How Do You Feel About Being Under Surveillance?

Post Reply New Topic

There already has been an issue about information access between some curebies and the CDC.
http://www.aapsonline.org/vaccines/geierirb.pdf

One of the reasons originally that people were objecting to the passage of this bill - It provdes funding for all kinds of research and with the database and also mandatory screening there will be lots of potential participants. Is there an opt out for people who don't want their kids info in there?

My reading of the document indicates that the CDC was concerned that this organization was trying to merge datasets to identify the patients. The organization clams that the datasets did not have any personally identifying information. The documents are saying to me that the CDC will share their data, but under no circumstances will reveal any identifying information, which is the position I would expect them to take. It appears that Kaiser, a big HMO, probably supplied the data about the patients receiving the vaccines. I am more concerned about for-profit Kaiser.

I think curing austism is a pipe dream right now and probably will remain so because it appears that there are over 100 genes involved. These parents groups are disturbing and I have had my run-ins with them beginning 15 years ago regarding "recovered" auties and their erroneous belief that if you quack like a duck, you are a duck. In other worlds, extreme behavior modification to make your child act like normal will make him "normal." Kids were denied food and practically totured for 12 hours a day with this stuff.

The thing that I am bothered about - and truly frightens me - is a genetic test for autism which will cause abortions of fetuses that may develop autism. That is a truly horrifying thought. Much more dangerous than a bunch of nutty parents.

As for opt-outs, I'm not sure. The insurance companies want to get rid of anything that cost money to treat. I have no idea what information they would share to do so. Centers of Excellence are basically university chairs and a bunch of grant money. Some of that money will surely go for research into treatments and understanding austim, which they don't even understand at this point. I just don't expect much. They've been promising a cure for juvnile-onset diabetes for 50 years and haven't come close. It is a much simplier auto-immune disease.

I am in total agreement about NOT curing AS. I am offended that a group wants to change my personality. They can just get over that idea.

Well they very well could pass pre-natal testing, the nuerological ethnic cleansing that groups like Autism speaks, Cure Autism Now, and Autism Society are working towards.
If they pass pre natal testing, Aspies MUST work towards the goal of Aspergia, our own civilization, so that we may keep our culture and our people alive.
I know, it's scary, but civil rights struggles have never been easy. But they have always been neccessary, and still are. I'd hope that things could remain peaceful, but if NTs wished to bully us more we would have to defend ourselves. I would prefer peaceful integration however I am willing to die for my honor if it ever becomes neccessary. At this point things aren't THAT bad, what we face at the current time is an active, but passive-agressive form of discrimination.

If the US ever passes mandatory prenatal testing, I'm moving to Mexico and will be just another loco gringo speaking bad Spanish and everyone will talk to me like I am 5 years old very slowly and that will be fine with me. I'm more worried about Europe doing something like that. We have those fundy Christians who hate abortions so I'm skeptical about forced prenatal testing and abortion happening here. The insurance companies would want it and probably convince people it is the right thing to do. People are so selfish. How do you cure that?

Re marriage - don't most couples make an appointment with a doctor together, so they can discover whatever, including blood types which might cross re babies, and so on, including social diseases? If they're together, doc tells them both. Or was that only in the olden days?

I'm having trouble visualizing what survelliance would actually entail, realistically... Are we talking about employment/academic history, or more big brother than that?

It's actually jargon:

"Epidemiological surveillance is the systematic collection, analysis, and dissemination of health data for the planning, implementation, and evaluation of public health programs."

They look for disease vectors by crunching a lot of datapoints. They're probably going to suggest that autism is not environmental and hopefully will shut up the enviro-cause parental crusaders who can't bear the thought that they are the genetic disease vectors.

That always varied state by state and now they can give them something for RH+/- situations. And no, they would not tell one that in front of the other and never did. We had to have blood tests and they told us nothing. I don't even recall if we were ever told about the RH factor. Maybe they called you if it was a problem. But you didn't meet with a doctor afterward, no.

Actually many acts could include this if it were just jargon but use other wording. They don't use surveillance. Surveillance has been used in acts regarding terrorism and drugs though.

For instance, in the Fair Credit Reporting act, they can share data or information with other financial institutions, lenders, the government, employers (if you sign a release), etc. There are specifics about how you must go about getting incorrect information taken off a credit report. There's nothing about surveillance.

Even reporting transactions over $10,000 in cash to the government was never worded surveillance although that is what they are doing (looking for organized crim, drugs, etc.)

HIPPA is not worded this way although data is collected and disbursed on your health. For instance for insurance, employment, to other doctors, the CDC, etc.

Even Sarbanes Oxley act which probably should have been worded this way was not.

Words in acts are not chosen arbitrarily since they become law and judges have to interpret from them. I can tell you right now, that if you watched you in your house, because of the wording, no judge would stop them. They would be allowed to do so. That's why lawmakers are careful with wording. It makes all the difference in the legal system regarding how it is interpreted and enforced.

It's surprising they would use such a word.

I don't think they meet together, but it is ILLEGAL for the doctor to tell any but the patient about aids, EVEN if they are married!! !! !!

Steve

But Christians DO like symbology, expression, etc.... and the law is DENYING them that!

Steve

Here are the various acts including the term Surveillance:

FCC- Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act – CALEA – 1994 – Made in response to emerging technology and allows for surveillance of such in the aid of law enforcement. Manufacturers and services had to modify services and equipment to allow officers to ensure they had necessary surveillance capabilities. This requires a warrant.

National Security Surveillance Act – NSSA – 2006 - Further expands the scope and power of the Patriot Act. Storing patterns of phone calls and emails no longer considered surveillance. Took away the acts that limited presidential power for unlimited wire tapping, etc. to 15 days after declared war, basically allowing it even in undeclared military actions.

Patriot Act – 2001 – Enhances surveillances tools and techniques as well as relaxes restrictions on when they can be used to increase the government’s ability to track potential terrorists and close loopholes terrorists were using to get around the system.


Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act – FISA – 1978 - “Judicial involvement in deciding whether to issue orders permitting this type of surveillance is both covert and minimal. Instead of requiring probable cause, surveillance orders are issued on a certification by the Attorney General that has nothing to do with probable cause.” (from Jurist http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew40.htm) For example, this allows roving wiretaps not needed for intelligence gathering under the expanded rules of the Patriot Act.

MAMMOGRAPHY QUALITY STANDARDS ACT (MQSA)
(AS AMENDED BY MQSRA of 1998 and 2004) – The Secretary shall award grants to such entities as the Secretary may determine to be appropriate to establish surveillance systems in selected geographic areas to provide data to evaluate the functioning and effectiveness of breast cancer screening programs in the United States, including assessments of participation rates in screening mammography, diagnostic procedures, incidence of breast cancer, mode of detection (mammography screening or other methods), outcome and follow up information, and such related epidemiologic analyses that may improve early cancer detection and contribute to reduction in breast cancer mortality. Grants may be awarded for further research on breast cancer surveillance systems upon the Secretary's review of the evaluation of the program.


Very specific in scope, nature, use and restriction of surveillance, however now we are getting close to the line. This act is very long and detailed. It is under jurisdiction of the FDA.

Combating Autism Act of 2006 – S. 843 – Provides for federal funding to find the causes for, develop interventions for and assist with information sharing for the intervention and treatment of Autism.

Specific to Surveillance.

‘‘PART R—PROGRAMS RELATING TO AUTISM
‘‘SEC. 399AA. DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES SURVEILLANCE AND
RESEARCH PROGRAM.
‘‘(a) AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDER AND OTHER DEVELOPMENTAL
DISABILITIES.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, acting through the
Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
may award grants or cooperative agreements to eligible entities
for the collection, analysis, and reporting of State epidemiological
data on autism spectrum disorder and other developmental
disabilities. An eligible entity shall assist with the development
and coordination of State autism spectrum disorder and other
developmental disability surveillance efforts within a region.
In making such awards, the Secretary may provide direct technical
assistance in lieu of cash.
‘‘(2) DATA STANDARDS.—In submitting epidemiological data
to the Secretary pursuant to paragraph (1), an eligible entity
shall report data according to guidelines prescribed by the
Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
after consultation with relevant State and local public health
officials, private sector developmental disability researchers,
and advocates for individuals with autism spectrum disorder
or other developmental disabilities.
‘‘(3) ELIGIBILITY.—To be eligible to receive an award under
paragraph (1), an entity shall be a public or nonprofit private
entity (including a health department of a State or a political
subdivision of a State, a university, or any other educational
institution), and submit to the Secretary an application at
such time, in such manner, and containing such information
as the Secretary may require.
‘‘(b) CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE IN AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDER
EPIDEMIOLOGY.—
42 USC 280i.
Deadline.
Reports.
42 USC 283j.
VerDate 14-DEC-2004 19:00 Dec 22, 2006 Jkt 059139 PO 00416 Frm 00002 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL416.109 APPS24 PsN: PUBL416

Further defined as:

‘‘(C) The center will identify eligible cases and controls
through its surveillance system and conduct research into
factors which may cause or increase the risk of autism
spectrum disorder and other developmental disabilities.



These centers according to the above can be developed by private organizations. Pretty loose monitoring on this one. The CDC is only monitoring the data they receive from these organizations. Unlike most acts, there is no specificity regarding what surveillance can be used to identify eligible cases and controls. That's highly unusual. Most acts run into hundreds of pages, but this one is ten. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin ... 16.109.pdf

Well I think the hypothetical situation was about meeting someone who is already HIV+.

If you were sleeping together, she would have to, at least in those countries where - as you yourself have acknowledged seems to be the case in the USA - it is a punishable offence to knowingly infect someone with an STD (or with a lethal STD).

If it is a pubishable offence (i.e. they are acting illegally by sleeping with someone and withholding information about their positive HIV status etc.) then that means they HAVE to inform you. Why else do you think it is illegal/punishable NOT to inform a partner?

Marriage laws vary by state. Please check your state's laws before coming to a conclusion. Many states require STD tests before granting a license.

Epidemiological surveillance is a specific term with a specific meaning. The CDC is a public health agency concerned with epidemiology. More epidemiological surveillance is conducted by the World Health Organization than any other agency. I don't see the logic of extending a specific term into the broad definition when it was intended to apply to the CDC's efforts, which are epidemiological in focus.

The NSA could care less about autism. I don't see any reason to expand the narrow meaning of epidemiological surveillance to being "watched" by the federal government. These kind of laws (like our IDEA law) originate because angry parents who vote, and who are contributors to political campaigns, call their congressmen and demand them. They are written up and passed because the congressmen all pass each other's laws, and then the president signs them. His staff writes a press release to show he is such a caring guy. Blah, blah, blah, yada, yada, yada. He doesn't care.

Law enforcement doesn't care that your kid is autistic, unless he commits a crime. If your kid is an autistic muslim who frequently travels to Pakastan, then they might care.

But if you want to confuse them, just give your child a new social security number every time you see a new doctor. That will create multiple entries in the database and make it hard for anyone to track him. I do this for myself, but for other reasons. I frankly don't like the idea of having a big chunk of my health data being accessable to insurance companies. Although last time I visited a doctor (for a simple UTI), they wanted a copy of my driver's license which contains my SSN. Big Brother Insurance Company is watching you.