6 ms·

I don't know why it needs to be so drastic. We could start by enforcing the 4th amendment. Then we could actually hold officers accountable for their actions.

I don't know why it needs to be so drastic. We could start by enforcing the 4th amendment. Then we could actually hold officers accountable for their actions. Qualified immunity should be scaled back drastically and any LEO which violates the law should have a multiplier applied to the sentencing guidelines for any convictions against them.

kube-system 3y ago
The 4th amendment doesn't prohibit others from volunteering information about you.
- avery17 3y ago
  Perhaps it should in circumstances such as private medical information or any private information. We need digital privacy laws badly.
  - kube-system 3y ago
    I think digital privacy would be much better handled by regular laws, not a constitutional amendment.
    - ilovetux 3y ago
      I disagree. I think if it's not in the form of a constitutional amendment, then we will be constantly at risk of having it repealed or lessened or made irrelevant by superseding laws. I understand that we can not go around amending the constitution on a whim, but these topics are so young that we cannot foresee all the possible ramifications of any law that we try to pass but at the same time they are too important to not take action. A simple, easy-to-understand constitutional mandate such as "no law shall be passed that infringes on a citizens right to digital privacy" would be the ideal solution. After that, courts can be used to iron out the details and set precedence.
      - kube-system 3y ago
        I strongly disagree. The landscape of what "digital privacy" means is rapidly changing, and should be addressed by the national legislature in specific and clear text, not a patchwork of incomplete and conflicting opinions across different court jurisdictions. Clarity and specificity is very important if we want these laws to be effective.
        ilovetux 3y ago
        > The landscape of what "digital privacy" means is rapidly changing How could congress even begin to keep pace with that rate of change? They certainly have not been keeping pace, and arguably going backwards in a number of areas (see FISA). The courts could take every issue, one-by-one, and clarify the reasons for any decisions. These decisions would happen in the light of day with an appeals process ready to handle disagreements about the letter and intent of the laws in question. > should be addressed by the national legislature in specific and clear text Congress has not shown an interest in keeping pace with technology, and would therefore be hard-pressed to write such "specific and clear" legislation. It would, therefore, fall to the lobbyists who have draft legislation ready to go with carve-outs custom made for the companies that sponsor them and which are not in the best interest of the average US citizen.
        kube-system 3y ago
        Congress might be slow, but our patchwork of courts are even slower to come up with clear and comprehensive case law, and constitutional amendments can take hundreds of years to ratify. There is a solution for the problem you're highlighting: Congress passes a law which delegates authority to a regulatory agency. For instance, Congress doesn't need to be an expert on the latest airplanes in order to regulate them. They have assigned the FAA to do this.
      - creer 3y ago
        Neither privacy abuse nor cops lawlessness are "young". Really. But constitutional amendment would allow for a general principle. US laws really do not.
- FireBeyond 3y ago
  Well, tying back to the original topic, if I as a healthcare provider am not allowed to "volunteer information about you" to LE if you're in a car accident or incident or similar, then why is a pharmacy allowed to, when the medications you take have a 1:1 or 1:few correlation to your healthcare? Silly specific example in this case, as a healthcare provider, I can't tell a cop you have high blood pressure, because HIPAA. A pharmacy can tell a cop you take lisinopril/HCTZ, which is only prescribed for high blood pressure, because ... shrug.
  - kube-system 3y ago
    The difference is likely the opinion of your organization's legal guidance and the specificity and relevance of the request. HIPAA allows disclosures to subpoena requests. https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/faq/505/what-does-the-privacy-rule-allow-covered-entities-to-disclose-to-law-enforcement-officials/index.html https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/faq/505/what-doe...
    - FireBeyond 3y ago
      Not quite that simple. I'm well acquainted with the Privacy Rule, for a whole multitude of reasons (you weren't implying I wasn't)... > To comply with a court order or court-ordered warrant, a subpoena or summons issued by a judicial officer, or a grand jury subpoena. Emphasis mine. From the article: > Instead, all the pharmacies hand over such information with nothing more than a subpoena, which can be issued by government agencies and does not require review or approval by a judge. Emphasis also mine. Police officers are not considered judicial officers, though they are officers of the court. "Judicial officers are typically categorized as judges, magistrates, puisne judicial officers such as justices of the peace or officers of courts of limited jurisdiction; and notaries public and commissioners of oaths. The powers of judicial officers vary and are usually limited to a certain jurisdiction." It seems to me that there's an extrapolation here that is not covered by HIPAA. HIPAA only refers to subpoenas issued by or reviewed by judicial officers, not a blanket allowance.
      - kube-system 3y ago
- creer 3y ago
  So this is a good point. There is this issue for either outright volunteering information or being bullied into "volunteering". And this a trend that apparently was not much of an issue at the time (of the constitution or 4th). Same for "constitution applies only to govt" - where now so many corporations or other groups wield comparable power. There is space for more improvements on the constitution - and then also perhaps now is not a great, constructive time to do that.
  - kube-system 3y ago
    I don’t think tattletales were a recent invention. The purpose of the constitution was to prevent government overreach, because it is a document that sets government rules. The reason other things aren’t in it isn’t because they aren’t or weren’t issues. It’s because they were out of scope for the purpose of that document.

kube-system 3y ago

The 4th amendment doesn't prohibit others from volunteering information about you.

avery17 3y ago
Perhaps it should in circumstances such as private medical information or any private information. We need digital privacy laws badly.
- kube-system 3y ago
  I think digital privacy would be much better handled by regular laws, not a constitutional amendment.
  - ilovetux 3y ago
    I disagree. I think if it's not in the form of a constitutional amendment, then we will be constantly at risk of having it repealed or lessened or made irrelevant by superseding laws. I understand that we can not go around amending the constitution on a whim, but these topics are so young that we cannot foresee all the possible ramifications of any law that we try to pass but at the same time they are too important to not take action. A simple, easy-to-understand constitutional mandate such as "no law shall be passed that infringes on a citizens right to digital privacy" would be the ideal solution. After that, courts can be used to iron out the details and set precedence.
    - kube-system 3y ago
      I strongly disagree. The landscape of what "digital privacy" means is rapidly changing, and should be addressed by the national legislature in specific and clear text, not a patchwork of incomplete and conflicting opinions across different court jurisdictions. Clarity and specificity is very important if we want these laws to be effective.
      - ilovetux 3y ago
        > The landscape of what "digital privacy" means is rapidly changing How could congress even begin to keep pace with that rate of change? They certainly have not been keeping pace, and arguably going backwards in a number of areas (see FISA). The courts could take every issue, one-by-one, and clarify the reasons for any decisions. These decisions would happen in the light of day with an appeals process ready to handle disagreements about the letter and intent of the laws in question. > should be addressed by the national legislature in specific and clear text Congress has not shown an interest in keeping pace with technology, and would therefore be hard-pressed to write such "specific and clear" legislation. It would, therefore, fall to the lobbyists who have draft legislation ready to go with carve-outs custom made for the companies that sponsor them and which are not in the best interest of the average US citizen.
        kube-system 3y ago
        Congress might be slow, but our patchwork of courts are even slower to come up with clear and comprehensive case law, and constitutional amendments can take hundreds of years to ratify. There is a solution for the problem you're highlighting: Congress passes a law which delegates authority to a regulatory agency. For instance, Congress doesn't need to be an expert on the latest airplanes in order to regulate them. They have assigned the FAA to do this.
    - creer 3y ago
      Neither privacy abuse nor cops lawlessness are "young". Really. But constitutional amendment would allow for a general principle. US laws really do not.
FireBeyond 3y ago
Well, tying back to the original topic, if I as a healthcare provider am not allowed to "volunteer information about you" to LE if you're in a car accident or incident or similar, then why is a pharmacy allowed to, when the medications you take have a 1:1 or 1:few correlation to your healthcare? Silly specific example in this case, as a healthcare provider, I can't tell a cop you have high blood pressure, because HIPAA. A pharmacy can tell a cop you take lisinopril/HCTZ, which is only prescribed for high blood pressure, because ... shrug.
- kube-system 3y ago
  The difference is likely the opinion of your organization's legal guidance and the specificity and relevance of the request. HIPAA allows disclosures to subpoena requests. https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/faq/505/what-does-the-privacy-rule-allow-covered-entities-to-disclose-to-law-enforcement-officials/index.html https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/faq/505/what-doe...
  - FireBeyond 3y ago
    Not quite that simple. I'm well acquainted with the Privacy Rule, for a whole multitude of reasons (you weren't implying I wasn't)... > To comply with a court order or court-ordered warrant, a subpoena or summons issued by a judicial officer, or a grand jury subpoena. Emphasis mine. From the article: > Instead, all the pharmacies hand over such information with nothing more than a subpoena, which can be issued by government agencies and does not require review or approval by a judge. Emphasis also mine. Police officers are not considered judicial officers, though they are officers of the court. "Judicial officers are typically categorized as judges, magistrates, puisne judicial officers such as justices of the peace or officers of courts of limited jurisdiction; and notaries public and commissioners of oaths. The powers of judicial officers vary and are usually limited to a certain jurisdiction." It seems to me that there's an extrapolation here that is not covered by HIPAA. HIPAA only refers to subpoenas issued by or reviewed by judicial officers, not a blanket allowance.
    - kube-system 3y ago
creer 3y ago
So this is a good point. There is this issue for either outright volunteering information or being bullied into "volunteering". And this a trend that apparently was not much of an issue at the time (of the constitution or 4th). Same for "constitution applies only to govt" - where now so many corporations or other groups wield comparable power. There is space for more improvements on the constitution - and then also perhaps now is not a great, constructive time to do that.
- kube-system 3y ago
  I don’t think tattletales were a recent invention. The purpose of the constitution was to prevent government overreach, because it is a document that sets government rules. The reason other things aren’t in it isn’t because they aren’t or weren’t issues. It’s because they were out of scope for the purpose of that document.