|
NOTE: This message was sent thru a mail2news gateway.
No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender.
--------------------------------------------------------
Gerald,
(below as the mystery thickens regarding this "Psychologist"
frustrated patient wrote:
<snip>
<snip>
Hard to say without knowing what the "personal and confidential"
information was. In these days of HIPAA, practitioners are careful about
gaining specific consent and presenting patients with the required HIPAA
privacy notices. You may have told him that certain information was
confidential, but "confidential", to a practitioner, normally means what
should really go without saying - confidential when not necessary for
treatment or required by law.
In mental health, certain intimate information may well be felt
necessary when referring to other practitioners, just as a physician
would inform the orthopoedic about a patient's diabetes when they are to
have their broken leg treated.
I don't think this falls under HIPAA. You may want to inquire at your
state's certifying authority for clinical psychologists.
This former therapist who claims to be a "Psychologist" (website, business
letterhead etc.) is not licensed in my state to call himself a
Psychologist. I checked both online and then verified it by a phone call
to the Education Department that issues licenses. He also teaches besides
private practice (he was paid in cash) and my current therapist, an MSW was
his student.
He was a nice person and I hate to stir up animosity however I find all of
this very strange. There is also no listing of any complaints against him
on the state's licensing bureau website. The Dean of the college where he
got his PhD. (or so he said) has told me that graduates of their PhD
program have no problems in being licensed in my state. This brings up a
real can of worms. Someone is not being honest and his giving out
"physical" information about me to the MSW I feel was a violation of
privacy (it was not his domain) and had nothing to do with my diagnosis.
more frustrated than ever...
I have again contacted the licensing board.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you consider the content of this post to be particularly offensive,
disgusting or plain illegal,
it is probably 'designer abuse', a message designed specifically to hurt the
remailer's reputation/existence.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6THHPRAL38002.4374074074%40anonymous&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
Some people hate this remailer so badly that, for example, they did not hesitate
to celebrate the death of 148 French tourists in a plane crash.
Those people seceded from the human race, so don't hesitate to report them
directly to the police.
2004/01/03 (contact <abuse@cotse.com>) Blue.Jay celebrates
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Ymx1ZWpheQ%3D%3D.19d787f018eb3019d6fd3faa2125547c%401073158846.cotse.net&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
2004/01/19 <rabbi@thetis.deor.org> Len Sassaman chooses that moment to bring his
support to Blue.Jay
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.58.0401181826110.31463%40thetis.deor.org&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
More about the subject will be available http://frogadmin.yi.org/HOS/
|
| |
| |
frustrated patient wrote:
This former therapist who claims to be a "Psychologist" (website, business
letterhead etc.) is not licensed in my state to call himself a
Psychologist. I checked both online and then verified it by a phone call
to the Education Department that issues licenses. He also teaches besides
private practice (he was paid in cash) and my current therapist, an MSW was
his student.
The "Education Department" issues licenses? Shouldn't it be the
Health Department?
--
This account is subject to a persistent MS Blaster and SWEN attack.
I think I've got the problem resolved, but, if you E-mail me
and it bounces, a second try might work.
However, please reply in newsgroup.
|
| |
| |
This is a legal question related ONLY to the remailer. I'm
using "reply" so as to keep the original article in the
chain.
frustrated patient wrote:
NOTE: This message was sent thru a mail2news gateway.
No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender.
....
If you consider the content of this post to be particularly offensive,
disgusting or plain illegal,
it is probably 'designer abuse', a message designed specifically to hurt the
remailer's reputation/existence.
Suppose that an article posted through the remailer IS illegal
or libelous. As this remailer removes (or fails to keep)
header information which might identify the originator, isn't
the remailer itself legally responsible for the content?
--
This account is subject to a persistent MS Blaster and SWEN attack.
I think I've got the problem resolved, but, if you E-mail me
and it bounces, a second try might work.
However, please reply in newsgroup.
|
| |
| |
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 17:13:33 -0500, "Arthur L. Rubin"
<ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote:
This is a legal question related ONLY to the remailer. I'm
using "reply" so as to keep the original article in the
chain.
frustrated patient wrote:
NOTE: This message was sent thru a mail2news gateway.
No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender.
...
If you consider the content of this post to be particularly offensive,
disgusting or plain illegal,
it is probably 'designer abuse', a message designed specifically to hurt the
remailer's reputation/existence.
Suppose that an article posted through the remailer IS illegal
or libelous. As this remailer removes (or fails to keep)
header information which might identify the originator, isn't
the remailer itself legally responsible for the content?
I would imagine that would depend on the jurisdiction deciding the case. The
remailer in question is in France, so there is a relatively short period of time
to file suit. However, I don't believe the specific issue of remailer liability
has been decided.
In the UK, the Godfrey v. Demon Internet Limited case would seem to be
controlling (unless it has been legislatively done away with which I am not
aware of). This imposes liability for third party content squarely on the
shoulders of the ISP.
In the US, though, while prior case law would impose such liability in the case
editorial control was exercised over the content (Stratton Oakmont v. Progidy
[1995] N.Y. Misc. Lexis 229;23 Media L. Rep 1794), this was specifically done
away with legislatively by the so-called anti-Stratton Oakmont provision of the
Communication Decency Act (47 USC 230(c)(1)). This has so far been held to be
Constitutional, and to effectively obliterate all third party liability for
defamatory material. While I can't imagine this situation will exist
indefinitely, it does currently.
(A recent minority opinion of the Ninth Circuit seems to indicate growing
judicial dissatisfaction with this interpretation of 230(c)(1). The case is
Batzel v. Cremers.
http://www.stimmel-law.com/newsletters/Web%20Libel%20New%20Case%20Law.pdf
)While I am no fan of libel law or defamation law in general, I cannot imagine
the courts will indefinitely tolerate a situation that leaves innocent third
parties with no recourse against the damages caused by libel. The current
situation allows a malicious party to collect the defamatory statements of
others and willfully publish them, even apparently if knowing they are false,
and to do this with total impunity. Eventually a case too egregious to be
tolerated will come along. (Batzel v. Cremers may be that case if it hits the
Supreme Court.)
Regardless, whether a remailer operator can be liable for third party content,
especially when including a fairly extensive disclaimer, is a question yet to be
answered (unless I've missed something). I would imagine that material coming
from a remailer is automatically less credible than material from other sources
and it might be difficult to find anyone who will testify to having believed or
acted upon information from an inherently dubious source.
IANAL, YMMV, other disclaimers apply.
|
| |
| |
Arthur L. Rubin <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote:
Suppose that an article posted through the remailer IS illegal
or libelous. As this remailer removes (or fails to keep)
header information which might identify the originator, isn't
the remailer itself legally responsible for the content?
An interesting question. So far, the courts have held that someone
who maintains a bulletin board or similar forum for posting material
is not responsible *as long as they don't edit the content*.
That's per the DMCA, as I understand it. It specifically immunized
those who, like Yahoo! or Streamload provide a semi-public file
storage facility. It's not clear what happens if the remailer
intentionally strips all identifying info and doesn't keep any method
of tracing the original poster, but the language of the DMCA _appears_
to immunize them -- both against copyright infringement and against
defamation. The only requirement is that they promptly remove the
offending material when notified of the violation. In the case of a
remailer, there is no long-term storage for them to remove it from.
Anybody know of a court case that applies?
--
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and
to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples, promising
liberty and justice for all.
|
| |
| |
Arthur L. Rubin wrote:
Suppose that an article posted through the remailer IS illegal
or libelous. As this remailer removes (or fails to keep)
header information which might identify the originator, isn't
the remailer itself legally responsible for the content?
If I recall correctly, anon.pnet.fi was shut down by the
scientologists for copyright violation, even though it
retained tracking information....
--
This account is subject to a persistent MS Blaster and SWEN attack.
I think I've got the problem resolved, but, if you E-mail me
and it bounces, a second try might work.
However, please reply in newsgroup.
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:04:52 -0500, "Arthur L. Rubin"
<ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote:
Arthur L. Rubin wrote:
Suppose that an article posted through the remailer IS illegal
or libelous. As this remailer removes (or fails to keep)
header information which might identify the originator, isn't
the remailer itself legally responsible for the content?
If I recall correctly, anon.pnet.fi was shut down by the
scientologists for copyright violation, even though it
retained tracking information....
This is not entirely true. Johan Helsingius, the operator of anon.penet.fi, was
ordered to turn over identifying information of a user. He decided that he
could no long in good faith offer the service if he could no longer guarantee
the privacy of his users. (In the specific case, the "identifying information"
turned out to be another remailer.)
While the anon.penet.fi site no longer exists, Helsingius offered some
explanation:
http://web.archive.org/web/20030621133708/www.penet.fi/injuncl.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20030707012811/http://www.penet.fi/press-english.html
There was another, previous instance related to the Church of Scientology in
which Helsingius was forced to identify a user. This was not, however,
copyright-related, but involved claims of stolen information.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink/cos/rnewman/anon/penet.html explains the whole
history between Helsingius and Scientology. Because the officer in charge of
the case, Kaj Malmberg, was very open and forthright about what was going on
with it, it is very well-documented. The events themselves, however, are too
confusing and complex to encapsulate easily, and would be off-topic if described
at great length.
In short, anon.penet.fi was not ordered closed, but its operator chose to close
it after being forced to disclose identifying information related to a user of
his system. It should also be noted that this case preceded the U.S. DMCA and
in any case, the DMCA would not have been relevant to Finland.
|
| |
| |
In article <bark20lgkajffop3pau1socvrpuhfa0cls@4ax.com>,
Arthur L. Rubin <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote:
Arthur L. Rubin wrote:
If I recall correctly, anon.pnet.fi was shut down by the
scientologists for copyright violation, even though it
retained tracking information....
Not exactly.
The scientologists fraudulently got the local police to demand (and
get) one user's real information from anon.penet.fi. (I believe that
user (was) subsequently disappeared without trace.) As a result of
the violation of privacy, anon.penet.fi was shut down by the person
running it, as he had pledged to do should such privacy violation
occur.
Seth
|
| |
| |
According to Arthur L. Rubin <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com>:
If I recall correctly, anon.pnet.fi was shut down by the
scientologists for copyright violation, even though it
retained tracking information....
I believe the owner of that site took it down voluntarily
in the wake of that incident, because he felt he could no
longer assure users that their personal information would
be kept sufficiently secure.
--
Dave Wallace(Remove NOSPAM from my address to email me)
It is quite humbling to realize that the storage occupied by the longest
line from a typical Usenet posting is sufficient to provide a state space
so vast that all the computation power in the world can not conquer it.
|
| |
| |
|
