6 ms·

This just seems like a power grab to empower federal level personal thugs for the executive branch. Most of these departments have rules about how they use our

by duxup 1y ago

This just seems like a power grab to empower federal level personal thugs for the executive branch. Most of these departments have rules about how they use our data. ICE now gobbles it all up and can use it without rules by a department that operates with little regard and lots of exceptions to typical protections for citizens afforded by the constitution. The majority in SCOTUS does not seem to care (it’s ok as long as their guy does it). Whatever rules we thought there were seem to be out the window because someone magically moved data or ICE got to do it or so on ...

micromacrofoot 1y ago
Indeed seems this way. Also consider the recent budget bill increased ICE's budget 3X and it's now more funded than the entire federal prison system. This is roughly on the level of post Pearl Harbor internement of Japanese people, with potential to grow larger.
- strnjrloops 1y ago
  [dead]
wlesieutre 1y ago
Getting access to Medicaid data for public health research is a giant pain in the ass with layers upon layers of red tape and IRBs and training about how you are allowed to handle it.
- fnordpiglet 1y ago
  Only if it’s done in compliance. There was been little to show this administration follows the constitution, laws, or judicial orders let alone regulation. Especially when it comes to Stephen Miller there’s a significant “move fast and break the law” effort knowing judicial or legislative remedy can take a long time and is not assured given the penetration of captured justices and congressional independence. Especially in something like this where you have to establish standing, do discovery, etc, it’s an uphill battle to ensure compliance and the out of compliance stuff happens behind closed doors. With most of the federal government oversight functions either gutted or entirely captured by politically partisan sycophants, I would not hold my breath expecting any boundaries or relief. This is what a real deep state looks like. “He who smelt it dealt it” seems to be a natural law.
  - wlesieutre 1y ago
    Yes, I am assuming that ICE is not being held to the same (or any) standards and this is a real heap of bullshit
- nonethewiser 1y ago
  >Getting access to Medicaid data for public health research is a giant pain in the ass with layers upon layers of red tape and IRBs and training about how you are allowed to handle it. Can you contextualize this comment? Are you saying it shouldnt be so difficult? Or that the government should have to jump through the same hoops? Or?
  - wlesieutre 1y ago
    See previous reply to sibling comment
dmix 1y ago
> lots of exceptions to typical protections for citizens afforded by the constitution Almost the entire US constitution applies to non-citizens in the country, with some small exceptions like voting and holding public office.
- phkahler 1y ago
  Since medicade wasn't established by the constitution, how do resident aliens get coverage? Maybe they do, maybe they don't. I'd like to know.
  - wombatpm 1y ago
    If you want to go back to people dying in the streets because they are poor I guess that’s OK. But at some point it affects the health of everyone.
  - aceazzameen 1y ago
    They also pay US taxes. They should benefit from those taxes like everyone else.
    - phkahler 1y ago
      Some do.
      - const_cast 1y ago
        If we're talking about federal Medicaid, no, they don't. That's citizens only. Some states like California extend the benefits of medicaid - but that's done with state funds. That's a states rights issue, not a federal issue.
- TimorousBestie 1y ago
  You’re technically correct, but in the last few decades a great deal of legal scholarship has gone into convincing the relevant parties that this isn’t so.
Joeri 1y ago
(it’s ok as long as their guy does it) You put that between parentheses as if it was just a detail, but it is the fundamental question that nobody is talking about: what happens after their guy is gone? Are they really ok with president AOC getting all of Trump’s powers? Or do they secretly hope democracy in the U.S. comes to a halt?
- moogly 1y ago
  > Or do they secretly hope democracy in the U.S. comes to a halt? Hope? They're working on it. And they're not being particularly secretive about it.
  - jpadkins 1y ago
    can you share some of these plans to halt democracy?
    - input_sh 1y ago
      Sure thing! If you go to Trump's official store (ridiculous statement on its own for a sitting president), you'll find a whole lot of "Trump 2028" merch. I personally can't think of many ways to be more blatant than that.
      - jpadkins 1y ago
        It's a joke to upset progs and commies. Looks like it is working as intended.
    - TheOtherHobbes 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - jahewson 1y ago
        [flagged]
- 1y ago
cosmicgadget 1y ago
> The majority in SCOTUS does not seem to care Well plain 'rules' are going to be firmly within the executive's discretion to change. So what you need is statutes. Statutes might not help much though, due to the immunity/pardon hack. And we may even be seeing SCOTUS reexamine if the president is bound by statute. This is fine.
michael1999 1y ago
I think HIPAA always had a carve-out for LE. Trump is lawless, but this might not be. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44606965 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44606965
onlyrealcuzzo 1y ago
> The majority in SCOTUS does not seem to care (it’s ok as long as their guy does it). I doubt they'd care if a democratic president wanted to do the exact same thing... Their job isn't to be benevolent. Their job is to determine what is ACCORDING to the laws. The reality is, many legal protections only apply to US citizens - and it is EXPLICITLY for these reasons that they do. The Privacy Act of 1974 applies only to citizens. The Patriot Act opened up a can of worms ripe for abuse that will probably never be sealed. The executive branch can almost get away with murder by saying, "Well, we thought they were a terrorist, so..." Which does appear to be the defense they're trying to set up, saying anyone in any, way, shape or form related to Mexican gangs is a terrorist. The Supreme Court doesn't really seem to be exceptionally awful. They're obviously bias, and have been for a very long time, if you look at how they vote. But the larger problem is that we have bad laws. It's not the Supreme Court's job to override laws passed by congress because they're terrible or anti-American. It's our job as voters to start caring about what matters.
- jewayne 1y ago
  > I doubt they'd care if a democratic president wanted to do the exact same thing... Of course they would. They literally blocked Biden's student loan relief, calling it unconstitutional. These people are not there because they are exceptional legal scholars or because they established themselves as outstanding judges in their previous appointments. The six majority justices are there to help their side wield power, pure and simple. And they understand that part of that job is making it difficult for the other side to wield power. Because only their side is legitimate, you see. > The Supreme Court doesn't really seem to be exceptionally awful. The are exceptionally, extremely, extraordinarily awful. When the DC circuit court ruled on presidential immunity, legal scholars across the land pointed to the ruling as the probable last word, given how sterling the ruling was. Many were shocked that the Supreme Court even took the case up afterward. After all, what more was there to say? To have the SCOTUS overrule two centuries of established precedent in making the entire Executive branch above criminal law shocked just about everyone - this entirely for the purpose of keeping a single man out of jail. > It's not the Supreme Court's job to override laws passed by congress because they're terrible or anti-American. That is exactly their job, if said laws are unconstitutional.
lr4444lr 1y ago
> Most of these departments have rules about how they use our data Yes, but law enforcement agencies can typically be granted access for investigations, so long as the information is used only for such investigations. This is how CSAM distributors are hunted down. They don't literally need to amass evidence for each and every suspect and then get a warrant: they have a legally recognized enforcement directive, and so can perform surveillance of information sources where that people breaking those laws can be caught. Or in this case, they may have imperfect information on a variety of actual suspects, but not enough to find them or build a case. Medicaid data may provide those clues.

by duxup 1y ago

micromacrofoot 1y ago

Indeed seems this way. Also consider the recent budget bill increased ICE's budget 3X and it's now more funded than the entire federal prison system. This is roughly on the level of post Pearl Harbor internement of Japanese people, with potential to grow larger.

strnjrloops 1y ago
[dead]

wlesieutre 1y ago

Getting access to Medicaid data for public health research is a giant pain in the ass with layers upon layers of red tape and IRBs and training about how you are allowed to handle it.

fnordpiglet 1y ago
Only if it’s done in compliance. There was been little to show this administration follows the constitution, laws, or judicial orders let alone regulation. Especially when it comes to Stephen Miller there’s a significant “move fast and break the law” effort knowing judicial or legislative remedy can take a long time and is not assured given the penetration of captured justices and congressional independence. Especially in something like this where you have to establish standing, do discovery, etc, it’s an uphill battle to ensure compliance and the out of compliance stuff happens behind closed doors. With most of the federal government oversight functions either gutted or entirely captured by politically partisan sycophants, I would not hold my breath expecting any boundaries or relief. This is what a real deep state looks like. “He who smelt it dealt it” seems to be a natural law.
- wlesieutre 1y ago
  Yes, I am assuming that ICE is not being held to the same (or any) standards and this is a real heap of bullshit
nonethewiser 1y ago
>Getting access to Medicaid data for public health research is a giant pain in the ass with layers upon layers of red tape and IRBs and training about how you are allowed to handle it. Can you contextualize this comment? Are you saying it shouldnt be so difficult? Or that the government should have to jump through the same hoops? Or?
- wlesieutre 1y ago
  See previous reply to sibling comment

dmix 1y ago

> lots of exceptions to typical protections for citizens afforded by the constitution Almost the entire US constitution applies to non-citizens in the country, with some small exceptions like voting and holding public office.

phkahler 1y ago
Since medicade wasn't established by the constitution, how do resident aliens get coverage? Maybe they do, maybe they don't. I'd like to know.
- wombatpm 1y ago
  If you want to go back to people dying in the streets because they are poor I guess that’s OK. But at some point it affects the health of everyone.
- aceazzameen 1y ago
  They also pay US taxes. They should benefit from those taxes like everyone else.
  - phkahler 1y ago
    Some do.
    - const_cast 1y ago
      If we're talking about federal Medicaid, no, they don't. That's citizens only. Some states like California extend the benefits of medicaid - but that's done with state funds. That's a states rights issue, not a federal issue.
TimorousBestie 1y ago
You’re technically correct, but in the last few decades a great deal of legal scholarship has gone into convincing the relevant parties that this isn’t so.

Joeri 1y ago

(it’s ok as long as their guy does it) You put that between parentheses as if it was just a detail, but it is the fundamental question that nobody is talking about: what happens after their guy is gone? Are they really ok with president AOC getting all of Trump’s powers? Or do they secretly hope democracy in the U.S. comes to a halt?

moogly 1y ago
> Or do they secretly hope democracy in the U.S. comes to a halt? Hope? They're working on it. And they're not being particularly secretive about it.
- jpadkins 1y ago
  can you share some of these plans to halt democracy?
  - input_sh 1y ago
    Sure thing! If you go to Trump's official store (ridiculous statement on its own for a sitting president), you'll find a whole lot of "Trump 2028" merch. I personally can't think of many ways to be more blatant than that.
    - jpadkins 1y ago
      It's a joke to upset progs and commies. Looks like it is working as intended.
  - TheOtherHobbes 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - jahewson 1y ago
      [flagged]
1y ago

cosmicgadget 1y ago

> The majority in SCOTUS does not seem to care Well plain 'rules' are going to be firmly within the executive's discretion to change. So what you need is statutes. Statutes might not help much though, due to the immunity/pardon hack. And we may even be seeing SCOTUS reexamine if the president is bound by statute. This is fine.

michael1999 1y ago

I think HIPAA always had a carve-out for LE. Trump is lawless, but this might not be. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44606965 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44606965

onlyrealcuzzo 1y ago

> The majority in SCOTUS does not seem to care (it’s ok as long as their guy does it). I doubt they'd care if a democratic president wanted to do the exact same thing... Their job isn't to be benevolent. Their job is to determine what is ACCORDING to the laws. The reality is, many legal protections only apply to US citizens - and it is EXPLICITLY for these reasons that they do. The Privacy Act of 1974 applies only to citizens. The Patriot Act opened up a can of worms ripe for abuse that will probably never be sealed. The executive branch can almost get away with murder by saying, "Well, we thought they were a terrorist, so..." Which does appear to be the defense they're trying to set up, saying anyone in any, way, shape or form related to Mexican gangs is a terrorist. The Supreme Court doesn't really seem to be exceptionally awful. They're obviously bias, and have been for a very long time, if you look at how they vote. But the larger problem is that we have bad laws. It's not the Supreme Court's job to override laws passed by congress because they're terrible or anti-American. It's our job as voters to start caring about what matters.

jewayne 1y ago
> I doubt they'd care if a democratic president wanted to do the exact same thing... Of course they would. They literally blocked Biden's student loan relief, calling it unconstitutional. These people are not there because they are exceptional legal scholars or because they established themselves as outstanding judges in their previous appointments. The six majority justices are there to help their side wield power, pure and simple. And they understand that part of that job is making it difficult for the other side to wield power. Because only their side is legitimate, you see. > The Supreme Court doesn't really seem to be exceptionally awful. The are exceptionally, extremely, extraordinarily awful. When the DC circuit court ruled on presidential immunity, legal scholars across the land pointed to the ruling as the probable last word, given how sterling the ruling was. Many were shocked that the Supreme Court even took the case up afterward. After all, what more was there to say? To have the SCOTUS overrule two centuries of established precedent in making the entire Executive branch above criminal law shocked just about everyone - this entirely for the purpose of keeping a single man out of jail. > It's not the Supreme Court's job to override laws passed by congress because they're terrible or anti-American. That is exactly their job, if said laws are unconstitutional.

lr4444lr 1y ago

> Most of these departments have rules about how they use our data Yes, but law enforcement agencies can typically be granted access for investigations, so long as the information is used only for such investigations. This is how CSAM distributors are hunted down. They don't literally need to amass evidence for each and every suspect and then get a warrant: they have a legally recognized enforcement directive, and so can perform surveillance of information sources where that people breaking those laws can be caught. Or in this case, they may have imperfect information on a variety of actual suspects, but not enough to find them or build a case. Medicaid data may provide those clues.