Re: Monkey Wrench into the works
At 12:54 AM 8/28/97 -0400, David Jablon wrote:
James,
You're rebuttal to Myron's message is simplistically elegant, but just as wrong as the original posting.
...
On 8/27/97, James A. Donald replied paraphrasing Ben Franklin, (who really knew very little about cryptography):
What one man knows, nobody knows. What two men know, everyone knows. Shared secrets just don't work.
Perhaps a more accurate, though less clean statement would be. What YOU ALONE knows, nobody knows. What YOU and ONE other person, EVERYONE MIGHT know. Each additional person who is in on the secret opens up the possibility of leaks. Although I deleted it for space, you mentioned Doctors. A lot of people are afraid to tell thier doctors everything that the doctors need to know to do thier jobs because the patients are afraid that, as illegal as it may be, the patients medical history may end up in the hands of insurers, employers, prospective employers, and numerous other people who may want it but shouldn't have it. My dad was at a seminar where a new Scholastic Aptitude test was being introduced. He or someone asked if this information was going to be used to rate the schools. He was assured that no, it wasn't for that. A few years later, Oklahoma schools were being rated on the average score on that test, after eliminating those in chapter 1 programs. My dad's beef was that the smaller schools couldn't afford to maintain some of those programs and would thus, on average, score lower than they should. The example of a secret getting out, however, is clear. The "secret" was given to the wrong sub-department, and not by the schools.
At 2:14 PM -0700 8/28/97, Sean Roach wrote:
Although I deleted it for space, you mentioned Doctors. A lot of people are afraid to tell thier doctors everything that the doctors need to know to do thier jobs because the patients are afraid that, as illegal as it may be, the patients medical history may end up in the hands of insurers, employers, prospective employers, and numerous other people who may want it but shouldn't have it.
I know a psychologist/therapist who is very worried about this issue, as are his associates. His records are no longer his, as he must inform the insurance agencies who are paying for his services what the diagnosis of a patient is. And this diagnosis can be found by all sorts of snoops...there have even been a few cases where the records inadvertently were placed in directories where Web crawlers could find them. And with Blacknet sorts of offshore data bases, a CD-ROM or DVD containing many records can be bought and sold... Further, those who visit doctors and shrinks are at risk for other reasons. The State has decreed that they "narc out" (inform on) their patients. Cf. Tarasoff, for example, which requires a mental health care professional, counselor, or doctor to inform the State if a client makes certain kinds of threats. This threat may cause the client to be locked up for observation. (Many think this is as it should be. But why is this so? We don't require non-doctors and non-shrinks to report such threats. If Joe Cypherpunk tells me at a Cypherpunks meeting he thinks Janet Reno should be blown up on her September 7th visit to San Jose, I am under no obligation whatsoever to assist the police in verifying what his real intentions are, or of cooperating in any way. So why should a psychiatrist become a secret agent for the State? We live in a police state.) --Tim May There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws. Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!" ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
Tim May <tcmay@got.net> writes:
I know a psychologist/therapist who is very worried about this issue, as are his associates. His records are no longer his, as he must inform the insurance agencies who are paying for his services what the diagnosis of a patient is.
Of course, the patient can choose to pay cash for the psychiatrist's advice and not use the insurance. ...
Further, those who visit doctors and shrinks are at risk for other reasons. The State has decreed that they "narc out" (inform on) their patients. Cf. Tarasoff, for example, which requires a mental health care professional, counselor, or doctor to inform the State if a client makes certain kinds of threats. This threat may cause the client to be locked up for observation.
I just happen to have been reading up on the Tarasoff case the other day, so I'll clarify something. A student at U.C.berkeley named Prosenjit Poddar became obsessed with his fellow student Tatiana tarasoff, whom she met at a folk dance lessons at the Internastional House. She kissed him at a new year's party, which he interpreted as a proof that she wanted him. He secretly audiotaped their conversations and spliced the tape so it sounded like she's saying she loves him. Poddar's been harrassing Tarassoff something awful and she was fully aware that he's a dangerous nut. She took a vacation (supposedly to get away from Poddar); soon after she returned, he killed her. Before the murder, Poddar had gone to the campus psychologist and told him about his obsession with Tarasoff. The psychologist, based on what the parient said 1) tried but failed to have him involuntarily committed 2) notified the campus police who detained and released Poddar, based on what the the therapost said Poddar told him. Tarasoff's parents sued the therapist, U.C.Berkeley, campus police (for freeing Poddar), etc, for the wrongful death. The claim against the therapist was that he should have notified Tarasoff that Poddar is obsessed with her, in addition to calling the cops on his patient, which he did. (Of course she already knew that all too well. If she carried a gun and knew how to use it, she might still be alive.) The California Supreme Court wrote in Tarasoff vs. Board of Regents (1976) that "the protective privilege ends where public peril begins" and that clinicians are obliged to use reasonable care to protect the potential victim of a patient's violence, which may include warning the victim. The duty of the clinician to notify the State if the patient says, e.g., that he intends to smoke pot, doesn't flow from the Tarasoff decision.
(Many think this is as it should be. But why is this so? We don't require non-doctors and non-shrinks to report such threats. If Joe Cypherpunk tells me at a Cypherpunks meeting he thinks Janet Reno should be blown up on her September 7th visit to San Jose, I am under no obligation whatsoever to assist the police in verifying what his real intentions are, or of cooperating in any way. So why should a psychiatrist become a secret agent for the State? We live in a police state.)
A related question is, suppose a criminal happens to be religious and confesses to a priest that he committed a crime (smoked pot, or whatever). He is subsequently arrested and mentions to the cops that he confessed to the priest. (Assume that the guy is an idiot, or else he wouldn't be going to church in the first place :-) Can the priest be prosecuted for not telling the cops about the confession? --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
At 9:06 PM -0700 9/10/97, snow wrote:
(sorry, running behind on mail)
(Many think this is as it should be. But why is this so? We don't require non-doctors and non-shrinks to report such threats. If Joe Cypherpunk tells me at a Cypherpunks meeting he thinks Janet Reno should be blown up on her September 7th visit to San Jose, I am under no obligation whatsoever to assist the police in verifying what his real intentions are, or of cooperating in any way. So why should a psychiatrist become a secret agent for the State? We live in a police state.)
Actually, if you think the person _will_ do it, I believe you are legally obligated to report.
Care to cite a law, or even venture a guess as to which law might cover this? Unless one is a party to the crime, as in "aiding and abetting," there is no such requirement. Tarasoff applied a reporting requirement to shrinks that ordinary persons did not have to worry about. The "shooting Reno" example is really no different (*) from other crimes, e.g., seeing bootleg videotaping in one's neighbor's garage, learning of a bank robbery to be committed, etc. No laws require citizens to inform the police. (* The potential exception involves things like "depraved indifference," a vague notion that if one does nothing while someone dies....) --Tim May There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws. Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!" ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
(sorry, running behind on mail)
(Many think this is as it should be. But why is this so? We don't require non-doctors and non-shrinks to report such threats. If Joe Cypherpunk tells me at a Cypherpunks meeting he thinks Janet Reno should be blown up on her September 7th visit to San Jose, I am under no obligation whatsoever to assist the police in verifying what his real intentions are, or of cooperating in any way. So why should a psychiatrist become a secret agent for the State? We live in a police state.)
Actually, if you think the person _will_ do it, I believe you are legally obligated to report.
participants (4)
-
dlv＠bwalk.dm.com -
Sean Roach -
snow -
Tim May