5 ms·

Who trusts the DEA with de-identified, highly personal information like drug use and all your personal info? I worked with the VA medical system and it was very

Who trusts the DEA with de-identified, highly personal information like drug use and all your personal info? I worked with the VA medical system and it was very hard to get de-identified data and when you got it, you had to be extremely careful and always keep the patients' best interest of privacy in mind. Do I trust DEA agents, people who signed up to actively punish and criminalize disproportionately minority and addicted people?

justaman 6y ago
I don't trust the government. I don't trust the DEA. I also don't think DEA agents [signed up to punish minorities]. You might be projecting your bias.
- staticautomatic 6y ago
  If they didn’t sign up to do that then they didn’t understand the agency’s history and mission when they signed up.
  - crankyoldcrank 6y ago
    I see you saw my presentation for university Freshman English ten years ago about the drug war and it had a big impression on you so you could make this insightful comment. Did you enjoy the Easy Star All Stars soundtrack?
  - tommaho 6y ago
    and the institution will pass it's bias onto the workers, well intentioned or otherwise.
  - oh_sigh 6y ago
    I don't think it is reasonable to assume that police signed up to punish men, considering a vast majority of people who get arrested and charged are men?
  - Fnoord 6y ago
    Or, perhaps, they want to make a difference by raising the bar.
- blackguardx 6y ago
  It is an interesting question of why people join the various federal law enforcement agencies. Is the DEA, ATF, or others a "B" team compared to the FBI?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - rolph 6y ago
    Enforcement Agency compared to Bureau of Investigation the titles suggest different dynamics , different activity focus
- mschuster91 6y ago
  > I also don't think DEA agents [signed up to punish minorities]. You might be projecting your bias. Drug enforcement was, from the beginning, founded in racism and anticommunism: https://qz.com/645990/nixon-advisor-we-created-the-war-on-drugs-to-criminalize-black-people-and-the-anti-war-left/ https://qz.com/645990/nixon-advisor-we-created-the-war-on-dr...
  - opo 6y ago
    The alleged Ehrlichman quote is brought up often but it should be taken with some skepticism. The surviving members of his family don't believe he made the quote: >...Multiple family members of Ehrlichman (who died in 1999) challenge the veracity of the quote: The 1994 alleged 'quote' we saw repeated in social media for the first time today does not square with what we know of our father...We do not subscribe to the alleged racist point of view that this writer now implies 22 years following the so-called interview of John and 16 years following our father's death, when dad can no longer respond.[22] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ehrlichman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ehrlichman This is a very explosive quote - if Baum had included it in his book in 1996 I am sure it would have garnered a huge amount of attention for the book. Instead Baum did not include it in his book, but instead would wait for many years before making the claim when Ehrlichman was no longer around to dispute the quote. At any rate, if the quote was actually said by Ehrlichman, it isn't a very accurate description of the overall drug polices of the Nixon administration. While Nixon is remembered for "war on drugs" rhetoric, the actual substance of his policies seem to be different than what people think it was: >...I have been fortunate over the years to discuss the distorted memory of Nixon's drug policies with almost all of his key advisors as well as with historians. Their consensus is that because he was dramatically expanding the U.S. treatment system (by 350% in just 18 months!) and cutting criminal penalties, he had to reassure his right wing that he hadn’t gone soft. So he laid on some of the toughest anti-drug rhetoric in history, including making a White House speech declaring a “war on drugs” and calling drugs “public enemy number one”. It worked so well as cover that many people remember that “tough” press event and forget that what Nixon did at it was introduce not a general or a cop or a preacher to be his drug policy chief but…a medical doctor (Jerry Jaffe, a sweet, bookish man who had longish hair and sideburns and often wore the Mickey Mouse tie his kids had given him). https://www.samefacts.com/who-started-the-war-on-drugs/ https://www.samefacts.com/who-started-the-war-on-drugs/ >..."Enforcement must be coupled with a rational approach to the reclamation of the drug user himself," Nixon told Congress in 1971. "We must rehabilitate the drug user if we are to eliminate drug abuse and all the antisocial activities that flow from drug abuse." >The numbers back this up. According to the federal government's budget numbers for anti-drug programs, the "demand" side of the war on drugs (treatment, education, and prevention) consistently got more funding during Nixon's time in office (1969 to 1974) than the "supply" side (law enforcement and interdiction). https://www.vox.com/2016/3/29/11325750/nixon-war-on-drugs https://www.vox.com/2016/3/29/11325750/nixon-war-on-drugs
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
kurthr 6y ago
Ultimately, this information will find its way into the hands of other nation-states who will use it to blackmail US citizens. Like other US internal surveillance efforts this is counter productive to national security. The weakest and lowest cost surveillance for external powers is through the local apparatus (a single point of attack). Providing them with that is either stupid or treasonous.
n0nc3 6y ago
Prescription histories are already available for purchase.
- Pixeleen 6y ago
  Is the sale by a central register like SureScripts, or by an individual's insurance provider?
  - n0nc3 6y ago
    No idea. All I know is that there are at least three hedge funds with the ability to acquire individualized prescription histories. I don't know if they are able to "deanonymize" guids in a large database, or if they query based on the individual. Congress should start asking questions.
    - cj 6y ago
      Which hedge funds?
      - n0nc3 6y ago
        Naming them won't add any credibility to my claim. There are many companies that offer the data for sale. The example I link seems to require HIPAA authorization from the individual, but the authorization is not actually required by law. It also raises the question how the vendor is able to acquire the data without HIPAA authorization. The data is advertised as "real time". For what it's worth, my money is on "deanonymizing" guids. Hedge funds want to track sales in real time to have an edge in earnings forecasts. https://www.rxhistories.com/irix/prescription-data/ https://www.rxhistories.com/irix/prescription-data/
        cj 6y ago
        Thanks for the follow up. I wasn’t doubting your claim, just genuinely interested in how one goes about obtaining such information in a legal way. (Or whether what they’re doing is borderline legal to begin with)
NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
>Do I trust DEA agents, people who signed up to actively punish and criminalize disproportionately minority and addicted people? I can't read minds, but I think an equally likely formulation might be "people who signed up to enforce the law on the criminal organizations that perform most drug trafficking"? I think most petty drug enforcement (of the kind that targets users, rather distributors) is by the states, not the federal government, and therefore much less likely to be done by the DEA.
nicbou 6y ago
I prefer when trust is not necessary, because the capabilities were never granted in the first place. Even if the government was trustworthy (it's not), there is no guarantee that it will stay trustworthy.

justaman 6y ago

I don't trust the government. I don't trust the DEA. I also don't think DEA agents [signed up to punish minorities]. You might be projecting your bias.

staticautomatic 6y ago
If they didn’t sign up to do that then they didn’t understand the agency’s history and mission when they signed up.
- crankyoldcrank 6y ago
  I see you saw my presentation for university Freshman English ten years ago about the drug war and it had a big impression on you so you could make this insightful comment. Did you enjoy the Easy Star All Stars soundtrack?
- tommaho 6y ago
  and the institution will pass it's bias onto the workers, well intentioned or otherwise.
- oh_sigh 6y ago
  I don't think it is reasonable to assume that police signed up to punish men, considering a vast majority of people who get arrested and charged are men?
- Fnoord 6y ago
  Or, perhaps, they want to make a difference by raising the bar.
blackguardx 6y ago
It is an interesting question of why people join the various federal law enforcement agencies. Is the DEA, ATF, or others a "B" team compared to the FBI?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- rolph 6y ago
  Enforcement Agency compared to Bureau of Investigation the titles suggest different dynamics , different activity focus
mschuster91 6y ago
> I also don't think DEA agents [signed up to punish minorities]. You might be projecting your bias. Drug enforcement was, from the beginning, founded in racism and anticommunism: https://qz.com/645990/nixon-advisor-we-created-the-war-on-drugs-to-criminalize-black-people-and-the-anti-war-left/ https://qz.com/645990/nixon-advisor-we-created-the-war-on-dr...
- opo 6y ago
  The alleged Ehrlichman quote is brought up often but it should be taken with some skepticism. The surviving members of his family don't believe he made the quote: >...Multiple family members of Ehrlichman (who died in 1999) challenge the veracity of the quote: The 1994 alleged 'quote' we saw repeated in social media for the first time today does not square with what we know of our father...We do not subscribe to the alleged racist point of view that this writer now implies 22 years following the so-called interview of John and 16 years following our father's death, when dad can no longer respond.[22] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ehrlichman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ehrlichman This is a very explosive quote - if Baum had included it in his book in 1996 I am sure it would have garnered a huge amount of attention for the book. Instead Baum did not include it in his book, but instead would wait for many years before making the claim when Ehrlichman was no longer around to dispute the quote. At any rate, if the quote was actually said by Ehrlichman, it isn't a very accurate description of the overall drug polices of the Nixon administration. While Nixon is remembered for "war on drugs" rhetoric, the actual substance of his policies seem to be different than what people think it was: >...I have been fortunate over the years to discuss the distorted memory of Nixon's drug policies with almost all of his key advisors as well as with historians. Their consensus is that because he was dramatically expanding the U.S. treatment system (by 350% in just 18 months!) and cutting criminal penalties, he had to reassure his right wing that he hadn’t gone soft. So he laid on some of the toughest anti-drug rhetoric in history, including making a White House speech declaring a “war on drugs” and calling drugs “public enemy number one”. It worked so well as cover that many people remember that “tough” press event and forget that what Nixon did at it was introduce not a general or a cop or a preacher to be his drug policy chief but…a medical doctor (Jerry Jaffe, a sweet, bookish man who had longish hair and sideburns and often wore the Mickey Mouse tie his kids had given him). https://www.samefacts.com/who-started-the-war-on-drugs/ https://www.samefacts.com/who-started-the-war-on-drugs/ >..."Enforcement must be coupled with a rational approach to the reclamation of the drug user himself," Nixon told Congress in 1971. "We must rehabilitate the drug user if we are to eliminate drug abuse and all the antisocial activities that flow from drug abuse." >The numbers back this up. According to the federal government's budget numbers for anti-drug programs, the "demand" side of the war on drugs (treatment, education, and prevention) consistently got more funding during Nixon's time in office (1969 to 1974) than the "supply" side (law enforcement and interdiction). https://www.vox.com/2016/3/29/11325750/nixon-war-on-drugs https://www.vox.com/2016/3/29/11325750/nixon-war-on-drugs

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

kurthr 6y ago

Ultimately, this information will find its way into the hands of other nation-states who will use it to blackmail US citizens. Like other US internal surveillance efforts this is counter productive to national security. The weakest and lowest cost surveillance for external powers is through the local apparatus (a single point of attack). Providing them with that is either stupid or treasonous.

n0nc3 6y ago

Prescription histories are already available for purchase.

Pixeleen 6y ago
Is the sale by a central register like SureScripts, or by an individual's insurance provider?
- n0nc3 6y ago
  No idea. All I know is that there are at least three hedge funds with the ability to acquire individualized prescription histories. I don't know if they are able to "deanonymize" guids in a large database, or if they query based on the individual. Congress should start asking questions.
  - cj 6y ago
    Which hedge funds?
    - n0nc3 6y ago
      Naming them won't add any credibility to my claim. There are many companies that offer the data for sale. The example I link seems to require HIPAA authorization from the individual, but the authorization is not actually required by law. It also raises the question how the vendor is able to acquire the data without HIPAA authorization. The data is advertised as "real time". For what it's worth, my money is on "deanonymizing" guids. Hedge funds want to track sales in real time to have an edge in earnings forecasts. https://www.rxhistories.com/irix/prescription-data/ https://www.rxhistories.com/irix/prescription-data/
      - cj 6y ago
        Thanks for the follow up. I wasn’t doubting your claim, just genuinely interested in how one goes about obtaining such information in a legal way. (Or whether what they’re doing is borderline legal to begin with)

NovemberWhiskey 6y ago

>Do I trust DEA agents, people who signed up to actively punish and criminalize disproportionately minority and addicted people? I can't read minds, but I think an equally likely formulation might be "people who signed up to enforce the law on the criminal organizations that perform most drug trafficking"? I think most petty drug enforcement (of the kind that targets users, rather distributors) is by the states, not the federal government, and therefore much less likely to be done by the DEA.

nicbou 6y ago

I prefer when trust is not necessary, because the capabilities were never granted in the first place. Even if the government was trustworthy (it's not), there is no guarantee that it will stay trustworthy.