[FRIAM] dystopian vision(s)

[glen]

Sorry. By "license", I mean anyone certified by an institution, not specifically MD, RN, etc. Your use of "legitimate" is close. Technically, it's associated with orgs (companies, universities, and such), which deemphasizes individuals (certified or not). But I'm certain it applies to individual therapists because they're licensed. The heuristic of focusing on certification is the best way to cut through the judicial uncertainty.

HIPAA, not HIPPA.

On August 20, 2022 8:00:31 AM PDT, glen <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:
>Sorry. By "license", I mean anyone certified by an institution, not specifically MD, RN, etc. Your use of "legitimate" is close. Technically, it's associated with orgs (companies and such), which deemphasizes individuals (certified or not). But I'm certain it applies to individual therapists because they're licensed. The heuristic of focusing on certification is the best way to cut through the judicial uncertainty.
>
>HIPAA, not HIPPA.
>
>
>On August 19, 2022 7:11:36 PM PDT, Steve Smith <sasmyth at swcp.com> wrote:
>>
>>On 8/19/22 1:33 PM, glen wrote:
>>> No, as I understand it, HIPAA would *not* be violated. That's a common (right wing) trope.
>>
>>I guess I erred toward the idea that if I had *legitimate* access to medical info that it would be a violation.  I *think* anyone with legitimate access to HIPPA information has to sign agreements that bind them whether they are licensed medical professionals or not?  It seems like a double-ding if you ARE licensed, risking both criminal charges and losing a license?
>>
>>I think I agree that simply "finding" or unknowingly "receiving" HIPPA protected information is likely just a question of  ethics and bad faith?
>>
>>> I still worry that spying on and disclosing (semi) private data about elected officials might be a crime of some kind. But you're the PI. So you'd know!
>>
>>Seems like there has been plenty of doxxing of elected officials... if such is illegal then maybe the current practice of loose/difficult enforcement means it isn't much of a problem for some?
>>
>>I haven't been a PI for 40 years, but I do admit that sometimes I use that lens when thinking about things.   I quit that mini-career for a combination of practical and ethical reasons. There really wasn't much "righteous" work when it came right down to it.   Also helping make world-ending WMDs somehow seemed more ethical at the time?
>>
>>I doubt I could stomach much clandestine surveillance as implied, much less actual disclosure of the results... It isn't about what they "deserve" it is about who I am willing to be?   For a few months in 2016 I had a direct-action project conception titled "take a Dump for Trump" that was modeled on the old Halloween trick of a bag of burning dogshit on a porch... but I had to let that go for similar reasons.
>>
>>> 
>>> On 8/19/22 12:25, Steve Smith wrote:
>>>> GEPR -
>>>>> This sounds like a fantastic project for a public OSINT challenge. You *know* all those codgers have terrible OpSec, probably order their drugs through the USPS or worse, have their underpaid, over-abused admin assistants pick 'em up at the drive through window of the pharmacy. A good camera and a parabolic mic and Bob's your uncle. >8^D
>>>>> 
>>>>> It's probably a crime, though.
>>>> 
>>>> yah... busting into their records would be... HPPA and all that (which I support).
>>>> 
>>>> Your version (distance scrutiny of public behaviour/sigInt) would not be (on the surface anyway).   Like Jack Sweeney's Billionaire-Jet-Tracking efforts.  Sometimes this kind of work <https://www.amazon.com/Trevor-Paglen-Unseen-John-Jacob/dp/1911282336/ref=pd_bxgy_sccl_2/147-8329599-4719344?pd_rd_w=x3mIb&content-id=amzn1.sym.7757a8b5-874e-4a67-9d85-54ed32f01737&pf_rd_p=7757a8b5-874e-4a67-9d85-54ed32f01737&pf_rd_r=9R7EAMZEBWZ0R3F49MCB&pd_rd_wg=IJDl5&pd_rd_r=28b14ca2-d8a3-4908-b468-520b2a8d0114&pd_rd_i=1911282336&psc=1> verges on (performance?) Art...
>>>> 
>>>> I personally would not want to see *anyone* busted for their chemical (or other technological) augmentation in any harsh way, but I would not mind seeing it included in a low-level pressure campaign to shift the average elected office encumbent age downward.   I'm happy if Bernie Sanders was juicing a little for the last Senate all-nighter (tactically) but not so happy that such things may have become standard practice (like steroids Mr. Universe and WWF but not in Olympic Weight LIfting and Chess-Boxing).  JFK, FDR and who knows how many (other) TLA-presidents had their own personal physician juicing them for things the public was unaware of...   performance enhancing or remedial, what is the line?
>>>>