of New Jersey felt that they were justified in performing a necropsy on a non-food, non-endangered animal. Now they won't share the results. Why did they feel the necropsy was necessary, and what did they find that they don't want to share? The necropsy bit could be perfectly innocent. Someone took advantage of the rarity of having a large dead marine mammal to run tests on, maybe to prove that there wasn't anything in the water, per se, that killed it. It's the refusal to share the results that is suspicious...
  
  If this shakes out as a public safety issue and/or government corruption/cover-up, then it would be money well spent.
8. Re:The water? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-11 08:03 · Score: 0
  
  But living next to a potentially toxic and deadly river is a-ok?
9. Re:The water? by Muros · 2016-01-11 08:04 · Score: 2
  
  Or it could be that this is the rubber stamp that is always applied to medical records when they are requested.
  It is above the pay grade of the low level bureaucrat to make the distinction between animal and human (if there is one).
  Does the Department of Agriculture perform many human autopsies?
10. Re:The water? by The-Ixian · 2016-01-11 08:10 · Score: 2
  
  Does the Department of Agriculture perform many human autopsies?
  No idea.
  But it is easy enough for me to see the scenario:
  A request comes across my desk for a medical record. I consult my little cheat sheet of requests which are automatically denied. Lo-and-behold, medical records is on the list. I ink up my deny stamp and give it a good whack on the request. Next issue.
  
  --
  My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
11. Re:The water? by Overzeetop · 2016-01-11 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  Does the department which does the autopsy even handle OPRA requests, or is it automatically forwarded to the legal council section first? My guess is it hit the desk of first line support, it said medical, and they stamped it "Denied" as a matter of course. There's no sense in having an entire department of OPRA service at every single executive division, and having $16/hr drones check the paperwork for obvious issues at a central office is easier and cheaper than having actual lawyers review everything.
  Besides, if they screw up and somebody really wants the information, they can submit a new form (perhaps with a new fee) for re-consideration, or they can sue and a real lawyer will look at it. Government is really no different than a large corporation. Have you ever tried to get information from, say, Microsoft or GE?
  
  --
  Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
12. Re:The water? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-11 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  > Or the bureaucrat could have been lazy
  With you until there...
  > and decided it was easier to deny the request that get the information.
  Here I suspect you overestimate the thinking involved.
  I would guess he only read something "medical" and wrote a canned response, never ever reading the word "dolphin".
  At least that's what I would guess from past experience with interaction with customer service from e.g. Amazon and Google, they never read more than 4 words (picked from random places I guess) before replying.
13. Re:The water? by thegarbz · 2016-01-11 08:17 · Score: 0
  
  Laziness to the point of making up non-existent rights? That's pretty much malice.
  The rights are probably codified right there in the regulation, written in such a way that they never intended to cover an animal but none the less do. That can still be explained by incompetence.
14. Re:The water? by Obfuscant · 2016-01-11 08:17 · Score: 2
  
  It is above the pay grade of the low level bureaucrat to make the distinction between animal and human (if there is one).
  If you read TFA, it shows the section of law that exempts this information from FOIA requests. It uses the term "individual". Miriam Webster lists several definitions of that word, one of which is: "of, relating to, or existing as just one member or part of a larger group". It does not specify "human" in that definition. Surely, this one dolphin was just one member of the larger group, and it certainly behaved in ways that would individuate itself from that group.
  Of course, when the law was written the situation of autopsying a dolphin wasn't considered. But in this case "other animal" vs. "human" wasn't a distinction the law makes. The bureaucrat didn't need to make that decision.
15. Re:The water? by MiniMike · 2016-01-11 08:19 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Maybe they didn't actually do an autopsy and just billed a bunch of hours, then denied the request hoping it would go away, and now they're scrambling to whip up something that looks real?
16. Re: The water? by Midnight+Thunder · 2016-01-11 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  Putting DOA and human atopsies together somehow starts making me wonder if this is a case of Mulder and Sculley. All that is missing is the smoking man.
  
  --
  Jumpstart the tartan drive.
17. Re: The water? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-11 08:26 · Score: 0
  
  Corruption? In New Jersey?? Surely, you jest.
18. Re:The water? by jklovanc · 2016-01-11 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  Put yourself in the position of a bureaucrat making the decision.
  Scenario 1.
  Allow the information out, later find that was an incorrect decision and possibly lose job.
  Scenario 2;
  Deny the request, let the appeal process resolve it and keep job.
  Which would you chose.
19. Re: The water? by The-Ixian · 2016-01-11 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  LOL, I was actually thinking the same thing.
  I am excited for the new X-Files...
  
  --
  My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
20. Re:The water? by Nidi62 · 2016-01-11 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  Or the bureaucrat could have been lazy and decided it was easier to deny the request that get the information. Never ascribe to malice what can easily be ascribed to incompetence.
  To paraphrase the HHGTTG movie:"But this isn't the Aquatic Mammal Necropsy Release Request form. Those are blue."
  
  --
  The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
21. Re:The water? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-11 08:31 · Score: 0
  
  I wish I could just demand privacy whenever I screw up. That'd be awesome.
22. Re:The water? by stephanruby · 2016-01-11 08:34 · Score: 2
  
  Or the bureaucrat could have been lazy and decided it was easier to deny the request that get the information. Never ascribe to malice what can easily be ascribed to incompetence.
  You're assuming that there was even detailed paperwork to begin with and that the dolphin wasn't just incinerated/buried as soon as they found out after 30 seconds that the dolphin wasn't carrying signs of rabies, drugs, or weapons of mass destruction, despite what the New Jersey police officer said in his report when he discharged 38 bullets into the animal in self-defense, mortally wounding it.
23. Re:The water? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-11 08:36 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, but this is so stupid it is a case of incompetent malice.
24. Re:The water? by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2016-01-11 08:42 · Score: 1
  
  It is above the pay grade of the low level bureaucrat to make the distinction between animal and human (if there is one).
  If you read TFA, it shows the section of law that exempts this information from FOIA requests. It uses the term "individual". Miriam Webster lists several definitions of that word, one of which is: "of, relating to, or existing as just one member or part of a larger group". It does not specify "human" in that definition. Surely, this one dolphin was just one member of the larger group, and it certainly behaved in ways that would individuate itself from that group.
  Of course, when the law was written the situation of autopsying a dolphin wasn't considered. But in this case "other animal" vs. "human" wasn't a distinction the law makes. The bureaucrat didn't need to make that decision.
  Good points. The EO also makes reference to "natural persons' later, adding to the confusion. But I think you are correct in stating the person who denied the request probably saw "medical Records" and their mandatory annual training said medical records are not subject to FOIA requests and thus denied the request. In addition, it's easier (read safer) to deny a request and let someone higher in the food chain overrule it than to release something that shouldn't be released. You can always point to some rule that you though prevented the release and peel will go "OK, well it really means..." but if you screw up they can hang you with the same rule.
  
  --
  I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
25. Re:The water? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-11 08:43 · Score: 0
  
  Yep, look at Flint Michigan and well the entire state of Michigan for a prime example of corrupt government that has no desire to "be for the people" and only be for themselves.
  People, Government is supposed to be here for US, not the other way around. They are supposed to serve us, yet so many government employees and elected morons seem to have forgotten that. The only time the elected morons remember this is when they are running their mouths during their election campaigns.
26. Re:The water? by ttucker · 2016-01-11 08:45 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Or it could just be the default response for any document from the medical examiner, and their computer system lacks the distinction between human and animal medical exams.
  A small media circus is still probably the only way to get the documents, so here we go?
27. Re:The water? by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2016-01-11 08:51 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Or the bureaucrat could have been lazy and decided it was easier to deny the request that get the information. Never ascribe to malice what can easily be ascribed to incompetence.
  You're assuming that there was even detailed paperwork to begin with and that the dolphin wasn't just incinerated/buried as soon as they found out after 30 seconds that the dolphin wasn't carrying signs of rabies, drugs, or weapons of mass destruction, despite what the New Jersey police officer said in his report when he discharged 38 bullets into the animal in self-defense, mortally wounding it.
  To be fair, it was carrying a knife.
  
  --
  If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
28. Re:The water? by BradleyUffner · 2016-01-11 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  That has to be it right, the results would show how toxic the water is, forcing the state to step in and clean it up. That's the only logical reason for denying this request.
  Or some hyperactive lawyer decided that O.P.R.A was generic enough that it could, in theory, be applied to animals, so he told them to play it safe.
29. Re:The water? by russotto · 2016-01-11 09:04 · Score: 1
  
  Here's Executive Order 26, McGreevy. It's pretty clear that the "individuals" whose medical records are exempt from disclosure are humans; it would be a stretch for it to include dolphins.
  As for disclosing the water is polluted, I doubt that's the issue. This is New Jersey, we know the water's polluted.
30. Re:The water? by wyHunter · 2016-01-11 09:04 · Score: 1
  
  New Jersey is a cesspool of corruption anyway.
31. Re:The water? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-11 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  Miriam Webster [merriam-webster.com] lists several definitions of that word, one of which is: "of, relating to, or existing as just one member or part of a larger group". It does not specify "human" in that definition. Surely, this one dolphin was just one member of the larger group, and it certainly behaved in ways that would individuate itself from that group.
  The dictionary definition is irrelevant in legal space.
32. Re:The water? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-11 09:21 · Score: 0
  
  People, Government is supposed to be here for US, not the other way around
  Two thing wrong with slashdot in relation to this comment:
  1) It wasn't modded "Funny" yet
  2) "Funny" posts don't get karma.
33. Re:The water? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-11 09:29 · Score: 0
  
  My take:
  Never ascribe to malice what can easily be ascribed to incompetence.
  More importantly never ascribe to incompetence what can be easily ascribed to greed.
34. Re:The water? by dstyle5 · 2016-01-11 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  It was also wearing a hoodie.
35. Re: The water? by slick7 · 2016-01-11 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  Another Christie-gate about to blow.
  
  --
  The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
36. Re: The water? by slick7 · 2016-01-11 09:31 · Score: 2
  
  Dolphin Lives Matter!!!
  
  --
  The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
37. Re:The water? by tnk1 · 2016-01-11 09:40 · Score: 1
  
  Well... if this attracts the attention of high level bureaucrats in the capital, that person could be in for trouble. Yes, it makes sense to have the appeals process deal with it, but you do not want people in the state capital getting wind of your actions. Then you're in for a world of trouble.
  I think this person just broke the First Law of State Bureaucracy: Thou shall not be noticed by the politicians.
38. Re:The water? by cyberchondriac · 2016-01-11 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  Personally, If I lived in NJ I would be really annoyed ..
  You can stop right there and your statement is accurate.
  
  --
  
  Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
39. Re:The water? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-11 10:08 · Score: 0
  
  I believe the people of Flint, Michigan would like to have some words with you about taking simple opportunities to test for the potential of hazardous levels of toxic chemicals in their water. If a few cuts, a few pokes, and a few tests detect or disprove that sort of thing, I'm pretty sure it's not wasted money.
40. Re:The water? by guruevi · 2016-01-11 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  Another reason could be that the medical privacy statutes are way too broad. If they don't specify it relates to human subjects or include animals in order to protect pet owners' privacy, then they may indeed be right in denying the request.
  This is what you get for requesting legislation instead of holding companies responsible for breaking the existing laws.
  
  --
  Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
41. Re:The water? by Anne+Thwacks · 2016-01-11 10:36 · Score: 1
  
  To be fair, it was carrying a knife.
  Just don't mention the lasers!
  
  --
  Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
42. Re:The water? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-11 10:40 · Score: 0
  
  If that were the case wouldn't environmental organizations be able to just take water samples and check for unsafe levels of toxins?
43. Re:The water? by jklovanc · 2016-01-11 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  The the information return would have been "nor report exists" and not "request denied".
44. Re:The water? by Darinbob · 2016-01-11 10:59 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Or what looked like a knife. Most likely the dolphin failed to respond when told to raise its hands.
  Officer: "should I shoot?"
  Dispatcher: "is it white or black?"
  Officer: "it's kind of grey."
  Dispatcher: "have to get back to you on that..."
45. Re:The water? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-11 11:42 · Score: 0
  
  I suddenly realized what this is all about. The dolphin was eating a human carcass and died as a result. This is New Jersey, after all. ;)
46. Re:The water? by AHuxley · 2016-01-11 11:50 · Score: 1
  
  States now have "ag-gag" or Agriculture laws that stop, block, make, talking about findings or data collection not legal.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  The state rules can even be pushed to new limits to try and prevent photography on public land and later conversations/reports about findings from public land.
  Wyoming Law May Cause Legal Problems For Photographers Shooting on Public Land, Including National Parks (May 14, 2015 )
  A new state law takes aim at citizen scientists
  http://www.popphoto.com/did-wy...
  "“... to take a sample of material, acquire, gather, photograph or otherwise preserve information in any form from open land which is submitted or intended to be submitted to any agency of the state or federal government."
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
47. Re:The water? by Obfuscant · 2016-01-11 11:52 · Score: 1
  
  The dictionary definition is irrelevant in legal space.
  Not every word in a law has only a legal definition, and not every bureaucrat reads every word in a law in the purely legal sense.
  It's kinda like "depends on what your definition of 'is' is."
  Also, as I pointed out elsewhere, it is very likely that any limitation of the law to "individual" as "human person" was omitted in the training that this person got regarding exempt data. "What is exempt"? "C. Medical data". Do you expect every government bureaucrat to be a legal scholar?
48. Re: The water? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-11 12:24 · Score: 0
  
  Agatha Christie-Gate?
  "Murder on Porpoise"
49. Re: The water? by kenh · 2016-01-11 12:28 · Score: 1
  
  The request was denied based on an executive order, EO #26:
  http://www.state.nj.us/infoban...
  In NJ OPRA requests can only request records that exist, in the form it already exist in - you can request an existing report, but you can't request that a report be generated.
  Assuming there is some forensic report on the dolphin, it can be requested - if the report is later found to be inaccurate, the only job at stake is the person who's job was to accurately & correctly report on the death of the dolphin, not the bureaucrat that prints off a copy of the report to satisfy an OPRA request.
  
  --
  Ken
50. Re:The water? by Billly+Gates · 2016-01-11 12:41 · Score: 1
  
  Or worse an important campaign contributor who is buds with Christie who helped bring him on makes Agent Orange on that river.
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
51. Re: The water? by Bing+Tsher+E · 2016-01-11 12:52 · Score: 2
  
  All Dolphins Matter!!
52. Re:The water? by Bing+Tsher+E · 2016-01-11 12:55 · Score: 1
  
  Knife crime is now becoming a serial problem in the UK. They are looking into new measures of Knife Control, including possibly a registration of kitchen knives.
53. Re: The water? by losfromla · 2016-01-11 13:47 · Score: 1
  
  I hate myself for it but I had to LOL at both these comments! Thanks for the LOL and self-loathing.
  
  --
  Only I can judge you.
54. Re:The water? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-11 14:52 · Score: 0
  
  Why are you expecting a logical reason? Indeed, why don't you expect an emotional, illogical, made up excuse? That's what *I* expect!
55. Re:The water? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-11 17:14 · Score: 0
  
  Or the bureaucrat could have been lazy and decided it was easier to deny the request that get the information. Never ascribe to malice what can easily be ascribed to incompetence.
  Why not? Surely there is a strong argument that statistically sometimes it must be malice after all. This is an oft-quoted piece of pseudo-wisdom that makes less sense than the gibberings of a sci-fi character. Much BS you must speak mmm? It is not logical.
56. Re:The water? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-11 17:18 · Score: 0
  
  Never use the word ascribe. Your should assume your readers are American not British
57. Re:The water? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-11 17:18 · Score: 0
  
  Lose a job that turns you into an idiot and a force for stupidity and social decay....hmmm tough one. Beats being unemployed if you have a family I suppose.
58. Re:The water? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-11 19:26 · Score: 0
  
  NO, SORRY... the government gave a CLEAR, yet BULLSHIT, reason to deny the info.
  Therefore the government is HIDING SOME DIRTY SHIT FROM YOU.
  The government has become self-aware and is coming after you.
  Since ALL forms of government in history have FAILED by definition,
  I HIGHLY suggest you eliminate it and take up voluntary anarchism instead.
  Read about it before you talk about it.
59. Re:The water? by RockDoctor · 2016-01-12 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  I would guess he only read something "medical" and wrote a canned response, never ever reading the word "dolphin".
  So the request should be repeated but saying "veterinary" in place of "medical"?
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
60. Re:The water? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-12 08:30 · Score: 0
  
  If there are N.J. residents (or others) that suspect the water is that toxic, why can't they go to the river, scoop up some water, have it tested/analyzed and publish the results?
Sounds to me like... by KingSkippus · 2016-01-11 07:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

Sounds to me like someone just didn't want to go through the administrative hassle of gathering the information, copying it, and handing it over. Obviously, that shouldn't be allowed unless the DOA can provide some evidence that it will compromise the privacy of an actual person.
1. Re:Sounds to me like... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2016-01-11 07:40 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Isn't it practically part of the job to start out by denying the request on any grounds that a naive text search suggest are relevant; just to discourage the pesky users from bothering you and force the actually committed ones to really work for it?
2. Re:Sounds to me like... by blue+trane · 2016-01-11 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  Fire that person. Repubs love to fire ppl. Why are you giving this guy a free pass?
3. Re:Sounds to me like... by pr0fessor · 2016-01-11 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry then you would know that dolphins getting aggressive when they are frisky isn't an urban legend... stay away from hippie chicks w/ dolphin tattoos that's how you get hepatitis.
4. Re:Sounds to me like... by The-Ixian · 2016-01-11 08:14 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I think this also is a good theory.
  I have been told by people who work in social services that the government ALWAYS denies the first request for government services like disability. Doesn't matter if it was endorsed by a medical professional or whatever, the first request is always denied. That ends up weeding out a huge percentage of the people applying since many of them shrug and give up.
  
  --
  My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
5. Re:Sounds to me like... by steelscalp · 2016-01-11 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  "Neglect of duty does not cease, by repetition, to be neglect of duty." Napoleon
6. Re:Sounds to me like... by mrchaotica · 2016-01-11 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  You don't get it: politicians, especially the corrupt ones, hate FOIA. Properly responding to one without a goddamn court order is closer to a fire-able offense than denying one is!
  
  --
  "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
7. Re:Sounds to me like... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2016-01-12 00:12 · Score: 1
  
  Insurance companies certainly seem to operate on that theory.
Medical privacy? by Chas · 2016-01-11 07:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

Okay, I beg the pardon of the PETA folks (actually no I don't...*Kicks a kitten*).
But it's a fucking animal that died in public waterway and was autopsied on the public dime.
People who wish to know have a right to that information.
I want to know what mental defective thought "medical privacy" was an appropriate excuse.

--

Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
1. Re:Medical privacy? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-11 07:49 · Score: 0
  
  It's the law. They can't release it because it's "information related to a medical diagnosis or evaluation" and the drafters of the law never thought that dolphin autopsies would be an issue, so they didn't make an exception for that.
  I mean, would you have predicted that this would cover animal autopsies?
2. Re: Medical privacy? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-11 07:50 · Score: 0
  
  The same kind of mental defectives you vote for to watch out for your 'public dime' (a political term usually used in relation to some activity of which the one uttering it disapproves)
  The real reason is more dimes: obviously this report will cause the state to spend money that it doesn't have because something in the water isn't right. Even worse from a Republican point of view, it might establish liability on the part of a for-profit company for something, and they can't allow THAT ever.
3. Re:Medical privacy? by wiggles · 2016-01-11 07:52 · Score: 2
  
  But wouldn't it be "veterinary" and not "medical"? Technically, "medical" can only apply to humans, no?
4. Re:Medical privacy? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-11 07:53 · Score: 0
  
  I want to know what mental defective thought "medical privacy" was an appropriate excuse.
  Probably not a mental defective - more likely a jobsworth.
  I'm imagining that the statute for withholding such results is written exactly like "... information related to a medical diagnosis or evaluation" - without regards to the human or animal nature of the patient. The person whose job it is to clear such things looked at it, said "yup, that's how the law is written" and pulled out the big red "NO" stamp. (The clause being technically applicable - the best kind of applicable!) They might even agree that such a call is silly, but that's how the law is written, and it's "more than their job's worth" to attempt to push back on it.
5. Re:Medical privacy? by Z00L00K · 2016-01-11 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  The excuse "Medical privacy" when it comes to a wild animal is really causing the person using it to look like a fool.
  
  --
  If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
6. Re:Medical privacy? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-11 08:00 · Score: 0
  
  But it's a salt water animal that died in a fresh water waterway and was autopsied on the public dime.
  It doesn't take autopsic to figure to figure out what killed it.
7. Re:Medical privacy? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-11 08:01 · Score: 0
  
  But wouldn't it be "veterinary" and not "medical"? Technically, "medical" can only apply to humans, no?
  Nope. Try again.
  Definition of Medical:
  1 : of, relating to, or concerned with physicians or the practice of medicine
  2 : requiring or devoted to medical treatment
  Definition of Medicine:
  1 a : a substance or preparation used in treating disease b : something that affects well-being
  2 a : the science and art dealing with the maintenance of health and the prevention, alleviation, or cure of disease b : the branch of medicine concerned with the nonsurgical treatment of disease
  3 : a substance (as a drug or potion) used to treat something other than disease
  4 : an object held in traditional American Indian belief to give control over natural or magical forces; also : magical power or a magical rite
  No mention of "human"...
8. Re:Medical privacy? by jklovanc · 2016-01-11 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  The definition of medical does not make that differentiation.
9. Re:Medical privacy? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-11 08:04 · Score: 0
  
  Well, "veterinary medicine" is a term, so...
10. Re:Medical privacy? by The-Ixian · 2016-01-11 08:05 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Dolphins who live primarily in salt water can live just as well in fresh water provided there is enough food for them to eat.
  As a matter of fact, some species of dolphin do live in fresh water.
  
  --
  My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
11. Re:Medical privacy? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-11 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  But it's a salt water animal that died in a fresh water waterway and was autopsied on the public dime.
  It doesn't take autopsic to figure to figure out what killed it.
  No that's not what killed it. Dolphins often travel in fresh water. Dolphins have been sited often in Sacramento...
12. Re:Medical privacy? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-11 08:12 · Score: 0
  
  it's "more than their job's worth" to attempt to push back on it
  Or the opposite. Since "they might even agree that such a call is silly" then drawing media attention and the lawsuits that are more likely to be filed to obtain the information than to protect it may require a lot more effort defending the "big red NO stamp" than their job's worth.
13. Re:Medical privacy? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2016-01-11 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  Moreover I would like to see an elected official try to prosecute someone for releasing this info.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
14. Re:Medical privacy? by thegarbz · 2016-01-11 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  I want to know what mental defective thought "medical privacy" was an appropriate excuse.
  Probably someone who didn't add "human" to the Scope of the regulation in question. I'm sure no one thought it was an appropriate excuse for an animal and thus we end up in the situation we're in, applying regulations in stupid scenarios.
15. Re:Medical privacy? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-11 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  Okay, I beg the pardon of the PETA folks (actually no I don't...*Kicks a kitten*).
  You're so edgy. I bet you make your mom mad by listening to Korn.
16. Re:Medical privacy? by Lehk228 · 2016-01-11 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  I want to know what mental defective thought "medical privacy" was an appropriate excuse.
  
  somebody who had 10 more to review and only 15 minutes till lunch.
  
  >picks up paper
  >see's word "necropsy"
  >"hey sid, what's a necropsy?"
  >"it's like an autopsy"
  >[DENIED]
  
  --
  Snowden and Manning are heroes.
17. Re:Medical privacy? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-11 09:15 · Score: 0
  
  Okay, I beg the pardon of the PETA folks (actually no I don't...*Hunts down and stomps on several kittens*).
  FTFY.
18. Re:Medical privacy? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-11 09:23 · Score: 0
  
  I want to know what mental defective thought "medical privacy" was an appropriate excuse.
  See Governor Krispy Kreme.
19. Re:Medical privacy? by Idarubicin · 2016-01-11 09:30 · Score: 2
  
  The excuse "Medical privacy" when it comes to a wild animal is really causing the person using it to look like a fool.
  The person who rejected the FOIA request 'signed' his name in Comic Sans. This is not a person who is concerned about looking like a fool.
  
  --
  ~Idarubicin
20. Re:Medical privacy? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-12 00:17 · Score: 0
  
  New Jersey gets the government it deserves. Elect a state full of incompetent corrupt unaccountable criminals, get incompetent corrupt unaccountable criminal governance.
21. Re:Medical privacy? by Talderas · 2016-01-12 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  I would say it's more likely that the people who first view the request are given a series of yes/no questions with a pre-canned response for the question the request fails.
  
  --
  "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Complete Lunacy by Tulsa_Time · 2016-01-11 07:42 · Score: 1

By this logic, you would not have access to the rabies test on the bat that bites you.

--
5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
1. Re:Complete Lunacy by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-11 08:08 · Score: 0
  
  By this logic, you would not have access to the rabies test on the bat that bites you.
  The dolphin didn't bite Carly. If it did, it would be a completely different matter...
2. Re:Complete Lunacy by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-11 08:47 · Score: 0
  
  That's somewhat different. For one thing chances are you brought the bat in yourself.
  This would be more like your neighbor filing a request to get the results of the rabies test of the bat that bit you.
  And actually framed in that context it makes the decision seem more reasonable IMO.
3. Re:Complete Lunacy by whit3 · 2016-01-11 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  This would be more like your neighbor filing a request to get the results of the rabies test of the bat that bit you. And actually framed in that context it makes the decision seem more reasonable IMO.
  
  More reasonable, but not acceptable.
  It is rather important to know if our neighborhood's bats are rabid. So important, that the information ought not to be suppressed when/if a neighbor is bit. This has nothing to do with a diagnosis of the neighbor, it's about the public interest in a health hazard.
  The only reason for public records, is that they serve the public interests. If one loses that, the state is too corrupt to function.
This whole thing by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-11 07:45 · Score: 3, Funny

just sounds fishy to me.
1. Re:This whole thing by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-11 08:40 · Score: 0
  
  So long, so long, and thanks....for all the fish!
2. Re:This whole thing by SoapBoy · 2016-01-11 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  You mean mammaly.
3. Re:This whole thing by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-11 09:26 · Score: 0
  
  Unless the dolphin came up from Miami. Then "fishy" would be appropriate.
4. Re:This whole thing by MattGWU · 2016-01-12 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  "Whatever." --George Costanza, Marine Biologist
  
  --
  "These people look deep within my soul and assign me a number based on the order in which I joined" --Homer re:
Prescott Pharmaceuticals, the side effects maybe.. by modi123 · 2016-01-11 07:47 · Score: 1, Troll

Prescott Pharmaceuticals, says the side effects from dumping the reduction of Vagisil into Gardasil into the ocean may include: meaty run off, star shower toe, fickle rectum, and nunya dolphin*.
*nunya dolphin means none-of-ya-damn-business-about-the-damn-dolphin-death so we are sealing it for confidentiality.
Remember - Prescott Pharmaceuticals, good for what ails your smelly dolphin.
It's a Coverup! by Irate+Engineer · 2016-01-11 07:48 · Score: 1

The State of NJ flogged the dolphin.

--
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
1. Re:It's a Coverup! by The-Ixian · 2016-01-11 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  Or locked them in gestation crates...
  
  --
  My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
Response menu: by sbaker · 2016-01-11 07:49 · Score: 4, Funny

How would you like to respond to this request for information:
[1] Provide information
[2] Deny information
Congratulations! You've decided to "Deny information".
What kind of form letter would you like to respond with:
[1] Military secret
[2] Medical privacy
[3] Area 51-related incident
[4] The dog ate our report
[5] Major government coverup of unspecified nature
Do you wish to include additional information?
[1] No
[2] Yes
Please enter additional information:
222222222222222222222222222222222222222222
Ready to send?
[1] No
[2] Yes

--
www.sjbaker.org
1. Re:Response menu: by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-11 08:44 · Score: 0
  
  Your "2" button appears to be stuck sir.
2. Re:Response menu: by Calydor · 2016-01-11 23:14 · Score: 1
  
  Well THAT reply is really a Number Two.
  
  --
  -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
wow govt coverup.. Yahoo news.. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-11 07:54 · Score: 0

Still not news for nerds DHI pull your heads out..
The only way "medical privacy" would apply ... by MondoGordo · 2016-01-11 07:54 · Score: 1

is if dolphins are people too. Animals have no right to privacy.
1. Re:The only way "medical privacy" would apply ... by bluefoxlucid · 2016-01-11 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  It's weird enough they think dead people are people.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
2. Re:The only way "medical privacy" would apply ... by Tablizer · 2016-01-11 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  they think dead people are people
  For voting purposes ;-)
  Declare the dolphins as corporations, and try again. If it's described in a profitable way, they may release the info.
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
3. Re:The only way "medical privacy" would apply ... by mark-t · 2016-01-11 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  Not entirely true.... animals can have some rights to privacy when they have human caregivers.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
4. Re:The only way "medical privacy" would apply ... by dgatwood · 2016-01-11 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  Normally, I'd say "Only in Chicago," but apparently you weren't kidding about New Jersey.
  SMH.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
If a dolphin has medical privacy rights... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-11 07:56 · Score: 0

Does that not mean that a dolphin is now a person?
And if that is true, then NJ will have to carry out murder investigations any dolphins included in tuna...
Cool. Dolphins are people too. by RandCraw · 2016-01-11 07:57 · Score: 1

But where does it stop? Dogs? Squirrels? Insects? E Coli?
Dare I flush the toilet without permission?
Re:Prescott Pharmaceuticals, the side effects mayb by JonnyCalcutta · 2016-01-11 08:00 · Score: 1

I suffer from fickle rectum you insensitive clod!
I'm not saying it's mermaids... by bigdady92 · 2016-01-11 08:01 · Score: 4, Funny

but it's mermaids...

--
Wheel of Time: Book by Book and Sumview (summary review) Bigdady92 style: http://bigdady92.blogspot.com/
1. Re:I'm not saying it's mermaids... by modi123 · 2016-01-11 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  No, no, no! It's "aquatic apes". The theory and current research were condensed down into an tv show on Animal Planet. Totes.
  http://www.animalplanet.com/tv...
2. Re:I'm not saying it's mermaids... by Irate+Engineer · 2016-01-11 11:49 · Score: 1
  
  No, no, no! It's "aquatic apes".
  Sea Monkeys?
  
  --
  Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
  Vote for Bernie in 2016!
Dolphin is not a person by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-11 08:02 · Score: 0

Since a dolphin is not a person, the records are deemed confidential.
A government record shall not include the following information which is deemed to be confidential for the purposes of P.L.1963, c.73 (C.47:1A-1 et seq.) as amended and supplemented:
any copy, reproduction or facsimile of any photograph, negative or print, including instant photographs and videotapes of the body, or any portion of the body, of a deceased person
Re:Prescott Pharmaceuticals, the side effects mayb by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-11 08:02 · Score: 0

how is this a 2 and other comments that should be -1 a +5.
modi123, I laughed, I cried, I lost 15 lbs reading your post. But thank you, I really lol'd.
(PETA poster person, you realize you are 'arguing' on the same side as PETA *if* PETA was even involved which it is not, it ain't PETA hiding the info it's NJ and its bureaucrats which are beholden to chemical companies. It's not because they think a dolphin deserves medical privacy ya schlub it's because it's full of detectable levels of contaminants they want to cover up. If you live in NJ and drink water or breath air there, I feel for ya.)
Re:Prescott Pharmaceuticals, the side effects mayb by modi123 · 2016-01-11 08:08 · Score: 1

Heh.. "ticklish clods" would be a side effect of Prescott Pharmaceuticals's topical creme line.
Re:Prescott Pharmaceuticals, the side effects mayb by modi123 · 2016-01-11 08:09 · Score: 1

Thanks! Occasionally I flex the withered f' bone and get something amusing out there.
Not when it violates privacy acts. by T.E.D. · 2016-01-11 08:14 · Score: 1

There really wasn't any choice. They were forced to deny it under O.R.C.A. - the Open Records of Cetaceans Act.
Re:Cool. Dolphins are people too. by i.r.id10t · 2016-01-11 08:18 · Score: 1

Well, it *is* New Jersey....

--
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
speaking from the DOA, maybe i can clarify. by nimbius · 2016-01-11 08:19 · Score: 4, Funny

As a DOA manager, and having overseen part of the autopsy, I can tell you with all certainty that medical privacy is of tyhe utmost importance. Lets face it: you know it, I know it, the world knows it. The south river is about as healthy as a bullet to the head, but many people dont yet know how awful its become outside of the realm of its recent acclaim from the guinness book of records for "most likely to spread an epidemic plague of black death and ebola." For example, did you know that the south river is now viscous enough to float a bowling ball? or did you know that on a cold winters day you can huddle near its many eddies and currents for warmth from its innumerable short and long bursts of radiation as a byproduct of its constant brush with nuclear criticality? Many of my employees tell stories of how after misplacing their cigarette lighter they simply dip the end of a marlborough into the river instead. And lets not get started on "the voices" that compelled nearly two dozen virgin women to enter the deep, never to return.

trust me. things are well under control and you needn't worry yourself with frivolous reports of the 300 foot tall "dolphin" with "spiderlike appendages" now roaming the countryside in search of "blood and bone." Having communicated with us telephathically it has been very stern in its demand for medical privacy both in words and in the uncontrollable nosebleeds affecting our newborns.

--
Good people go to bed earlier.
At odds with monkey selfie ruling? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-11 08:20 · Score: 0

Sounds like citing privacy implies personhood (I don't think pet data has to conform to HIIPA), which would put it at odds with the recent ruling regarding the "monkey selfie" http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/07/462245189/federal-judge-says-monkey-cant-own-copyright-to-his-selfie
What a world we live in, eh?
Sounds fishy... by waspleg · 2016-01-11 08:23 · Score: 1

norealtextherewaitingoutthetimerandhopingit'senough...
It stops when... by davidwr · 2016-01-11 08:32 · Score: 2

...the Dolphins leave and say "So long, and thanks for all the fish."

--
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
There's no porpoise for denying this by TomR+teh+Pirate · 2016-01-11 08:37 · Score: 1

Unless it was poison, and then the dolphins won't be "thanking us for all the fish".
1. Re:There's no porpoise for denying this by wonkey_monkey · 2016-01-11 09:11 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe someone thought the label said "poisson."
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
World War Z has started by Cito · 2016-01-11 08:43 · Score: 1

Someone find Rick Grimes and KORRAL!
speaking of laziness... by Ionized · 2016-01-11 08:45 · Score: 2

speaking of laziness... if you had bothered to read the article, you would see that it quotes the regulation, and that the relevant text is "information concerning individuals." individual is a pretty common & well-defined legal term meaning a human person (or, rarely, artificial persons like corporations). I don't recall any legal precedent granting dolphins personhood, so this is very clearly a misapplication of law.
1. Re:speaking of laziness... by ColdWetDog · 2016-01-11 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  He's really a PETA plant. I knew it! They're everywhere.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
2. Re:speaking of laziness... by jep77 · 2016-01-11 09:12 · Score: 2
  
  Mmmm... Pita plant. I'm opening a gyro farm.
3. Re:speaking of laziness... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-11 09:33 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Well, having seen said dolphin in said river personally (i.e. my commute passed this incident daily while the dolphin was hanging about), one has to keep in mind that the local authorities decided the best way to deal with this was to have police on jet skis whizzing around in the river for long chunks of time. Ostensibly because they needed to keep the gawkers from molesting the dolphin, but also... just possibly mind you... getting paid OT for jetskiing full blast someplace you would other times be cited for might have been to much fun and loads of free cash for those involved.
  This leaves three ready possibilities where OPRA would be stymied, from most likely to least likely.
  1) The medical examiner report is part of an ongoing criminal investigation. Wording of the statute aside, administrative guidelines interprets them to mean that ongoing criminal investigations are excluded from opra, and the ME records may simply get covered under that umbrella.
  2) The animal died from the activities of authorities, the autopsy contains personally identifiable information of people involved, and the request was worded as submitted to not cover such extraneous information. Normally, they would redact the questionable info, but if said jet skiing po-po or similar managed to fatally injure the dolphin, they might take the opportunity and run with it if the submitter provided such an opportunity.
  3) The officer(s) policing the dolphin had herpagonasyphilaids and managed to transmit it to the dolphin somehow. In which case, it would be releasing HIPAA protected info regarding an individual if they release names outright, or the equivalent which unambiguously identifies someone despite not being an explicit naming, which opra doesn't cover.
  Reality is that the dolphin crawled up an estuary a pretty good ways. They tried to scare it back towards the ocean and it returned anyway. The sucker was in all likelihood going to die there at some point and wasn't well. The actions of the authorities may have accelerated that a bit, but mostly it just pissed away funds the state and county were short of anyway as recovery form superstorm sandy was still going on and had had a serious impact on property tax revenue.
4. Re:speaking of laziness... by omnichad · 2016-01-11 10:20 · Score: 1
  
  Forget plants. It's not a good pita without pita meat.
5. Re:speaking of laziness... by Anne+Thwacks · 2016-01-11 10:33 · Score: 1
  
  Where do you get pita meat?
  Here, we only get Pita bread!
  
  --
  Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
6. Re: speaking of laziness... by jep77 · 2016-01-11 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  Who cares where it comes from... It's delicious.
  Really, any meat in a pita or dÃner is not meant to have a known source. Some questions should never be asked.
7. Re: speaking of laziness... by omnichad · 2016-01-11 15:17 · Score: 2
  
  Not to get circular here, but PETA meat comes from vegans
8. Re:speaking of laziness... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-11 15:34 · Score: 0
  
  4) The officer(s) policing the dolphin were engaged in happy fun time with said dolphin.
  Doesn't anyone remember the dolphinsex.org troll? Slashdot is losing its institutional memory.
9. Re:speaking of laziness... by ChrisMaple · 2016-01-12 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  As PITA stands for Pain In The Ass, it's obvious where it comes from.
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Smells fishy, if you ask me by mark-t · 2016-01-11 08:47 · Score: 1

(pun partially intended.... yes, I know dophins are not fish).
There is absolutely *NO* privacy law anywhere that extends to the privacy of animals other than humans except to the extent that they may have human caregivers whose privacy is to be respected.
I am not ordinarily one to speculate on conspiracy theories, but something just doesn't seem right about this.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
1. Re:Smells fishy, if you ask me by Obfuscant · 2016-01-11 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  I am not ordinarily one to speculate on conspiracy theories, but something just doesn't seem right about this.
  It's not that complicated. You're an entry-level public employee who has been given the job of answering FOIA requests. There's a training class or two, perhaps live, perhaps online, where they try to cover the laws that are relevant. They certainly cannot spend the time to do so word by word, delving into the maze of twisty little passages, all alike, that is the law. There are probably Powerpoints with bullet points. "Things that are exempt from release". "C. Medical records".
  Also probably front loaded into the classes (before everyone goes to sleep) are a couple of pages of "consequences of making a mistake". Such as, "lawsuit for improper release of private data".
  It doesn't seem so out of pale that the request for a "medical record" would be denied like this. What are the consequences? Releasing it by mistake could mean lawsuits and job loss. Not releasing it means the requester takes it higher up the chain -- no longer my decision.
  No conspiracy necessary.
2. Re:Smells fishy, if you ask me by mark-t · 2016-01-11 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  Releasing it by mistake could mean lawsuits....
  Who could file such a lawsuit? The dolphin's next of kin?
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
3. Re:Smells fishy, if you ask me by Obfuscant · 2016-01-11 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  Who could file such a lawsuit?
  You do realize that the training which listed possible results of incorrect decisions would not be about specific requests, don't you? A classroom bullet point that says there is a potential for a lawsuit if a request is approved improperly wouldn't be considering that a dolphin would file the lawsuit.
  A decision based on training that says "medical records are exempt" stands alone; it is well outside the job description of the person making the decision to try to guess who might object and who might file a lawsuit. Would you like your records released to me because some low-level bureaucrat didn't think you would object? And would you like to bet your job that some nutcase animal rights group wouldn't sue to try to make a point?
  It's pretty simple. The easy choice is obvious. There is no conspiracy necessary.
4. Re:Smells fishy, if you ask me by mark-t · 2016-01-11 16:51 · Score: 1
  
  My point is not merely that someone wouldn't object, my point is that someone *COULDN'T* object, because unless the dolphin had human caregivers, there are no privacy rights to be respected. The *ONLY* reason medical records are kept confidential is because of the privacy rights granted to the patient. But animals have no such rights.
  If I were a dolphin, or any other non-human creature, it wouldn't matter one iota whether I might object to the release of the records or not.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
5. Re:Smells fishy, if you ask me by Obfuscant · 2016-01-12 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  My point is not merely that someone wouldn't object, my point is that someone *COULDN'T* object,
  You overlook the animal rights activists. But the real point is, the LAW does not speak about the decision to release medical data being based on CAN anyone object. It talks about specific types of data.
  If you die and have no known relatives, should your medical data become public information? Should a bureaucrat in some office in the state capitol decide that "nobody could object"? Is that their responsibility to decide? Do you want it to be?
  And the point is, it doesn't take any wacko conspiracy theory to understand why the decision was made the way it was. All you have to do is consider what kind of training the person who makes the decision would have, and that nobody would waste training time talking about whether the "patient" is human or not, because the situation never arose before and wasn't anticipated.
6. Re:Smells fishy, if you ask me by mark-t · 2016-01-12 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  The entire reason that medical records are kept confidential in the first place is because of the privacy rights of the patient.
  A dolphin does not have, and never has had any privacy rights.
  Technically, any records that are kept on the creature would not even qualify as "medical records" under the jurisdiction of patient confidentiality any more than a weather report would qualify as a medical report for the climate of the planet.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
7. Re:Smells fishy, if you ask me by Obfuscant · 2016-01-12 11:17 · Score: 1
  
  The entire reason that medical records are kept confidential in the first place is because of the privacy rights of the patient.
  
  That's very nice. That may be why the law was written to exempt them from FOIA requests. It doesn't matter. The law doesn't include an option for a decision based on "who might object" or "who has privacy rights". It says that medical records are exempt from FOIA requests.
  I've asked you a couple of times now if you want some bureaucrat making decisions about the release of your medical records based on their guess as to whether anyone would object to it. "Hmm, mark-t is dead, so he can't object. I don't know of any relatives who have standing to object. I guess I'll release the records as requested." I don't want them making that determination. If you do, that's ok for you, but the law doesn't allow it.
  
  A dolphin does not have, and never has had any privacy rights.
  
  And if you think that the training that the bureaucrat got regarding the laws covering FOIA and medical records talked about dolphin records, you're deluded. "What's excluded: ... C. Medical records." If you think the following Powerpoint said "What about dolphin medical records?", that's loony.
  So, the autopsy looks like a medical record, whether you want to call it that or not. Here's a request for that medical record under FOIA. Medical records are exempt from FOIA requests. Therefore, the answer is "no". The letter even quoted the section of the Executive Order specifying the reason. It takes no conspiracy theory to figure out why the answer was "no". That's the point I'm making. There's nothing "fishy" about this. The official policy of the state of New Jersey regarding release of medical records is spelled out; the bureaucrat followed that guidance, which came from a Governor before Christie.
  Is it a tempest in a teapot? Should an appeal of the decision grant the release? Go argue with someone else about that, because my point is that there is no conspiracy here. It's following the law and the training about that law that someone got. That's it.
8. Re:Smells fishy, if you ask me by mark-t · 2016-01-12 12:10 · Score: 1
  
  I've asked you a couple of times now if you want some bureaucrat making decisions about the release of your medical records based on their guess as to whether anyone would object to it.
  
  And I already answered it.... if I were a dolphin, or any other kind of non-human, it wouldn't matter one iota how I might feel about it. I would have absolutely no rights.
  
  So, the autopsy looks like a medical record, whether you want to call it that or not. Here's a request for that medical record under FOIA. Medical records are exempt from FOIA requests. Therefore, the answer is "no". The letter even quoted the section of the Executive Order specifying the reason. It takes no conspiracy theory to figure out why the answer was "no". That's the point I'm making. There's nothing "fishy" about this. The official policy of the state of New Jersey regarding release of medical records is spelled out; the bureaucrat followed that guidance, which came from a Governor before Christie.
  Okay... so the reason is because the person who responded to the request didn't realize that the only thing that quialifies as a medical record under privacy laws are those that deal with *HUMAN* patients.
  Animals have no rights under the law. Zero. None. Any we may coincidentally afford them are by virtue only of rights that are already granted to human individuals. Refusing a medical report of an animal alegedly under the jurisdiction of medical records being exempt from FOIA requests makes the person refusing the request look like a bloody moron because the purpose of the exemption is to protect *HUMAN* rights.
  So it's my bad.... I should not have so easily attributed to malice what can just as readily be attributed to ignorance or incompetence.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
legal definition is more relevant by Ionized · 2016-01-11 08:47 · Score: 1

the legal definition is more relevant. try http://thelawdictionary.org/in...
you skipped over the important bits. RTFA by Ionized · 2016-01-11 08:52 · Score: 1

the exemption applies to "information concerning individuals" which you would have known if you'd actually read the article.
individual is a commonly used legal term, and it sure as shit doesn't mean dolphins. it means persons. humans. thus, the regulation for medical record exemptions only applies to humans.
1. Re:you skipped over the important bits. RTFA by guruevi · 2016-01-11 10:39 · Score: 1
  
  Individual could also mean 'a single item'.
  
  --
  Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
2. Re:you skipped over the important bits. RTFA by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-11 10:57 · Score: 0
  
  tard, he said "individuals"
3. Re:you skipped over the important bits. RTFA by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-11 12:05 · Score: 0
  
  Let's look at that law dictionary, shall we?
  http://thelawdictionary.org/individual/
  So it is used mainly to single that we're dealing with single entities rather than groups thereof and the idea that we're dealing with natural persons is "not necessarily inherent in tbe word" (sic).
4. Re: you skipped over the important bits. RTFA by Ionized · 2016-01-11 12:34 · Score: 1
  
  Are you dishonest, or blind?
  "As a noun, this term denotes a single PERSON as distinguished from a group or class, and also, very commonly, a private or natural PERSON as distinguished from a partnership"
come on, RTFA by Ionized · 2016-01-11 08:53 · Score: 1

right there in the article -
exemption applies to "information concerning individuals,"
individual means person. human. not dolphin. see http://thelawdictionary.org/in...
Problems with the HIPAA underwater consent system by Applehu+Akbar · 2016-01-11 08:58 · Score: 4, Funny

1. Relatively few dolphins can read English, though the New Jersey ESL program is working on that.
2. Because the dolphin version of the HIPAA consent form is printed on those waterproof pads that divers use to write notes to each other, many individuals have experienced trouble holding a grease pencil in their mouths and writing a legible signature at the bottom of the form. Furthermore, individuals with the requisite agility to accomplish this task tend not to be the dolphins who can read the form in the first place.
3. In dolphin culture, only the alpha bull of a pod has the legal authority to sign for the release of medical data on a deceased podmate. In the specific case at hand, the NJ Department of Agriculture was unable to obtain a validly signed release.
4. The head of the NJ DoA, Jerry "Three Fingers" Fibonacci, is under indictment for bribing certain dolphin pod chieftains, using prime tuna from his seafood processing business, to ignore reporting of river pollution in the state of New Jersey. He is suspected of involvement in this specific case. But even if Fibonacci is eventually convicted, legal questions about the translation accuracy of dolphin testimony are intricate enough that they may have to be resolved by the SCOTUS.
Really strange ruling by gurps_npc · 2016-01-11 09:16 · Score: 1

If Dolphins have a right to privacy, then does that mean we can't film them without permission? How much do we owe Flipper for the movies he made?
Furthermore there are a lot of US laws that derive from that right. A right to privacy is part of the basis for the right to home schooling, as well as the right to get an abortion, and the legal right for sodomy. (Lawrence vs Texas). Does that mean that consensual sex with a dolphin is now legal in the state of New Jersey?

--
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
So dolphins are people by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-11 09:22 · Score: 0

Dolphins must be people, then.
1. Re:So dolphins are people by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-11 09:24 · Score: 0
  
  A brilliant way to completely ignore the previous comment. Applause!
2. Re: So dolphins are people by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-11 18:02 · Score: 0
  
  Dolphins are corporations.
Dolphins Matter!! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-11 09:43 · Score: 0

Enuff said...
Not the first time this happened by rworne · 2016-01-11 10:10 · Score: 1

Back in 2002 a giraffe dies at the National Zoo

--
I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
Hidden Death by JimSadler · 2016-01-11 10:11 · Score: 1

I suspect that if the reason for that dolphin's death were known nobody would buy land or a home anywhere near that area. Is New Jersey now to toxic for human presence?
did they cite by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-11 10:46 · Score: 0

no porposie?
April Already? by Sir+Holo · 2016-01-11 10:49 · Score: 1

It's not April 1 yet, is it?
Maybe it was human by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-11 10:59 · Score: 0

called Dolph In?
It was starving, had morbillivirus and rubella by argumentsockpuppet · 2016-01-11 11:23 · Score: 2

Schoelkopf [founding director of the Marine Mammal Stranding Center] says his organization euthanized the dolphin and paid the state of New Jersey to perform the necropsy. The results of the necropsy were released to his organization, which expressly asked the state to not publicly reveal its findings. He said because of the controversial nature of dolphin euthanasia, the organization wanted to keep the findings private.
http://motherboard.vice.com/re...
That doesn't excuse the idiots responding for the state, but does clear up the dolphin question.
1. Re:It was starving, had morbillivirus and rubella by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-12 14:40 · Score: 0
  
  Someone PLEASE vote this up... two screens of "we can't figure out without the necropsy", and this is what happened. Euthanasia of terribly sick animal. Inadvertent Streisand effect by proxy. MMSC didn't want to have to deal with the incoming "OMG they killed a dolphin" protests.
Can't use public funds for non-public purposes by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-11 11:48 · Score: 0

Whoever made this decision should personally foot the bill for the procedure, if they're going to deny the public access to the results.
Perhaps a bigger "dolphin" by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-11 13:20 · Score: 0

Perhaps it died because a bigger "dolphin" with a dual steel hull and several ton displacement was "singing" at an ultra low frequency and an autopsy would reveal flippers poor brain was mush.
So we can come to our own conclusions then...? by CTU · 2016-01-11 14:12 · Score: 1

I kinda think there was something up with the death that NJ does not want known...something they did or let happen
Okay, so you want to play games? How about this? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-11 15:46 · Score: 0

Okay, they have declined to provide the information on the basis of medical privacy.
In my view, this elevates the dolphin legally to the status of a sentient being, covered by our laws because, well, they said it's covered by our laws by citing them as the reason.
Therefore, this should now be investigated as a murder - not only that, but the heinous murder of the very first legally sentient dolphin.
I am OUTRAGED.
The state is clearly complicit in the murder, and is covering up evidence. Therefore, the FBI should be brought in immediately.
Who will solve the first dolphin homocide... er, Delphinicide?
hmmm by sociocapitalist · 2016-01-12 00:25 · Score: 1

Could it be argued that the State of New Jersey has just granted dolphins human rights (and all that goes with it) ?

--
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
Could they by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-12 00:39 · Score: 0

Could they possibly paint "cover up" in any larger letters than this amounts to?
Unavoidable question by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-12 01:54 · Score: 0

I wonder.. Can wax kills dolphins?
The logical conclusion by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-12 04:43 · Score: 0

Okay, if a dolphin is protected by medical privacy it is only logical that domestic pets are also covered.
So, if you take your dog to the vet he/she can't tell you what is wrong unless your dog signs a release form using his/her paw. If the vet fails to get that paw print he/she will be liable for damages and may even be subject to criminal proceedings.