From New York City Patch: Two Brooklyn politicians want cops to examine New Yorkers’ online activity to prevent more hate-fueled tragedies like the Pittsburgh synagogue massacre. State Sen. Kevin Parker and Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams proposed legislation Friday that would incorporate social media accounts into background checks for gun buyers.
They argue doing so would help law enforcement authorities spot dangerous people like Robert Bowers, who reportedly declared his hatred for Jewish people online before allegedly killing 11 people last Saturday.
“You would have thought this person was a model citizen until you examined his social media profile,” said Adams, a Democrat. “And you would have noticed he was not a model citizen, he was a broken citizen that was a time bomb that was waiting to explode.”
The pair of bills would empower the New York State Police and local departments like the NYPD to checkthree years of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Snapchat activity for anyone applying for a gun license in New York, Parker said.
Authorities would flag anything that is an “immediate threat to public safety,” he said. Gun buyers would also have to let police comb through a year’s worth of their search engine histories under the legislation.
The state’s SAFE Act — known as one of the nation’s toughest gun laws — requires instant federal background checks for all gun sales except those between immediate family members. But lawmakers have to do more in the wake of recent hate crimes such as the Pittsburgh shooting, Parker said.
“We certainly want to make sure that we’re adding to the protections that we need to make sure that people that we’re putting handguns and rifles and shotguns in the possession, that they in fact are the people that are using them in the right way,” Parker said.
The syngagogue massacre, in which 11 people died, came just a day after federal authorities arrested Cesar Sayoc, the Florida man accused of mailing bombs to high-profile Democratic figures. Sayoc had searched for his targets’ addresses online, federal prosecutors allege.
Lawmakers are still working out exactly how law-enforcement officials would go about accessing social media profiles that are not publicly viewable, Parker said, though he noted the legislation would require gun buyers to make their profiles available.
“We’re going look at what’s in the universe already and use that as one of the tools to determine the profile of a person who’s attempting to purchase a handgun,” Adams said.
The Trump White House insider who calls himself Q has repeatedly posted about military tribunals and sealed indictments, now numbering an extraordinary 40,483 as of June 30, 2018.
Military tribunals in the United States are military courts designed to try members of enemy forces during wartime, operating outside the scope of conventional criminal and civil proceedings. The judges are military officers and fulfill the role of jurors. Military tribunals are not courts martial.
On September 5, 2018, during Day 2 of the Senate confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) asked Kavanaugh a series of very interesting questions that seem to make a case for American citizens being subject to military tribunals.
In the event that YouTube is censoring the video, you can watch the exchange on C-SPAN here.
Here’s my transcript of the Graham-Kavanaugh Q & A:
Graham: So when somebody says, post-9/11, that we’d been at war, and it’s called the War on Terrorism, do you generally agree with that concept?
Kavanaugh: I do, senator, because Congress passed the authorization for use of military force, which is still in effect. That was passed, of course, on September 14, 2001, three days later.
Graham: Let’s talk about the law and war. Is there a body of law called the law of armed conflict?
Kavanaugh: There is such a body, senator.
Graham: A body of law that’s called basic criminal law?
Kavanaugh: Yes, senator.
Graham: Are there differences between those two bodies of law?
Kavanaugh: Yes, senator.
Graham: From an American citizen’s point of view, do your constitutional rights follow you? If you’re in Paris, does the Fourth Amendment protect you as an American from your own government?
Kavanaugh: From your own government, yes.
Graham: So, if you’re in Afghanistan, do your constitutional rights protect you against your own government?
Kavanaugh: If you’re an American in Afghanistan, you have constitutional rights as against the U.S. government.
Graham: Isn’t there also a long settled law that goes back to the Eisentrager case (I can’t remember the name of it)….
Graham: Right, that American citizens who collaborate with the enemy are considered enemy combatants?
Kavanaugh: They can be, they’re often, sometimes criminally prosecuted, sometimes treated in the military.
Graham: Let’s talk about can be. I think there’s a Supreme Court decision that said that American citizens who collaborated with Nazi saboteurs were tried by the military, is that correct?
Kavanaugh: That is correct.
Graham: I think a couple of them were executed.
Graham: So, if anybody doubts there’s a longstanding history in this country that your constitutional rights follow you wherever you go, but you don’t have a constitutional right to turn on your own government and collaborate with the enemy of the nation. You’ll be treated differently. What’s the name of the case, if you can recall, that reaffirmed the concept that you can hold one of our own as an enemy combatant if they were engaged in terrorist activities in Afghanistan. Are you familiar with that case?
Graham: So the bottom line is on every American citizen know you have constitutional rights, but you do not have a constitutional right to collaborate with the enemy. There is a body of law well developed long before 9/11 that understood the difference between basic criminal law and the law of armed conflict. Do you understand those difference?
Kavanaugh: I do understand that there are different bodies of law of course, senator.
Q picked up on the significance of Graham’s questions. On the same day as the confirmation hearing, Sept. 5, Q published post #2093, which highlights the distinction Graham made between military law vs. criminal law.
Lindsey Graham has a J.D. from the University of South Carolina. Before he entered politics, he was a U.S. Air Force officer and JAG (judge advocate general).
It is noteworthy that of all the constitutional rights to which American citizens are entitled, Sen. Graham specifically mentioned the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires “reasonable” governmental searches and seizures to be conducted only upon issuance of a warrant, judicially sanctioned by probable cause. On December 21, 2017, President Trump signed an executive order blocking the property of persons involved in “serious human rights abuse or corruption”.
Update:Full FISA Memo released!!!
Our elected politicians just don’t get it: They are not our overlords — they work for us.
Remember Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), 57, who said the House Intelligence Committee (on which he is a ranking member) should not release the FISA memo to the public because the American people simply can’t understand it?
The now-infamous 4-page FISA memo is described as so “shocking” and “explosive”, it could lead to the removal of senior officials in the NSA, FBI and DOJ, the end of Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation, and even people going to jail.
But Schiff dismisses the FISA memo as a set of “distorted” “talking points” drafted by Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee. He also invoked the Democrats’ favorite boogeyman — the Russians — accusing his Republican colleagues on the committee of colluding with “Russian trolls and bots”.
When news went viral — of the FISA memo and Schiff’s characterization of the American people as too stupid to understand it — there was a popular outcry to #ReleaseTheMemo.
Still thinking the American people to be stupid, Democrats dug in with their Russian boogeyman meme, accusing the #ReleaseTheMemo social-media campaign of being Kremlin-orchestrated social media actors or LARPers pretending to be Americans.
On Tuesday, January 23, Schiff and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) actually sent a letter (see below) to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, demanding a forensic examination into the #ReleaseTheMemo campaign being the work of “Russian bots”or fake Americans.
News of the Schiff-Feinstein letter unleashed a tsunami of phone calls to their respective offices, from American citizens confirming they are not Russian bots. One Twitter user said Schiff’s office is now hanging up on American citizens calling to say they’re not Russian bots. LOL
Here’s a sample of tweets from Americans who called:
“Adam Schiff’s office is now hanging up on citizens calling to say they are not Russian Bots.”
” I called Schiff’s office and actually got a live person, he wasn’t too happy with my message and hung up”
“A very rude young man in Adam Schiff’s office just hung up on me. After he talked over me and wouldn’t even let me finish a sentence.”
“Schiff’s office not accepting voicemail. I’m an EXDemocrat – NOT a BOT!”
“My husband just got through to Schiff’s office. Told them ‘Censorship is Communism!’ That he was an American Citizen and didn’t eat Borscht and drink Vodka! We the People Want the Memo! Schiff is a Mental case and should resign!”
Call Schiff and Feinstein and tell them you’re not a Russian bot!
Adam Schiff: (202) 225-4176
Diane Feinstein: (415) 393-0707
By the way, Rep. Schiff said we won’t be able to understand the FISA memo because we don’t have the memo’s classified background information. But we do have that information — the 99-page United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Memorandum Opinion and Order, dated April 26, 2017, which is a blueprint of how the Obama administration and the Deep State illegally spied on President Trump, as well as on U.S. citizens.
Update:Full FISA Memo released!!!
On January 18, 2018, members of the House of Representatives were given a four-page memo, described by Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL)and journalist Sara Carter as so “shocking” and “explosive”, it could lead to the removal of senior officials in the FBI and the Department of Justice (DOJ), the end of Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation, and even people going to jail.
House members have been blocked from discussing the memo in detail due to a waiver they signed, according to The Hill. A day later, on January 19, 65 lawmakers signed a letter calling on House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif) to publicly release the memo.
On January 20, Rep. Dave Joyce (R-Ohio) tweeted that the process to release the memo has begun, although it may take 19 or more Congressional work days.
On January 21, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)said the memo should not be released because the American people simply can’t understand it because we don’t have the classified information that provides the background for the 4-page FISA memo.
Well, the American people’s inability to understand the FISA memo is no longer a concern for Demonrat Schiff because yesterday morning, a National Security Agency (NSA) whistle blower — former NSA tech head William Binney — sent InfoWars a link to a 99-page document that’s been “confirmed” by “congressional sources” to be be “a primary source of information” for the 4-page FISA memo.
The classified (“top secret”) document is a 99-page “United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Memorandum Opinion and Order,” dated April 26, 2017. It is a blueprint of how the Obama administration and the Deep State had spied on President Trump, as well as on U.S. citizens.
Note:FISA or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 is a federal law that establishes procedures for the U.S. government’s physical and electronic surveillance of foreign powers and domestic (U.S.) agents of foreign powers suspected of espionage or terrorism. The Act created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to oversee requests for surveillance warrants by federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies.
In 2016, the Obama Administration used the “Russian dossier” and its baseless claim of a Russian-Trump collusion as the pretext for a FISA court-approved surveillance on then-candidate Donald Trump and members of the Trump campaign, including phone- and wire-taps. But as you will see in the 99-page FISC memorandum, the Obama Administration’s surveillance went way beyond Trump and his team to include innocent U.S. citizens, whose personal identities were doxxed and their personal information leaked.
(1) The NSA, under the Obama Administration, spied on U.S. citizens through something called the “Section 702 upstream collection”:
As explained by Sean D. Carberry of FCW, Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) authorizes the NSA to monitor internet traffic without a warrant and sweep up any communications that simply mention a foreign target, regardless of the sender or receiver of the email, who may be innocent U.S. citizens. That means the NSA has been spying on and intercepting U.S. citizens’ emails.
Page 33 of the 99-page FISC memorandum states:
“Information acquired by FISA electronic surveillance and physical search, which often involve targets who are United States persons and typically are directed at persons in the United States.”
(2) The NSA, under the Obama Administration, went beyond FISA’s Section 702 to “unmasking” (doxxing) and leaking information about Americans, including associates of Donald Trump:
All this is in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which prohibits the government’s unreasonable searches and seizures and requires governmental searches and seizures to be conducted only upon issuance of a warrant, judicially sanctioned by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
Below are some relevant quotes from the 99-page FISC memorandum:
Page 15 – “…NSA analysts had used US-person identifiers to query the results on Internet ‘upstream’ collection, even though NSA’s Section 702 minimization procedures prohibited such queries.” Page 19 – “Since 2011, NSA’s minimization procedures have prohibited use of US-person identifiers to query the results of upstream Internet collection under Section 702. The Oct. 26, 2016 Notice informed the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Court that NSA analysts had been conducting such queries in violation of that prohibition, with much greater frequency than had previously been disclosed to the Court.” Page 21 – “The government still had not ascertained the full range of systems that might have been used to conduct improper US-person queries.”
Here’s former NSA official William Binney on the FISC memorandum:
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) must certify each year that the NSA is in compliance with Section 702 provisions.
In March 2017, some members of Congress threatened that they would have a hard time renewing Section 702 before its expiration at the end of 2017 unless the Trump Administration prosecutes those responsible for the leaks.
In a press release on April 28, 2017, the NSA described the changes it will make so that its Section 702 powers could be renewed:
The NSA said it would take steps “as soon as practicable” to delete data already collected in the illegal surveillance of U.S. citizens.
The NSA would halt “about” collection of U.S. citizens’ personal information. However, due to limitations of its current technology, the NSA “is unable to completely eliminate ‘about’ communications from its upstream 702 collection without also excluding some of the relevant communications directly ‘to or from’ its foreign intelligence targets.”
The NSA will still conduct “upstream” and “downstream” surveillance to collect emails sent to or from a foreign target located outside the U.S., for which the agency, under FISA’s Section 702, does not require a warrant.
In 2017, after an extensive review, the FISC approved changes made by the NSA “to fix the problems” before the government submitted a new application for the agency’s continued Section 702 certification.
Reactions from members of Congress (FCW):
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) has long accused the government of using Section 702 as an end run around warrant requirements to collect the communications of Americans, and he has been calling on the NSA to release data on the number of Americans who have had their communications “incidentally collected.” Wyden said after the NSA’s April press release: “This transparency should be commended. To permanently protect Americans’ rights, I intend to introduce legislation banning this kind of collection in the future.”
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Ca.), a ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, called Section 702 a vital collection tool and commended the NSA for self-reporting the issues and discontinuing “about” collection. Schiff said: “I will continue to expect strict compliance with the FISA Court orders and will push for Section 702’s reauthorization along with any additional reforms needed to further strengthen and institutionalize protections for privacy and transparency.”
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), a ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said: “This development represents the due diligence and extensive review applied across the United States Government pertaining to the Section 702 collection activities. I believe we can now look forward to Congress and, in particular, the Senate Intelligence Committee…quickly turning to the consideration and debate of this critical authority prior to its expiration set for December 31, 2017.”
Lt. Gen. Keith Alexander and Admiral Michael Rogers headed the National Security Agency under the Obama Administration. Rogers is still the NSA Director. Alexander, Rogers, NSA agents, and Barack Obama should be indicted and arrested for violating the Fourth Amendment rights of U.S. citizens.
Here’s what you can do:
(1) Tell the Department of Justice to arrest the above criminals:
(2) Tweet President Trump: https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump
(3) Tell your Congress critter(s): http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml
This is the message I wrote on the DOJ’s onine Contact Form (feel free to copy and paste as yours):
To Attorney General Jeff Sessions:
The 99-page April 2017 “U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Memorandum Opinion and Order” shows that the NSA’s spying and doxxing egregiously violated the Fourth Amendment rights of U.S. citizens. Why haven’t you arrest NSA Directors Michael Rogers and Keith Alexander, NSA agents who conducted the spying and doxxing, and former President Barack Obama? Are they above the law?
From CNN: Former FBI Director James Comey will teach a course on ethical leadership at William and Mary beginning in the fall, according to an article on the Virginia college’s website.
The course will meet primarily at the college’s Washington, DC, center and once at the campus in Williamsburg, Virginia. Comey will co-teach the course with Drew Stelljes, executive assistant professor of education and assistant vice president for student leadership, in fall 2018 and spring and summer 2019.
Comey, who graduated from the college in 1982, told the school he is “thrilled” at the chance to teach this course. “Ethical leaders lead by seeing above the short term, above the urgent or the partisan, and with a higher loyalty to lasting values, most importantly the truth,” Comey says in the article. “Building and maintaining that kind of leadership, in both the private sector and government, is the challenge of our time.”
William and Mary’s president, Taylor Reveley, said in statement quoted in the article that Comey has been “deeply committed” to the college over the years. “He understands to the core of his being that our leaders must have an abiding commitment to ethical behavior and sacrificial service if we are to have good government.”
Comey led the FBI from 2013 until last year, when he was fired by President Donald Trump. Comey, as director, oversaw the investigation into whether Trump campaign members colluded with Russians who hacked the 2016 election.
No words as to why any doctor would even implant marbles in a man’s penis. Unreal.
Adrian King/Photo from West Virginia Dept. of Corrections
From NY Post: A federal appeals court on Tuesday revived a lawsuit in which a West Virginia inmate accused state prison officials of invading his privacy by surgically removing marbles he had implanted in his penis.
By a 3-0 vote, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Adrian King could pursue claims that officials at Huttonsville Correctional Center illegally threatened him into consenting to the June 2013 surgery, or risk being segregated from other inmates and lose his eligibility for parole. Circuit Judge Roger Gregory found “overwhelming evidence” that the intrusion was unreasonable, despite the asserted need by prison officials to police the security threat posed by inmates carrying contraband within their bodies.
“The interest in bodily integrity involves the most personal and deep-rooted expectations of privacy, and here, the nature of the surgery itself, surgery into King’s penis, counsels against reasonableness,” Gregory wrote for the Richmond, Virginia-based appeals court. King had had the marbles implanted in and tattoos drawn on his penis in late 2008, prior to his incarceration, during a “body modification” craze. He said the surgery left his penis with tingling and numbness, and pain when it is touched or when it rains, snows or gets cold. King said the surgery also resulted in mental and emotional anguish, saying that prison officials call him “Marble Man” and ask when searching him where his marbles are, and that gay inmates approach him because of how staff gossip about him. Tuesday’s decision restores claims that King’s Fourth Amendment right against illegal searches and seizures, Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment, and 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection, were violated.
It reversed much of a February 2015 ruling by Chief Judge Gina Groh of the federal court in Martinsburg, West Virginia, and returned the case to her for further proceedings. King is seeking compensatory and punitive damages.
Lawyers for the prison officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment. A lawyer for King did not immediately respond to similar requests.
The appeals court upheld the dismissal of claims against some defendants, including Commissioner Jim Rubenstein of the West Virginia Division of Corrections.
The case is King v Rubinstein et al, 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 15-6382.
Add the name, Peter Schweizer, to the death watch list
Andrew Breitbart, Joan Rivers, Loretta Fuddy, Michael Hastings, Ron Johnson, Vince Foster…
President Lucifer and the Clintons have some things in common. People who become inconvenient to them have a tendency to die.
The author of a book hammering Hillary Clinton says he now has full-time security
by COLIN CAMPBELL
The author of a controversial new book about Bill and Hillary Clinton said on Wednesday that he has arranged full-time security for himself.
Asked during a Bloomberg interview if he received any death threats over his controversial book, “Clinton Cash,” Peter Schweizer would only say he has “security.”
“I’ll just say we have security. And that security is not something that just came because we decided to have security. And we’ll just leave it at that,” he said.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/clinton-cash-peter-schweizer-security-2015-4#ixzz3Yo5hqbko
http://www.freewebs.com/jeffhead/liberty/liberty/bdycount.txt Click the link above to check out the incredibly long list of suspicious deaths connected to the Clintons. I’ve removed the list out of mercy to the readers, but if you have time to spare, this will shock you.
http://www.nachumlist.com/deadpool.htm Click the link above to check out the incredibly long list of suspicious deaths connected to Obama. I’ve removed the list out of mercy to the readers, but if you have time to spare, this will shock you.
Conclusion: Peter Schweizer needs to pray Psalm 91 daily.
In the six years of Obama’s presidency, America has become increasingly militarized — not our troops abroad, but right here at home — and transforming before our eyes into a police state. (See “Police State U.S.A.”) 40 civilian agencies of the federal government now have armed divisions. Those of us who are not low-information voters are familiar with the alarming purchases of guns, rifles, and lethal hollow-point bullets by the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies, including the Department of Education!
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Increasingly, however, police across America are violating the 4th Amendment by storming into homes, armed to the teeth in military gear, under the pretext of apprehending some suspected criminal. (See “Obama regime supplies military-grade arms to police”)
The most egregious example took place on April 19, 2013.
During a manhunt in the Boston suburb of Watertown, MA, for Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, heavily-armed SWAT police and federal agents spent the day storming people’s homes and performing illegal searches, ripping people from their homes at gunpoint, marching the residents out with their hands raised above their heads in submission, and then storming into their homes to perform warrantless searches. (See “Boston Bombing: Getting the sheeple used to the police state”)
Charles Hoskinson reports for the Washington Examiner that last Thursday, Nov. 13, 2014, reacting to images of heavily armed police amid the Ferguson racial protests, a House Armed Services subcommittee looked into the issue of the militarization of police.
“In light of these and other disturbing events around the country, it is incumbent on us to review this Department of Defense program,” said Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-Mass.), referring to Ferguson.
But Pentagon officials and representatives of national law enforcement groups told the committee that although the Defense Department is overhauling the program that gives surplus military equipment to local police departments, there is good reason to keep it going. Alan Estevez (principal deputy undersecretary of defense for acquisition, logistics and technology) and Vice Adm. Mark Harnitchek (director of the Defense Logistics Agency) said that 96% of the equipment transferred under the program is non-lethal items such as commercial vehicles, office furniture and supplies, generators, tents, tarps, tool kits, first-aid kits, blankets, safety glasses and hand tools — not the small arms and armored vehicles such as the MRAPs used by troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Translated, that means at least 4% of the equipment “transferred” to local police are LETHAL (see below). Don’t you feel better now? /sarc
Harnitchek said that the program does not include items that have only offensive military value, such as belt-fed machine guns. “None of those are authorized for transfer.” He said Pentagon officials have removed some items that were previously provided after determining they were not appropriate for police use, such as military helmets, body armor and camouflage uniforms currently used by U.S. troops.
“I don’t like seeing any of the police agencies in my state in military-style uniforms. I think that’s un-American,” responded Rep. Austin Scott (R-Ga).
But the program remains controversial, and lawmakers have been putting pressure on the Pentagon for further changes and stricter accountability of how the equipment is used. Some want the program eliminated outright, a proposal that drew pushback from representatives of national police groups. 1. Mark Lomax, executive director of the National Tactical Officers Association, said, “The 1033 program has provided the necessary equipment to protect our brave officers and provide security and effective response to our communities.” 2. Jim Bueermann, president of the Police Foundation and the retired chief of the Redlands, Calif., police department, said, “Completely eliminating it could have substantial impact on public safety and local budgets.” Bueermann proposed a number of reforms that would make the program more accountable to local communities, including:
Public input and approval of a local governing body before police receive any surplus military equipment.
Public disclosure of how and how often the equipment is to be used.
Requiring police officers be trained on the proper use of the equipment.
Though the Pentagon requires police departments to demonstrate eligibility for transfers and to maintain control of inventory, the program as it is today does not include local oversight, and the Defense Department does not dictate the ways in which they are used by local police. ~Eowyn
The 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution was written to protect and secure The People’s privacy from government intrusion:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
But, like the rest of our Constitution, the 4th Amendment is being shredded right before our eyes.
It’s not enough that the U.S. Post Office takes an image of every letter we send.
It’s not enough that the NSA has a record of our every email, phone call, and bank and credit card transaction.
Now President Lucifer wants direct access to our medical records — all in the name of “national security.” Such is the bitter fruit of the never-ending War on Terror.
We have until 5 pm (EST) today, May 21, to tell them “No.”
To send your comment,click here or go to http://www.phe.gov/Preparedness/planning/authority/nhss/comments/Pages/NHSSComments.aspx
Barbara Hollingsworth reports forCNS News, May 20, 2014:
The federal government is piecing together a sweeping national “biosurveillance” system that will give bureaucrats near real-time access to Americans’ private medical information in the name of national security, according to Twila Brase, a public health nurse and co-founder of the Citizens Council for Health Freedom.
The Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response is currently seeking public commenton a 52-page draft of the proposed “National Health Security Strategy 2015-2018” (NHSS).
“Health situational awareness includes biosurveillance and other health and non-health inputs (e.g., lab/diagnostics, health service utilization, active intelligence, and supply chain information), as well as systems and processes for effective communication among responders and critical health resource monitoring and allocation,” the draft states.
But Brase warns that the NHSS proposal would allow the federal government to monitor an individual’s behavior before, during and after any government-defined health “incident” – which could be anything from a local outbreak of the flu to a terrorist anthrax attack.
“It’s very broad. It doesn’t seem to have any limits, except they say something about, you know, properly protecting the data. But from our perspective, if the government gets access to this kind of data, [and] is allowed to do research with the data…then our privacy has already been compromised. The government has already said that our data is their data for their purposes of national health security,” Brase told CNSNews.com.
“It’s very clear to us that really the government is moving toward real-time access, toward close collaboration of government and doctors for ready access to the electronic medical record and then to conduct research and analysis.”
“I don’t think they ever mentioned the word merging, but this is a very close connection they want between public health, which is the government, and clinical health, which is your doctor’s office and the hospital, for whatever diseases they choose to have reported,” she added.
Brase noted that the information collected by the government will be “all-encompassing” and include “what our health status is, whether we exercise, how often we get a cold, or what kind of medications we’re taking. They’re also looking at the climate, and the economic condition of the country, as all being a party of this National Health Security Strategy.”
“In other words, anything and everything could become a health threat by the government’s standards,” she said.
According to the draft proposal, NHSS will create “health situational awareness” by “collecting, aggregating and processing data from both traditional and nontraditional sources (such as social media) and from various governmental and nongovernmental stakeholders….Decision-makers will have the capability to visualize and manipulate data from many sources to create an operational picture suited to the specific situation and the decisions before them.”
But Brase warns that the government’s biosurveillance plan is much more intrusive than the data collection currently being done by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
“We’re of the mind that the Fourth Amendment actually means something, so you can’t access everybody’s patient’s medical record just because you say there is a security threat or just because you say it’s good for the American public,” she told CNSNews.com.
“But the fact of the matter is that [the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act]HIPPAalready allows the federal government and the state government and the local government and anyone who is a public health agency to have access to our medical records – identifiable medical records – without our consent. It’s in the HIPPA Privacy Rule, which has the full force and effect of law. But that wasn’t actually put in by Congress. It was put in by the Department of Health and Human Services.” (See HIPAAPrivacyRegs_EconomicStimulusChanges.pdf)
One of the dangers, Brase pointed out, is that this vast amount of medical data warehoused in a giant electronic database will only be available to government-approved researchers.
“Now, it could be the entire electronic medical record, it could be that they just have ready access to the electronic medical records because it’s on a state health information exchange, for instance, and if they are one of the partners in the state health information exchange, they can start this data draw.
“One of the things we look at is how research can be done in a way to push policies that we disagree with. They come up with findings that nobody else can validate because nobody else has access to all that data the way the government has, and nobody can ever counter it,” Brase told CNSNews.com.
According to “National Biosurveillance Science and Technology Roadmap” written last June, “effectively, appropriately, and securely sharing health event data, including parts of electronic patient records and laboratory data, has significant potential to improve national awareness of incidents that could progress to impact national security.”
Biosurveillance is defined as “the process of active data-gathering with appropriate analysis and interpretation of biosphere data that might relate to disease activity and threats to human or animal health – whether infectious, toxic, metabolic, or otherwise, and regardless of intentional or natural origin – in order to achieve early warning of health threats, early detection of health events, and overall situational awareness of disease activity.”
“Extending electronic reporting of health information, including laboratory results, to public health serves as an example of rapidly communicating useful information….Routine, daily use of such capabilities may be leveraged to address critical requirements in the context of an emergency,” the White House document said.
Brase pointed out that much of the architecture for the government’s biosurveillance plan is already in place.
“The Obama administration in the [American] Recovery and Reinvestment Act [of 2009] forces every doctor to have interoperable electronic medical records by January 1, 2015 or face penalties from Medicare, financial reductions in their payments. So that’s one thing that’s happening,” she told CNSNews.com.
“A second thing that’s happening is that the federal government has been funding the creation of state health information exchanges (HIEs) with the purpose of creating a national health information network. And they’re interoperable, which means they’re accessible to government and others, because they have to follow certain protocols and data standards that the government sets. So that’s another thing that’s happening.
“And the third thing that’s happening is that the health plans often require, may require with their contracts with doctors, that they submit their bills electronically. So all this is forcing everybody’s medical records online,” she explained.
“It’s not clear exactly how the federal government plans to get access” to these online records, Brase said, but it could include requiring health insurers to send all claims data to the government, forcing state insurance exchanges to open a special portal specifically for federal bureaucrats, or demanding that hospitals and clinics report directly to the feds.
“Is this a juggernaut that’s unstoppable at this point” CNSNews.com asked Brase.
“It is not unstoppable,” she replied. “HIPPA is a data-sharing law. It has nothing to do with privacy. HIPPA and the HITECH Act (part of the 2009 stimulus bill) together already allow 2.2 million entities to have legal access to your private medical records without your consent, and that is a federal number in the 2010 federal regulation.”
Those entities include hospitals, pharmacies, physicians’ offices, diagnostic imaging centers, medical equipment suppliers, home health services, outpatient care centers, health insurers, third-party administrators and any of their business associates.
“But the one thing that HIPPA says is that if the states create a stronger privacy law, then everyone in that state must conform.Minnesota and Iowa are two of the states that have stronger privacy laws with more restrictions on access. And every state could do that and make it difficult for the federal government to implement this entire thing.
“For instance, they’d have to get your consent before they put you in a health information exchange. They could require consent for any kind of public health purpose, and therefore challenge the federal government to tell them exactly where the federal government thinks they have a right to gather all this information for public health purposes,” Brase told CNSNews.com. “There’s all sorts of things states could do if they had a mind to do it.”
“I think people are worried about things like HIV or something stigmatizing or embarrassing. But they should be very concerned about the fact that this is really a sweeping strategy to oversee your entire life with the intention of keeping you, and making you keep yourself, healthy,” she continued.
“And that is a government that is too big. That is a government that says you have no freedom, because if you are not free from surveillance, you are not free.”