Slashdot Mirror
DEA Wants Access To Medical Records Without Warrant (thedailybeast.com)
mi writes from a report via The Daily Beast: Unlike in cases of commercially-held data, where the Third Party doctrine allows police warrantless access, prescription drug monitoring databases are maintained by state-governments. The difference is lost to the Obama Administration, which argues that "since the records have already been submitted to a third party (a state's Prescription Drug Monitoring Program) that patients no longer enjoy an expectation of privacy." The DEA has claimed for years that under federal law it has the authority to access the states' prescription drug databases using only an "administrative subpoena." These are unilaterally issued orders that do not require a showing of probable cause before a court, like what's required to obtain a warrant. Some states, like Oregon, fight it; some, like Wisconsin, do not. "The federal government is eager to see all these databases linked," reports The Daily Beast. "The Department of Justice has developed a software platform to facilitate sharing among all state PDMPs. So far 32 states already share their PDMP data through a National Association of Boards of Pharmacy program. The Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act (CARA), which passed Congress in March, calls for expanding sharing of PDMP data."
... then FBI, then DEA ...
The system rots, from within
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
As a Obama supporter (twice), can I just say:
Dude... Obama... stop. The tin foil hat brigade is giving me that knowing nod of "see? We fucking told you", and I have no reasonable retort. The Constitution was supposed to be your wheelhouse.
Gee, thanks.
Serious question: Are you upset because our privacy is at risk or because it makes Obama look bad?
You can be honest, I know people IRL who seem to really care only about rooting for "their guy" and forgive all the bad things.
FTFA: The Obama administration disagrees, and argues that since the records have already been submitted to a third party (Oregon’s PDMP) that patients no longer enjoy an expectation of privacy.
How do *I* lose my rights if a second party turns over info to a third party?
Now I see why the Obama administration has had such a hardon for electronic medical records.
The government can't (or should not) pass a law that requires collection of data, then claim that people have no expectation of privacy in that data.
What if the government passed a law requiring you to upload the contents of your computer to a massive database, then decided that it didn't need a warrant to access that same data?
If the Supreme Court allows this, it shows that the justices are themselves corrupt.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
I would recommend that you never tell your doctor that you use marijuana.
That will usually go into your medical record, because it's part of your medical and social history.
Now with electronic medical records, anybody with access can do a text search for "marijuana" and find it.
The most obvious problem that I can identify is that years later, you might have a legitimate need for opioids.
For example, hip and knee replacements are very painful. In order to be successful, they require physical therapy, which is also very painful, and often can't be done right without opioids. (See Jane Brody's story in the New York Times about her own knee replacements.)
If your medical record mentions marijuana, that can set off some (unscientific) guidelines for using opioids, which require that you sign a "pain contract." You have to take (unnecessary and expensive) drug tests, with (unnecessary and expensive) doctors' visits, with lower doses than would be medically appropriate, and they can discontinue opioids if you test positive for marijuana. Normally it would be a violation of medical ethics to abandon a patient, but these pain contracts allow doctors to unethically abandon a patient if they violate some of these provisions.
The Veterans Administration just backed off on one of those pain contracts after a veteran sued them. But not everybody can afford a lawyer.
http://journalofethics.ama-ass...
Veterans Health Administration Policy on Cannabis as an Adjunct to Pain Treatment with Opiates
Michael Krawitz
AMA Journal of Ethics.
June 2015, 17(6):558-561.
If a doctor specifically asks about marijuana, I think a good answer would be, "You can't guarantee me that this information will be confidential, right?"
What gets me is they pass a law saying third parties have to keep this information (cellphone/telephone data, prescriptions drug data) then pass a law saying that because it is given to a third party, they can get it any time they want.
I suspect somewhere down the road, a law will be passed saying that all banks that hold a mortgage on a property must grant access to the property without a warrant so even if you rent, your landlord will be forced to open up your home up for inspection without a warrant. It seems crazy but it also seem like this is heading this way. It's about like Dick Cheney going around saying no civil rights were abused because it is third party data and not yours in the first place. It is insulting that the connection cannot be made and the courts stand under the same opinion.
This is why we need trump to win the election. He is a clown but he can appoint ted cruze to the supreme court who while also an asshat, seems to like a strict interpretation of the constitution which should bar this type of activity.
why should you be protected if you're a criminal? What's the reasoning. Stop committing crimes.
Because if there was a way to know in advance who the criminals are, getting the warrants would be trivial, even for large numbers of them. Your entire point is that it should be permitted for agencies to go on "fishing expeditions". That is exactly the kind of government behavior that our constitution forbids, and with good reason.
The simplest counter argument I have is that drug use *shouldn't be illegal*, so what is and is not criminal seems to be up for debate, so giving the government wholesale powers of enforcement for what many believe shouldn't even be crimes is just begging for trouble. What happens when tomorrow our government declares that being a democrat is illegal? Think that sounds ridiculous? I believe Joseph McCarthy proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that this a is a very real possibility. Every time we grant the government *any* new powers, they take one step closer to the same status as the Taliban. Remember that when you want to give these agencies powers they never had before. The only thing that would stop a president Trump from doing half the crazy things he says he will do, is the fact that our constitution expressly prohibits him from getting away with it, even if he is elected president.
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
Let the addicts have their favored poison, and quietly remove themselves from the gene pool.
I would rather we had a drug problem than suffer the continuing existence of the DEA. Oh, wait - we still do have a drug problem as well as a DEA. And when the agency goes, can we have back the parts of the Constitution that we deleted for their benefit?
The entire idea that the DEA would remove the drug "problem" is laughable on the face of it. Their existence is predicated on the problem continuing to exist.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Drug addict: You mean if I come forward as a drug addict and try to get clean, they're going to arrest me and charge me with a crime? Forget that... I'll just put up with the addiction and try to keep it as quiet as possible.