well when your actions cost me (the taxpayer) money, it is my business.mikkel wrote:
I'm going to miss the confidentiality of criminal and medical records when I move away from Denmark. I don't want people snooping in my personal affairs.
Poll
Should law offenders be put on a register like sex offenders?
| Yes | 34% | 34% - 13 | ||||
| No | 47% | 47% - 18 | ||||
| Other (State Opinion) | 18% | 18% - 7 | ||||
| Total: 38 | ||||||
Wouldn't you?Eye-GiZzLe wrote:
would you really?HurricaИe wrote:
I'd say a guy who killed a man is just as dangerous as a rapist.
Australia's Privacy Act hugs everyone like a blanket at night. It's great.Mikkel wrote:
I'm going to miss the confidentiality of criminal and medical records when I move away from Denmark. I don't want people snooping in my personal affairs.
Haha I bet.usmarine2 wrote:
well I can tell you they also drive the speed limit.
No it isn't. Just like your tax filings aren't my business, your military history isn't my business, and your history of monetary assistance isn't my business. My criminal record will never be your business, just like any of your records will never be any of my business.usmarine2 wrote:
well when your actions cost me (the taxpayer) money, it is my business.mikkel wrote:
I'm going to miss the confidentiality of criminal and medical records when I move away from Denmark. I don't want people snooping in my personal affairs.
Hmm. I agree with this, except for the criminal part. usmarine makes a great point.mikkel wrote:
No it isn't. Just like your tax filings aren't my business, your military history isn't my business, and your history of monetary assistance isn't my business. My criminal record will never be your business, just like any of your records will never be any of my business.usmarine2 wrote:
well when your actions cost me (the taxpayer) money, it is my business.mikkel wrote:
I'm going to miss the confidentiality of criminal and medical records when I move away from Denmark. I don't want people snooping in my personal affairs.
Actually, my military record is public record, since tax dollars pay for it. All my aviation licences issued by the FAA are public record, anybody can view them, since the oversight is tax payer funded.mikkel wrote:
No it isn't. Just like your tax filings aren't my business, your military history isn't my business, and your history of monetary assistance isn't my business. My criminal record will never be your business, just like any of your records will never be any of my business.usmarine2 wrote:
well when your actions cost me (the taxpayer) money, it is my business.mikkel wrote:
I'm going to miss the confidentiality of criminal and medical records when I move away from Denmark. I don't want people snooping in my personal affairs.
Uhh.. All I have to do is turn on Discovery Channel and in 5 minutes I will know everything about how to drive a tank. (I watched a show yesterday that showed both the simulation and the real thing. Showed how to turn a tank on, how to move it, how to brake, emergency brake, how to load the weapons lol). Discovery Channel is my public Record of the states army :p.usmarine2 wrote:
Actually, my military record is public record, since tax dollars pay for it. All my aviation licences issued by the FAA are public record, anybody can view them, since the oversight is tax payer funded.mikkel wrote:
No it isn't. Just like your tax filings aren't my business, your military history isn't my business, and your history of monetary assistance isn't my business. My criminal record will never be your business, just like any of your records will never be any of my business.usmarine2 wrote:
well when your actions cost me (the taxpayer) money, it is my business.
How is that? Being on welfare costs taxpayer money, too, but it's none of our business if someone's on welfare. It's a matter of privacy, and in any situation, you have no need to know.Zombie_Affair wrote:
Hmm. I agree with this, except for the criminal part. usmarine makes a great point.mikkel wrote:
No it isn't. Just like your tax filings aren't my business, your military history isn't my business, and your history of monetary assistance isn't my business. My criminal record will never be your business, just like any of your records will never be any of my business.usmarine2 wrote:
well when your actions cost me (the taxpayer) money, it is my business.mikkel wrote:
I'm going to miss the confidentiality of criminal and medical records when I move away from Denmark. I don't want people snooping in my personal affairs.
I know that your military record is public record, but that still does not make it any of my business. Your aviation license being public record, that's fair, because that's there to document that you aren't a hazard to any passengers or people on the ground, which is fine with me. I still don't consider it any of my business, but I'm fine with public documentation as long as it is the business of other people, which an aviation license would be.usmarine2 wrote:
Actually, my military record is public record, since tax dollars pay for it. All my aviation licences issued by the FAA are public record, anybody can view them, since the oversight is tax payer funded.mikkel wrote:
No it isn't. Just like your tax filings aren't my business, your military history isn't my business, and your history of monetary assistance isn't my business. My criminal record will never be your business, just like any of your records will never be any of my business.usmarine2 wrote:
well when your actions cost me (the taxpayer) money, it is my business.
Simply being tax funded is not an excuse for full disclosure. You aren't paying the government to disclose your personal finances, or your personal criminal history. You can't opt out of the government. I consider a portion of the taxes you pay to be a direct payment to the government to handle your affairs, and if I'm paying my government to handle my affairs through taxes, I sure as hell don't want them to disclose those affairs without my consent.
well you better read the fine printmikkel wrote:
I sure as hell don't want them to disclose those affairs without my consent.
What fine print? Why should there be fine print? I pay my government to handle my affairs, and I'm obliged to do so. If my government is supposed to exist for me, then it's well within reason to expect these matters to be conducted with privacy.usmarine2 wrote:
well you better read the fine printmikkel wrote:
I sure as hell don't want them to disclose those affairs without my consent.
kmikkel wrote:
What fine print? Why should there be fine print? I pay my government to handle my affairs, and I'm obliged to do so. If my government is supposed to exist for me, then it's well within reason to expect these matters to be conducted with privacy.usmarine2 wrote:
well you better read the fine printmikkel wrote:
I sure as hell don't want them to disclose those affairs without my consent.
Ever been to a GP/Doctor? Chances are that little document they make you sign allows them to share your information with 3rd parties (including the Government). Ever entered into a raffle? Same deal. Your information isn't always as secretive as you think.usmarine2 wrote:
well you better read the fine printmikkel wrote:
I sure as hell don't want them to disclose those affairs without my consent.
There are pretty specific laws here about dissemination of medical records. HIPAA is basically the only privacy law that exists in the US.Zombie_Affair wrote:
Ever been to a GP/Doctor? Chances are that little document they make you sign allows them to share your information with 3rd parties (including the Government). Ever entered into a raffle? Same deal. Your information isn't always as secretive as you think.
"Information systems housing PHI must be protected from intrusion. When information flows over open networks, some form of encryption must be utilized. If closed systems/networks are utilized, existing access controls are considered sufficient and encryption is optional."SenorToenails wrote:
There are pretty specific laws here about dissemination of medical records. HIPAA is basically the only privacy law that exists in the US.Zombie_Affair wrote:
Ever been to a GP/Doctor? Chances are that little document they make you sign allows them to share your information with 3rd parties (including the Government). Ever entered into a raffle? Same deal. Your information isn't always as secretive as you think.
There is more to it than that. Summary of the HIPAA Privacy RuleZombie_Affair wrote:
"Information systems housing PHI must be protected from intrusion. When information flows over open networks, some form of encryption must be utilized. If closed systems/networks are utilized, existing access controls are considered sufficient and encryption is optional."
Murderers should be on a list just like sex offenders.
All law offenders is a bit much.
All law offenders is a bit much.
Australian Privacy Act:SenorToenails wrote:
There is more to it than that. Summary of the HIPAA Privacy RuleZombie_Affair wrote:
"Information systems housing PHI must be protected from intrusion. When information flows over open networks, some form of encryption must be utilized. If closed systems/networks are utilized, existing access controls are considered sufficient and encryption is optional."
Who owns my medical records?
The Privacy Act doesn't deal with questions of copyright or ownership of medical records.
Generally, the health service provider who creates a medical record owns that record. This doesn't interfere with your right to access your record, because ownership and access rights are separate.
Can an organisation keep the personal information it has collected about me forever?
No. However, the Privacy Act does not set a specific time period for the destruction of personal information. The National Privacy Principles do say that organisations should take reasonable steps to destroy or permanently de-identify personal information if they no longer need it for any purpose consistent with the Principles.
So. How long does the Health Service Provider hold my Medical Records?
Why?Turquoise wrote:
Murderers should be on a list just like sex offenders.
All law offenders is a bit much.
Last edited by Zombie_Affair (2008-06-21 21:22:58)
It's hard enough for ex-criminals to survive as it is.
It sounds cruel, but shouldn't they have thought about that before they did the crime?ZombieVampire! wrote:
It's hard enough for ex-criminals to survive as it is.
Our school did a City Site program in Year 10 instead of a proper camp. One afternoon we got to watch court cases. One of the ones we saw was a a guy who was caught speeding whilst drunk without a license on Christmas morning. He had a blood alcohol reading of ~0.07% (if memory serves), and he didn't have a license because it was speeding for his 3 previous drink driving offences. But the best bit was his excuse. He said it was Christmas and he had to see his mother in hospital.Zombie_Affair wrote:
Are you serious? Getting pulled over, telling the Officer you have no licence always lands you in trouble here. Telling the Officer you have no licence because your last one got revoked because of multiple DUI's is even worse.. Besides, if you had a register of Law Offenders, the Vehicle Registration Office (I believe you call it the DMV?) would deny you re-registering your vehicle, meaning you have stiff chance of driving a vehicle without being caught. No registration - no Licence, Prior DUI's - Big Trouble.SenorToenails wrote:
Then you'll just have people driving without licenses. Seriously, there is no real good way to fix that problem unless laws are actually enforced ... and those laws aren't on the top of the priority list.HurricaИe wrote:
Anyone who kills or injures a person while drunk or under influence should never be able to get a license again.
edit: Obviously their current one would be revoked. Hell for all I know that's how it works now, but just in case.
The judge asked him if he was serious.
By that logic all crimes should be punishable by death.Zombie_Affair wrote:
It sounds cruel, but shouldn't they have thought about that before they did the crime?ZombieVampire! wrote:
It's hard enough for ex-criminals to survive as it is.
?ZombieVampire! wrote:
By that logic all crimes should be punishable by death.
The logic of "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime" does not directly extend to "do it and die".
Yeah I've heard similar stuff. A lot of judges aren't happy with excuses like that.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Our school did a City Site program in Year 10 instead of a proper camp. One afternoon we got to watch court cases. One of the ones we saw was a a guy who was caught speeding whilst drunk without a license on Christmas morning. He had a blood alcohol reading of ~0.07% (if memory serves), and he didn't have a license because it was speeding for his 3 previous drink driving offences. But the best bit was his excuse. He said it was Christmas and he had to see his mother in hospital.Zombie_Affair wrote:
Are you serious? Getting pulled over, telling the Officer you have no licence always lands you in trouble here. Telling the Officer you have no licence because your last one got revoked because of multiple DUI's is even worse.. Besides, if you had a register of Law Offenders, the Vehicle Registration Office (I believe you call it the DMV?) would deny you re-registering your vehicle, meaning you have stiff chance of driving a vehicle without being caught. No registration - no Licence, Prior DUI's - Big Trouble.SenorToenails wrote:
Then you'll just have people driving without licenses. Seriously, there is no real good way to fix that problem unless laws are actually enforced ... and those laws aren't on the top of the priority list.
The judge asked him if he was serious.
How-so? I never said that.ZombieVampire! wrote:
By that logic all crimes should be punishable by death.
SenorToenails wrote:
?ZombieVampire! wrote:
By that logic all crimes should be punishable by death.
The logic of "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime" does not directly extend to "do it and die".
Last edited by Zombie_Affair (2008-06-21 21:38:04)
No, but if you justify all changes to law with "they should think about that before they do it" then it's the logical conclusion.
I disagree... The logical conclusion is "do it, and you're marked for life". I don't necessarily agree with the idea of saying "shoulda thoughta that"... but I definitely do not follow your logic.ZombieVampire! wrote:
No, but if you justify all changes to law with "they should think about that before they do it" then it's the logical conclusion.
Very true...ZombieVampire! wrote:
It's hard enough for ex-criminals to survive as it is.
The thing is... I question if even putting sex offenders on a list is a good idea. However, to put sex offenders on a list and not murderers is just crazy. The fact that we do this shows how dysfunctional our outlook on sex is.
Besides, all criminals or ex-criminals are already on file for the public record. If you suspect that a neighbor has committed a serious crime before, there are services you can use to find out if your suspicions are correct. The only differences with the sex offender list are that it gets more attention and that there are no fees associated with viewing it.
If anything, we need to devote more effort to helping people who have served their time to getting a legitimate job. A lot of the reason for repeat offenders is because of a lack of opportunity to mend their ways.