Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #301  
Old 01-25-2018, 03:34 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 22,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
And that's what this law does. Sets up a HIPAA like protection on employment records. That the others are protected by law, and employment records are not is not relevant, when the entire point is that we are talking about a law that protects employee data. I am pointing out that there is precedent that there are times when information is sensitive, and should not be shared without due process.
Ok, I see what you're arguing here, and thank you for clarifying. I thought you were still talking about the point you made earlier, that your banks and so on have advised you that sharing personnel information is not a good idea, and therefore you assumed it was illegal. I see your point here that you support such information being protected generally, even though in this case it is a rather limited set of circumstances being dealt with.

Quote:
And if that reason is because ICE agents are coming by several times a week, asking to see those records, and saying that they will not stop until you turn them over?
Then I would contact a lawyer.

Quote:
And after they leave and you turn on the news, you hear nothing about a serial killer being arrested. In digging a bit more, you find that your employee was arrested because he committed a minor traffic infraction.

Ultimately, you find that your employee insulted the cop who pulled him over, and so the police lied to you, telling you that your employee had been arrested for murder, in order to get you to give them more information so that they can find dirt on him to charge him.

That's why I would ask for a warrant. Not because I'd need a warrant to turn over info on a serial killer, but because I'd need a warrant to believe the police that the person they are investigating is a serial killer.
Oh, do we get to add on new facts to hypothetical scenarios? Then let's say this employee who insulted the cop also raped my sister, and I believed my sister's allegations. You still want to prohibit me from volunteering information to the police about someone who works for me, but I think raped my sister?

Quote:
If business owner C does not want to invite ICE into staff only areas, yet ICE does not tell him that cooperation is voluntary and insists that if he does not cooperate then ICE will escalate things and make things unpleasant for the business owner, I do not in any way find absurd to have a law that gives the business owner something to fall back on.
The business owner can fall back on his property rights.

Quote:
I would support that. Too many people don't know their rights, and "accidently" consent to searches, or are bullied or pressured into consenting to searches.

It's a slightly different scenario, as it is specifically your privacy that you are volunteering to give up, not other people's.

I suppose a better law would instead be to say that law enforcement, ICE et al., may not even request cooperation from private individuals without a warrant. I would definitely support that.
Wow, well, okay. Thanks for your answer.
  #302  
Old 01-25-2018, 03:36 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 6,039
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
IRS, BATFE, BLM, EPA, just off the top of my head.
And these agencies that come in and ask for "voluntary" cooperation with their investigations?

If that is the case, then I absolutely agree.

If what they are doing is following the laws that the operate under, along with properly served warrants under due process, then what exactly are you looking to change?

If cooperation is mandatory, as it is with the IRS, and I assume from what you said ATF, then are you saying that they should change it so that it no longer is?

As far as BLM and EPA, I have no idea what their investigation system is, or how it operates, so I can offer no opinion, other than that if they operate largely under a "voluntary consent" system, then that should no longer be.
  #303  
Old 01-25-2018, 03:36 PM
Evil Economist Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
IRS, BATFE, BLM, EPA, just off the top of my head.
You need to be more specific. What specific actions of theirs currently require your voluntary cooperation, which you think other people should be prevented from providing?
__________________
Lazy. Ignorant. Incompetent. Liar. Fraud. Adulterer. Rapist. Narcissist. Draft dodger. Urine aficionado. Fucking moron. National disgrace.
  #304  
Old 01-25-2018, 03:43 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 7,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Without a warrant or the law behind them, they are really very little different from "random people".

If the federal govt wants to make a law that says that ICE agent must be permitted to inspect any and all documents and spaces whenever they want, they can go ahead and do that. Same as they have a law that says that the you must turn certain info over to the IRS, even though they don't need a warrant. If the govt says that cooperation with law enforcement is "voluntary" then it really isn't, is it?
You really can't see any important differences between the actions of sworn law enforcement officers and just random members of the public?
  #305  
Old 01-25-2018, 03:46 PM
Evil Economist Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
You really can't see any important differences between the actions of sworn law enforcement officers and just random members of the public?
Yeah, sworn law enforcement officers can ruin people's lives through their own ineptitude. I wouldn't answer questions a federal agent asked me without my lawyer present, but I'd happily chat with some random guy on the street.
__________________
Lazy. Ignorant. Incompetent. Liar. Fraud. Adulterer. Rapist. Narcissist. Draft dodger. Urine aficionado. Fucking moron. National disgrace.
  #306  
Old 01-25-2018, 03:46 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 7,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Economist View Post
You need to be more specific. What specific actions of theirs currently require your voluntary cooperation, which you think other people should be prevented from providing?
Nothing "requires" voluntary cooperation. Nothing in California "required" voluntary cooperation either. It's just that before AB450 it was allowed. I'm proposing that if California's nutty scheme is allowed to stand, I'll work to prohibit voluntary cooperation with various federal agencies in my state.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 01-25-2018 at 03:46 PM.
  #307  
Old 01-25-2018, 03:49 PM
Evil Economist Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Nothing "requires" voluntary cooperation. Nothing in California "required" voluntary cooperation either. It's just that before AB450 it was allowed. I'm proposing that if California's nutty scheme is allowed to stand, I'll work to prohibit voluntary cooperation with various federal agencies in my state.
I bet you understood the question, which means you're deliberately avoiding it. Which actually answers my question, thanks.
__________________
Lazy. Ignorant. Incompetent. Liar. Fraud. Adulterer. Rapist. Narcissist. Draft dodger. Urine aficionado. Fucking moron. National disgrace.
  #308  
Old 01-25-2018, 03:58 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 6,039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Ok, I see what you're arguing here, and thank you for clarifying. I thought you were still talking about the point you made earlier, that your banks and so on have advised you that sharing personnel information is not a good idea, and therefore you assumed it was illegal. I see your point here that you support such information being protected generally, even though in this case it is a rather limited set of circumstances being dealt with.
I am going to continue to assume that sharing it with "random people" is illegal. If I published my employee's personal details on the internet, I've gotta be breaking some laws. If not, there should be some laws I am breaking.
Quote:
Then I would contact a lawyer.
And what is a lawyer going to do?
Quote:
Oh, do we get to add on new facts to hypothetical scenarios? Then let's say this employee who insulted the cop also raped my sister, and I believed my sister's allegations. You still want to prohibit me from volunteering information to the police about someone who works for me, but I think raped my sister?
You are welcome to divulge any information that you have about what you witnessed, what your sister told you, even what the employee may have said about it.

What I would prohibit is that you give the police personal employment information without a warrant.

You are raising the nature of the infraction from working without proper paperwork to a serial murderer or a rape of your sister in order to make an emotional plea.

If someone raped my sister, and I could help the police, I would turn over whatever info I could, even if that was illegal and I ended up in jail. If you are trying to make this about emotional pleas, are you saying that fear of legal punishment would prevent you from helping LEO catch your sister's rapist?
Quote:


The business owner can fall back on his property rights.
Rights that the federal agents are coercing him into giving up.

When they say "Why won't you let us take a look around, if you have nothing to hide?" The response "Property rights." is not going to get you anything.
Quote:

Wow, well, okay. Thanks for your answer.
Well, I'd prefer that leo not pressure people into giving up their rights, but that's a story for another thread.

As long as they do, then yeah, some measures to protect the public from those who are supposed to protect the public is appropriate.
  #309  
Old 01-25-2018, 03:59 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 6,039
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
You really can't see any important differences between the actions of sworn law enforcement officers and just random members of the public?
Of course there is a difference.

A LEO has a much easier time getting a warrant than a random member of the public.
  #310  
Old 01-25-2018, 04:01 PM
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 5,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I think quite a few people in this thread are confused about what HIPAA allows. Here is an HHS summary:
Thanks for that. I see nothing in that summary that says anything similar to "Disclose PHI to ICE officials who ask for it"

So, there are times when it is not legal for a doctor to disclose information to LE personnel. Are you against that as well?
  #311  
Old 01-25-2018, 04:10 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 22,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
I am going to continue to assume that sharing it with "random people" is illegal. If I published my employee's personal details on the internet, I've gotta be breaking some laws. If not, there should be some laws I am breaking.
You are perfectly free to assume that statutes require the application of common sense under penalty of law, but I do not make such an assumption.

Quote:
And what is a lawyer going to do?
Do their magic law-talkin' thing where they insist that if they want to talk to you, they must do it through your attorney.

Quote:
You are raising the nature of the infraction from working without proper paperwork to a serial murderer or a rape of your sister in order to make an emotional plea.
You concocted a fanciful scenario as a Hail Mary to make a reasonable situation into an unreasonable one. Now you complain that adding more "facts" to the scenario is unfair? I say, "HA!" Nay, I say "HA-HA-HA!"

Quote:
If someone raped my sister, and I could help the police, I would turn over whatever info I could, even if that was illegal and I ended up in jail. If you are trying to make this about emotional pleas, are you saying that fear of legal punishment would prevent you from helping LEO catch your sister's rapist?
I'm saying that you shouldn't end up in jail for such things. See, I'm trying to save you from resorting to a life of crime.

Quote:
When they say "Why won't you let us take a look around, if you have nothing to hide?" The response "Property rights." is not going to get you anything.
Yeah, it tells them to take a hike.
  #312  
Old 01-25-2018, 04:22 PM
Evil Economist Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I'm saying that you shouldn't end up in jail for such things. See, I'm trying to save you from resorting to a life of crime.
Rest easy--AB450 doesn't apply criminal penalties. If you're that desperate to share other people's personal information, then go ahead. Worst case, you'll get a fine.
__________________
Lazy. Ignorant. Incompetent. Liar. Fraud. Adulterer. Rapist. Narcissist. Draft dodger. Urine aficionado. Fucking moron. National disgrace.
  #313  
Old 01-25-2018, 04:24 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 7,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Thanks for that. I see nothing in that summary that says anything similar to "Disclose PHI to ICE officials who ask for it"
Did you see the part about reporting evidence of a crime?

Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
So, there are times when it is not legal for a doctor to disclose information to LE personnel. Are you against that as well?
I don't have a strong opinion about HIPAA.
  #314  
Old 01-25-2018, 04:25 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 22,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Economist View Post
Rest easy--AB450 doesn't apply criminal penalties. If you're that desperate to share other people's personal information, then go ahead. Worst case, you'll get a fine.
I was referring to k9bfriender's stated willingness to go to jail if required to turn over certain evidence. It's right there in the little quote box.
  #315  
Old 01-25-2018, 04:32 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 6,039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
You are perfectly free to assume that statutes require the application of common sense under penalty of law, but I do not make such an assumption.
If you say so. I will look into it later, but I am very surprised that publishing my employee's name, address, phone number, email address, rate of pay, tax withholding statuses, insurance plans, SSN#, bank routing and account numbers to a public venue would be legal.
Quote:
Do their magic law-talkin' thing where they insist that if they want to talk to you, they must do it through your attorney.
You know that only works on TV shows, right?

Harassment has very specific criteria (that do change from jurisdiction to jurisdiction), and as long as they are not visiting more often than the rules call for harassment (often it's once every other day), your lawyer is just a very expensive was of hearing "There's nothing I can do."
Quote:
You concocted a fanciful scenario as a Hail Mary to make a reasonable situation into an unreasonable one. Now you complain that adding more "facts" to the scenario is unfair? I say, "HA!" Nay, I say "HA-HA-HA!"
No, you created a hypothetical. I did not concoct it. You scenario was that the police told you that your employee is a serial killer. It is not all that fanciful or unreasonable to say that they lie.

Your hypothetical was quite unlikely in the first place. To be honest, it is far more likely that the cops are lying to you than that you know a serial killer.

Your hypothetical was meant to invoke an emotional response. People working without proper documentation doesn't really get the same visceral reaction as serial killer. And that's because they are not the same thing at all. You are having to elevate a minor infraction into a capital crime.
Quote:

I'm saying that you shouldn't end up in jail for such things. See, I'm trying to save you from resorting to a life of crime.
If you think that your neighbor is a rapist, so you break into his house and find evidence of such, I think that you are morally on the right side, but legally not so much.

Sometimes you have to decide between what is right and what is legal.
Quote:
Yeah, it tells them to take a hike.
Have you not actually had any interaction with LEO? They don't take "take a hike" well.
  #316  
Old 01-25-2018, 04:36 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 22,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
No, you created a hypothetical. I did not concoct it. You scenario was that the police told you that your employee is a serial killer. It is not all that fanciful or unreasonable to say that they lie.

Your hypothetical was quite unlikely in the first place. To be honest, it is far more likely that the cops are lying to you than that you know a serial killer.
Have you heard the joke -- I think it is Woody Allen's -- about the odds of a bomb being on a plane are a million to one... and the odds of two bombs being on a plane are a million times a million to one. So next time you fly, cut the odds and take a bomb.

The odds of me employing a serial killer times the odds that the police are lying about it are the million time a million to one. So no, I don't take any of your add-ons to my hypothetical seriously. More importantly, I take your scenario less seriously than you take mine, and that's saying something.
  #317  
Old 01-25-2018, 04:39 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 6,039
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Did you see the part about reporting evidence of a crime?
No

Could you point it out?

Quote:
Under what circumstances may a HIPAA covered entity disclose PHI to law enforcement?
...
To report PHI to a law enforcement official reasonably able to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the health or safety of an individual or the public.

To report PHI that the covered entity in good faith believes to be evidence of a crime that occurred on the premises of the covered entity.
...
When responding to an off-site medical emergency, as necessary to alert law enforcement to criminal activity.
...
To respond to a request for PHI for purposes of identifying or locating a suspect, fugitive, material witness or missing person, but the information must be limited to basic demographic and health information about the person.
There is "covered entity in good faith believes to be evidence of a crime that occurred on the premises of the covered entity." but that is only if the crime is against the health provider or premises, and the only evidence that is turned over is what is deemed in good faith to be evidence about that specific crime.

A bit different and much more specific from "reporting evidence of a crime".
  #318  
Old 01-25-2018, 04:49 PM
Evil Economist Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I was referring to k9bfriender's stated willingness to go to jail if required to turn over certain evidence. It's right there in the little quote box.
Also in the quote box: you saying not to assume criminal penalties apply. Good news: AB450 doesn't apply criminal penalties. (What with AB450 being the topic of discussion, that seems relevant).
__________________
Lazy. Ignorant. Incompetent. Liar. Fraud. Adulterer. Rapist. Narcissist. Draft dodger. Urine aficionado. Fucking moron. National disgrace.
  #319  
Old 01-25-2018, 04:50 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 6,039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Have you heard the joke -- I think it is Woody Allen's -- about the odds of a bomb being on a plane are a million to one... and the odds of two bombs being on a plane are a million times a million to one. So next time you fly, cut the odds and take a bomb.

The odds of me employing a serial killer times the odds that the police are lying about it are the million time a million to one. So no, I don't take any of your add-ons to my hypothetical seriously. More importantly, I take your scenario less seriously than you take mine, and that's saying something.
Well, you made your hypothetical so outlandish that it is hard to really deal with.

I have been lied to by cops. A bunch of times. And they were lying specifically in order to get me to give up information on people or to incriminate myself.

You are claiming that cops lying is as unlikely as employing a serial killer. You have far more faith in LEO than I do.

I am not sure what you mean on the second part, the "odds of me employing a serial killer times the odds that the police are lying about it", as we are not talking about you employing a serial killer, just that the police are lying about it. There is no multiplication there, it's just, what are the odds that the police lie to me?

A more reasonable scenario is that they come in accusing your employee of a much lessor crime. And it is still likely that they will lie to you.
  #320  
Old 01-25-2018, 04:56 PM
Bone Bone is offline
Newbie
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 8,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
I would support that. Too many people don't know their rights, and "accidently" consent to searches, or are bullied or pressured into consenting to searches.

It's a slightly different scenario, as it is specifically your privacy that you are volunteering to give up, not other people's.

I suppose a better law would instead be to say that law enforcement, ICE et al., may not even request cooperation from private individuals without a warrant. I would definitely support that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
You know that only works on TV shows, right?

...


Have you not actually had any interaction with LEO? They don't take "take a hike" well.
I think your view of police and law enforcement is impacting your positions in a way that is unreasonable. You're views on the 4th amendment and the law as it should be are not in line with current jurisprudence - not even close. You're welcome to it of course, but it doesn't match my experience at all. And beyond anecdote, refusal to cooperate or grant consent is pretty widely known bar for law enforcement. The entire jurisprudence around consent, search, fruit of the poisoned tree, etc. is the evidence.
  #321  
Old 01-25-2018, 05:20 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 6,039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
I think your view of police and law enforcement is impacting your positions in a way that is unreasonable.
Are you saying that the police don't ever lie?
Quote:
You're views on the 4th amendment and the law as it should be are not in line with current jurisprudence - not even close.
I'm not sure why you say this. I really don't know what I have posted that is not in line with the law and constitution.
Quote:

You're welcome to it of course, but it doesn't match my experience at all.
I've had excellent experiences with cops too. I know a couple police officers, and have had them as acquaintances.

That doesn't mean that I trust all cops.
Quote:
And beyond anecdote, refusal to cooperate or grant consent is pretty widely known bar for law enforcement. The entire jurisprudence around consent, search, fruit of the poisoned tree, etc. is the evidence.
People don't know their rights as well as you think, and even if they do, they don't know how to stand up for them, and even if they do, then it is the cop's word against theirs.

I've mostly stayed away from the drug scene myself, for many reasons, but given my demographics, many of my peers and prior co-workers do get involved in such activities. Yes, police will try to trick you into giving up your rights, whether it be just on your person, your car, or your home.
  #322  
Old 01-25-2018, 08:01 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 22,592
But I think Bone’s point is that just because you think one thing about cops, doesn’t mean that others who don’t think your way are incapable of making a sound judgment.
  #323  
Old 01-25-2018, 08:10 PM
Bone Bone is offline
Newbie
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 8,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Are you saying that the police don't ever lie?
Of course I'm not saying that and I don't see how anything I've said would lead you to believe that, especially the quoted part. Police are people and people sometimes lie. Whether or not police lie doesn't change the assessment in any way.

Quote:
I'm not sure why you say this. I really don't know what I have posted that is not in line with the law and constitution.
Because you say you'd support a prohibition on police asking for voluntary cooperation. That's pretty far afield of where we are today - your view of the law as it should be. I'm not saying this is what you believe the law actually is.

Other than that, I think I've exhausted the points I wanted to make. I don't think AB450 is good law, and I'll be glad if it is overturned. For now, the status quo is in your favor.
  #324  
Old 01-25-2018, 09:01 PM
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 5,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I don't have a strong opinion about HIPAA.
That's strange because it limits the freedom of Doctors to freely give out information about their patients. Aren't you against that limiting of freedom?
  #325  
Old 01-25-2018, 09:21 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 22,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Economist View Post
Also in the quote box: you saying not to assume criminal penalties apply. Good news: AB450 doesn't apply criminal penalties. (What with AB450 being the topic of discussion, that seems relevant).
Perhaps you want to direct your nitpicking to k9 because he’s the one who raised the issue of going to jail.
  #326  
Old 01-26-2018, 11:55 AM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 6,039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
But I think Bone’s point is that just because you think one thing about cops, doesn’t mean that others who don’t think your way are incapable of making a sound judgment.
I don't know that I made that claim.

I do think that the police have no reason not to lie to get you to comply with what they want you to do. If there are people out there that do not think that cops ever lie in order to manipulate people into doing what they want, then I would say that those people are poorly informed and therefore, can be taken advantage of.

I am not sure if that is what you are calling "incapable of making a sound judgement". If so, then I quibble with the accuracy and the emotional pleading of the specific construction of such a statement, but otherwise agree.

If not, then I disagree entirely that I feel that those who do not thing "my way" are any less capable of making any and all judgments to which they have adequate information and the time and resources to research and make a reasoned decision. When LEO agents are demanding voluntary compliance it is not often that they give you those things.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Of course I'm not saying that and I don't see how anything I've said would lead you to believe that, especially the quoted part. Police are people and people sometimes lie. Whether or not police lie doesn't change the assessment in any way.
You said that my view of police is unreasonable. My view of police is that they will do what they need to do in order to get their jobs done.

On a good day, that doesn't involve them actually breaking any laws themselves, and I will stick with that assumption for the purposes of this discussion, as those who are willing to break the law aren't going to be deterred by laws anyway.

But it is not breaking the law for a cop to lie to an individual. It is not against the law for a cop to lie not only about the elements of a crime, and it is not against the law for a cop to lie about what your rights during the interaction. It is not against the law for the cop to threaten legal punishment for things that are not crimes, and it is not against the law for a cop to offer a plea deal that he has no authority to offer.

One thing that is against the law is for a police officer to request that you break the law.

Quote:

Because you say you'd support a prohibition on police asking for voluntary cooperation. That's pretty far afield of where we are today - your view of the law as it should be. I'm not saying this is what you believe the law actually is.
I'd rather make a law that forbids police from coercing "voluntary cooperation", but I'm not sure how that would work.
Quote:
Other than that, I think I've exhausted the points I wanted to make. I don't think AB450 is good law, and I'll be glad if it is overturned. For now, the status quo is in your favor.
I think that AB450 is not only a good law, it is a law that should serve as a template for reducing the ability for LEO agents to coerce cooperation in many other areas as well.

HD has said that he is interested in promoting such restrictions against federal agencies in his state, and I thoroughly encourage him to do so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Perhaps you want to direct your nitpicking to k9 because he’s the one who raised the issue of going to jail.
I did not say that you would go to jail for violating AB450. I said that if jail was the consequence of bringing my sister's rapist to justice, it is a consequence I would accept.

Last edited by k9bfriender; 01-26-2018 at 11:56 AM.
  #327  
Old 01-26-2018, 12:22 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 7,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
That's strange because it limits the freedom of Doctors to freely give out information about their patients. Aren't you against that limiting of freedom?
HIPAA contains exceptions for disclosing information to law enforcement that mitigate some of my concerns.
  #328  
Old 01-26-2018, 12:24 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 7,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
... HD has said that he is interested in promoting such restrictions against federal agencies in his state, and I thoroughly encourage him to do so. ...
Just to be clear, I think it's a shitty (and probably soon-to-be-overturned) law, and represents a shitty way to run a country, but if it turns out that that's the way we're going to run the country from now on, I'll play by those rules in my state too.
  #329  
Old 01-26-2018, 12:40 PM
Evil Economist Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
HIPAA contains exceptions for disclosing information to law enforcement that mitigate some of my concerns.
We could probably throw in some similar exemptions in AB450 for when a time-critical criminal investigation urgently needs to know how many of a businesses' employees have the right to work in the U.S. I'm sure that comes up a lot. In fact, I'm shuddering thinking of the number of potential serial killers going free in California because it's now slightly more difficult for ICE agents to casually browse employment records.
__________________
Lazy. Ignorant. Incompetent. Liar. Fraud. Adulterer. Rapist. Narcissist. Draft dodger. Urine aficionado. Fucking moron. National disgrace.
  #330  
Old 01-26-2018, 12:41 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 6,039
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
HIPAA contains exceptions for disclosing information to law enforcement that mitigate some of my concerns.
Did you see where I pointed out that they cannot just violate HIPAA to provide evidence of a crime? That those restrictions are very narrow?

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Just to be clear, I think it's a shitty (and probably soon-to-be-overturned) law, and represents a shitty way to run a country, but if it turns out that that's the way we're going to run the country from now on, I'll play by those rules in my state too.
I just don't see what benefit there is in people voluntarily cooperating with law enforcement agencies when those agencies are looking for incriminating information against them. The only reason that I could see someone cooperating is when they do not believe they have a choice, whether that is because they don't know their rights, or they know that their rights aren't worth anything when it comes to persistent LEO's.

The only reason you would invite ICE in to examine your premises and documents is to "prove" that you have nothing to hide. If you have to prove you have nothing to hide, then anyone who does not volunteer to have extra scrutiny looks like they have something to hide. That is specifically what I am against, and it is what I see this law addresses.


I am curious as to what other federal agencies you are thinking of that would operate in a similar manner. I do not believe that there are many agencies that would use such similar techniques as ICE as to be blocked by a similar bill.
  #331  
Old 01-26-2018, 12:44 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 22,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
I don't know that I made that claim.

I do think that the police have no reason not to lie to get you to comply with what they want you to do. If there are people out there that do not think that cops ever lie in order to manipulate people into doing what they want, then I would say that those people are poorly informed and therefore, can be taken advantage of.

I am not sure if that is what you are calling "incapable of making a sound judgement". If so, then I quibble with the accuracy and the emotional pleading of the specific construction of such a statement, but otherwise agree.
You have argued that prohibiting voluntary cooperation with authorities in some circumstances is beneficial because it strengthens the hand for anyone who may be pressured to give voluntary consent to certain searches.

I don’t think this quibble is worth delving into, but I’m sure you would agree that if one is being pressured, caving to the pressure would not be using sound judgment as to the request. I’m saying that the law should not prevent people from using sound judgment, which I would think you’d agree people are capable of if there is no threat of harassment or coercion.

Quote:
I did not say that you would go to jail for violating AB450. I said that if jail was the consequence of bringing my sister's rapist to justice, it is a consequence I would accept.
I understand totally what you’re saying, and I’m basically reinforcing it. The other poster accused me making an error that AB450 has criminal penalties. That criticism was off base because you and I were clearly talking about some other hypothetical law that would have criminal penalties associated, and the other poster simply wasn’t following our train of conversation.
  #332  
Old 01-26-2018, 12:52 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 7,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Did you see where I pointed out that they cannot just violate HIPAA to provide evidence of a crime? That those restrictions are very narrow?
Yes, I'm not sure we share the same definition of "very narrow". It's not unlimited, but it's not so restrictive as to effectively prohibit voluntary cooperation with law enforcement, which is what your earlier statement suggested.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
I am curious as to what other federal agencies you are thinking of that would operate in a similar manner. I do not believe that there are many agencies that would use such similar techniques as ICE as to be blocked by a similar bill.
By "operate in a similar manner" and "use such similar techniques" are you meaning things like "ask to step into your office" or "ask for information"? Most law enforcement agencies will routinely ask for consent. Earlier I think I called it "mundane". It's incredibly common. It happens every single day, in all 50 states (probably hundreds of thousands or millions of times each day).

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 01-26-2018 at 12:53 PM.
  #333  
Old 01-26-2018, 01:23 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 6,039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
You have argued that prohibiting voluntary cooperation with authorities in some circumstances is beneficial because it strengthens the hand for anyone who may be pressured to give voluntary consent to certain searches.

I don’t think this quibble is worth delving into, but I’m sure you would agree that if one is being pressured, caving to the pressure would not be using sound judgment as to the request. I’m saying that the law should not prevent people from using sound judgment, which I would think you’d agree people are capable of if there is no threat of harassment or coercion.
How do you determine when there is or is not harassment and coercion?

I would say that if a LEO is asking for something that he needs a warrant to demand, that's a request.

If he asks twice, or in any way indicates that there would be consequences for not complying, that's coercion and harassment.

(Both definitions are not intended to be legal definitions, but the rather the more colloquial definition, and the definition that matters for how people react to being coerced and harrassed.)



Quote:
I understand totally what you’re saying, and I’m basically reinforcing it. The other poster accused me making an error that AB450 has criminal penalties. That criticism was off base because you and I were clearly talking about some other hypothetical law that would have criminal penalties associated, and the other poster simply wasn’t following our train of conversation.
Yeah, sorry, I was reinforcing what you said, as well. It did seem as though he missed something somewhere in the exchange, and made an assumption that one or both of us was indicating that jail was a potential penalty for violating AB450.
  #334  
Old 01-26-2018, 01:27 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 7,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Economist View Post
We could probably throw in some similar exemptions in AB450 for when a time-critical criminal investigation urgently needs to know how many of a businesses' employees have the right to work in the U.S. I'm sure that comes up a lot. In fact, I'm shuddering thinking of the number of potential serial killers going free in California because it's now slightly more difficult for ICE agents to casually browse employment records.
The exception I'd like to focus on is this one:

Quote:
To report PHI that the covered entity in good faith believes to be evidence of a crime that occurred on the premises of the covered entity.
How would you right an equivalent for ICE and AB450? Perhaps something like this:

Quote:
SEC. 2. Section 7285.2 is added to the Government Code, to read:
7285.2. (a) (1) Except as otherwise required by federal law, and except as provided in paragraph (2), an employer, or a person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not provide voluntary consent to an immigration enforcement agent to access, review, or obtain the employer’s employee records without a subpoena or judicial warrant. This section does not prohibit an employer, or person acting on behalf of an employer, from challenging the validity of a subpoena or judicial warrant in a federal district court.
(2) This subdivision shall not apply to I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification forms and other documents for which a Notice of Inspection has been provided to the employer.
(b) An employer who violates subdivision (a) shall be subject to a civil penalty of two thousand dollars ($2,000) up to five thousand dollars ($5,000) for a first violation and five thousand dollars ($5,000) up to ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for each subsequent violation. If a court finds that an immigration enforcement agent was permitted to access, review, or obtain the employer’s employee records without the consent of the employer or other person in control of the place of labor, the civil penalty shall not apply. “Violation” means each incident when it is found that subdivision (a) was violated without reference to the number of employees, the number of immigration enforcement agents involved in the incident, or the number of employee records accessed, reviewed, or obtained.
(c) The exclusive authority to enforce this section is granted to the Labor Commissioner or the Attorney General and enforcement shall be through civil action. Any penalty recovered shall be deposited in the Labor Enforcement and Compliance Fund.
(d) This section applies to public and private employers.
(e) This subdivision shall not apply to voluntary consent provided to an immigration enforcement agent to access, review, or obtain the employer’s employee records when an employer, or a person acting on behalf of the employer, in good faith believes the employee records contain evidence of a violation of immigration law that occurred on the premises of the employer's place of business.
  #335  
Old 01-26-2018, 01:32 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 22,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
How do you determine when there is or is not harassment and coercion?

I would say that if a LEO is asking for something that he needs a warrant to demand, that's a request.

If he asks twice, or in any way indicates that there would be consequences for not complying, that's coercion and harassment.

(Both definitions are not intended to be legal definitions, but the rather the more colloquial definition, and the definition that matters for how people react to being coerced and harrassed.).
I think it depends on the circumstances. If a LEO asks for access a few times, and then says something like, “I won’t be happy if you say no again!” I would not call that harassment.

If there’s something more substantial, like maybe following the business owner home, late night phone calls, or things like that, I think we are crossing into harassment. And once we get into pulling the business owner over and detaining them for “you didn’t stop at that sign,” now we are clearly talking harassment.

I don’t know how my opinion squares with the actual law, but that’s my general opinion.
  #336  
Old 01-26-2018, 01:33 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 6,039
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Yes, I'm not sure we share the same definition of "very narrow". It's not unlimited, but it's not so restrictive as to effectively prohibit voluntary cooperation with law enforcement, which is what your earlier statement suggested.
Yes, it is. The only time it can be given is under those very specific circumstances, which does effectively prohibit voluntary cooperation. It is only if the there is a serious and imminent threat, or the crime is against the actual healthcare provider or premises that the can turn over that information, and that, only what is specifically needed as evidence for that crime.

That's pretty narrow. If the police ask about pretty much anything else, the healthcare providers may not respond. If they are asking, "Hey, we know that the serial killer last night cut his hand on the window, did this patient have a cut on his hand?" They may only respond with, "We can only provide personal health information of a patient in response to a warrant."
Quote:


By "operate in a similar manner" and "use such similar techniques" are you meaning things like "ask to step into your office" or "ask for information"? Most law enforcement agencies will routinely ask for consent. Earlier I think I called it "mundane". It's incredibly common. It happens every single day, in all 50 states (probably hundreds of thousands or millions of times each day).
You were talking about federal agencies like BLM and BATFE (talk about government expansion, I remember when that was a three letter agency), and I don't know exactly what sorts of things they enforce or their techniques.

If they are going to private individuals or businesses, and putting pressure on them to turn over things that they may not demand without a warrant, then I would absolutely agree that a similar law would protect the people of your state from law enforcement overreach.

If there are laws that require people to cooperate with those agencies, or if those agencies have warrants for the information they request, that's a whole different matter.
  #337  
Old 01-26-2018, 01:49 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 6,039
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
The exception I'd like to focus on is this one:



How would you right an equivalent for ICE and AB450? Perhaps something like this:
Well, I would make some changes.

(e) This subdivision shall not apply to voluntary consent provided to an immigration enforcement agent to access, review, or obtain the employer’s employee records when an employer, or a person acting on behalf of the employer, in good faith believes the employee records contain evidence of criminal activity that occurred on the premises of the employer's place of business, or to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the health or safety of an individual or the public.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I think it depends on the circumstances. If a LEO asks for access a few times, and then says something like, “I won’t be happy if you say no again!” I would not call that harassment.
I would certainly call that coercion.

Quote:
co·er·cion
noun
the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.
Quote:
If there’s something more substantial, like maybe following the business owner home, late night phone calls, or things like that, I think we are crossing into harassment. And once we get into pulling the business owner over and detaining them for “you didn’t stop at that sign,” now we are clearly talking harassment.

I don’t know how my opinion squares with the actual law, but that’s my general opinion.
The legal definition
Quote:
harassment
(either harris-meant or huh-rass-meant) n. the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands
is a bit more in line with your opinion than mine, but it doesn't require that the behavior continue off premises. If they are unwanted and come into your business regularly, that's harassment.

My personal opinion is that it becomes harassment after the first time you indicate that you will not cooperate with them, and they continue to ask anyway.
  #338  
Old 01-26-2018, 02:48 PM
Evil Economist Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
How would you right an equivalent for ICE and AB450? Perhaps something like this:
(e) This subdivision shall not apply to voluntary consent provided to an immigration enforcement agent to access, review, or obtain the employer’s employee records when an employer, or a person acting on behalf of the employer, in good faith believes the employee records contain evidence of a violation of immigration law that occurred on the premises of the employer's place of business.
Ugh, no. Absolutely no reason ICE couldn't get a warrant in those circumstances, if the employee's good faith belief had anything to support it. I don't see any need for urgency here, either.
__________________
Lazy. Ignorant. Incompetent. Liar. Fraud. Adulterer. Rapist. Narcissist. Draft dodger. Urine aficionado. Fucking moron. National disgrace.
  #339  
Old 02-11-2018, 02:26 PM
jayjay jayjay is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Central Pennsylvania
Posts: 36,227
Bumped for new federal ruling that extended detention based solely on ICE request is unconstitutional.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:49 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017