"When we have peer reviewed Journals in every scientific fied, why would you object to peer-judged and peer established standards?
"
Because peer-determined standards of care are not the only issues that patients can have problems with.
Furthermore, if a doctor does adhere to peer-determined standards of care, and the patient publishes material that says the doctor didn't treat them properly, etc, then that patient is committing libel, and is prosecutable.
If a judge or jury does determine that the doctor met those peer-reviewed standards, then the doctor is vindicated, the complainer is fined, and the material is not allowed to be published. If the material is particularly damaging, then the doctor can file an injunction to have it removed pending consideration of the libel case.
"if the Physicians will have to constantly watch their back against disgrunted people posting online, their quality of service might suffer."
If physicians know that their patients have limited access to recourse against them, I am certain that quality of service would suffer.
"If Patients who may be not be satisfied due to a combination of myriad factors start using the Web primarly as a means to get back at the doctors, what is going to stop the Doctors to retaliate likewise by releasing confidential health details about their patients if they are not satisfied with the patients for example?
"
Ethics, and public outcry over lack of them.
How long do you think it would be before major news outlets report on a doctor releasing private medical information of a patient?
How long after that will it be until the doctor is penalized or has their license revoked by their state medical board?
'Most Importantly, if a patient visits a doctor, they enter automatically into a non-disclosure agreement although no legal documents need to be signed."
Not true at all. A treatment agreement != a non-disclosure agreement. There is no NDA unless it is expressly agreed. While a state medical board may require physicians to protect patient privacy, the patients themselves are under no such obligation. Many doctors' offices require you to sign an NDA before they'll treat you (often not each time, but rather, a blanket NDA to cover all visits). Also, these NDAs may not cover truthful criticism of a doctor's practice. I, for one, would never sign an NDA requiring me to keep my mouth shut if I have a bad experience.
If, as a physician, you believe you have an NDA covering all aspects of your practice with any patient you treat, you should get some legal advice.
"My end point is that this is a delicate issue and must be handled according to set protocols and procedures."
Often, a patient can have a bad experience with a doctor, even though no sanctionable behavior occurred. The patient should still have the right to inform others of their experience -- this is, after all, what word-of-mouth is.
Perhaps patients should not be allowed to recommend doctors to their friends and family? Instead, patients should have to check for formal commendations of good service.
Libel is still illegal, and is subject to prosecution. But honest communication of experiences, not covered by an NDA, are legal, just, and necessary for best consumer protection.
If competition for resources is greater in the US, and violence is also greater in the US, then competition causes violence?
Correlation != Causation. Repeat this to yourself about 50,000 times.
Furthermore, you can't say that competition is greater in the US than in Europe or Japan. There are still limited resources for people to compete for -- if anything, the US historically has had less competition for resources (though maybe not for women and other things previously treated as commodities).
Violent behavior simply represents one method of competition. Another method of competition is to minimize risk by acting within societal standards, while working hard for resources.
Cultural standards define what we find to be acceptable methods of competition. For whatever historical reasons, the US culture is more accepting of violence.
Perhaps it's due to the frontier nature of the first four centuries of caucasians in North America, and the risks people had to take in order to be successful. If someone had to risk their life to make a living, I'd bet they'd be more willing to defend their property (or attack another's) with violence.
Perhaps it's because of the wide open spaces of North America, because society had a much harder time enforcing cultural norms.
I'm sure there are a ton of factors influencing why violent actions are so common in the US. And it is possible that one of those is that other methods of competition are not as effective as violence for some people -- which might be the only conclusion that your "study" might be able to support.
FTA:"Guilds are the backbones of MMOGs, but even more importantly, players are the backbones of guilds. "
Duh. Individuals are the backbone of any organization that exists for mutual gain. What guilds truly offer is a framework of trust and relationships for online characters.
In an online world where negative repercussions for acting like a jerk are few and far between, guilds provide a way to encourage cooperative play, which depends on trust.
FTA: "Manufacturers keep putting out new games and game consoles, obsoleting the old."
Someone's editor forgot to grammarize the article.
I don't think anyone's marketing budget for traditional sports is going to be cut. Sports like basketball and football are not declining in popularity among the demographic they are trying to reach.
Gamer sponsorship is a drop in the bucket for these companies (like Johnson & Johnson). I don't think televised gaming is going to be big in the US for a very, very long time. South Korea, however, as well as China in the near future, is a market where sponsorship could pay off quite well, especially for companies thathave low brand recognition there.
"Political Telemarketing isn't about educating, it's about influencing a vote, 'selling' the candidate to the voting 'customer'."
Political marketing is done like this, yes. But I am regularly contacted by my senator's office regarding specific issues that come up. Some of it is, essentially, a "this is what I'm doing for you" call, but a lot of it is also "here's what's going on."
It's not just candidate support groups that call, it's also political action groups that are working on a specific cause. This is the political activity that I'm most worried about being limited. Sure, some of these groups are looking for $$. But a lot of them want action.
Why hasn't the demand been met? Because the government stepped in very early... overstepped, I believe. It may be simpler, it may be popular, but a government-run DNC still scares me. While I'm not surprised that people flock to the DNC, I wish people would be a little more aware of what they hand away little by little every year.
(politics republican bush katrina democrat judges supreme court football baseball Red Sox Patriots basketball mortgage loan money porn $(SEARCH TERM)).
Today Jimmy and I (Jimmy's my hamster, he likes to use his exercise wheel) watched cartoons in the morning. Jimmy's so cute! He likes to nibble on my finger, he thinks it's his water spout.
The people who get 10-20 calls per day have a problem, I agree. But they have the tools to deal with that problem already. They need to tell each and every person that calls them to be put on the DNC list of the company that is doing the calling. They also need to ask to be taken off the call lists of the organization that the telemarketing company is calling them on behalf of.
The calls will dry up quickly. And if they don't, then the victims have legal recourse.
"You're missing my point, which is simply that any any communications device can be misused.
"
The point you made in your previous post is that there are limits on free speech based upon whether that speech could be considered annoying, disruptive, or what have you. I couldn't avoid hearing a bullhorn outside my house, but I can avoid telemarketer calls quite easily.
"Besides, why should I have to buy extra equipment? And most likely pay a subscription fee to update the blacklist? No thanks.
"
Why? Because it shouldn't be the government's function to filter your calls.
"I'd be interested in your thoughts on why so many people have signed up."
Just because something is popular doesn't mean that it is right. Especially when there are other solutions available. Please note that there are exceptions to the DNC list, and these exceptions are what the article was griping about. Political action groups can still call numbers on the DNC, no?
"Well, there you go bringing the government into it."
I did not say that government should not be allowed to prosecute violations of law. There is a world of difference between the government maintaining and administering a list of people and telephone numbers, and the government responding to complaints. A proactive, rather than reactive, government -- with regards to communication -- is one step closer to a all-pervasive state.
"I just purchased a new GM car (a Hummer, if you must know) last weekend." (emphasis mine)
No, I didn't need to know that you bought a Hummer.
But now that I do know, can Onstar call you to tell you when you're near a cheap gas station?
When you drive to the grocery store, will OnStar call to tell you that you're driving an inefficient hunk of metal, and should have taken the sedan for your errands instead?
"So is a bullhorn, but see what happens if you stand out on the street in a quiet subdivision and shout your message through one in the middle of the night"
Not the same at all. Telephones are a gated communication device, bullhorns are not. Furthermore, restrictions are already in place as to when a telemarketer can call (in most states, if not all). Also, current law already provides that harassment, via telephone or otherwise, is not allowed.
I'd rather not have a list at all; rather, have the ability to block telemarketers at my discretion, at the destination (my phone).
There's a definite market for a caller ID box that could verify incoming numbers against known lists of telemarketers. The box could update its list via modem while the phone is offline.
Alternatively, make unlisted numbers free; make it a misdemeanor to place an unsolicited call to an unlisted number.
In terms of international legality of war, you are correct in your definitions, with one caveat (N.B.). However, that is a distinction that is growing less clear, as you point out in re: Iraq. Unfortunately, might (economic and military) makes right in world relations today, or so it seems to me.
N.B.: Pre-emption just means acting first, due to the belief that your adversary will soon act.
What the Bush administration needed to demonstrate is not that they knew Saddam was going to act, but that it was reasonable to believe that he would act -- and therefore, no one could fault his administration for believing so.
"However, in this case (e.g, a pre-emptive strike) it has no bearing. The president is free under the law to do it, provided that he get congressional authorization within 100 days or withdraw the troops.
"
Any troops not withdrawn prior to the pre-emptive strike will not need to be withdrawn. QED.
I agree with your concerns about a private filtering service, perhaps implemented by a telco.
But what about a filter box you could attach to your receiver? Enough of these installed, with some kind of central database, could use alogorithms to determine the likelihood of a certain call being spam. Sure, you run the risk of false positives, etc, but it's in your control, and you could choose the best solution, and the desired risk threshold.
"We are putting the legal framework in place to avoid silly Congress from disagreeing with the president over going to war"
Well, the protocols being developed aren't law -- they are executive order. They are not binding at all upon Congress, who still need to authorize the CIC to go to war (in theory) or to authorize wartime powers in absence of war. I do agree, though, that they do make it seem that the CIC has authority for a strike against anyone, authorized war or no.
I think it's pretty much the proverbial big stick, letting the world know we're willing to use it.
I just wish the "speak softly" part of the proverb was paid attention to a little more.
I don't have the right to push my opinions to you over the phone. Again, you can hang up, or not answer my call.
I DO have the right to attempt to initiate conversation, unless you've told me not to.
And, as stated before, I don't think that the DNC list should be administered by the government. I don't trust private industry either. So a nonprofit? Maybe.
Or maybe, just maybe, there are other solutions that will work just as well without government action. Or maybe there's a simpler solution than maintaining a list.
How about:
No one can make an solicitous (full definition) call to an unlisted number. Unlisted numbers become free by law.
Now you have a voluntary system where people can opt out of coldcalls, but the government doesn't need to maintain a list.
Dude, you are not a telepath. Stop ascribing motives to me.
What abuse? How about, the potential for a person in government to allow some organizations to call, but not others? To say that it was an administrative error when it happens, so the organization is not liable?
How about using the DNC list as a database for campaigning on foot (those people may be more receptive, since they are not always bothered)?
How about an individual with access to the list using it to defraud people 'You have to pay company x to keep your name on the DNC list'?
How about a political organization using names on the list to target direct mail?
How about the government using the list to target any kind of action at all?
"And you think that telemarketers should be free to disregard their feelings. Don't try to dispute that claim, it's true"
BS. You don't know jack. Read my early postings on the thread. Hell, read the OP. I don't believe any such thing, I just believe that the gubmint should NOT be involved. At all. With limiting communication.
And before you just repeat the people are doing the limiting with tools the government supplies, that still includes government involvement.
"Again, it's not the government doing, it's the people doing it. The government offers them a tool, and they take advantage of that tool."
No, it is not the government offering a hammer to the people. It's the people offering a hammer to the government, and trusting the government to hit the nails.
Why can't people just use their own hammer?
"Really, this is not rocket-science!
"
See, that's the problem. You think it's very simple, but there is much more to the issue that just "Waaah! I don't want to be called!" Government, don't let them call me!
There is the entire issue of government powers, and how far they should extend with regard to communication.
I did address this, but I didn't feel like wasting my time spelling it out into your analogy which doesn't apply.
You don't have to pick up the phone. You can have a ring of distinction for your family and friend. You can have caller ID. You can press your telco to provide private filtering service a la DNC.
Posters are a physical object, with permanence. There is real property that is being defaced, and possibly damaged. I would have to physically enter your private property.
Re: shared medium, there was a capital investment for telephone medium that I, as a customer of the telephone monopoly, and as a taxpayer, have paid for. It is no less mine than yours.
You have granted permission to the telephone company to forward incoming calls to your house. You can do what you like with those calls when you get them.
Slashdot Mirror
The H2 gets 12 city / 16 highway.
The H3 gets 16 city/ 19 highway for the automatic transmission, 16/20 for the manual.
Those highway fuel economy numbers are assuming you drive with fuel conservation in mind.
The H3 is built on the Colorado chassis and drive train, and has a 5-cylinder engine.
"When we have peer reviewed Journals in every scientific fied, why would you object to peer-judged and peer established standards? "
Because peer-determined standards of care are not the only issues that patients can have problems with.
Furthermore, if a doctor does adhere to peer-determined standards of care, and the patient publishes material that says the doctor didn't treat them properly, etc, then that patient is committing libel, and is prosecutable.
If a judge or jury does determine that the doctor met those peer-reviewed standards, then the doctor is vindicated, the complainer is fined, and the material is not allowed to be published. If the material is particularly damaging, then the doctor can file an injunction to have it removed pending consideration of the libel case.
"if the Physicians will have to constantly watch their back against disgrunted people posting online, their quality of service might suffer."
If physicians know that their patients have limited access to recourse against them, I am certain that quality of service would suffer.
"If Patients who may be not be satisfied due to a combination of myriad factors start using the Web primarly as a means to get back at the doctors, what is going to stop the Doctors to retaliate likewise by releasing confidential health details about their patients if they are not satisfied with the patients for example? "
Ethics, and public outcry over lack of them.
How long do you think it would be before major news outlets report on a doctor releasing private medical information of a patient?
How long after that will it be until the doctor is penalized or has their license revoked by their state medical board?
'Most Importantly, if a patient visits a doctor, they enter automatically into a non-disclosure agreement although no legal documents need to be signed."
Not true at all. A treatment agreement != a non-disclosure agreement. There is no NDA unless it is expressly agreed. While a state medical board may require physicians to protect patient privacy, the patients themselves are under no such obligation. Many doctors' offices require you to sign an NDA before they'll treat you (often not each time, but rather, a blanket NDA to cover all visits). Also, these NDAs may not cover truthful criticism of a doctor's practice. I, for one, would never sign an NDA requiring me to keep my mouth shut if I have a bad experience.
If, as a physician, you believe you have an NDA covering all aspects of your practice with any patient you treat, you should get some legal advice.
"My end point is that this is a delicate issue and must be handled according to set protocols and procedures."
Often, a patient can have a bad experience with a doctor, even though no sanctionable behavior occurred. The patient should still have the right to inform others of their experience -- this is, after all, what word-of-mouth is.
Perhaps patients should not be allowed to recommend doctors to their friends and family? Instead, patients should have to check for formal commendations of good service.
Libel is still illegal, and is subject to prosecution. But honest communication of experiences, not covered by an NDA, are legal, just, and necessary for best consumer protection.
If competition for resources is greater in the US, and violence is also greater in the US, then competition causes violence?
Correlation != Causation. Repeat this to yourself about 50,000 times.
Furthermore, you can't say that competition is greater in the US than in Europe or Japan. There are still limited resources for people to compete for -- if anything, the US historically has had less competition for resources (though maybe not for women and other things previously treated as commodities).
Violent behavior simply represents one method of competition. Another method of competition is to minimize risk by acting within societal standards, while working hard for resources.
Cultural standards define what we find to be acceptable methods of competition. For whatever historical reasons, the US culture is more accepting of violence.
Perhaps it's due to the frontier nature of the first four centuries of caucasians in North America, and the risks people had to take in order to be successful. If someone had to risk their life to make a living, I'd bet they'd be more willing to defend their property (or attack another's) with violence.
Perhaps it's because of the wide open spaces of North America, because society had a much harder time enforcing cultural norms.
I'm sure there are a ton of factors influencing why violent actions are so common in the US. And it is possible that one of those is that other methods of competition are not as effective as violence for some people -- which might be the only conclusion that your "study" might be able to support.
FTA:"Guilds are the backbones of MMOGs, but even more importantly, players are the backbones of guilds. "
Duh. Individuals are the backbone of any organization that exists for mutual gain. What guilds truly offer is a framework of trust and relationships for online characters.
In an online world where negative repercussions for acting like a jerk are few and far between, guilds provide a way to encourage cooperative play, which depends on trust.
FTA: "Manufacturers keep putting out new games and game consoles, obsoleting the old."
Someone's editor forgot to grammarize the article.
I don't think anyone's marketing budget for traditional sports is going to be cut. Sports like basketball and football are not declining in popularity among the demographic they are trying to reach.
Gamer sponsorship is a drop in the bucket for these companies (like Johnson & Johnson). I don't think televised gaming is going to be big in the US for a very, very long time. South Korea, however, as well as China in the near future, is a market where sponsorship could pay off quite well, especially for companies thathave low brand recognition there.
"Political Telemarketing isn't about educating, it's about influencing a vote, 'selling' the candidate to the voting 'customer'."
Political marketing is done like this, yes. But I am regularly contacted by my senator's office regarding specific issues that come up. Some of it is, essentially, a "this is what I'm doing for you" call, but a lot of it is also "here's what's going on."
It's not just candidate support groups that call, it's also political action groups that are working on a specific cause. This is the political activity that I'm most worried about being limited. Sure, some of these groups are looking for $$. But a lot of them want action.
I'm not a Libertarian, big or small L.
Why hasn't the demand been met? Because the government stepped in very early... overstepped, I believe. It may be simpler, it may be popular, but a government-run DNC still scares me. While I'm not surprised that people flock to the DNC, I wish people would be a little more aware of what they hand away little by little every year.
(politics republican bush katrina democrat judges supreme court football baseball Red Sox Patriots basketball mortgage loan money porn $(SEARCH TERM)).
Today Jimmy and I (Jimmy's my hamster, he likes to use his exercise wheel) watched cartoons in the morning. Jimmy's so cute! He likes to nibble on my finger, he thinks it's his water spout.
$(SEARCH TERM)$(SEARCH TERM)$(SEARCH TERM)$(SEARCH TERM)$(SEARCH TERM)$(SEARCH TERM)$(SEARCH TERM)$(SEARCH TERM)$(SEARCH TERM)$(SEARCH TERM)
How's my blog pagerank?
The people who get 10-20 calls per day have a problem, I agree. But they have the tools to deal with that problem already. They need to tell each and every person that calls them to be put on the DNC list of the company that is doing the calling. They also need to ask to be taken off the call lists of the organization that the telemarketing company is calling them on behalf of.
The calls will dry up quickly. And if they don't, then the victims have legal recourse.
"You're missing my point, which is simply that any any communications device can be misused. "
The point you made in your previous post is that there are limits on free speech based upon whether that speech could be considered annoying, disruptive, or what have you. I couldn't avoid hearing a bullhorn outside my house, but I can avoid telemarketer calls quite easily.
"Besides, why should I have to buy extra equipment? And most likely pay a subscription fee to update the blacklist? No thanks. "
Why? Because it shouldn't be the government's function to filter your calls.
"I'd be interested in your thoughts on why so many people have signed up."
Just because something is popular doesn't mean that it is right. Especially when there are other solutions available. Please note that there are exceptions to the DNC list, and these exceptions are what the article was griping about. Political action groups can still call numbers on the DNC, no?
"Well, there you go bringing the government into it."
I did not say that government should not be allowed to prosecute violations of law. There is a world of difference between the government maintaining and administering a list of people and telephone numbers, and the government responding to complaints. A proactive, rather than reactive, government -- with regards to communication -- is one step closer to a all-pervasive state.
Make it a misdemeanor to call unlisted numbers.
"I just purchased a new GM car (a Hummer, if you must know) last weekend." (emphasis mine)
No, I didn't need to know that you bought a Hummer.
But now that I do know, can Onstar call you to tell you when you're near a cheap gas station?
When you drive to the grocery store, will OnStar call to tell you that you're driving an inefficient hunk of metal, and should have taken the sedan for your errands instead?
"So is a bullhorn, but see what happens if you stand out on the street in a quiet subdivision and shout your message through one in the middle of the night"
Not the same at all. Telephones are a gated communication device, bullhorns are not. Furthermore, restrictions are already in place as to when a telemarketer can call (in most states, if not all). Also, current law already provides that harassment, via telephone or otherwise, is not allowed.
I'd rather not have a list at all; rather, have the ability to block telemarketers at my discretion, at the destination (my phone).
There's a definite market for a caller ID box that could verify incoming numbers against known lists of telemarketers. The box could update its list via modem while the phone is offline.
Alternatively, make unlisted numbers free; make it a misdemeanor to place an unsolicited call to an unlisted number.
In terms of international legality of war, you are correct in your definitions, with one caveat (N.B.). However, that is a distinction that is growing less clear, as you point out in re: Iraq. Unfortunately, might (economic and military) makes right in world relations today, or so it seems to me.
N.B.: Pre-emption just means acting first, due to the belief that your adversary will soon act.
What the Bush administration needed to demonstrate is not that they knew Saddam was going to act, but that it was reasonable to believe that he would act -- and therefore, no one could fault his administration for believing so.
"However, in this case (e.g, a pre-emptive strike) it has no bearing. The president is free under the law to do it, provided that he get congressional authorization within 100 days or withdraw the troops. "
Any troops not withdrawn prior to the pre-emptive strike will not need to be withdrawn. QED.
I agree with your concerns about a private filtering service, perhaps implemented by a telco.
But what about a filter box you could attach to your receiver? Enough of these installed, with some kind of central database, could use alogorithms to determine the likelihood of a certain call being spam. Sure, you run the risk of false positives, etc, but it's in your control, and you could choose the best solution, and the desired risk threshold.
Hmm, I've got to check patent filings on this.
"We are putting the legal framework in place to avoid silly Congress from disagreeing with the president over going to war"
Well, the protocols being developed aren't law -- they are executive order. They are not binding at all upon Congress, who still need to authorize the CIC to go to war (in theory) or to authorize wartime powers in absence of war. I do agree, though, that they do make it seem that the CIC has authority for a strike against anyone, authorized war or no.
I think it's pretty much the proverbial big stick, letting the world know we're willing to use it.
I just wish the "speak softly" part of the proverb was paid attention to a little more.
"Basically when you keep attacking enemies of the same race without killing enemies of a different race in between, your Chain counter increase."
Having to train on the same monster endlessly has now become a feature>/i>. Are they just trying to cash in on MMORPG training strategies?
The enemy vs. enemy fighting looks to be pretty cool, I'm looking forward to camping their kills for loot.
I don't have the right to push my opinions to you over the phone. Again, you can hang up, or not answer my call.
I DO have the right to attempt to initiate conversation, unless you've told me not to.
And, as stated before, I don't think that the DNC list should be administered by the government. I don't trust private industry either. So a nonprofit? Maybe.
Or maybe, just maybe, there are other solutions that will work just as well without government action. Or maybe there's a simpler solution than maintaining a list.
How about:
No one can make an solicitous (full definition) call to an unlisted number. Unlisted numbers become free by law.
Now you have a voluntary system where people can opt out of coldcalls, but the government doesn't need to maintain a list.
That's your final argument now? "You're a telemarketer, admit it, neener-neener?"
Grow up.
Just because something is EASY doesn't mean it's the right thing to do, or the right way to do it.
Dude, you are not a telepath. Stop ascribing motives to me.
What abuse? How about, the potential for a person in government to allow some organizations to call, but not others? To say that it was an administrative error when it happens, so the organization is not liable?
How about using the DNC list as a database for campaigning on foot (those people may be more receptive, since they are not always bothered)?
How about an individual with access to the list using it to defraud people 'You have to pay company x to keep your name on the DNC list'?
How about a political organization using names on the list to target direct mail?
How about the government using the list to target any kind of action at all?
"And you think that telemarketers should be free to disregard their feelings. Don't try to dispute that claim, it's true"
BS. You don't know jack. Read my early postings on the thread. Hell, read the OP. I don't believe any such thing, I just believe that the gubmint should NOT be involved. At all. With limiting communication.
And before you just repeat the people are doing the limiting with tools the government supplies, that still includes government involvement.
"Again, it's not the government doing, it's the people doing it. The government offers them a tool, and they take advantage of that tool."
No, it is not the government offering a hammer to the people. It's the people offering a hammer to the government, and trusting the government to hit the nails.
Why can't people just use their own hammer?
"Really, this is not rocket-science! "
See, that's the problem. You think it's very simple, but there is much more to the issue that just "Waaah! I don't want to be called!" Government, don't let them call me!
There is the entire issue of government powers, and how far they should extend with regard to communication.
I did address this, but I didn't feel like wasting my time spelling it out into your analogy which doesn't apply.
You don't have to pick up the phone. You can have a ring of distinction for your family and friend. You can have caller ID. You can press your telco to provide private filtering service a la DNC.
Posters are a physical object, with permanence. There is real property that is being defaced, and possibly damaged. I would have to physically enter your private property.
Re: shared medium, there was a capital investment for telephone medium that I, as a customer of the telephone monopoly, and as a taxpayer, have paid for. It is no less mine than yours.
You have granted permission to the telephone company to forward incoming calls to your house. You can do what you like with those calls when you get them.
"Seriously, take your political BS off of people telephones!
Take my government off of my phone!
"It's not the government doing it, it's the people who ask to be put on the DNC-list."
Yada yada yada. Stop repeating yourself, and address what I'm saying. The government is enforcing adherence to the list. There is potential for abuse.