From the beginning, one of the "features" of HIPAA was access by and for the government. For example, medical record exchanges between organizations were prohibited by HIPAA, unless the governement was an intermediary in those exchanges.
It's quite clear that the paragraph cited was intended to allow unrestricted access by the government. To wit:
To comply with a court order or court-ordered warrant, a subpoena or summons issued by a judicial officer, or an administrative request from a law enforcement official (the administrative request must include a written statement that the information requested is relevant and material, specific and limited in scope, and de-identified information cannot be used).
This might as well be written, "Law enforcement officers are invited to issue administrative requests." So let's look at an example of a compliant administrative request:
We hereby request the information for every patient seen by your organization in the last ten (10) years. This is relevant and material to our search for terrorists, and the names must be included or it is no use to us.
Let's see: (1) relevant and material, check; (2) specific and limited in scope, check; and (3) de-identified information cannot be used, check.
So my guess is that the DEA will get a pass, because HIPAA was designed to allow them to do this: it is deliberately promiscuous.
Wit the pressure to make showy cases, the police tend to overlook justice in pursuit of arrests. To them, credibility of the CI is irrelevant--so long as they can dress up that CI statement enough to make probable cause.
It's like CI roulette. Got a suspicion on someone? Spin the CI wheel and see which one we can get to make enough of a statement for probable cause for a warrant.
At least there was a real CI in this case, pathetic as he is. A lot of times I suspect one officer calls the other from a phone on the street. I like to imagine them arguing over whose turn it is to be the informant.
MPAA and RIAA both see copyright infringement everywhere. If they could, they would nail you for infringement of a song because you pressed one key on a piano and OMG that note is in their song. They see copyright infringement as a bunch of nails standing above the surface, that must be smashed flat-in by every hammer they can bring to bear. In fact, they see every content that is not theirs as infringing; simply because non-MPAA-non-RIAA content exists it is taking money from their pockets.
They forced YouTube to implement ContentId as a hammer, and if the hammer didn't drive every nail in, MPAA and RIAA were going to sue YouTube out of existence. Basically, ContentId is designed to be MPAA and RIAA's hammer. Naturally, it hammers everything: because that's what MPAA and RIAA want it to do, hammer everything.
Not that it helped YouTube: MPAA and RIAA are still going after them because there's still all that other original content on the site that is taking money from MPAA and RIAA's pockets.
So even as you argue that ContentId is "An unnecessary headache", MPAA and RIAA are busy demanding that it block even more content.
When will people learn and stop giving these hyper-sensitive companies free advertising? With a company so dead set on no one mentioning their name then fine: No buzz. No parties. No reviews. No word of mouth. Complete echoing silence.
If they want their product mentioned, let these jerks pay millions for every lousy word! Maybe when they're paying millions for advertising while their competitors get millions from free buzz, they'll start to get a brain. And if they don't, good riddance.
This looks to me like these ContentId takeovers, by parties like DrewMCGoo72, are outright appropriation of copyrighted material: both proceeds and rights. As such, it seems to me it should be subject to the $150,000 per song penalty for copyright theft.
And Horus Music is a willing accomplice. So why aren't they being sued for, say, $150 million for aiding and abetting copyright theft of each 1,000 songs?
I think USTR should charge a flat $250 million per seat for corporate representatives to take part in trade treaty negotiations. (EU should do the same.)
Given all the influence they have in the process and the protection they receive, companies should have to pay for the right to impose their dictatorial desires on the rest of us. The massive profit these treaties simply hand over to these sovereign corporations makes a fee like this mere pocket change; even if it is more than those corporations will ever pay in taxes.
I doubt if they tell any significant number of people. It's right there, stated boldly in their exceptions:
d. Any attempt to warn the intended victim would unduly endanger U.S. government personnel, sources, methods, intelligence operations, or defense operations[.]
Now let's see. They can't tell you:
* If you're on the do not fly list, because that would endanger sources, methods and intelligence operations. * Why they're recording all the phone metadata, because that would endanger sources, methods and intelligence operations. * How they interpret the law, because that would endanger sources, methods and intelligence operations. * How many NSL letters they issued, because that would endanger sources, methods and intelligence operations.
I could go on, but what's the point. The thing that really matters is: "We cannot reveal [anything], because that would endanger sources, methods and intelligence operations."
Now here they are, maintaining they warn people of impending attacks, patting themselves on the backs, implying that doing this does not endanger sources, methods and intelligence operations. Nonsense. Because when I wrote that fill-in-the-blank "[anything]" above, I meant it. The intelligence agencies are like black holes: Information falls in, never to be seen again.
The court opines that Bell meant (admitted that he meant) the rap verses to get back to the school, but that is a read herring. Suppose Bell had published this the day after his final departure from school: What would have happened then? Charge him with a crime, "Because we can't suspend him anymore." Any such case--and the prosecutor that brought it--would be thrown out of court so fast the prosecutor's hair would smoke. Would it truly offer less disruption to the school in that case? (Of course not.)
Which leads to the worst part of the argument, their remarkable conclusion that Bell's rap contained extremely violent imagery, which, "threatened, harassed, and intimidated school employees." But only a moron could conclude that the piece actually constituted a serious threat...even if they were unfamiliar with rap, in which such imagery is staple. If we busted everyone who said, "I'm going to kill [that moron]," who would feed the prisoners? Without a meaningful threat, where is the intimidation?
Does the rap offer a potential for disruption? Darn right: having your coaches accused of overt racism, sexism, probable sexual abuse and use of illegal drugs does indeed have a potential to disrupt the school. Of course, with that, we see what this is really about: the coaches must be a winning coaches. Just like we saw in the Sandusky scandal, anything goes so long as a coach is winning; apparently even an Appeals court must bow and scrape before a winning coach.
Taken on whole, the only thing I can say about this (as I exercise my rapidly evaporating Right to Free Speech) is that: The Fifth Circuit group picture sure must look funny with that many judges having their heads shoved that far up their own asses.
This will never go anywhere. Companies will simply whine that, "It's too hard to overcome piracy if we have to ensure everything we take down is actually ours." Congress will give in to the whine.
What Congress might go for is more of a proof-of-ill-intent. Errors will happen, yes, but if your erroneous executed take-downs exceed 2.5% of your executed requests during any one month period, you should become subject to penalties of $100 to $5,000 per improper take-down, depending on malice.
($100 per patient data exposure per day is what HIPAA uses, and believe me, we do pay attention to that. Expose 1000 patients for a 30 day period and that adds up to $3 million.)
On the post: DEA Impersonating Medical Board Investigators To Gain Access To Personal Health Records
HIPAA Promiscuous? A Feature not an Omission
It's quite clear that the paragraph cited was intended to allow unrestricted access by the government. To wit:This might as well be written, "Law enforcement officers are invited to issue administrative requests." So let's look at an example of a compliant administrative request:Let's see: (1) relevant and material, check; (2) specific and limited in scope, check; and (3) de-identified information cannot be used, check.
So my guess is that the DEA will get a pass, because HIPAA was designed to allow them to do this: it is deliberately promiscuous.
On the post: DEA Impersonating Medical Board Investigators To Gain Access To Personal Health Records
Re:
On the post: Confidential Informants: Inherently Trustworthy Until They're Not
CI Roulette
It's like CI roulette. Got a suspicion on someone? Spin the CI wheel and see which one we can get to make enough of a statement for probable cause for a warrant.
At least there was a real CI in this case, pathetic as he is. A lot of times I suspect one officer calls the other from a phone on the street. I like to imagine them arguing over whose turn it is to be the informant.
On the post: Can You Really Be A Copyright Expert If You Think Copyright Should Last Forever?
On the post: Sexting Teen Charged With Sexually Exploiting Himself
No mystery at all
Hey, no mystery at all, think "IMSI catcher." What did you think it meant when they listed "data" in, "The DRT1000 system may be used to: identify and collect audio, data and Signal Related Information (SRI)." (From Chicago, Los Angeles Police Departments Have Been Using 'Stingrays On Steroids' For Over A Decade.)
When his phone backed up the picture, they captured it off the data stream.
On the post: Everything The Same Is Infringing: How Hugh Hefner Used Mario Bros. To Show YouTube's Copyright System Sucks
Unfair
MPAA and RIAA both see copyright infringement everywhere. If they could, they would nail you for infringement of a song because you pressed one key on a piano and OMG that note is in their song. They see copyright infringement as a bunch of nails standing above the surface, that must be smashed flat-in by every hammer they can bring to bear. In fact, they see every content that is not theirs as infringing; simply because non-MPAA-non-RIAA content exists it is taking money from their pockets.
They forced YouTube to implement ContentId as a hammer, and if the hammer didn't drive every nail in, MPAA and RIAA were going to sue YouTube out of existence. Basically, ContentId is designed to be MPAA and RIAA's hammer. Naturally, it hammers everything: because that's what MPAA and RIAA want it to do, hammer everything.
Not that it helped YouTube: MPAA and RIAA are still going after them because there's still all that other original content on the site that is taking money from MPAA and RIAA's pockets.
So even as you argue that ContentId is "An unnecessary headache", MPAA and RIAA are busy demanding that it block even more content.
On the post: NYPD Asks Disney, Marvel To Abuse IP Law To Help Rid Times Square Of Spiderman, Mickey Mouse
I P Law
I P Law!
I P Law!
They can't escape from,
I P Law!
Everything
You deplore,
Can be stopped by a,
Little more...
I P!
It is a sure-fire fix-it,
Wherever you would nix it,
Haul out an I P law!
When someone creates something that might compete,
Use an I P Law their creation to defeat!
I P Law!
I P Law!
Club them soundly with,
I P Law!
They'll give up,
Go away;
When you give them,
a legal stay.
Because...
I P will make them shut up,
You can make them hang up,
Haul out an I P Law!
On the post: FBI: Hurricane Katrina Made It Clear We Just Don't Have Enough Stingray Devices
Hurricane Katrina is the perfect choice
On the post: NYPD Asks Disney, Marvel To Abuse IP Law To Help Rid Times Square Of Spiderman, Mickey Mouse
I P Abuse
I P abuse!
I P abuse!
Beg for rescue from,
I P abuse!
Everything
You deplore,
Can be stopped by a,
Little more.
I P!
It is a sure fix-it,
Wherever you would nix it,
Grab for an I P law!
On the post: Pokemon Company Shuts Down Pokemon PAX Party Because Fun Is A Tool Of Team Rocket
No buzz, no more
If they want their product mentioned, let these jerks pay millions for every lousy word! Maybe when they're paying millions for advertising while their competitors get millions from free buzz, they'll start to get a brain. And if they don't, good riddance.
On the post: The Rise Of ContentID Trolls: Dan Bull Has Someone Claim His Music, Take His Money, Issue Takedowns
Outright theft
And Horus Music is a willing accomplice. So why aren't they being sued for, say, $150 million for aiding and abetting copyright theft of each 1,000 songs?
On the post: Tobacco Industry's Interest In Trade Negotiations? Totally Redacted
Re:
But I don't think there's enough in it for us.
On the post: Tobacco Industry's Interest In Trade Negotiations? Totally Redacted
We should at least be paid
Given all the influence they have in the process and the protection they receive, companies should have to pay for the right to impose their dictatorial desires on the rest of us. The massive profit these treaties simply hand over to these sovereign corporations makes a fee like this mere pocket change; even if it is more than those corporations will ever pay in taxes.
On the post: James Clapper Says Intelligence Community Has 'Duty To Warn' Endangered People... Sort Of
Intelligence black hole
Now let's see. They can't tell you:
* If you're on the do not fly list, because that would endanger sources, methods and intelligence operations.
* Why they're recording all the phone metadata, because that would endanger sources, methods and intelligence operations.
* How they interpret the law, because that would endanger sources, methods and intelligence operations.
* How many NSL letters they issued, because that would endanger sources, methods and intelligence operations.
I could go on, but what's the point. The thing that really matters is: "We cannot reveal [anything], because that would endanger sources, methods and intelligence operations."
Now here they are, maintaining they warn people of impending attacks, patting themselves on the backs, implying that doing this does not endanger sources, methods and intelligence operations. Nonsense. Because when I wrote that fill-in-the-blank "[anything]" above, I meant it. The intelligence agencies are like black holes: Information falls in, never to be seen again.
On the post: Court Reverses Previous Decision; Upholds Suspension For Student Who Rapped About School Employee Misconduct
Funny Court Pictures
The court opines that Bell meant (admitted that he meant) the rap verses to get back to the school, but that is a read herring. Suppose Bell had published this the day after his final departure from school: What would have happened then? Charge him with a crime, "Because we can't suspend him anymore." Any such case--and the prosecutor that brought it--would be thrown out of court so fast the prosecutor's hair would smoke. Would it truly offer less disruption to the school in that case? (Of course not.)
Which leads to the worst part of the argument, their remarkable conclusion that Bell's rap contained extremely violent imagery, which, "threatened, harassed, and intimidated school employees." But only a moron could conclude that the piece actually constituted a serious threat...even if they were unfamiliar with rap, in which such imagery is staple. If we busted everyone who said, "I'm going to kill [that moron]," who would feed the prisoners? Without a meaningful threat, where is the intimidation?
Does the rap offer a potential for disruption? Darn right: having your coaches accused of overt racism, sexism, probable sexual abuse and use of illegal drugs does indeed have a potential to disrupt the school. Of course, with that, we see what this is really about: the coaches must be a winning coaches. Just like we saw in the Sandusky scandal, anything goes so long as a coach is winning; apparently even an Appeals court must bow and scrape before a winning coach.
Taken on whole, the only thing I can say about this (as I exercise my rapidly evaporating Right to Free Speech) is that: The Fifth Circuit group picture sure must look funny with that many judges having their heads shoved that far up their own asses.
On the post: Carl Malamud Asks YouTube To Institute Three Strikes Policy For Those Who Abuse Takedowns
Suggestion for an approach
What Congress might go for is more of a proof-of-ill-intent. Errors will happen, yes, but if your erroneous executed take-downs exceed 2.5% of your executed requests during any one month period, you should become subject to penalties of $100 to $5,000 per improper take-down, depending on malice.
($100 per patient data exposure per day is what HIPAA uses, and believe me, we do pay attention to that. Expose 1000 patients for a 30 day period and that adds up to $3 million.)
On the post: Contractor Who Cleared Snowden For His NSA Position Fined $30 Million By The DOJ
They obviously have a highly-placed friend in government.
I also doubt they'll actually "pay" that $30 million. It's much more likely the bills will simply be padded to make up the difference.
On the post: PRS To Increase Members' Fees To Fund Legal Expedition Against TV Station
God forbids
God forbid they should reduce stockholder dividends to pay for a trip to the tribunal.
God forbid they should reduce the CEO's massive salary to pay for a trip to the tribunal.
God forbid they should actually represent the artists they claim to represent.
With all that forbidding by God, all that's left is to cut the artists' share.
On the post: Jeb Bush Claims That Creating Encryption Harms America
FTFY
On the post: Your Toner Is No Good Here: Region-Coding Ink Cartridges... For The Customers
Xerox service rates
$416 for the first half hour
$76 for each additional 15 minutes
So I think it'll cost you $416 to get your printer unlocked. (New printer time.)
Next >>