"I hate to break it to you, but your health care data isn't anywhere near as private as you think it is."
You didn't tell me anything I didn't already know, and that's still not the point.
Regardless of whether there is a reality of "privacy" or not (and there is supposed to be), my POINT was that if this runs through something like a smartphone, and things don't change soon, then you'll soon have even LESS privacy than you already have.
I am aware that medical privacy has not lived up to expectations. But there ARE still regulations, and there ARE still expectations.
And I don't agree with you about "legally and legitimately". Lots of that last bit you talk about might be legal, but I dispute whether it is "legitimate". Those are two very different things.
And further, there is no legal basis for seizure of a computer because in the U.S., copying for personal use is not a crime. A court can theoretically fine you the statutory amount for that civil infraction, but that's in the form of dollars, not property. There is no "forfeiture of assets used in the crime", since there was no crime committed.
"The same systems that already get your data, where it has to conform to a pile of other regulations -- some silly, some sensible."
No, you missed my point.
Say your "sensors" work through a smartphone app. Who is to say the data doesn't get sent to third parties, the way your current smartphone sensor data often does?
"Hardly true. Plenty of asset forfeitures based on simply being involved with illegal activity. Oh, that car with the completely empty secret compartment? Ours now. The house you bought with your inheritance that we caught you dealing drugs from? Ours now."
That's not a court judgment. Asset forfeiture is a completely different thing, and is totally irrelevant to the situation at hand.
In the U.S., I am pretty sure that the courts don't (can't?) force you, in a judgment, to give up one home and (I am also pretty sure) one car, or the tools you need to make a living. For example, if you're a carpenter they could not touch your toolbox in most circumstances.
In regard to asset forfeiture: I think in the long run, seizure of assets that weren't directly part of, or derived from the proceeds of, illegal activity will be ruled illegal. It has certainly been abused, and I know of no real, legal basis for it.
If a house was bought with, say, money from illegal slave trade, or was used in same, that's a different matter. Then there is justification for seizing the property.
"The NSA is a federal institution, and the states have no jurisdiction. Unless you seriously believe that Maryland residents are going to burn it to the ground."
You don't get it, do you?
The NSA can't do anything without the State's cooperation. If Utah shut off the water, that big new data center would shut down.
The whole point here, is that the Feds can't force the States to do things they don't want to do, NOR can they enforce much of anything that is even purely "federal jurisdiction" without assistance from a State. They just don't have the manpower, OR the budget. It's been tried. It doesn't work.
I repeat: the Feds think Marijuana is "strictly Federal jurisdiction", too. The States disagree. Who lost? The Feds.
"Except that vitamins are just 'fortifying' a unhealthy diet. What difference does it make if the vitamin is in the junk food or the pill?"
But that's kind of GP's point.
This study was done on people with "no nutritional deficiencies". Yet vitamins are intended as supplements for people with nutritional deficiencies. As such, this study doesn't really show what it appears to be showing.
I mean, it's like studying the eficacy of a smallpox vaccine on a population that is never exposed to smallpox. Guess what? It's going to show no significant benefit, and even maybe a little bit of harm.
Seriously, this looks like a good candidate paper for the Journal of Irreproducible Results. That is to say: like other papers they've published, it might be valid science, but who cares?
"The word socialism gets tossed around carelessly by right wing pols who don't know what it is... But real socialism, as meant by Karl Marx, is defined as "the ownership of the means of production by the state". Domestic spending on public education or health care is NOT socialism. But government assumption of corporate shares is the real thing."
And as we see here, it ALSO gets tossed around by left wingers who equally don't know what it is. What a silly thing to say.
Socialism -- like many such "isms", is both an economic and political system. Marx's definition is only about the economic aspects of socialism. But denying the political aspects is to deny reality.
In the real world, as a practical matter, a socialist State has to distribute the proceeds from that State-owned production. How does it do so? By means of such things as "socialized medicine".
So while "socialized medicine" may not define the political system of a country, it is definitely a step toward a Socialist State.
AND, I will add: even if the political aspect did not exist or was not important, you'd still be wrong. Because "health care" is about 1/6 of our ECONOMY, and pretty much total Government control of 1/6 of the economy is very definitely socialist, even by your own non-real-world definition.
"Actually, the Medical Marijuana laws (and Colorado's new law) are not nullifying Federal law. They are a separate set of laws for handling drug cases that come up for prosecution at the state level (or instructing local law enforcement to ignore those cases entirely)."
That's what nullification *IS*. It is State refusal to obey, or cooperate with, Federal law.
"If the FBI picks you up for trafficking in those states, you're not going to state court, but federal court. And in those courts, I guarantee you that nullification will not be allowed as a defense."
You aren't getting it. Nullification is not a "defense" in court. That isn't the way it works.
"State nullification" refers to States refusing to comply with, cooperate with, or obey Federal laws that they believe to be unconstitutional. As in the example I gave earlier: Washington and Colorado legalizing marijuana for "recreational" use. This is very, very much against Federal law. The States are doing it anyway. That is a textbook example of "nullification".
YOU are referring to some kind of "official" vote of the states to formally somehow "nullify" Federal law. But that's not the way it has ever been done.
The main point here, however, is that while it might not be the "formal" process you envision, it IS done. Frequently. And successfully. And has been done that way (as I mentioned before) repeatedly and successfully for 200+ years.
"Great, so why would a president use that against a court that was siding with him?"
And that's called "moving the goalposts". The question I was responding to was whether the President could do anything, not whether I think (or he thinks) he should do something. Those are two completely different things.
"That's got to be the funniest post you've made yet. The states will do jack and shit because:"
States "nullify" Federal laws all the time. Just recently, Washington and Colorado gave a big "Fuck You" to Federal marijuana laws... and there isn't anything the Feds can do about it.
This State nullification has a long and successful history. So laugh all you like. It doesn't make a damned bit of difference.
"State nullification of Federal law is not allowed."
Hahahaha! This is the funniest thing I've read today. And like many other people, you have a false impression of what effect slavery actually had on the issue.
State nullification has been used, successfully, every year of our 200+ year history as a country.
It was used -- successfully -- by the North to nullify the Fugitive Slave laws. In its Declaration of Secession, this was the very first thing South Carolina listed as reasons for seceding. Other states also listed it, but none of the others listed it as the first reason.
It has been used MANY times since, and is in active use today. What do you think State "medical" marijuana laws are? They are EXAMPLES of SUCCESSFUL State nullification of Federal laws.
It has been used to nullify Federal marijuana laws. It has been used to nullify Federal firearms laws. It has been used (by 26 states!) to nullify the Federal "Real ID Act".
To say that it is "not allowed" is just laughable. It is done ALL THE TIME, and there isn't a damned thing the Federal government can do about it.
"And before someone comes along, I know they are not elected. That was my point. These "they'll be corrected!!" threats are silly."
Do you know what the word "corrected" means?
You say something that is incorrect.
I correct you.
What about that do you not understand? It doesn't imply that I want to completely get rid of you. This whole argument is silly.... over something I didn't even say.
Yes, I had an actual argument, I made it, and I cited a reference.
The point, which apparently went right over your head even though I stated it in plain English, was: The Supreme Court is not "immune" from politics. And I gave you a link which proves that point.
"There is absolutely no recourse whatsoever to a Supreme Court decision, no matter how transparently false and arrogant."
Spoken like someone who is truly ignorant of history. Nothing personal meant. That is the same bullshit that I learned in public school. But when I started to actually study history, OUTSIDE of school, I learned many things that opened my eyes.
There *IS* an authority to fall back on, outside Supreme Court decisions. That authority is the States. The States delegated this authority to the Supreme Court. They did not set the court up as the "final" arbiter of Constitutionality. That power is reserved to the States.
James Madison, in his Report of 1800 before the Virginia legislature (in which he explains the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, emphasis mine):
"However true therefore it may be that the judicial department is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact [the States], from which the judicial as well as the other departments hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve."
In other words, the States can decide that even the Supreme Court has overstepped its bounds, and nullify laws passed by Congress even if the Supreme Court has not struck them down. Any other idea is a logical falsehood.
Many writings by the founders, and the debates prior to ratification of the Constitution, verify this. The States did not give "ultimate" power to the Supreme Court. That, they reserved for themselves.
Amazing how my plain words went right over your heads. How many of you tried to argue about something I didn't even say? So far I count 4.
So just to put things back in context:
GP: "Who will correct them?"
Me: "Everybody."
I did NOT write (as you seem to think, somehow) that everybody would "make them pay" or "try to remove them from office". I wrote "everybody will correct them".
They already have a bad reputation. Whether they are in danger of "being removed" is a completely different matter. If they were to make a decision like that, they'd get a hell of a lot of bad press, and history would certainly take note of it.
My comment about "good behavior" was just a historical note. Many people think they are appointed for life. they are not. It might work out that way in practice (so far, anyway), but there is no law that says so.
"But...but...but the amorphous "everyone is going to make them pay!!!"
That isn't what I wrote. Maybe try working on your reading comprehension?
GP: "Who will correct them?"
Me: "Everybody"
I did not write that everybody was "going to make them pay". I wrote that "everyone" would correct them.
People do write about Supreme Court decisions, you know. And some of them have been famously bad. Today's SCOTUS already has a bad reputation, for making bad decisions. They probably can't afford another of same.
It is the kind of decision I was replying to that is unfeasible.
They simply dare not do that. The public is fed up with them as it is. They really would be putting themselves in a very bad position if they were to make yet another decision that was both unpopular and obviously incorrect.
"How cute and naive. The Supreme Court is immune to "image problems". Unless any of the justices have done something that Congress has decided they should be impeached for then they will face no consequences."
As James Madison famously wrote about in his Report of 1800, the Supreme Court is no more "immune" from politics than any other branch of the Federal government. Asserting otherwise is just plain ignorant.
Slashdot Mirror
"I hate to break it to you, but your health care data isn't anywhere near as private as you think it is."
You didn't tell me anything I didn't already know, and that's still not the point.
Regardless of whether there is a reality of "privacy" or not (and there is supposed to be), my POINT was that if this runs through something like a smartphone, and things don't change soon, then you'll soon have even LESS privacy than you already have.
I am aware that medical privacy has not lived up to expectations. But there ARE still regulations, and there ARE still expectations.
And I don't agree with you about "legally and legitimately". Lots of that last bit you talk about might be legal, but I dispute whether it is "legitimate". Those are two very different things.
And further, there is no legal basis for seizure of a computer because in the U.S., copying for personal use is not a crime. A court can theoretically fine you the statutory amount for that civil infraction, but that's in the form of dollars, not property. There is no "forfeiture of assets used in the crime", since there was no crime committed.
"The same systems that already get your data, where it has to conform to a pile of other regulations -- some silly, some sensible."
No, you missed my point.
Say your "sensors" work through a smartphone app. Who is to say the data doesn't get sent to third parties, the way your current smartphone sensor data often does?
"Hardly true. Plenty of asset forfeitures based on simply being involved with illegal activity. Oh, that car with the completely empty secret compartment? Ours now. The house you bought with your inheritance that we caught you dealing drugs from? Ours now."
That's not a court judgment. Asset forfeiture is a completely different thing, and is totally irrelevant to the situation at hand.
In the U.S., I am pretty sure that the courts don't (can't?) force you, in a judgment, to give up one home and (I am also pretty sure) one car, or the tools you need to make a living. For example, if you're a carpenter they could not touch your toolbox in most circumstances.
In regard to asset forfeiture: I think in the long run, seizure of assets that weren't directly part of, or derived from the proceeds of, illegal activity will be ruled illegal. It has certainly been abused, and I know of no real, legal basis for it.
If a house was bought with, say, money from illegal slave trade, or was used in same, that's a different matter. Then there is justification for seizing the property.
"Healthcare IT's actual problem is audit and compliance, oversight and regulation and how it slows adoption of useful technologies.
HIPAA, SOX, PCI compliance for payments, JCAHO audits, internal audits, external audits, record retention laws, the list goes on and on."
Aaaaaaannnnddd... that leads us into the other big question. Let's say hypothetically the sensors were all working fine. So, then...
Who gets the data?
"The NSA is a federal institution, and the states have no jurisdiction. Unless you seriously believe that Maryland residents are going to burn it to the ground."
You don't get it, do you?
The NSA can't do anything without the State's cooperation. If Utah shut off the water, that big new data center would shut down.
The whole point here, is that the Feds can't force the States to do things they don't want to do, NOR can they enforce much of anything that is even purely "federal jurisdiction" without assistance from a State. They just don't have the manpower, OR the budget. It's been tried. It doesn't work.
I repeat: the Feds think Marijuana is "strictly Federal jurisdiction", too. The States disagree. Who lost? The Feds.
"The pharmacy figured that scribble was a prescription and they've been having me stuff strange suppositories up my ass for weeks."
Calm down. You aren't getting the wrong medicine. That wasn't the pharmacy's mistake, that was the NSA.
"Except that vitamins are just 'fortifying' a unhealthy diet. What difference does it make if the vitamin is in the junk food or the pill?"
But that's kind of GP's point.
This study was done on people with "no nutritional deficiencies". Yet vitamins are intended as supplements for people with nutritional deficiencies. As such, this study doesn't really show what it appears to be showing.
I mean, it's like studying the eficacy of a smallpox vaccine on a population that is never exposed to smallpox. Guess what? It's going to show no significant benefit, and even maybe a little bit of harm.
Seriously, this looks like a good candidate paper for the Journal of Irreproducible Results. That is to say: like other papers they've published, it might be valid science, but who cares?
"I'm not sure about the "stipulation" aspect, which sounds made up, but they frequently do change yellow times(because greedy scumbags)."
I think in most states the yellow-light time is a matter of law.
Having said that, there HAVE been lawsuits over reduced yellow-light times in places where there are cameras. Because, as you say, greedy scumbags.
"The word socialism gets tossed around carelessly by right wing pols who don't know what it is... But real socialism, as meant by Karl Marx, is defined as "the ownership of the means of production by the state". Domestic spending on public education or health care is NOT socialism. But government assumption of corporate shares is the real thing."
And as we see here, it ALSO gets tossed around by left wingers who equally don't know what it is. What a silly thing to say.
Socialism -- like many such "isms", is both an economic and political system. Marx's definition is only about the economic aspects of socialism. But denying the political aspects is to deny reality.
In the real world, as a practical matter, a socialist State has to distribute the proceeds from that State-owned production. How does it do so? By means of such things as "socialized medicine".
So while "socialized medicine" may not define the political system of a country, it is definitely a step toward a Socialist State.
AND, I will add: even if the political aspect did not exist or was not important, you'd still be wrong. Because "health care" is about 1/6 of our ECONOMY, and pretty much total Government control of 1/6 of the economy is very definitely socialist, even by your own non-real-world definition.
"Actually, the Medical Marijuana laws (and Colorado's new law) are not nullifying Federal law. They are a separate set of laws for handling drug cases that come up for prosecution at the state level (or instructing local law enforcement to ignore those cases entirely)."
That's what nullification *IS*. It is State refusal to obey, or cooperate with, Federal law.
"If the FBI picks you up for trafficking in those states, you're not going to state court, but federal court. And in those courts, I guarantee you that nullification will not be allowed as a defense."
You aren't getting it. Nullification is not a "defense" in court. That isn't the way it works.
"State nullification" refers to States refusing to comply with, cooperate with, or obey Federal laws that they believe to be unconstitutional. As in the example I gave earlier: Washington and Colorado legalizing marijuana for "recreational" use. This is very, very much against Federal law. The States are doing it anyway. That is a textbook example of "nullification".
YOU are referring to some kind of "official" vote of the states to formally somehow "nullify" Federal law. But that's not the way it has ever been done.
The main point here, however, is that while it might not be the "formal" process you envision, it IS done. Frequently. And successfully. And has been done that way (as I mentioned before) repeatedly and successfully for 200+ years.
"Except that the victors write the history books. So they're not idiots - they're patriots. At least in their heads."
"The victors write the history books" was a comment about wars. The point there was that the losers aren't around to write the books.
I don't think it really applies to Supreme Court decisions.
"Great, so why would a president use that against a court that was siding with him?"
And that's called "moving the goalposts". The question I was responding to was whether the President could do anything, not whether I think (or he thinks) he should do something. Those are two completely different things.
Huh? Where would you get that idea? And what does it have to do with the subject at hand?
Wait. I think I see what you mean. Maybe the President is being blackmailed?
I suppose it's possible, but if so, it just shows yet again that he's the Ball-less Wonder In Chief.
Nice way to try to pretend it wasn't a "WHOOSH" moment, eh?
It's not my fault you misunderstood what I wrote. It was pretty plain English. The context was pretty clear.
"That's got to be the funniest post you've made yet. The states will do jack and shit because:"
States "nullify" Federal laws all the time. Just recently, Washington and Colorado gave a big "Fuck You" to Federal marijuana laws... and there isn't anything the Feds can do about it.
This State nullification has a long and successful history. So laugh all you like. It doesn't make a damned bit of difference.
"State nullification of Federal law is not allowed."
Hahahaha! This is the funniest thing I've read today. And like many other people, you have a false impression of what effect slavery actually had on the issue.
State nullification has been used, successfully, every year of our 200+ year history as a country.
It was used -- successfully -- by the North to nullify the Fugitive Slave laws. In its Declaration of Secession, this was the very first thing South Carolina listed as reasons for seceding. Other states also listed it, but none of the others listed it as the first reason.
It has been used MANY times since, and is in active use today. What do you think State "medical" marijuana laws are? They are EXAMPLES of SUCCESSFUL State nullification of Federal laws.
It has been used to nullify Federal marijuana laws. It has been used to nullify Federal firearms laws. It has been used (by 26 states!) to nullify the Federal "Real ID Act".
To say that it is "not allowed" is just laughable. It is done ALL THE TIME, and there isn't a damned thing the Federal government can do about it.
"And before someone comes along, I know they are not elected. That was my point. These "they'll be corrected!!" threats are silly."
Do you know what the word "corrected" means?
You say something that is incorrect.
I correct you.
What about that do you not understand? It doesn't imply that I want to completely get rid of you. This whole argument is silly.... over something I didn't even say.
"Corrected" by legal scholars, and later by the history books. And probably by a later Supreme Court.
That's all I meant. Sorry if you thought I meant corrected NOW.
But don't discount this. The written word has power. Supreme Court justices do not want to be remembered by history as idiots.
"Did you have some actual argument?"
Yes, I had an actual argument, I made it, and I cited a reference.
The point, which apparently went right over your head even though I stated it in plain English, was: The Supreme Court is not "immune" from politics. And I gave you a link which proves that point.
Do YOU have any actual argument?
"There is absolutely no recourse whatsoever to a Supreme Court decision, no matter how transparently false and arrogant."
Spoken like someone who is truly ignorant of history. Nothing personal meant. That is the same bullshit that I learned in public school. But when I started to actually study history, OUTSIDE of school, I learned many things that opened my eyes.
There *IS* an authority to fall back on, outside Supreme Court decisions. That authority is the States. The States delegated this authority to the Supreme Court. They did not set the court up as the "final" arbiter of Constitutionality. That power is reserved to the States.
James Madison, in his Report of 1800 before the Virginia legislature (in which he explains the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, emphasis mine):
"However true therefore it may be that the judicial department is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact [the States], from which the judicial as well as the other departments hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve."
In other words, the States can decide that even the Supreme Court has overstepped its bounds, and nullify laws passed by Congress even if the Supreme Court has not struck them down. Any other idea is a logical falsehood. Many writings by the founders, and the debates prior to ratification of the Constitution, verify this. The States did not give "ultimate" power to the Supreme Court. That, they reserved for themselves.
So just to put things back in context:
GP: "Who will correct them?"
Me: "Everybody."
I did NOT write (as you seem to think, somehow) that everybody would "make them pay" or "try to remove them from office". I wrote "everybody will correct them".
They already have a bad reputation. Whether they are in danger of "being removed" is a completely different matter. If they were to make a decision like that, they'd get a hell of a lot of bad press, and history would certainly take note of it.
My comment about "good behavior" was just a historical note. Many people think they are appointed for life. they are not. It might work out that way in practice (so far, anyway), but there is no law that says so.
"But...but...but the amorphous "everyone is going to make them pay!!!"
That isn't what I wrote. Maybe try working on your reading comprehension?
GP: "Who will correct them?"
Me: "Everybody"
I did not write that everybody was "going to make them pay". I wrote that "everyone" would correct them.
People do write about Supreme Court decisions, you know. And some of them have been famously bad. Today's SCOTUS already has a bad reputation, for making bad decisions. They probably can't afford another of same.
WHOOSH
It is the kind of decision I was replying to that is unfeasible.
They simply dare not do that. The public is fed up with them as it is. They really would be putting themselves in a very bad position if they were to make yet another decision that was both unpopular and obviously incorrect.
"How cute and naive. The Supreme Court is immune to "image problems". Unless any of the justices have done something that Congress has decided they should be impeached for then they will face no consequences."
*I* am naive? That's hilarious.
Try this on for size.
As James Madison famously wrote about in his Report of 1800, the Supreme Court is no more "immune" from politics than any other branch of the Federal government. Asserting otherwise is just plain ignorant.