NEW POSTINGS:
- May 6, 2017 - The Children - Update
- February 7, 2017 - Faxing Health Information To The Wrong People
- May 9, 2016 - Children Hurt, Dying In The "Care" Of The Politicians And Is Foster Care the New Residential Schools
- February 23, 2016 - Collecting Information (or Not) - My Story
- February 22, 2016 - A Bit About My Health Story
- February 16, 2016 - Follow The Money
- February 15, 2016 - Genetic Tests
- February 8, 2016 - Another Major Privacy Breach in B.C.
- February 4, 2016 - Using/Patenting Our DNA
- February 3, 2016 - Right To Know Week
- January 28, 2016 - Ploys
- January 27, 2016 - Self-Entitled
- January 16, 2016 - Complicit
- January 15, 2016 - Anonymous (Or Not)
- December 30, 2015 - What You Can Do - Political
- December 29, 2015 - Our Information Is Not Protected - Part II (added to Jan 06, 2016)
- December 28, 2015 - Some Participants In Health Ministry Firings
- December 27, 2015 - Our Information Is Not Protected - Part I (added to Jan 06, 2016)
- December 23, 2015 - What Can You Do - Political
- Decembeer 22, 2015 - Facade Organizations
- December 21, 2015 - Why I Don't Vote (added to Jan 06, 2016)
- December 20, 2015 - Allowing Political Parties To Know Who Voted (added to Jan 06, 2016)
- October 16, 2015 - Selling/Trading/Bartering
- October 15, 2015 - Translink
- October 10, 2015 - B.C. Services Card
- October 9, 2015 - I've Returned
May 6, 2017
The Children - Update
Katie Hyslop tried repeatedly for the past three years
to get an interview with
B.C. Children and Family Development Minister Stephanie Cadieux, including when she was preparing her series. (6) She also tried to get an interview with Minister Terry Lake. (6) She is still waiting. (6) Cadieux did, however, send another email to criticise her series: “Ministry of Children and Family Development sent emails asking why I had not included additional details about education funds offered to youth aging out of care. Those funds are not available to all youth with care experience, do not provide mental health or addictions help, and are not substantial enough to cover household and school expenses on their own. (6) Unfortunately, I have learned that this is another common tactic of the government. They will respond if they think it makes them look good but will not answer questions that presumably would be incriminating. So, with the government, not answering a question, provides it's own answer, they have something to hide. But, as Katie Hyslop says: “I’d really like to speak with either of them. More to the point, I think, B.C.’s citizens deserve to hear from them, outside of canned media events, on matters as important as the well-being of the province’s most vulnerable youth.” (6) And, citizens do have a RIGHT to hear the truth about how the government and it's programs are run, even if it doesn't make the politicians look good; this is supposedly the people's government with the people's money paying for it. The people have a RIGHT to know what is going on so they can decide if it is acceptable, and if something is
Mary Ellen
Turpel-Lafond is not longer B.C.Representative for Children and Youth in
B.C. What a loss for the people and
children of B.C. The position has, not
surprisingly, been given to a politician (1).
The care of
The Children did become an election issue.
The BC NDP and Greens have made promises, in their election platform, to
help the children. The BC Liberals don't
have anything specific to the children in care but have made promises (see
below). It is good that the children
became an election issue. BUT, this is
only the first step. Because, as we
know, politicians will say anything to get elected and frequently afterwards,
partially or totally ignore the promises.
SO, after the election the people and media, will have to hold the
politicians accountable, make sure any changes are beneficial to the children,
demand constant updates on the welfare of the children and keep demanding the
truth so the children get the care they need.
The Children only have YOU, the people, to look after them. As Stephen Gantz says: “If children in
foster care are wards of the state, we're all their parents”. (13)
Katie
Hyslop, at TheTyee.ca, has written a series of articles on The Children in
government care and youths at risk. Go to TheTyee.ca, enter, in the search box,
Katie Hyslop to read these articles. Be
prepared, some will just break your heart.
B.C.
Minister of Children and Family Development Stephanie Cadieux had a complaint:
1. “Shortly
after the first article appeared, I received an email from a ministry
spokesperson that challenged one statement in one article.
The sentence in question describes “Michie,” a young woman who found, as we
reported, 'that all the supports she and her foster parents had been receiving
from British Columbia’s Ministry of Children and Family Development
disappeared' on her 19th birthday. “(4)
The government states that there are a range of supports. “Two programs top the ministry’s list of
services they want you and youth leaving care to know about: Agreement with
Young Adults, and the Youth Educational Assistance Fund.” (4) ”But youth workers and the acting provincial
Representative for Children and Youth interviewed by The Tyee emphasized there
are barriers to accessing and benefiting from these supports that vulnerable
youth can’t overcome.” (4) Katie Hyslop
also found that the programs had restrictions which eliminated many youth. Even for those who could qualify the
government had barriers; for example, you must be in rehab but there aren't
enough rehab spaces. Or, the youth could
qualify if they were in a life skills program but there is a long waiting list
for this program. “So, yes: everything the ministry says is true: YEAF, AYA,
and other programs do exist to maintain support for youth leaving Crown care at
age 19. But our earlier reports were also accurate: many youth find those
supports hard-to-impossible to access. None picks up automatically when youth age
out of care; individuals must find and apply for each one separately. All
impose some sort of qualifying restriction. And even when youth do qualify,
actual help may not be 'available.'” (4)
“Some are available only
for former foster youth and not for others in distress (the wider focus of my
reporting).“ (4) Children’s
representative Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond called Agreements with Young Adults
(AYA) a smokescreen that is not helping these vulnerable teens. (19) This is a common tactic of the government –
look at this great program we are offering, but if you look closely at the
program you will see all the holes, all the barriers that prevent the targetted
people from using the program. I doubt
programs will ever be 'perfect” but some (many?) of the government programs are
so badly designed/implemented that it looks like they were intended to fail all
but a
few. Is it a case of the government
getting credit because they have a “program” without actually giving much
(money saved to go into the pockets of “other people”)?
The
government is also complaining that they are not getting credit for PROMISING
to implement Grand Chief Ed John's 85 recommendations and the “significant
funding increase the ministry received under Budget 2017 to help improve outcomes
for Indigenous families”. (2) Maybe
that's because they haven't actually done anything yet except make
promises. Maybe they will get credit
when the 85 recommendations are actually implemented and not, as so often
happens, forgotten or only a few recommendations are implemented. Maybe they will get credit when the money
actually reaches the children and is not spent on meetings trying to decide how
to spend the money (as has happened).
But, maybe before giving credit we need to ask why “so many children had
to die and youth in care had to suffer neglect and abuse for the government to
be shamed into acting finally on child protection services,” as pointed out by
senior economist Iglika Ivanova of the BC Centre for Policy Alternatives. Maybe, before giving credit, we need to ask
why the Ministry of Children and Family Development budget will increase 10 per
cent this fiscal year (an election year) only to be followed by two years of
spending freezes; in other words, the government is giving and then taking away
as the Ministry will have less money in future years because the funding won't
keep up with even the rate of inflation.
Maybe we have to ask why, after all these years of having children in
government care, the system is still such as mess. (20)
I am also
concerned that Christy Clark has said that additional funding is being provided
to address recommendations in Bob Plecas report. (7) Some of his recommendations, supporting
recommendations made by Turpel-Lafond, I believe are good and I am glad that
there will be money, hopefully to implement them. But some of his recommendations, as
identified in a prior post (Children Hurt, Dying in the Care of the
Politicians, 2014/04/12), I believe will undermine, even more, the care of the
children; in particular, eliminating the oversight function of the
Representative of Children and Youth.
Will eliminating the oversight function be just a means of hiding
what is happening to the children?
B.C. Children and Family Development Minister Stephanie Cadieux, including when she was preparing her series. (6) She also tried to get an interview with Minister Terry Lake. (6) She is still waiting. (6) Cadieux did, however, send another email to criticise her series: “Ministry of Children and Family Development sent emails asking why I had not included additional details about education funds offered to youth aging out of care. Those funds are not available to all youth with care experience, do not provide mental health or addictions help, and are not substantial enough to cover household and school expenses on their own. (6) Unfortunately, I have learned that this is another common tactic of the government. They will respond if they think it makes them look good but will not answer questions that presumably would be incriminating. So, with the government, not answering a question, provides it's own answer, they have something to hide. But, as Katie Hyslop says: “I’d really like to speak with either of them. More to the point, I think, B.C.’s citizens deserve to hear from them, outside of canned media events, on matters as important as the well-being of the province’s most vulnerable youth.” (6) And, citizens do have a RIGHT to hear the truth about how the government and it's programs are run, even if it doesn't make the politicians look good; this is supposedly the people's government with the people's money paying for it. The people have a RIGHT to know what is going on so they can decide if it is acceptable, and if something is
not
acceptable, the people can help find solutions.
Paul
Willcocks article (9) also has some good suggestions.
“Linda Reid,
now the Speaker, then the Liberal critic for children and families, demanded a
needs-based budget. Figure out first how to meet the needs of children and
families, and what that would cost. Build the budget around that (even if some
hard choices might be needed). Instead, the Liberals have treated the ministry
like any other, imposing arbitrary and damaging cuts or freezes.”
“Look for a
party that doesn’t just promise more money, but a new model.” (9)
“Another
simple test is the parties’ positions on aging out. The current policy of
basically cutting kids adrift at 19 is
destructive and costly. Parents know teens, especially teens who have often
experienced difficult childhoods in care, are not magically ready at 19 to
survive, let alone thrive, on their own. Look for a party that will increase
that age, with phased support that lasts four or five more years, perhaps
decreasing as the youths find their way. Polls have found broad public support for
increasing the age at which youth lose supports.” (9)
Stephen
Gantz has also suggested some good ideas, such as:
• “Ensure
youth have at least one adult in their life, family or not, whom they can rely
on” and I believe he means even after exiting the system;
• “If they
leave care early, let them come back whenever they need to.”(13)
So, no
matter which party “wins” the election, whenever the politicians say they are
spending money on “fill in the blank” (but especially their own raise and
putting money into the fake “prosperity fund” (3)), ask them if they have taken
care of the children. Are the children
living in a safe, stable home (10, 15, 16), is enough effort being put into
finding them permanent homes, are there enough substance abuse beds (4, 12, 14,
16, 17), are there enough mental health services (11, 12, 15, 16), are there
sufficient housing and other supports when they leave government “care”
(dropping the youth at a homeless shelter should NOT be an option) (4,
13), are there sufficient staff to
adequately look after the children (9), have all the children leaving
government had a complete, current “aging out” interview and plan (4), so the
children/youth can leave government “care” as healthy individuals. Or, to slightly rephrase Paul Willocks, will
the government continue to have an underfunded, dysfunctional system that fails
the children repeatedly, even when the need for help is obvious. (9)
1. Bernard Richard, Office Representative of
Children and Youth
2. Minister's statement on representative's
report – BC Ministry of Children and Youth, 2017-03-30
3. 117 BC Liberal Falsehoods, Boondoggles,
and Scandals: The Complete List –
TheTyee.ca, 2017-04-10 - FALSEHOOD: No
LNG Funds Funding LNG Prosperity Fund
4. Ministry
Says Supports 'Available' to Youth Exiting Province's Care. How Available? - Katie Hyslop, 2017-02-06, TheTyee.ca
5. Number of drug treatment beds for youth
down 25% despite fentanyl crisis – Eric Rankin, 2016-09-27, CBC News
6. Getting BC Ministers to Talk about
Struggling Kids Proved Impossible –
Katie Hyslop, 2017-02-06,
TheTyee.ca
7. Budget Shortchanges BC Kids And Youth, Say
Critics – Katie Hyslop, 2017/02/22,
TheTyee.ca
8. Absentee caregiver was receiving $8K a
month before teen's suicide: report –
Andrew Weichel, 2017-02-06, CTV
February 7, 2017
Faxing Health Information To The Wrong People
Nova Scotia – 2006 - 2016
For over 10 years dozens of highly sensitive mental health
records were faxed to Lisa Belanger's Bedford spa; faxes which should have gone
to a mental health referral office. “She
estimates she receives between eight and 14 a year.” (1) She contacted the doctors offices that sent
the fax, and “an official at the former Capital District Health Authority,
hoping someone there would take action to stop it.”(1) They said memos were sent to all doctors
offices telling them to carefully enter fax numbers and to have “the proper
preset fax number on the fax machine” (1)
But Ms. Belanger continued to receive faxes. Really, how hard is it to preset a fax
number?
“She says she subsequently called Health Minister Leo
Glavine's office, the College of Physicians and Surgeons and the office of Nova
Scotia's privacy commissioner.” (1) * “Belanger was concerned about the
personal information on the documents.”
(5) She said “she's been
repeatedly assured by health officials the problem would be fixed, but the
faxes continued.” (5) “She has even made
suggestions on improving the way faxes are transmitted.” (1) Finally, in 2016, in frustration she
contacted the CBC. (5)
“Everton McLean, a spokesman with the Nova Scotia Health
Authority, said doctors are independent and the authority can't tell them what
to do.” (1) And yet, “Nova Scotia's
Personal Health Information Act says it's an offence to fail to protect
personal health information in a secure manner. Anyone found guilty may be
subject to a fine of up to $10,000 or imprisonment for six months, or both.”
(1) I think if you start enforcing the
law there would be change. Also, doctors
are paid from tax dollars so, I believe, the government can put
conditions on receiving those funds.
“Halifax privacy lawyer David Fraser” said "'The larger concern for
me is the apparent casualness with which these documents are being faxed and
also what seems to be the response when they're told that they're going to the
wrong place,"' Fraser said. (1)
When this issue hit the media, the privacy commissioner
started to pretend to do something (they do like their name in the media). Privacy commissioner
Catherine Tully made recommendations (5) which the doctors are
free to ignore. In fact, I suspect that
most doctors aren't aware that a report was written much less read it.
“Tully said if the information had ended up in the
hands of someone who knew the patient, the harm would be 'close to
irreparable.'" (5) We don't know
that some unreported mis-faxed information hasn't gone to people who know, or
will know, a patient and the patient just hasn't heard about it. We only know about the faxes reported to the
media.
“Privacy commissioner Catherine Tully wrote in a
report... that momentary inattention and human error by those sending the
faxes are to blame for the three cases her office examined.” (5) But, between 80 and 140 faxes went to Ms.
Belanger's spa over 10 years. Were all
these human error? And, at what point,
does human error become incompetency or just disregard for people's rights?
“The report says doctors notified each of the
patients whose privacy was breached.” (5)
Were these just the patients in the three cases Tully received or all 80
to 140 patients whose personal/health information was received by Ms.
Belanger? The report also does not say
when or how the patients were notified, nor is there any verification that it
is true. A victim of the breaches, whose
name was not given, said “he only learned of it this week when Belanger herself
contacted him to say his information had been faxed to her last fall.”
"'This is pretty serious stuff," he said. "This can ruin
people's relationships, careers, a whole myriad of things.'" (2)
As of June 1, 2013, “'The Personal Health Information Act
does require that notification goes to somebody,' (bolding mine) said
Robert Bay” (a Nova Scotia privacy commissioner spokesperson). "So the question is: Is the
notification to the individual whose privacy has been breached or is the
notification to our office? The determining factors are the degree of harm or
embarrassment that would result from the breach." “He says if the”
'custodians' “who hold the personal information”, the doctors, “determine there
is no potential harm or embarrassment, then the person whose information was
mishandled may not be told.” “The
commission said it has no way of knowing how many breaches resulted in
notification to patients.” (2) In
essence, unless the commissioner has been notified, they have no way of knowing
if anyone was notified. And, why
would you notify the commissioner if there is no potential of harm or
embarrassment to the patient and not when there is? Why are the doctors given the right to make
this decision? Isn't that a conflict of
interest? How often do you think doctors
will decide “no harm done” and not inform patients that their privacy was
breached and not inform the privacy commissioner. Not that notifying the privacy commissioner
is any great help. All they can do is
write a report and/or encourage/recommend as they have no enforcement powers.
North West Territories - 2010
On four separate occasions, in a two month period,
confidential files were mistakenly faxed to the CBC from the N.W. T.'s main
hospital. If this weren't so serious, it
would be funny.
The hospital then imposed a faxing freeze “on any medical
documents unless it is an emergency”. (4)
“In addition to the freeze, the hospital has
also implemented a temporary policy requiring two staff members to
oversee the faxing of confidential documents, Lewis said” (CEO of Stanton
Territorial Hospital). (4)
“This 'double-checking' policy, which is meant to ensure
the faxes reach the right destination, will stay in place until a permanent
solution is found, she said.” But, as
usual for the government, “she wouldn't give specific details about any
measures being taken”.(4)
In 2012 the CBC received its 6th sensitive
medical fax in two years. (6) This came
from Kugluktuk, Nunavut health centre. “The
fax included information about the patient and their sexual health
history.” “In a statement, the
department said it's investigating. It added that health centres are required
to use pre-set speed dials for confidential patient referrals”. (6)
“At the time, Health Minister Tom Beaulieu said a summer
student sent that fax. The department has not yet said if any action was taken,
or why the faxes continue to come to CBC North in Yellowknife.” (6) It certainly illustrates how important
privacy is - the faxes continue and very sensitive patient information is given
to a summer student. But the
government/medical business will tell you that it takes your privacy very
seriously -- just propaganda.
Alberta - 2014
“Entering incorrect telephone numbers into fax
machines is being blamed for more privacy breaches of personal health
information by Alberta Health Services.” (3)
“Documents obtained by CBC News through access to
information show that Alberta Health Services were regularly (bolding
mine) sending faxes intended for Strathcona Home Care to
a custom home builder in Sherwood Park over a two-year
period.” (3) “At one point the
builder was receiving as many as one fax each week.” (3) “Despite repeated calls, the faxes
continued until company owner Dianne Ingram sent AHS a fax of her own.” “She
scrawled, "You have the wrong fax number!! Stop faxing
us!!." (3) Also faxes were
sent to a manufacturing company. (3)
“Patients often go uninformed when their information is
disclosed.” (3)
“While AHS is not obligated to report breaches,
Hamilton (Brian Hamilton, with the Office of the Alberta Information and
Privacy Commissioner) said his office encourages AHS to inform all patients
whose privacy has been breached.” (3) Sorry, but, in my opinion,
“encourage” is essentially meaningless.
“'This is highly sensitive information and an issue of
public trust," privacy commissioner Frank Work said. "How can the
public have faith in public bodies if they can't provide security for personal
information?"' (7) (Bolding Mine).
He was referring to laptops but it is just as relevant to faxes.
'"It's surprising," Hamilton said during an
interview. "The health sector in particular, spends millions of dollars on
information systems with secure access, and yet people keep
faxing."' (3)
“Sending personal information by fax is a less secure
method of transferring information compared to encrypted emails, he
said.” (3)
Dr. Verna Yiu, with Alberta Health Services said "We
do rely on cooperation of the recipient to let us know that” (they have
received a mis-fax), “and I would have to say that in general (italics mine) people are pretty co operative
about that." (3) This is NOT a
privacy policy. This is NOT how you
protect patient information.
Some Questions:
1. In all these
cases, the doctors offices, violating patients privacy, were not
identified. Should they be? Would you want to know who is not taking care
of your information?
2. Most people who
violate people's privacy are either not disciplined, disciplined (ex. A day or
more off without pay), or fired. Should
the penalties be stiffer? Do we have a
right to know what disciplinary action is taken under what circumstances so we
can determine if this is sufficient or excessive?
3. Don't you think THE
PATIENT should be notified in all cases so the PATIENT can decide the degree of
harm in violating the patient's privacy?
4. Should there be a
central phone number that people can call when they receive medical information
that belongs to someone else?
You may have noticed the trend by the government/medical
system: it's someone else's
responsibility, there is nothing we can do, false promises to fix it or we'll
look into it but the people never hear if anything was ever done to fix the
problem. And if it hits the media, the
“problem” is sent to the privacy commissioner, who writes a report. The report may say “Order No.” but it is not
an order, it is a recommendation which the medical system is free to, and I suspect
in most cases does, ignore. So what
changes – NOTHING. Mistakes are made,
and I think people would be mostly forgiving, if they knew concrete steps had
been taken to fix the problem. Instead
we get propaganda – we'll fix it, trust us, trust us. Save the money from all these useless, money-sucking,
reports and put it into software/training for something positive such as
end-to-end encryption and enforcement; privacy might be protected and money
saved.
And, these violations are only the ones that are reported to
the media. These are, no doubt, the
proverbial tip of the iceberg. I suspect
there are some medical people who are very careful about patient's
privacy. But, we don't know who they
are, therefore all are suspect.
I am deeply grateful to Ms. Belanger and Ms. Igram for
sharing the information with the media; and to CBC News for publicising the
problem. It is the only way we are
learning that our information is not protected. And, until we know the truth, we cannot try to fix the problem.
* I contacted a Minister of Health, Victor Boudreau, twice
and requested an organizational chart/description of the health system in a
province (who reports to whom and what are their responsibilities). Never got a
reply (see future post tentatively titled “My Story – Part II).
1. Mental health
records sent to Nova Scotia spa in error over last decade - Yvonne Colbert, 07
Apr 2016, CBC News
2. Victim of mental
health privacy breach in Nova Scotia feels “very exposed” - Yvonne Colbert, 08 April 2016, CBC News
3. Unsecure faxes put
health data of Albertans at risk – Kim Trynacity, 10 Feb. 2014, CBC News
4. N.W.T. Hospital
clamps down on medical faxes – 07 Jul
2010, CBC News
5. Privacy
commissioner says doctors should move faxing patient referrals – Yvonne Colbert, 23 Nov. 2016, CBC News
6. CBC Yellowknife
newsroom gets 6th medical fax in 2 years – 30 Jul 2012, CBC News
7. Security on stolen
laptops was inadequate: privacy commissioner –
24 Jun 2009, CBC News
May 9, 2016
Children Hurt, Dying
In The “Care” Of The Politicians And Is Foster Care The New Residential Schools
"Children are entitled to be protected from abuse, neglect and
harm or threat of harm.” (1)
This isn't
about privacy but it is about the children.
And I want to help raise awareness about how they are being treated by
the government.
There has
been “a number of very tragic incidents in a relatively short period of time”;
(2)
– Alex Gervais (3), Nick Lang (4), Carly
Fraser (5), Danny Francis (6), Paige Gauchier (7)(8), Alex Malamalatabua (9)(10), and Isabella Weins (11), and others (11) (12). You may have to go
directly to the Times Colonist and Vancouver Sun's websites to access their
articles. Also, I encourage you to read
Paige's Story, a report by the Representative's office about “abuse,
indifference and a young life discarded”. (7)(8) “It is a startling example of a collective
failure to act by multiple organizations and individuals who should have helped
Paige” (7) and Ministry abused authority in case of B.C. father sexually
abusing his children: judge, Eric
Rankin and Tamara Baluja, 14 Jul 2015, CBC News (JP case - "This is the
very first case in Canadian history where a mother has succeeded in holding a
child protection agency liable for misfeasance in public office," Hittrich
said)
In the case
of Alex Gervais, 23 youth homes, with 33 children, were abruptly closed down
when the Representative's office “brought these concerns to the ministry's
director of child welfare after receiving calls from some of the young people
in care”. (3) “Part of the documents
also included a review of caregiver concerns from 2008 to 2014 which
revealed "several ongoing themes" with caregivers including the
following allegations: Using substances,
criminal offenses, inappropriate physical discipline, assault of a teen in
care, viewing pornography, domestic violence between caregivers;” (3) And concerns about unsafe living conditions
that included “improper issuing of medications, a caregiver carrying a weapon,
and exposure to abusive language”. (16) (43)
“Turpel-Lafond said senior
ministry staff told her directly that none of the 33 displaced youth from
several group homes would be moved to hotels”. (2) Yet Alex Gervais was placed in a hotel
with minimal supervision for 49 days, until his death. (13) The number of days
Alex was in the hotel varied in reports from three to five months so it
appears, initially, no one knew how long he had even been there. (2) This hotel placement was in contravention of
Ministry policy. (14)
It also
became apparent that B.C. Minister of Children and Family Development Stephanie
Cadieux has little or no idea what goes on in the Ministry. “She said both she and the provincial
director were under the impression that no youths were being
housed in hotels when Gervais died.” (15) (bolding mine) “B.C.’s children’s minister has ordered an
immediate review to determine whether there are more foster kids in hotels that
senior officials don’t know about, one day after The Vancouver Sun reported a
youth in foster care was living in a hotel and died when he fell out a window”.
(16)
"In September, Cadieux told The Sun that 23 foster youth had been placed in hotels in the previous year”. (17)(43) “the ministry was wrong again. In fact, 117 kids — five times its original estimate — stayed in hotels between November 2014 and October 2015”. (18) “In fact, because some children were placed more than once in a hotel during this time frame, the total number of hotel stays was 131”. (18) “She had no explanation Wednesday when asked why the initial number was so inaccurate”. (19) “She later claimed it was because the information had not been properly tracked”. (20) “NDP leader John Horgan issued a statement that accused the provincial Liberals of purposely hiding the true number of vulnerable youth they stuck in hotels, until forced to reveal the truth by Turpel-Lafond”. (18) “According to the new report, the ministry's 'expectation' is that care workers would provide constant supervision for a child during these hotel stays as well as provide opportunities to participate in recreational activities. (18) (bolding mine)
"In September, Cadieux told The Sun that 23 foster youth had been placed in hotels in the previous year”. (17)(43) “the ministry was wrong again. In fact, 117 kids — five times its original estimate — stayed in hotels between November 2014 and October 2015”. (18) “In fact, because some children were placed more than once in a hotel during this time frame, the total number of hotel stays was 131”. (18) “She had no explanation Wednesday when asked why the initial number was so inaccurate”. (19) “She later claimed it was because the information had not been properly tracked”. (20) “NDP leader John Horgan issued a statement that accused the provincial Liberals of purposely hiding the true number of vulnerable youth they stuck in hotels, until forced to reveal the truth by Turpel-Lafond”. (18) “According to the new report, the ministry's 'expectation' is that care workers would provide constant supervision for a child during these hotel stays as well as provide opportunities to participate in recreational activities. (18) (bolding mine)
“The minister
in particular and the senior ministry staff did not have a strong handle on
what was going on with the residential placements of vulnerable youth in care.”
(17) (29) “Representative Mary Ellen
Turpel-Lafond said it took time to have 'difficult discussions' with the
ministry, but she is glad to be working together now to find solutions”.
(17) “It required them to make a pretty
frank admission that things were not operating appropriately,” she said in an
interview. (17) So Turpel-Lafond
and Cadieux prepared a joint special report. (21) Then, “Cadieux disagreed with one of its
findings, that the use of hotels reflects 'significant shortfalls' in other
available placements, including foster homes, emergency beds and group homes”
(apparently she didn't read the report before she signed off on it). (13) She said it was just a communications problem
because beds are available. (13) Then
she changed her message again and said "Our ultimate goal is to
eliminate hotel placements entirely. Government can't do that alone however and
we need more people to step up, get trained and work with us to provide kids in
care with the stable homes they so desperately need and deserve”. (22)
So, apparently it isn't a communications problem but a lack of foster
parents problem. I suspect she has
set-up a scapegoat (blame the people) in case the Ministry gets caught again
placing children in hotels. You just
can't trust a politician.
Apparently,
Manitoba worked over a two-year period to abolish the use of hotels for
children in care by adding 55 emergency shelter beds and 114 emergency
foster beds, or so they say. (19) I'm
not aware that this has been proven.
Cadieux said her responsibility is to set “'high level direction' for the ministry” (as given to her by Premier Christy and her handful of people running the government - see Why I Don't Vote – Part II), and to speak about anything that goes wrong (15), which I guess would be saying the scripted talking points she's given. And, of course, going for photo-ops. “But as a minister of the Crown, she is responsible for everything her ministry does within its charter. By attempting to evade this longstanding principle, she makes a mockery of ministerial accountability”. (23) Can you imagine the CEO of a company saying “I had the directions written for the company to follow and I have no other responsibility as to the operation of the company. How long do you think she/he would be employed? Do you think parents can say they did their job by directing the writing of policies for their children to follow, but they are not responsible for whether their children follow those policies. The Premier/Minister can delegate but it is still the Premier/Minister's responsibility to ensure that the delegates are doing their work appropriately.
Cadieux said her responsibility is to set “'high level direction' for the ministry” (as given to her by Premier Christy and her handful of people running the government - see Why I Don't Vote – Part II), and to speak about anything that goes wrong (15), which I guess would be saying the scripted talking points she's given. And, of course, going for photo-ops. “But as a minister of the Crown, she is responsible for everything her ministry does within its charter. By attempting to evade this longstanding principle, she makes a mockery of ministerial accountability”. (23) Can you imagine the CEO of a company saying “I had the directions written for the company to follow and I have no other responsibility as to the operation of the company. How long do you think she/he would be employed? Do you think parents can say they did their job by directing the writing of policies for their children to follow, but they are not responsible for whether their children follow those policies. The Premier/Minister can delegate but it is still the Premier/Minister's responsibility to ensure that the delegates are doing their work appropriately.
Plecas
report (24)
Cadieux hired
Plecas, and his team, to do a review of the J.P. Case and offer recommendations. His review is a review of the system. Plecas refers to it as an “independent”
review but it is not. When
reading the report one has to keep in mind that
Plecas's career was in the government (see Plecas Review, Appendix 2),
and he is an “insider” (25). Also, coincidentally (I think not), his
daughter Bobbi Plecas was moved to the Office of the Premier on July 30, 2015
just before her father was hired in August 2015. (25)(26)
He provides, what appears to be, a good summary of the
Ministry's roller-coast ride due to continual changes in direction by Deputy
Minister's. The Representative said “I was pleased to see that Mr. Plecas’s document endorses
recommendations that my Office has made continually in recent years – including
those calling for more funding and adequate staffing for MCFD”. (27)
However, his
toadiness or bias can be seen in some of his recommendations. For example:
a. Case-specific
“The Ministry
for Children and Families said Tuesday that the review of Gervais’ death,
conducted by the provincial director of child welfare, would be case-specific
and not a look at systemic issues in the child welfare system”. (28) Plecas also recommended “that these cases be
looked at as case-specific and not be applied universally”. (24) If they did a very narrow review would they
have noticed (much less reported):
- that the
problems at these group homes had been going on for 6 years (2008 to 2014) and
no one in the ministry did anything (presumably children and case workers
passed this information up the chain of command) until the children went to the
Representative. (3)
- what effect
did this have on the other children living in these unhealthy (physically and
emotionally) group homes; this was not addressed in any of the articles.
- that 117
(133 with repeat stays) children were being warehoused in hotels, with minimal
supervision, contrary to policy.
- would they
have noticed the Minister and senior staff had so little awareness of what was
happening in the Ministry
- and would
they have noticed all the larger issues, including other “gaps” in the system
that even BC premier Clark had to admit existed. (28)
Looking at
the specifics of the case, and not seeing if it extends to the rest of the
system, is just a way of covering up management failures. It also prevents any improvements.
b. Blame
Plecas says
that no one should be laying blame until all the facts have come out. To a point I believe this is true. Cadieux “pointed the finger at ministry staff
“(15) and Clark blamed the agency (30).
But ultimately Clark and Cadieux are responsible for whatever happens in
the Ministry.
Yet, Plecas
wants to share victim's (children's) sensitive personal information with
politicians so they can have a debate based on “facts”. This sounds like victim blaming. And, let's face it, the politicians do not
have constructive debates in the Legislature.
They may have been given a briefing and questions to ask/answer. They are not allowed to stray from their
talking points. In fact, the Legislature
debate has become such a farce that even the politicians are reducing the
number of days they “sit”. And, how
would sharing Alex Gervais' personal information have made a difference; it was
not about his vulnerabilities but about multiple system failures. The Ministry
takes in children because they are vulnerable. It is the Ministry's job, not just to provide
housing, but to provide the resources to heal these children's vulnerabilities
so they will leave the government care physically and mentally strong. If a child leaves the system vulnerable or
dies due to vulnerabilities this is not the child's fault; the Ministry failed because
the child is still vulnerable.
I do agree that calling for the resignation of the
minister (Cadieux) isn't constructive.
After all, one useless, putrid politician will simply be replaced with
another useless, putrid politician and nothing will have changed for the
better.
c.
Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond
Plecas
wants to get rid of the Representative's oversight function and he would like
to do it next year (2017) when her current contract expires. I totally disagree with this. But I am not surprised that the government
would want to get rid of her. I'm only
surprised she has lasted as long as she has.
As Plecas admits “she's a thorn in their side and she's suppose to be”.
(24)(31) The politicians don't like
their “mistakes” brought to light regardless of the effect on the
children. So, the problems with
eliminating the Representative's oversight function are:
aa. The politicians cannot be trusted
The
politicians would much prefer to cover-up all critical injuries and deaths
which show government mismanagement. For
example, all the contradictory statements by Cadieux, plus her refusal to
accept responsibility. Another example,
“Agreements with Young Adults (AYA) a smokescreen that is not helping these
vulnerable teens”.(32) Cadieux
said the Ministry has “the fewest children in care in the past 19 years” (31)
but the question is why. Is this because
the children are not in danger or because the government is leaving children in
family, or other, situations that are not safe?
Are they “delegating” the children to other organizations so the
politicians can claim the children are no longer in “government” care?
With
regard to the group homes in the Alex Gervais case, the appalling situation
went on for 6 years with nothing being done until the Representative stepped
in.
Cadieux
also said there were 110 more social workers this year (31) but the
Representative stated “that over the same time period 91 social workers quit
for various reasons, including burnout, leaving just 19 new workers”. (31) So, Cadieux was trying to mislead people.
The hospital reviewed the Malamalatabua case but won’t share the
report with Turpel-Lafond, citing privacy laws, saying doctors won’t speak
openly in the future if they think internal reviews are shared with her office.
(10) Why? What are they hiding? Would they give this information to the
police if the police were conducting an investigation? I think there needs to be discussion as to
what can be shared and under what circumstances regarding the children's
injuries and deaths.
bb. Plecas assumes the quality assurance
program and public information system will be implemented and successful.
I
find it “odd” the Plecas would suggest that everything will be fixed, and the
Representative's oversight function redundant, possibly as soon as 2017 when he
stated “but twenty years after its formation the Ministry
continues to struggle, not equipped for this century, and in need of repair.
There clearly remains a fair distance to go”.
cc. Plecas assumes the politicians won't
decide to change things shortly after the Representative loses the oversight
function.
Yet,
as Mr. Plecas pointed out in his report, the politicians have a penchant for
changing direction on a dime.
dd. Does anyone really think the politicians
won't try to cover-up any wrong-doings or prevent any bad publicity?
Which
means the children will suffer in silence.
ee. Lack of Enforcement of the Child, Family and
Community Service Act (CFCS Act)
“In her report Lost in the Shadows, the
Representative called for the Attorney General to review the reasons for a lack
of enforcement of the CFCS Act in B.C., and take steps to promote compliance,
if necessary. The Representative fails to understand what action was taken at the
level of the Attorney General as there has been no direct follow up on this
issue since that report was issued on Feb. 6, 2014”. (8) It again sounds like the Act is just words on
paper to the politicians.
By
having Turpel-Lafond, or someone of her calibre, with the current
responsibilities, what could happen:
1.
If the Ministry is doing its job
effectively, protecting the children, then the Representative won't have any
investigations and few recommendations.
2. With less work, the Representative's office
could focus on other duties like advocacy.
3. If the government starts screwing up again,
the Representative would still have the mandate to do the appropriate
investigation(s).
4. The people can have some trust in the
protection of the children in government care because of the oversight role of
a Representative of the calibre
of Turpel-Lafond.
5. Turpel-Lafond not only exposes
the mismanagement of the Ministry but provides recommendations to improve the
system (help the children)
If
you read any reports by the Representative's office you will see the incredible,
beneficial impact she has had on improving the care of the children but there
is still lots to do. You may also want to read "Meet the Representative" on the Office Representative for Children and Youth website which explains why she is so good at her job.
Plecas
wants, instead, a ministry spokesperson “to ensure the public is informed not
only of the Ministry failures but also of its successes”. Do you really think the government is
going to allow one of its toady's to advertise its failures? If we had transparency all the
time a spokesperson wouldn't be necessary because the people would know what
the ministry has been doing and the pros/cons.
This sounds like it would just be a propaganda exercise by the
government. And
this would presumably “shield” the Minister and
provide her/him with one less thing to do.
Al
Hoolaeff, Alex Gervais’s former primary caregiver at an Abbotsford group home,
“said he’d prefer for Turpel-Lafond’s office to operate at further remove from
the government — more like the Independent Investigations Office of B.C., which
probes incidents involving police that lead to death or injury”. (34) “It’s
important that these things are investigated immediately and that any of the
ministry files need to be seized immediately — just like if it was a police
investigation — where they can’t be tampered with, can’t be edited,” Hoolaeff
said. (34)
Plecas
wants new appointees to the Representative's position to serve only one term of
six years. If they are doing a good job,
or an incredible job like Turpel-Lafond, why would you replace them? A new person would have to learn the job,
learn the issues, and probably won't see if their recommendations are
implemented. This constant turnover of
personnel is part of the problem as Plecas himself pointed out in the history
of the Ministry. But perhaps if the
Representative's are good little toadies they can get another job in government
after six years.
Turpel-Lafond
is asking for an increase of $20 million per year. “Earlier in the day, Mary Ellen
Turpel-Lafond, the representative for children and youth, urged the minister to
spend $20 million more annually to hire 250 more staff, 200 of them social
workers. She made the comments after releasing a report that said some B.C.
child welfare offices are perilously understaffed, leading to a consistent
failure to meet the provincial government’s own timelines and rules for child
protection”. (35)(33) Two
editorials by the Times Colonist explain why this is needed (13, 31), plus a
CBC News article (35), and Paige's story (8); for example, front-line workers
are grossly over-burdened (33) and children are being left at risk. (33) (7) “I find it particularly concerning that,
over the past four years, the proportion of
MCFD’s budget that is dedicated to child protection has actually decreased in
real terms, leaving alone the impacts of inflation”.
(24) “When government steps in to act as
a child's guardian and protector, it also takes on a financial burden
associated with its decision”. (24) Plus
“NDP critic Doug Donaldson said the report shows, though,
that the ministry under-spends its child protection budget by millions every
year”. (33) Presumably, this
“savings” goes back to the politicians for other uses.
The
politicians can “afford” large subsidies to the LNG companies (36), Christy's
$500,000 private jets (not including other forms of transportation such as
commercial flights)(37), and hiring Christy's “inconvenience”, Ben Stewart, to
go for a prolonged stay to Asia (see Why I Don't Vote - 4c), all on the backs
of the children. The politicians could
take some of that money for the children, AND/OR, they could take the
$100 million Christy transferred into the prosperity fund (which is not linked
to LNG revenues) and use it for the next five+ years for the children. After all, finance minister Mike De Jong
said, about transferring money into the prosperity fund, "The fact that we
would take a small amount of the chequing account and transfer it into a small
savings account to look ahead is a natural thing for us to do". (38) Well, lets look ahead and transfer it to the
children. After all, it's just a small
amount. But, conning the people into
believing LNG money has gone into the prosperity fund, for the benefit of
Christy's next election campaign, is more important than the children.
The
issue is not about having the money but how it is allocated. But then, the children don't vote, they don't
contribute to the political party fund, they don't give out brown bags of money
and they can't hire out-of-work politicians.
The children have no value – to the politicians.
And
just giving money isn't enough. Hiring
more front-line social workers isn't enough.
You have to have systems in place to show that the money is
being used effectively and efficiently. For example, in a 2013 report, the
Representative “said the province provides about $90-million a year to 23
delegated aboriginal agencies but that there has been no comprehensive
assessment of how they are performing and whether they are improving outcomes”.
(9) I am also curious as to why 23 group
homes were closed which affected 33 children.
Was there on average of 1.5 children per group home?
Unlike
LNG, money spent on the children has a known, direct return. Studies, reports and just common sense tells
us that children, most or all, that are returned to health, physically and
mentally, go on to lead healthy, productive and, I suggest, mostly happy
lives. They contribute to society in a
variety of ways and reduce costs in hospital, welfare, shelters, police, courts
and other services. (32) And, in many
cases, these healthy children, as reported by the Representative, will raise
healthy children breaking an intergenerational cycle of trauma. (8) The returns on healthy children just keep
happening, year after year, generation after generation.
Plus,
the Representative says her office “needs an extra $656,000 to handle the
increasing number of investigations into child injuries and deaths”. (31) “The need to do more detailed probes, she said, is the result of an
'astronomical' rise in the numbers of deaths and critical injuries reported to
her office. She received 82 such reports this September, compared to just 28
during the same month in 2014”. (10)
“The main reason for this increase was that her office re-defined what
constitutes the critical injury of a child, prompting government social workers
to report more cases”. (10) I'm sure
this was necessary or the politicians would not have allowed the change in
definition. “In addition, she’s asking for $958,000 a year
to boost advocacy on behalf of children and youth seeking a permanent home”.
(31) However, her
budget has been frozen at $8.18 million for four years”. (34)(10) The safety and well-being of
children are the paramount considerations and these are not, relatively
speaking, large sums of money. After all, if $100 million is a small amount, then $1.6 million is
miniscule. (38)
Some people are suggesting that foster care may be the new
residential schools. (39) This refers to
the seizure and treatment of aboriginal children. However, what should not be ignored is this
also includes the treatment of all children (aboriginal and non-aboriginal
children). Some children have,
relatively speaking, positive experiences in foster care (as I have read, some
did in residential schools); by that I mean they were not beaten/starved/
molested/emotionally abused, etc. while in residential school/foster care. But many others cannot say the same. And, can you imagine saying to your child
(and the government is the parent of the children in foster care), happy 19th
birthday, as you hand them garbage bags containing their belongings, and show
them the door (the permanently closed door). (8)
If foster care is the modern day version of residential schools
then, at least, we know where to start laying the blame, the self-serving
politicians - BC Premier Christy Clark, BC Minister Stephanie Cadieux, Manitoba
Premier Greg Selinger (40), Minister Kerri Irvin-Ross (see Why I Don't Vote –
Part II) and those who came before them.
I think of these people as the monsters because they abuse and kill
children through their indifference, their greed, and their narcissism.
The
Union of BC Indian Chiefs (41) and The BC Federation of Teachers (42) are
speaking up and demanding better care of the children. I can only hope the rest of the people of
B.C. stand up for the children (and other provinces/territories), and, at the
very least, demand more money for necessary resources, demand a better system
that cares for them, demand that the Representative's office retain its current
mandate and the position of Representative be held by Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond
or someone of her calibre (not some government toady). “Health’s budget is protected because both of BC’s
political parties know this is essential for electoral success”.(24);
people need to make sure that the children's budget is
protected and not decreased in real terms, unless it can be honestly
justified. These are CHILDREN.
1. When Foster Care Hurts – Pieta Wooley, 5 Jul 2013, TheTyee.ca
2. Teen in B.C. provincial
care dies in fall from hotel window – 23 Sep 2015, CBC News
3. B.C. youth care home investigation finds
unsafe conditions – Enza Uda, 08 Dec 2015, CBC News
4. Nick Lang's grieving
parents say B.C. ministry worker 'didn't care' about meth-addicted teenager –
Natalie Clancy, 13 Oct 2015, CBC News
5. Mother denied details
about daughter's case – Les Leyne, 11 Nov 2015, Times Colonist
6. Danny Francis takes own
life while in ministry care, friend says – Natalie Clancy, 03 Dec 2015, CBC
News
7. Rcy news release pg final.pdf –
Paige's Story Prompts Representative To Call For New Approach To Helping
Vulnerable Aboriginal Girls - 14 May 2014, B.C. Representative For Children And
Youth (News Release), BC Representative For Children and Youth website.
8. Rcy-pg-report-final.pdf – Paige's Story – Abuse, Indifference And
A Young Life Discarded, May 2015, B.C. Representative For Children and Youth
(see website)
9. Young man dies while
in care of B.C. aboriginal agency - Wendy Stueck, 03 Dec 2013, The Globe and
Mail
10. Children's advocate
wants more money to investigate youth deaths, Lori Culbert and Rob Shaw, 20 Nov
2015, Vancouver Sun (a paper I wouldn't buy)
11. Mother sues B.C.
Ministry of Children after baby dies in foster care – Chantelle Bellerichard,
24 Mar 2015, CBC News
12. Near Daily, a Child
Dies or Is Hurt in Care of Province – Pieta Wooley, 11 Mar 2013, TheTyee.ca
13. Editorial: Child ministry needs overhaul - 22 Jan 2016,
Times Colonist
14. Stephanie Cadieux says answers coming in
death of Danny Francis, other teens – 04 Dec 2015, CBC News
15. Teen's death leaves Minister Stephanie
Cadieux 'angry' policy ignored – 24 Sep 2015, CBC News
16. B.C. children's
minister orders urgent review to see if other kids in care are stuck in hotels
- Rob Shaw and Lori Culbert, 23 Sep 2015, Vancouver Sun
17. B.C. government
agencies to review foster children in hotels - Lori Culbert, 10 Nov 2015,
Vancouver Sun
18. New report shows 117
B.C. foster children were placed in hotels - Lori Culbert, 13 Jan 2016,
Vancouver Sun (a paper I wouldn't buy)
19. 117 vulnerable youth
placed in hotels, ministry says - Lindsay Kines, 13 Jan 2016, Times Colonist
20.
B.C. commits to public reports on teens placed in hotels after joint
review - The Canadian Press, 13 Jan 2016, Times Colonist
21. The Placement of
Children and Youth in Care in Hotels in British Columbia – A Joint Special
Report, Representative For Children And Youth, Ministry of Children and Family
Development, January 2016
22. News Release – Joint report results in action plan to reduce hotel
stays as placements – 13 Jan 2016, Ministry of Children and Family Development,
Representative for Children and Youth
23.
Editorial: Minister must be
responsible - 05 Oct 2015, Times Colonist [please note, paragraph 5, I believe
there was an entry error and “Cadieux' death” should be “Gervais' death”]
24. Plecas Review, Part
One: Decision Time – A review of policy,
practice and legislation of child welfare in BC in relation to a judicial
decision in the J.P. Case - Bob Plecas, 04 Dec 2015 (you can do an internet
search or go to the Ministry of Children and Development/Ministry
Reporting/Plecas Review which was on the right hand side, or go to the website
and do a search)
25. Bob Plecas is a Friend
of Mine - Vaughn Palmer (updated)
Bcveritas.com/index.php/2015/07 (a blog by Vaughn Palmer)
26. B.C. cabinet shuffle
puts Fassbender in Victoria amalgamation talks – 30 Jul 2015, Times Colonist
27. representative statement-dec 14.pdf - 14 Dec 2015, B.C.
Representative For Children and Youth (see website)
28. Aboriginal agency wants
broader scope for review of B.C. teen's death - Lori Culbert and Rob Shaw, 01
Oct 2015, Vancouver Sun
29. Dozens of foster
children lodged in hotels over year – Vancouver Sun, 26 Sep 2015, Times Colonist
30. Death of Alex Gervais sign ministry needs to reorganize, says
critic – 29 Sep 2015, CBC News
31. Editorial: Work together for the children - 21 Nov 2015,
Times Colonist
32. B.C. minister,
representative disagree on 'aging out' fixes - Tracy Sherlock and Lori Culbert,
01 Jan 2016, Vancouver Sun
33. Two few social workers,
too many at-risk kids - Lori Culbert and Rob Shaw, 09 Oct 2015, Vancouver Sun
(a paper I wouldn't buy)
34. Child welfare report
leaves former caregiver with little hope - Bethany Lindsay, 15 Dec 2015, Vancouver
Sun
35. B.C. child protection
service unsafe and in crisis: report -
08 Oct 2015, CBC News
36. Three Wacky Accounting
Numbers for LNG and Shale Gas – Andrew Nikiforuk, 29 Feb 2016, TheTyee.ca
37. Air Christy Climbs to
Half Million Dollar Mark – Bob Mackin, 25 Feb 2016, TheTyee.ca
38. B.C. LNG prosperity
fund to get $100 million, but not from LNG – 15 Feb 2016, CBC News
39. Aboriginal Children and
Child Welfare Policies – Stephanie Laskowski, 07 Jul 2014, LawNow Magazine
40. Lack of foster spots
keep Manitoba kids in jail, watchdog says – Chinta Puxley, 14 Apr 2015, The
Globe and Mail
41. Open Letter: Plecas Review Must be Withdrawn and RCY
Recommendations Fully Implemented - Union of BC Indian Chiefs, 17 Dec 2015,
First Nations Drum
42. BCTF calls for
children's minister to resign after latest teen death - Tracy Sherlock, 16 Mar
2016, Vancouver Sun
43. Drug use, caregivers with criminal histories in B.C. youth group
homes, report alleges - Bethany Lindsay, 08 Dec 2015, Vancouver Sun (a paper I
wouldn't buy)
February 23, 2016
COLLECTING
INFORMATION (OR NOT) – MY STORY
I started to
get copies of my medical information that I didn't already have.
(1). My primary doctor's office first demanded to
know why I wanted a copy of my records.
I told them “because I want them”.
I didn't feel I needed to provide an explanation; a reasonable office
employee told the other to just give them to me. But the other one said that I would have to
talk to the office manager, who wasn't in the office. I finally contacted her and she said some of
the records might be stored in the back and they would have a hard time getting
them. I asked for them anyways. In fact, if she had checked the computer she
would have known that I had started seeing the doctor after they started
computerizing their records. But some
doctors do all they can to avoid giving out copies of records to patients.
Then she
demanded to know why I wanted the records.
She said there were different prices depending on whether they were for
me or for my lawyer. I asked what the
difference in price was and she refused to tell me. Is it legal to charge different prices for
the same thing (assuming she was telling the truth)? And are they legally allowed to refuse to
give me a copy of my information unless I tell them why I want it? Are they legally allowed to do everything
they can to discourage me from getting a copy of my records? Oh yes this is the medical business who don't
seem to care about the law, unless it suits them.
All my
information was, if fact, in their computer.
My primary doctor charged $27 and as the office manager said, they just
printed it off the computer; is this expensive paper, another way to discourage
people from getting their records or just a money grab? My medical records were put in an envelope,
unsealed, and left at the front desk for a few days; Staff and patients are all round the
desk. Another middle finger given to
privacy.
I was delayed
picking up the envelope because I wanted to pick up this information and the “d”'s
at the same time. Of course, I had
expected the envelope to be sealed.
(2) The first surgeon I had seen refused to give
me a copy of the information that had been collected.
(3) No
problem with my surgeon. I just had to
go in and sign off at the desk that I had received the copies which was
fine. Except that there had been
communication between the surgeon and the “d'.
The surgeon wasn't sure the information could be released without the
other doctor's approval so he didn't give it to me (he could have just phoned
the “d”).
(4) I phoned the “d”s office and asked for a copy
of my medical records and if he gave my information to the registry. I had asked my primary doctor and surgeon but
neither of them knew who gave my information to the registry (or so they
said). At the “d”s office I was told
that I had to make an appointment to get this information. Now you know where some your tax dollars get
wasted. As I am entitled to a copy of my
medical records I made an appointment.
When I went into his office he started taking the conversation in a
different direction so I stated, again, that I just wanted my medical records
and to know if he gave my information to the registry. Again he took the conversation in different
directions, probably trying to justify the visit, but when I wouldn't play
ball, he finally said essentially “So, you just want a copy of your medical
records and to know if I gave your information to the registry.” He said he didn't have any records so
apparently there was no record of my first visit or the so-called checkup. He also said that he hadn't given my
information to the registry but he mentioned who might have. Also, when I mentioned the communication
between him and my surgeon I got the same response as my surgeon. Now these are two people who, based on age,
have been in the business for a lot of years and I would think would have
encountered this before and so should know whether they could share the
information or not. In any case, he said
he would check with the other doctor and get back to me. Of course, being the medical system, he never
did. He just LIED. It would have been interesting to find out
what they were hiding. I walked out of
his office in absolute disgust, AGAIN.
I also wrote
letters to the hospital and anyone else involved in my health care, requesting
copies of my files. And I wrote to the
appropriate organizations with questions (this included treatment in the new
province). I did not receive a response
to several letters, so I mailed another copy, after a few more months and no
answer, I sent the letters by registered mail.
I got answers. Now it is possible
that ONE letter got overlooked but when it happens to several letters and to
different people/organizations, in the same business, it begins to look like a
tactic.
Some answers
I received to my questions made sense in relation to my direct health
care. Others did not (I do not include
those mentioned in other posts). These
are some of the non-answers from William Findlay, Michele Stanton and John
Garratt:
1. What are your living arrangements? They said that they want to know if someone
will be at home when you get out of surgery.
So, why don't they ask “will someone be at home to care for you when you
leave the hospital”? You may be living
with someone but that doesn't mean that, for a variety of reasons, they will be
there when you get home. You may live
alone but that does not mean you will not have someone at home when you leave
the hospital? The non-answer I got from
Findlay was “yes, that is a broad question”, which means they will continue to
ask the questions for reasons they refuse to state.
2. I asked who sent my information to the
registry? I was told it was nobody
specific; it's just entered from a variety of sources at the hospital. And researchers have access to this
information. My surgeon said researchers
would only have access if I went for further treatment which I didn't. The “d” said they were only counting a
number. Now, I am being told that the
registry staff and “researchers” have access to my information (no limits
mentioned). You just can't get an honest answer from these disgusting
“people”.
I asked
William Findlay how much of my information was put in the registry. He refused to answer and referred me to the
organization that owns the agency that has the registry. That organization refused to answer my
question. I sent letters again to the
organization and to Findlay insisting on an answer since it was the hospital
sharing my information. Findlay's
secretary said, in essence, that they refused to answer the question. I got no response from the organization. I sent a letter to the agency and they
refused to answer my questions.
I have to
assume that all my information/body parts is being shared/traded/bartered with
all their unsavoury friends (the only kind who steal from the vulnerable/sick
people) until I hear otherwise and, so far, no one will tell me; I just get the
run-around. Obviously, these vultures
have something truly horrendous and very evil to hide.
3. I asked if my DNA was shared with researchers
and I provided my care card number so they could look at my file. All I got was a non-answer that researchers
may access the registry. So, I can only
assume that researchers have access to my DNA for their use. Just think they could clone me (like they
have done to sheep, etc.) and then throw darts at me and otherwise torture
me. Anything is possible until the truth
is known.
4. I asked if researchers, biotech companies,
etc. are allowed to patent my DNA. Again
they had my care card number to check my file.
Again, I just got the non-answer “This is very uncommon. Should you wish to have your DNA patented you
should contact your family doctor about that”. I guess he thought that was pretty
funny. So, although I gave him my
personal health number (PHN) he could not/would not tell me if my DNA was, or
could be, patented without my knowledge/consent. So I can only assume that “researchers” can
do whatever they want with my DNA.
5. I was also told that when I was admitted to
the hospital I signed an admission form basically giving them permission to do
whatever they want. I checked my copy of
forms from the hospital and did not find an admission form. I asked William Findlay, in two separate
letters, to send me a copy of the signed admission form. The question was
continually ignored and I have not received a copy of the form so I have to
assume that it does not exist. But, if
it did exist it would only have been manufactured consent versus real
consent. Real consent is explaining
exactly how they want to use information, especially in ways that are not
directly connected with my specific care, with whom they want to share the
information and requesting my consent (it implies respect for the patient).
Manufactured consent implies contempt for the patient -- Give us everything we
want or die, we don't care, we are the medical business.
Update: I found a consent form in with the copies
from my surgeon. When asked to sign the
form I said that I didn't agree with some of the “requests”. I was told to just stroke out anything I
didn't like, which I did. I don't know
if this is the hospital consent form but I suspect it is. It may be why they refuse to send me a copy
because I stroked out everything that was not directly related to my surgery,
such as no sharing of information or body parts, etc. But they probably just stole the
information/body parts anyways.
William
Findlay said that the confidentiality and security of my information was
protected under the privacy act. Isn't
that disgusting. My information is
protected under the privacy act. Let's
see, oh yes, the auditor general and the privacy commissioner have found, on
several occasions, that the privacy act has not been implemented, much less
enforced in the medical business. They
found that our information was/is being shared with every low-life. But my information is protected under the
privacy act. How? Oh yes, and when the medical business is
caught illegally sharing patient information NOTHING happens. The management is not sued, fired or held
accountable in any way. They just
promise to change things, until they get caught again. And then they just make the same lying
promise. But my information is protected
under the privacy act. The privacy act
was meant to be, and is, just words on paper to be used to misdirect and con
the public. But my information is
protected under the privacy act. What a
vile farce.
One medical
person, when asked for specific information, about who my information was being
shared with, told me, essentially, that
if I didn't like his (general) information I could contact the privacy
commissioner. I contacted the privacy
commissioner who told me that such requests were outside their mandate. But that's what they do, run you in circles.
I had to
laugh at the arrogance/narcissism of one medical person who said that I had his
assurance that my information was protected. Obviously, he was still under the illusion
that the word of someone in the medical business had value, that he could be
trusted. I wish that were true but it
isn't.
As for that
registry, well, I tell people I wouldn't give that organization my spit. But then they have probably STOLEN that too.
I received a
letter from the staff of a doctor telling me that the doctor would like me to
phone as the doctor had something to say to me.
I asked that the information be sent in a letter. I never heard from the doctor/staff
again.
If I could
trust the medical/government business I wouldn't have to ask the
questions. But they have proven they are
not trustworthy. And, if they were
trustworthy, I would have gotten honest, complete answers, not non-answers,
run-arounds or just blatant LIES.
So, now they
have all this information on me, the truth and the lies. It will be shared with every scumbag because,
in my opinion, that's the only type that would access a patient's information
without their knowledge and/or their real consent. Collecting information “anonymously” has been
proven too many times to be another lie.
Again, I
state, I am not against research, if done with respect. I am against stealing people's information
because only unethical, immoral fiends would do this. If you can't ask for information honestly, if
you refuse to state who is using this information and for what purpose, if you
have to hide in the shadows, in the gutters, then you must be doing something
corrupt, vile and contemptible.
From the Open
Society Justice Initiative, printed by the Office of the BC Information and
Privacy Commissioner, Right to Know Week, September 28th to October
5th, 2007,:
10 Principles
that form the core of the right to know:
1. Access to information is a right of
everyone.
2. Access is the rule – secrecy is the exception!
3. The right applies to all public bodies.
4. Making requests should be simple, speedy,
and free.
5. Officials have a duty to assist requestors.
6. Refusals must be justified.
7. The public interest takes precedence over
secrecy.
8. Everyone has the right to appeal an adverse
decision.
9. Public bodies should proactively publish
core information.
10. The right
should be guaranteed by an independent body.
Just words on
paper. Sounds good but not worth a damn
because the medical/government business will not implement it. But the privacy commissioner's office likes
to print it because it makes them look like they care. Just propaganda by the government.
Simply put, privacy
refers to an individual's right to remain anonymous or control who, how, when,
and where information that is used to identify them is managed. (source
unknown). And we have a RIGHT to
privacy, this is our information not theirs but these people flip their middle
finger at our RIGHTS.
I still have to see medical “people” periodically,
whether for healthcare or outside the medical business. But I don't have to like them, I certainly
don't respect or trust them. I look at
these cannibalistic cowards who feed off the patients, whether it's a
pharmacist/technician/researcher/physician, etc. (with one or two individual
exceptions) with the same disgust and contempt that they have for the
patients. The difference is -- I don't
mask it.
February
22, 2016
A BIT
ABOUT MY HEALTH STORY
Years ago,
before I started raising awareness outside of St. Paul's, I went to a doctor
for a health problem. The doctor wanted
me to become part of a “study”. I was
told that some researchers were being given access to patients records in
return for providing services to the medical system
(sold/traded/bartered). There would be a
table of researchers, from different disciplines, asking questions. I asked what kind of questions. The doctor provided me with a outline of some
of the questions. They wanted to know
EVERYTHING, including all intimate information.
I was shocked to say the least.
It really was a case of taking a sledgehammer to a finishing nail so I
certainly didn't feel that this “research” was for my benefit. And, according to comments from the doctor, I
was certainly not the first patient that the doctor had directed, or tried to
direct, to this group.
I asked this
doctor about privacy. I was told not
to ask about privacy or I would be listed as being “paranoid”. There's that word again. I felt, under the circumstances, that it was
a very reasonable question. But, if you
want to shut people up, or keep them from thinking along certain lines, or keep
them from asking uncomfortable questions, just call them paranoid. It felt like intimidation, or blackmail, to
me. I said no. And, knowing what I know today, I am sooooo glad
I did. But at least, in this case, they had
to ask and I had the option to say no.
Of course, the politicians had already given them permission to steal
whatever information was in the system but for any additional information they
needed my cooperation.
My doctor
said that we would discuss it again. I
had said NO but gawd forbid that it should be respected. I didn't go back to this doctor for a variety
of reasons, including not wanting to be harassed or coerced and not being
respected.
I consider it
unethical to try to manipulate a patient into becoming a lab rat by telling
them it's for their benefit, when in fact it's for the benefit of the
“researchers” and whatever company/organization they work for. I don't recall being told what organization
this group was with, the purpose of the research or how the information would
be used. Do doctors get kick-backs or
brownie points or some other benefit for every patient they direct to the
“researchers”. As for my medical issue,
I eventually figured out what was causing it, fixed it; problem solved and
without a doctor.
I noticed,
over the years, that every time I went to a new doctor, in whatever discipline
(medical, dentist, optometrist, massage, etc.) I was asked my occupation. It was usually asked as if it were just
“conversation”. But when I kept getting
asked the same question I realized that they were, in fact, collecting
information. Apparently, they just
didn't want me to know it would be entered into their records (to be shared
with all the miscreants). I also came to
believe that medical people don't have just general “conversations”. All questions, and even some statements, are
about collecting information. Again, I
consider it unethical to collect information under the guise of “general
conversation”. Now I have a little fun
with it. I decide what I want to be that
day - a pilot, an archeologist, a retail
clerk …... and do the same with other questions.
In 2013 I
became ill. I didn't know it immediately
but according to a doctor, I got sick around B.C. election time. What a coincidence. I had to go to a surgeon. This surgeon started asking me a lot of
questions which didn't seem to have anything to do with my surgery. So I asked and all I was told was that it had
to do with my treatment. I still didn't
see the connection so I asked specifically how one related to the other. Instead of answering the question I was told
that the surgeon had only so much time for me and if I was was going to ask
questions right from the beginning, well.....
Then the surgeon changed tactics and said it's about trust and if I
didn't trust the surgeon then I should find another surgeon. So, either I “trusted” the doctor and did
whatever I was told without question (be submissive/subservient, crawl), or I
would be denied health care by this doctor.
The fact that she was refusing to answer a simple question didn't
instill trust. In fact, it suggested
that she was lying and was, in fact, collecting information that was not
directly connected to my surgery.
I don't
believe that the majority of questions had anything to do with my health but,
in fact, was information gathering for their vile friends, the scientists, the
researchers, the suppliers, the marketers and gawd knows who else. Again, it becomes a case of collecting
information under false pretenses which I consider immoral and unethical. If it was moral and ethical they wouldn't
have to lie about it and hide what they were really doing, they would just
answer the question. So what are they
doing that is so heinous that they have to lie about it?
Anyways, I
needed surgery and soon (I was sick and vulnerable) so I answered the questions
but not always truthfully. That pretty
much destroys the value of the information.
After I left the surgeon's office and had time to think I decided that I
didn't want anything to do with this surgeon who refused to answer my
questions even if it meant delaying needed surgery. How can one trust a surgeon
who lies and won't answer questions. So I got a new surgeon and I'm soooo glad
I'm did.
I was overall
very pleased with this surgeon. But the
surgeon was not perfect and again it was privacy issues. I wasn't asked all the questions as I had
been previously but then I suspect that the surgeon got the information from
the previous surgeon. But I was asked
whether I worked outside the home. Again
that question. I asked why the surgeon
wanted to know. I was told it was to
determine my availability. Well, if you
want to know someone's availability you ask how available that person is. A person's availability is dependent on other
factors/commitments besides work. So I
believe the answer I was given to the question was a lie. But I answered the question because, quite
honestly, I wondered if the real purpose was to decide on the quality of
care I would receive; how valuable am I to “society”, more to the point, the
turdits and their friends. If you don't
know the reason for the question, and you are being lied to, anything is
possible.
The next
question was, of course, since I worked, my occupation. Again I asked what this had to do with my
surgery. I was told that the hospital
would want to know, which didn't really answer the question. I answered it but again not quite
truthfully. They're lying to me so I
didn't feel that I owed them the truth.
I found out later that if the hospital wants to know anything they will
ask (and they asked lots and lots of questions). They didn't ask this
question. So why did the surgeon lie
about the hospital wanting to know specifically my occupation. Again, I think this was information collecting
for the gutter trash who feed off the vulnerable, the sick. As I left the surgeon's office he said to me
“so are you available? (for tests and surgery)”. So, this confirmed that asking about my work
was not about “availability”.
Also, my
primary doctor had told me that a test had not yet come back. I asked which test and the first time I asked
I was given an answer that was incomprehensible to me. So, on the next visit I asked again and I was
told that a sample of my DNA had been taken and what it was being tested for. Before every test I asked what was being
tested and I read the form I had to give to the testers; nowhere did I see
DNA. I told my surgeon about this test
and the surgeon said that they never do that.
So, I went back to my primary doctor and asked “Was my DNA taken and
tested for....”. The doctor kept giving
a non-answer so I had to repeat the question several times. Eventually the doctor said “I don't
know”. This doctor is suppose to have a
record of all tests. Was the surgeon
telling the truth? Which doctor was
lying or were both lying? Again, you
just can't get a straight answer from these people. What are they hiding?
Did they take
my DNA? Is my DNA being stored in a DNA
warehouse, like they do with newborns, shared with all sorts of “people” and
organizations (the US military love collecting other people's DNA). I don't know and I should have the right to
know.
While going
through tests and the actual visit to the hospital, this was an issue that kept
reoccurring – collecting information not
needed for my surgery. For example, the
hospital wanted to know my marital status.
Why? What did this have to do
with my surgery? They also don't want
you to have the questions beforehand. It
would appear that they don't want you to have time to think about the
questions, or they have some other motive.
For example, they had a 4 page questionnaire, even before I got to the
hospital, and when I asked them to fax or email me a copy of the questions,
they refused. The only way I could get a
copy was for me to go to the hospital and ask if someone would print it out (if
someone would, in fact, do it). But
there wasn't time because my surgery was the next day and they needed the
answers. I think of that as blackmail –
give us the information now or your surgery will be cancelled.
Another
example was the day I went for surgery I was at one location (I got sent to
many) and asked to fill out two forms. I
filled out one and, after reviewing the second, asked the purpose of the
questions. I was told not to fill it out
if I didn't want to. So why would they
give it to me if they don't need it and why not state, when it is given to me,
that it is optional? Anyways, shortly
after that I was laying on a gurney, with a tube in me and a medical person
comes over and says they lost the form I filled out (I believe it was the form
I filled out, not the other one) and she was going to ask the questions
again. I told her that I had a copy in
the locker which was directly across from us, only a few arms length away. But no she insisted on asking the questions. So:
1. Did they lose my personal, confidential
information in about 10 minutes?
2. Was she lying?
3. Or both?
I suspect it
was the second, or possibly the third answer.
But these people expect trust and respect from you when all they do is
lie. Strange.
I also
noticed as I went through the system that I would sometimes have the same
questions asked more than once. For
example, after a test, one medical person sat down beside me, as if she was my
best friend (in fact, she was anything but), and asked a question that she had
asked earlier. I learned during my time
in front of St. Paul's that “pretending to be your friend” is a tactic used to
gain information from people who you think don't want to provide the
information; it's manipulative. So, I
learned to lie consistently on some questions or I changed my answer each time
they asked on other questions. I had no
respect for these bastards who were lying to and conning me, who didn't have
the ethics or morals to state the real reason they were collecting this
information. I also started taping
everything. You may even want to take a
camera, if possible, to protect yourself.
I also
strongly suggest that you take someone with you when you go through the medical
system. This person should be with you
at all times, even, if it were possible, in surgery. Otherwise you may find that you are asked if
someone, a male, can watch a procedure.
You may say NO. The person asking
(a female) and the male may go off and have a little talk. Then, when you are in the middle of the
procedure and half-naked, you may look up and see the male peeking around the
curtain. You may realize that the male
has been standing on the other side of the curtain, listening, waiting for the
“opportune” moment, for him. What
do you call someone who would do this?
Certainly, you would not call it a man because a real man would never do
something like that. Do you call it a
pervert, a sicko, a voyeur, human garbage. You may be going through an
extraordinarily difficult time and then have to emotionally deal with the
indignity, the humiliation of a pervert(s).
And if he was told to do it then do you have two perverts, two pieces of
human garbage? And just think what
someone(s) like this is learning and will do to the next patient. These people do not respect the word NO. If you say NO they will just take it anyway,
by whatever means, and they don't care how far into hell they have to sink to
do it. And who spawns and raises such
sickos?
A male said to me “I don't care about you. You don't DO anything”. Well, actually I DO something. But why let the truth get in the way of a convenient lie. Who else do they “not care about”. It doesn't matter what a person does or does not DO because all people SHOULD be treated the same in the medical system -- with dignity and respect.
A male said to me “I don't care about you. You don't DO anything”. Well, actually I DO something. But why let the truth get in the way of a convenient lie. Who else do they “not care about”. It doesn't matter what a person does or does not DO because all people SHOULD be treated the same in the medical system -- with dignity and respect.
Also, when
you are going through the system you may have two females strap you into a
machine, half-naked, so you can't move.
Then they may take off (coffee break).
A bit later you may hear someone moving around behind you and ask who it
is and a male may answer. You may
never see him, any part of him, or what he was doing behind you, or even if
there was more than one male. As far as
you know it's just him and you and you are half-naked and can't move. Would
something like this be considered a “perk” of the job?
You may be
going through hell, vulnerable and sick but the more vulnerable you are the
easier it is to be degraded, devalued, and dehumanized by these cowards in the
medical business.
Aren't there
rules against this? But, of course, if
there are they would just be words on paper, meaningless. And these people insist on trust and respect. But gawd forbid that a patient should delay
the bastards coffee break; that appeared more important than the dignity and
emotional well-being of a patient.
You should be
able to feel safe in the medical system but you are not safe, especially a
woman.
Perhaps I
should feel compassion for people who seem to be depraved but I'm not there
yet.
Right now, I
hope there is a special place in hell for “people” like this.
And just think, one or more of these
"people" may “take care” of you if you get sick.
I was in
recovery after surgery when a nurse said to me: “your healthy, how did you get
this illness”, as if I had brought it on myself (no one knows what causes my
illness or so they say). Was she:
1. grossly insensitive
2. Collecting information
3. Both
As I said
before, I don't believe these people ask questions unless they are collecting
information. So, there I was, still
coming out of anesthetic, susceptible, vulnerable. What a perfect time to take advantage of
someone.
A week or so
after surgery I had to go to the surgeon for a checkup. It was at this visit that I found out that my
medical information had gone into a registry.
I had not been asked if I wanted my information in this registry and
only told after the fact. I was told
that no one, other than the next doctor I had to see, would access my
information without my written consent (another LIE). I found out later that I would be
“tracked”. So, I was now in a registry,
being treated like I was a criminal, like I was a paedophile, because I got sick with an illness
that affects no one but me.
After
noticing the t-shirt I had on the surgeon mentioned that his daughter had
visited that country. I got the
impression that I was expected to respond with some comment about my family – I
didn't. This question was then asked by
the next doctor.
So, I had to
go see another doctor (I came up with a number of names for him, the politest
was, well, I'll call him the “d”). On
appointment day I couldn't find this doctor's address so I went to my primary
doctor and the person at the desk, not a doctor, went into my medical files to
find out who I had been referred to. I
mention this because I had been told by the office manager that no one had
access to my information except the doctors.
So, more lies.
I went to the
“d”s office, let them know at the desk that I was there and sat and
waited. Half an hour later one of the
desk people came and asked me if I was waiting for someone. I waited for a moment while a number of
sarcastic remarks ran through my head and then said “yes”. I went into the doctor's office and he
explained that he had been delayed because he couldn't get his computer to
work, then he couldn't get his printer to work so I gather that he borrowed a
laptop. The first question he asked was
my marital status. Why? Did he want to date me? No?
Well, I couldn't see what my marital status had to do with my health
care. So, I told him it was irrelevant
and he said it was relevant but didn't say why.
Next he asked if I had family.
Why? Did they want to know how
available my body parts were before I was dead?
I told him it was irrelevant and he said it was relevant but again
didn't say why.
When he
accessed my information in the registry I asked who else had access. He said researchers but they only want to
count a number. Well, if all they want
is to count a number then there isn't a need for all my information to be in
this registry. And this answer was
different from my surgeon's; and, as you can read in the next post I will get a
different answer from the reprobates running the registry. You just can't get an honest, straight answer
from these disgusting, reprehensible excuses for human beings.
He
recommended further treatment but he only gave me the most minimal of
information. In my opinion, only enough
information to manipulate me into doing what he wanted. I asked him where he got his
information. Basically I wanted to know
his sources because this guy was not instilling in me any sense of confidence
that he knew what he was doing. He shrugged
and looked at the computer; I certainly didn't get the impression that he gave
a damn. He did not mention a lot of
things, including side affects of treatment.
I had to ask and then he had to think for a few minutes before he came
up with one obvious one. Apparently, I
spent more time researching than him so I knew there were other side
effects. Anyways, I said that I would
think about further treatment. He
decided at the point that he needed to do a checkup. Considering all the tests I had just been
through, I couldn't figure out why, but okay.
So he reaches for the equipment to check my blood pressure and it
doesn't work (or so he said). So he
decides to check my heart. I remember
thinking “yes, I do have one” because, by this point, I came believe that that
was all he could figure out. He placed
the stethoscope in the general vicinity of my heart for a fraction of a second
so I'm not sure he even determined that much.
I walked out of the “d”s office in complete disgust. Health
care should be a cooperation between doctor and patient, with the patient
receiving all information necessary to make an informed decision about what the
patient wants done to them – not a power play, not manipulation, by the medical
"people".
Shortly after
my operation I was in front of St. Paul's.
I don't think I was expected to be there again (presumably, there's more
than one way to make a person disappear).
Interestingly, just after I arrived a young male, riding a bike, told
me, as he went by, that he had an illness (almost identical to mine, what a
coincidence). And he said “I give them
(the medical people) everything they want or die”. Another expression of our non-democracy. This person had ridden by before my illness,
throwing out negative comments, and was patted on the back by someone from the
hospital.
When I moved
I was told that the medical information is not transferred from one province to
another. In the new province I moved to
I had to go for tests. The technician
asked in what province I had my operation, I told her since I believed they
already had the information (in hindsight I shouldn't have given the
information). Then she asked which
hospital. I refused to say. After all what difference does it make unless
you are planning on stealing my information.
A doctor
asked for a copy of my medical records so “they” could “track me”. I refused.
You should see the caring, compassionate mask drop when they don't get
what they want. These bastards stole my
information/body parts, they have consistently lied, they refused to say how
much of my information they stole, who they would share it with and how it
would be used (see next post “Collecting Information Or Not – My Story), but
they wanted my co-operation. Their level
of narcissism is unbelievable.
I went to a
different doctor and she asked a question.
She was shocked at my answer. I
don't know if it was the answer that shocked her or if she realized I was
lying. It didn't matter. She was just “information collecting”. So, I just smiled internally and thought
“touche, bastard”. What comes around
goes around.
Did some of
the people in the medical system do what I pay them to do? Yes, and the occasional one even
caringly. But it's like a priest that
holds the hand of a dying person (at the patient's request) or preaches to
people about morals, ethics, and integrity and then says, oh excuse me while I
go and rape one of your children or cover for those who do – besides being
hypocritical, one does not absolve the other.
Or the mafia who kills someone one day and then gives to charity -- one
does not absolve the other. You are
still something that harms the vulnerable, the sick, the children even it's by
doing nothing but covering for others.
I'm angry because I wanted to trust these
people, I wanted to respect these people, I wanted to feel safe
when I went for healthcare and instead I got the opposite. So, now when I look into the face of these
“people”, whether I am seeing them for healthcare or in a pharmacy or in the
streets or wherever, I feel contempt,
revulsion, and total disgust.
February
16, 2016
FOLLOW
THE MONEY
Where
does the money go when you contribute to research? Do we pay for the research and then
pharmaceutical companies make billions in profits selling it back to us so we
pay two or more times.
If you don't care about your privacy,
maybe you care about your money. You pay for health care, your information is
then sold/traded/bartered, the politicians then give researchers taxpayer money
to do research, and people donate money for research. The research is done and then the people pay
again for the resulting pharmaceuticals or patent testing. How many times have you paid for the
pharmaceuticals and tests you may, or may not, use?
I have read the websites, and reviewed
the financial statements of several health foundations/societies/agencies. They put on the website some information
which is useful to people with that particular illness. But I also noticed that 23%-53% of the money
raised went to fundraising costs, even with volunteers. There are no details as to how the money is
actually spent. Does it all go primarily
to one fundraiser, are there connections to the foundation/society/agency
personnel, or are the costs spread among a lot of different people/companies,
and are the costs justified? Who are the
fundraising people/companies and are they affiliated with the politicians. The fundraising costs amount, in some cases,
in just one society/foundation to hundreds of thousands of dollars, annually.
The websites say that they give x
dollars to researchers and sometimes they name the researchers or research
being done. But they don't account for
the money or the research. Is the money
just to pay wages and, if so, what are the wages of the researchers? Do the researchers have funding from
somewhere else? Could they be double- or
triple-dipping? How else is the money
being spent and is it being spent wisely?
We don't know because there is no information.
The websites also don't tell you what
happens with the research. Was the money
spent on research that was successful?
How much did it cost to find a cure or something that aids a sick
person? Again, was this money spent
wisely? What happened to the successful
research – was it then patented? If so,
who gets the money and how much does the patient/taxpayers have to pay, again,
for the results of this research? Even
if the research was unsuccessful, was the money spent wisely? Could the money have been better spent aiding
sick people in some other way? The BC
Cancer Agency website says that they have “set up the Technology Development
Office to champion its intellectual property management (presumably that means
“market” its, not the people's, intellectual property) and commercialization. They also say that they “partner closely with
research institutions, non-profit organizations, and industry around the world
to help drive new discoveries forward quickly" and they have a "duty
to act on behalf of our patients and the general public to ensure that a
culture of accountability is fostered".
Are yet they won't say specifically who they are sharing our information
with and under what circumstances so where does the accountability come or is
it just lies? The Liver Foundation
provides minimal financial information but does say you can contact them to get
the details. I contacted them, several
times, and never got a response.
I am upfront about the fact that I
don't contribute to these organizations (at least not willingly). When they provide me with enough information
that I know my money is being wisely used for the benefit of sick people, and
not to line someone's pocket, I will contribute. Needless to say, I would also want assurance
that the research wasn't using stolen information and being given to
pharmaceutical/research organizations with a unethical/criminal history (4, 5,
6).
I heard, some time ago, that there is
medical research that would benefit patients but that it is not being done
because it can't be patented. I doubt
that things have changed. Gawd forbid
that we would pay for research and then have a medical benefit that would cost
the patients/taxpayers nothing or next to nothing more.
If you read post “Patenting DNA”, you
will see that the public “invests” their information (mostly without their
consent or knowledge), monetarily fund the research and then research
hospitals/universities patent/sell what they discover. They are the owners, not the citizens. The hospitals/universities then charge the
citizens for the test/drug, etc. and keep the money to use as they see
fit. The citizens do not have a say, they
are not even allowed to know how much money is being made off the citizens
investment as it has now become “confidential”.(1) The information, and the money, has gone from
being ours, to being theirs. (2)
Interesting how that happens.
Is this not exploitation of the
sick? No wonder “Many (billionaires)
have gotten rich from interests in .....the pharmaceutical and health-care
industry”. (3) Is research just a wealth
transfer project where wealth of information and money is transferred from the
many to the few? Oh, please let me
donate more. The wealthy suffer so
much.-). Are the foundations/charities
primarily fronts for the pharmaceutical companies? We don't know.
If we are providing the body parts and
information and paying for the research, are we getting the research WE want or
just the research that will line the pockets of the multinationals?
When I was in front of St. Paul's I
had a discussion with someone on this topic.
This person said the pharmaceutical/research companies need the money
for marketing. Why? If this is a necessary medical product why do
you need to spend a lot of money advertising or running around convincing
people to buy as much as possible? If
this is just some cosmetic product or duplicate with a new flavour, then why is
our money being invested on this kind of research?
Isn't it time we knew where our
information, our body parts and our money was going? But that would require transparency and
accountability, something the medical business, in all forms, has an aversion
to. I wonder why?
And, Isn't it time we claimed
ownership of our investment?
1. Breast cancer gene patents: the Canadian story – Kelly Crowe, 18 Jul
2013, CBC News
2. SickKids Hospital dragged into U.S. Breast
cancer gene suit – Kelly Crowe, 18 Jul 2013, CBC News
3. Wealth gap: Canada's middle class is not immune to trends
of income concentration – 20 Jan. 2015,
The Globe and Mail
4.
Pharmaceutical Corruption Media Articles,
www.wanttoknow.info/pharmaceuticalcorruptionmediaarticles
5. Ethics in pharmaceutical sales, wikipedia
6. 7 Shameful Examples of Big Pharma Fraud,
Vactruth.com
February
15, 2016
GENETIC
TESTS
So, what
happens to the genetic tests that are done on you, with or without your
knowledge/permission [see future posts “My Story” and “Information Collected
(or Not)].
Besides going
to researchers (and probably the pharmaceutical companies they are associated
with), it may go to insurance companies, employers, banks, marketing companies
and probably a whole lot of other “people”.
And this is just the start.
“Canada's privacy watchdog is urging
insurance companies and others to stop asking for access to the results of
existing genetic tests.”
Federal Privacy Commissioner Daniel Therrien
says it is becoming more of a challenge to protect people's genetic privacy
with recent advances in science and technology.
‘We are calling on the industry to refrain
from asking for existing test results to assess insurance risk until the
industry can clearly show that these tests are necessary and effective in
assessing risk.’ Therrien said in a
statement Thursday.
There are now hundreds of tests to help spot
genes known to increase a person's risk of certain medical conditions.
But some people may decline tests for fear a
positive result may mean they could face discrimination from insurance
companies or their employers.. (1)
There are currently no laws in Canada that
specifically prohibit genetic discrimination.”
Declining the
tests, of course, assumes the people are given an option and the tests are not
just done, without the people's knowledge/real consent, from blood and other
samples collected by the medical business.
And what will
happen when they “open the door to an era of personalized medicine,” where
treatments are tailored to specific genetic characteristics. (2) How many other people/organizations will have
access to our very, very personal information such as marketers, suppliers,
banks, insurance companies, employers, other countries (who many disallow you
into their country), etc.?
How much
discrimination will the people face based on our specific genetic
characteristics? Will they be denied
having children? Will they be denied
certain health care, jobs, etc. Will
they be targeted for experimentation (with or without their knowledge)? And the list of possible discrimination goes
on...
We have no
idea what's going on and how it will affect us.
It seems like a free-for-all with our information/body parts. And once it's out there, you don't get it
back. And we have no idea what's going
on in the medical/government business.
The turdits,
and their friends in the medical/government business, won't/can't protect our
information and, instead, share it with all the ghouls even when there are laws
prohibiting it (see all past/future posts) and, of course, in cases like
genetic tests they don't even bother with laws.
That would be working in the interests of the people and gawd forbid
that should happen.
1. Insurers asked to stop seeking access to
results of genetic tests – The Canadian Press, 11 July 2014, Metro
2. Hospital launches legal challenge to patents
on genes – Andre Picard, 4 Nov 2014, The Globe
and Mail
February
8, 2016
ANOTHER
MAJOR PRIVACY BREACH IN B.C.
Since 2010, a
total of 4,420 government privacy breaches have been reported to the Office of
the Chief Information Officer in B.C. That's almost a thousand “breaches” a
year. (1) And, it only includes those reported. The privacy commissioner's office has
“looked into some 500 privacy breaches of one kind or another involving
government and its agencies over the past five years”. (9) And again, it includes only those reported
which are a very small fraction of the total “breaches” because government
agencies are not required to report “breaches”.
Now, more
information has been “lost” by the B.C. government. This time the education ministry “lost” “personal information for 3.4 million
B.C. and Yukon students and B.C. teachers from 1986 and 2009. The hard drives included names, addresses,
genders, birth dates and education identity numbers, teacher retirement plans,
substance abuse information, mental health issues, psychological assessments,
plus detailed family data, social, type of schooling, grade information,
graduation status, financial aid data, and designations such as ESL and special
needs, economic and education status of cancer victims and children in
provincial foster care and health and behaviour issues for children in
care. (1)(2)(5)(7) “It also included family troubles and police
interventions......, letters from members of the public with specific complaints
about teachers; particulars on some 1,000 cancer survivors who took part in a
lengthy research trial”. (9) This information was NOT anonymous. All information could be connected to
people's names. (8)
Why does the
education ministry have information going back 30 years? The teacher retirement plans was a survey
done in 2003 so the older information pertains to the children. Isn't there a time limit on how long the
government can keep information on students and children in care. Oh right, this is the B.C. government that
keeps all information on citizens for ever.
The hard
drive was discovered missing in August 2015 but the hard drive “could have been
missing for as long as five years”.
(4) The ministry had been trying
to track it down since early August and didn't notify the Technology Minister
Amrik Virk until around September 11, 2015.
Again, the
privacy commissioner's office listed numerous ways in which the education
ministry failed to provide adequate security and provided recommendations to
improve security. (1) This is the same
list/recommendations as identified in previous “breaches” and, no doubt, it
will be the same list/recommendations as identified in future “breaches”. I suspect the privacy commissioner's office
keeps a copy of this list of inadequate security measures and recommendations
that it just reprints for each new “breach'
because nothing changes.
The
Technology Minister Amrik Virk called the “breach” “low risk” because there is
no indication of fraud and identity theft. (5)
What a “convenient” statement.
Apparently, the ministry has done comprehensive searches by up to 50
bureaucrats, and “they had looked in every box, in every desk, in every drawer,
and they weren't able to find it” (6), but the ministry still considers the
possibility of theft to be “low”. And,
the warehouse was not equipped to secure information. (6) Plus, when the statement was made, the
ministry had not examined the potential risk to individuals or notified them.
(5) The use of the information by others
may not be as obvious as identity theft.
Personal information is very valuable these days. Based on what I've read, companies are
building large personal information databases.
This information can be used by the company and/or sold to marketers,
insurance, banks, future employers, etc. so the people whose information went
“missing” may never know that they lost a job, a bank loan, insurance and so on
because of the information the companies were/are able to access. This “loss” of information could haunt these
people for the rest of their lives.
And, as the
privacy commissioner's office noted: the
information could cause emotional hurt, humiliation or damage to reputation, if
in the wrong hands. "I think it
essential to emphasize that the affected individuals are some of the most
vulnerable in our society. They include
children in care, children in custody, children with special needs, and
children with health conditions. These are all circumstances that can lead to
stigmatization by society in general and instances of individual
discrimination." (1)
The privacy
commissioner's office “interviewed some 16 individuals, including current and
former employees. But 'owing to the passage of time, the testimony was,
understandably, often vague, incomplete or inconsistent.' Coupled with the lack
of documentation — another common occurrence with this government — she was
unable to place blame on any particular individuals”. (9) So, again, no one will be held accountable.
Education
Minister Mike Bernier said: “We
sincerely apologize for any inconvenience this incident may have
caused people” (italics mine). Could you
trivialize the matter more? My goodness,
did the government drop someone's pen?
But just ask
the B.C. government, including medical people, and they will tell you that your
information is protected.
“The incident
prompted the Government Communications and Public Engagement office to write a
16-page script of anticipated questions and suggested answers for politicians.”
(1) So the hand puppets and toadies just regurgitate the scripted answers.
The scripted
answers also state that the trend of reported “breaches” was increasing through
2014, but has since begun to decline.
Other possibilities:
1. This is a scripted answer by government so is
likely a lie. See post “Our Information
is Not Protected – Part I” for example(s) of how government lies.
2. The government may just be covering up more
“breaches” and not reporting them.
3. When you are “losing” information on millions
of B.C. citizens at one time, what's left to “breach” that isn't already out
there? Again, see post “Our Information
is Not Protected – Part I” where the government “illegally shared” information
on 4 to 5 million B.C. citizens.
And, of
course, they promise everything will be fixed so citizen’s information is
protected. Until the next time!! Because they lie!!
My question
is: Is there any information left, on
the people of B.C., held by the B.C. government, that hasn't been
illegally shared or “lost”??
1. Education Ministry Chastised for Latest BC
Data Breach - Bob Mackin, 29 JAN 2016, TheTyee.ca
2. Ministry of Education failed to protect
personal information involving missing portable hard drive - Dissent, 28 JAN 2016, Office of Inadequate Security
3. Investigation Report F16-01, Ministry of
Education, 28 JAN 2016, The Privacy Commissioner's office; CanLII Cite: 2015 BCIPC No. 65; Quicklaw Cite: [2015] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 65
4. B.C. ministry broke rules, leading to data
breach: Privacy commissioner - The
Canadian Press, 28 JAN 2016, The Globe and Mail,
5. B.C. education data breach: government can't find unencrypted hard drive
– 15 Sep 2015, CBC
6. B.C. Education Ministry Slammed For Losing
Hard Drive With Students' Personal Info – Tamsyn Burgmann, 28 JAN 2016, The
Canadian Press
7. B.C. ministry broke rules, leading to data
breach: Privacy commissioner – The
Canadian Press, 28 JAN 2016, The Globe and Mail
8. Largest data breach in B.C. could have been
“completely preventable': watchdog report – Paula Baker, 28 JAN 2016, Global
News (this is actually the 2nd largest see , see post “Our
Information is Not Protected – Part I” where the government “illegally shared”
information on 4 to 5 million B.C. citizens.
9. Privacy breach a failure of 'executive
leadership,' watchdog says – Vaughn Palmer, 28 JAN 2016, Vancouver Sun (a paper
I never bought)
10. B.C. student data breach could affect more
than 3 million people – Amy Judd, 22 SEP 2015, Global News
February
4, 2016
USING/PATENTING OUR
DNA
DNA
DNA
is the molecule that is the hereditary material in all living cells.
Genes
are made of DNA, and so is the genome itself. A gene consists of enough DNA to
code for one protein, and a genome is simply the sum total of an organism's
DNA.
In
a very real sense, DNA is information.
(1) Genes are passed
on from parent to child and are
an important part of what decides how children look and act (their biological
properties). (11)
DNA
is part of our bodies. Medical
staff/researchers have to have our blood, our skin, a strand of our hair or
some other part of our body to “see” the DNA.
“Canada
is one of the only jurisdictions in the Western world that still allows gene
patenting”. “Last year, the U.S. Supreme
Court ruled that genes can no longer be patented.” (2) CHEO (Children's
Hospital of Eastern Ontario) is going to court to try to have some gene patents
struck down. In this case, the patents are for “genes associated with a heart
condition called long QT syndrome”. “The patents being challenged by CHEO are
held by the University of Utah but were filed in Canada.” (2) They hope that this will set a precedent that
will have all other genetic patents struck down. I hope they are successful.
“The U.S. and Europe have developed
gene patent policies outlining what types of genetic information can be
patented”. The European Union states
that: 'The human body, at the various
stages of its formation and development, and the simple discovery of one of its
elements, including the sequence or partial sequence of a gene, cannot
constitute patentable inventions,'” (6). In other words, you can't patent a tree, or
its root, because you discovered it. You
did not invent it.
“Biotech
companies want to patent genes so they can profit from testing of those
genes.” Even “when patents are struck
down....a company can still market tests but cannot do so exclusively, so the
price drops significantly”. (2) It is,
as usual, a case of follow the money.
But,
CHEO is a “leader in genetic research”.
They want your genetic information to be available to researchers and
clinicians. They believe that
“restricting access to genetic information by researchers and clinicians
undermines patient care and is morally and legally untenable”. Alex Munter, CEO of CHEO said that striking
down the law will “open the door to an era of personalized medicine,” where
treatments are tailored to specific genetic characteristics. “Dr. Gail Graham, chief of genetics at CHEO”,
said researchers at the hospital have not and will not patent any genes they
discover”. (2) My question is: do they
ask the patient for permission to use their genes for research, to keep those
genes in their DNA warehouse, to share that DNA? Is this a case of genuinely caring about the
rights of the patient? Or, is this a case of two rival gangs
fighting over turf, that turf being our bodies, our information? Will our information just go to different
researchers, without our real consent?
It is even more concerning when you get into personalized medicine
tailored to specific genetic characteristics.
I find it “morally and legally untenable” that researchers, clinicians,
etc. can take and use our medical information/body parts without our REAL
consent. (2) There is a dark side to how this information
can be used so we need to know if and how that can be prevented. Again we need transparency and
accountability, which is not happening.
Problems with Patenting
DNA:
A
patent gives a company ownership of a particular area of the human genome. (3):
(a)
“Lawyer Rebecca Gilsenan says there are many dangers to having a monopoly on
this patent.
'There's
a philosophical and ethical issue about commercializing the human body and its
genetic material,' she said.” (5)
(b)
“When a lab does a panel that features information on larger parts of the
genome – that information cannot be communicated to patients, again because of
the patent. 'We simply cannot accept a
situation where a patent prevents us from diagnosing and treating a sick
child,” Dr. Graham said.” (2) I think
this means that if they accidentally discover that you have an illness, they
can't tell you about it unless they pay the patent company to test for the
illness.
(c)
If a person needs a genetic test, for example, for heart related problems, it
must go the U.S., even if a Canadian lab is capable of doing the test. This increases cost, and reduces the number
of genetic tests and possibly puts people's lives at risk. (6)
And once our information gets into the U.S. we have no control over it. Then again, we, the people, have no control
over our own personal information in Canada.
So
far, tests for BRCA1 and
BRCA2 (breast cancer genetic mutations) are being conducted in Canada
and the patent holder has not taken action.
But that is not the case with all genetic patents. (2)
(c)
If a person is tested for the breast cancer genetic mutations by Myriad
Genetics, the person cannot get a second opinion because Myriad Genetics does
not allow second opinions. (5)
(d)
Other companies are not allowed to develop other tests, that may be better and
cheaper because that would infringe on patents. (5)
(e) Myriad Genetics (a U.S. company),
working with Canadian researchers at Sick Children's Hospital and McGill and
Laval universities (publicly funded institutions), discovered “BRCA1 and
BRCA2
human breast cancer susceptibility genes”, from some people's DNA. They patented the genes and created a test to
identify these genes. So, where did they
get the DNA? Does a U.S. company, a foreign company, have copies of our genes,
(2) and is that material (our DNA) being held outside Canada? Quite frankly, I don't want any company to
have a copy of my DNA held in some warehouse.
But I do know that there are occasions when this is necessary. If you are tested for an illness, they may
need to keep a copy of the DNA and the test on file in case you have future
health problems or court cases. But, I
believe, that information should be kept just for that purpose and only for a
limited period of time. If they want my
DNA, my body part, for any other purpose they should have to get my written
permission. And I mean real
consent, not manufactured consent. And I
would, of course, insist on knowing (with proof) how the information would be
used and who would have access to that information (see next post “Genetic
Tests”). Plus, I would want a say in how
long they keep my DNA on file. But then
again, we live in a illusionary democracy (see post “Why I Don't Vote – Part
II), where I have no say in what happens even to my body parts/information.
CHEO's CEO Alex Munter said: "We
hope to obtain guidance from Canada's Federal Court that will allow all
provinces to approve genetic tests conducted by Canadian healthcare providers.
Our patients deserve nothing less". (6) I believe patients deserve nothing
less than to be treated with respect and asked for real consent before
genetic tests are performed. And that real
consent is based on being informed as to what tests are going to be done, by
whom, for what purpose, how that information will be protected, will any of it
be patentable and what do these people getting my information/body parts get
out of it (wages, profits, royalties....).
And this would need to be provided in writing so the patient can give
their signed consent or not.
Particularly as "Genetics is poised to make major advances” Dr.
Gail Graham, chief of the genetics program at CHEO, said”. (6)
These people in the medical/research business have proven they cannot be
trusted so they must be held accountable with OUR VERY sensitive
information. And especially because the
BC government has already been in discussions to sell our information (and I
suspect are already doing it). (7)
Myriad Genetics and HSC Research and
Development Limited have filed a court case against Ambry Genetics, a “company seeking to offer a cheaper test for
the breast cancer susceptibility genes”. "HSC Research and Development
Limited," is a legal entity controlled by SickKids in Toronto. It acts as
the hospital's licensing arm for the commercialization of intellectual
property. (4)
“Luigi
Palombi, an Australian lawyer and author of a book about the race to discover
and patent the BRCA gene mutations, states:
'I think it is outrageous for any publicly funded research institution
to be put in this situation.'”(4) It
brings forward this whole issue of just how far publicly funded
research and research institutions can collaborate with private industry.
(3) It is all well and good for
politicians to say that we need to encourage commercialization and we need to
encourage public institutions to partner with commercial institutions.(3)
But it is inevitable once they have come to this sort of arrangement with
a commercial entity, and Myriad's modus operandi from the very beginning was,
'We are going to patent these genetic mutations because we want to make money
out of it.' (4) Once you have
publicly funded institutions getting into bed with these guys, well then that
raises a whole series of other questions and issues," Palombi said."I
think the Canadian public and tax payers have the right to question and find
out how this happened, why and what it means for them."(4) I would like transparency and accountability
on how our information is being used. I
am not a lab rat, I am not fodder for cannibals to feed off, to commercialize. Or, at least, I don't want to be but I don't
have a say in the matter; they just take want they want from my body when I am
sick and vulnerable.
People,
especially researchers and government, will tell you the value of anonymized
research data. (10) And, I believe this
is true, to a point. But, as we know
from the post auditor general – PARIS report – 5/24/2010 and the BC health
firings scandal, post dated 12/27/2015, our information is not anonymized
and it is certainly not protected.
In most cases, government/medical business had no idea who was
downloading our information or with whom it was being shared (or so they say).
In other cases, where the government/medical business knew who was accessing
our information, the information was being shared illegally.
Another
issue is that if you collect enough information on an individual, even if it is
all anonymous or de-identified, you will be able to identify, or re-identify,
the person. In some cases it is not
difficult to identify the individual and, in other cases, it takes a great deal
of work. But, as technology advances,
identifying people from a collection of anonymous or de-identified information
will become easier. (8,9)
If
we, the citizens, are to benefit from any research/studies involving our body
parts and our information, then we need to know the costs of sharing that
information (and not just monetarily) and the benefits expected to be
gained. So far, we have no idea how our
body parts, and our information, are being used. I consider that a gross violation of my
rights. In addition, isn't
selling/trading/bartering our DNA, a part of our body, illegal? Isn't this the same as trafficking in body
parts, an international crime? Or do you
call it pimping when they are selling your body?
See
blog “Newborn Blood Samples”, June 16, 2011 to read more about the dark side of
DNA collecting.
Some
other interesting information came to light:
(a)
“two Canadian researchers were on the winning side in the race to discover
the BRCA2 gene mutation back in 1995, and their research institutions share
ownership of several U.S. patents with Myriad Genetics.” (4)
(b)
these institutions receive royalties and ”That money is 'critical to these
institutions, the majority of which are publicly funded research universities
and a children's hospital, the Hospital for Sick Children located in Toronto,
Canada,' the documents allege, adding that if SickKids and the
universities lose royalties from the company's monopoly on the cancer gene
tests, it will 'impact their ability to fund ongoing programs and new
endeavors'.” (4) So how is it that when publicly funded institutions make a
discovery, the patent is in the name of its licensing arm and all royalties go
to the institution and not the government (on behalf of the people who paid for
the research)? With a monopoly they can
charge the people more for the tests, which the people paid to develop, and the
money goes to the institution to use as they chose. So, the institutions are just milking the
people.
I
would like to think that CHEO is going to court for altruistic reasons, solely
for the care of the patients but I doubt it.
Look at the timing. For at least
20 years (3) the Canadian medical system has ignored DNA patenting. Now, just after all the bad publicity about
privacy breaches (especially Ontario and B.C.), some medical people are
attempting to do something that puts them in a good light. Is this mainly PR? Or, is it because genetics research has
progressed to the point that it is very profitable? Now, as I said before, I hope CHEO wins. But will our information, including our
DNA, be sold/traded/bartered with THEIR
low-life friends. Maybe they should
spend time explaining what they do with our information, with whom they share
our information, how they are protecting our privacy, or, at least, being honest
about how our privacy is not being protected and what they get out of it. But that wouldn't be in their
interests.
IT'S YOUR DNA AND IT
DOESN'T GET ANY MORE PERSONAL THAN THAT. (Michelle Salas)
Some
other points of interest:
1. Police are now trying to collect DNA
illegally (13). I wonder with whom that
DNA would be shared. Oh that's right, we
don't have the right to know.
2. “The courts may be the final barrier to
protect Canadians from unfettered genetic experimentation as scientists abandon
public interest research in favour of corporate funding and ambitious,
cutting-edge science, lawyers heard yesterday.
The independent scientist who conducts
research for the public good 'barely exists any more,' according to one leading
expert on technology and public policy.
'They get up and talk as if they are
neutral. But they almost always have
some share in the company or some self-interested gain for their work,' said
Philip Bereano, a professor from the University of Washington in Seattle.
Genetically
modified foods and health care based on genetic research are being introduced
into North America by stealth, with large companies using patent law as a
weapon against farmers, consumers and patients, panel members said.
Billions of government dollars will be spent to modify genes.... “ (14)
3. Applied genetic research is emerging as the
greatest single driver of global economic growth since the industrial
revolution.... “If you are ignoring
these trends, you're ignoring the biggest databases ever generated by mankind.”
(15) So, exactly who is profiting from
our bodies? And what are they doing to
us?
4. Tartu, a pretty university town in northern
Estonia, is about to become home to the world's largest genotype and phenotype
bank. This bank's currency will be blood
samples and DNA analysis.
In larger countries, it would be more
difficult to enact the necessary legislation for such a project, he said, but
“in a small country, we can explain it to the people and adopt the law in [a
short] time, which we did. British
Columbia didn't have a problem but, of course, they didn't explain it to the
people; B.C. just enacted a law allowing them to take people's DNA, and
anything else, when the people get healthcare, which happens to almost everyone
at some time (and probably when they give blood).
“Start-ups and spin-offs will result in a
new economic sector,” he said, “with lots of well-paid jobs in the high-tech
sector: gene and biotechnology, bioinformatics, etc.
The foundation proposes to map genetic data
of at least three-quarters of the 1.4 million people of Estonia.
Such projects have often run into
criticism. What if sensitive information
falls into the wrong hands? Could
employers and insurers discriminate against people thought to be at genetic
risk for disease?
Iceland's deCode genetics project is the
most controversial of all. In a deal
with European pharmaceutical company Hoffman Laroche, deCode has exclusive
rights to all Icelanders' medical and genetic data, and any resulting
intellectual property”. (16) (17)
5. 13. Conflict of interest - “...Just look at the conflict of
interest statement in any pharmacogenomics journal today and you will find that
the head of each of the major studies and a select group of investigators,
funded by public tax payers money from NIH, and YOUR DNA, are going to make
huge profits from royalties and huge salaries these physicians-researchers earn
because they control proprietary samples that are otherwise hard to come by.
Just by tying a SNP to a treatment outcome or diagnostic outcome, there are big
profits in the healthcare business to be made; with no real innovation! Hence,
one wonders about the real motivation underlying collection of blood samples
with consent and especially without consent - a cure or a profit!” (12)
6. “The
administration at UBC, where drug research money abounds and where the Dean of
Medicine, incredibly, sits on the board of LifeSciences British Columbia, the
main lobby group for BC's pharmaceutical industry, doesn't seem to be too
worried about our pancreases". - Diabetes Mongering a dangerous deception
– Alan Cassels, July 2013, Common Ground, pg. 13 And round and round the same people go,
conflict of interest abounding.
7. “According to US consumer
group Public Citizen, 'The pharmaceutical industry now tops not only the
defense industry, but all other industries in the total amount of fraud
payments for actions against the [US] federal government under the False Claims
Act.'"
8. "Remember
this: money has the ability to pollute
even the most noble aspects of healthcare". - Decoding drug lobbyist rhetoric – Alan
Cassels, May 2013, Common Ground, pg. 7
1. Genome News Network
2. Hospital launches legal challenge to patents
on genes – Andre Picard, 4 Nov 2014, The Globe
and Mail
3. Breast cancer gene patents: the Canadian story – Kelly Crowe, 18 Jul
2013, CBC News
4. Sick Kids Hospital dragged into U.S. Breast
cancer gene suit – Kelly Crowe, 18 Jul 2013, CBC
News
5. Legal fight over breast cancer gene begins –
08 Jun 2012, CBC News [no journalist name given]
6. Ontario hospital launches lawsuit against
owners of gene patent – Marlene Leung, 3 Nov 2014, CBC News
7. At Time of
Firings, Health Ministry Discussed Selling Patient Data – Andrew MacLeod – 20 Mar 2015, TheTyee.ca
8. No silver bullet: De-identification still doesn't work - Arind
Narayanan & Edward W. Felten, July
9, 2014, http://randomwalker.info/publications/no-silver-bullet-de-indentification.pdf
9. Identifying Participants in
the Personal Genome Project by Name – http://dataprivacylab.org/projects/pgp/index.html
10. Tragedy of the Data
Commons. Jane Yakowitz, Harvard Journal
of Law & Technology, Volume 25,
Number 1 Fall 2011 11. Gene.
Wikipedia 12. A Cure or A Profit – Council of Canadians 13. Native Youth Leader Resigns Over “Unusual”
Police DNA Demand – David P. Ball, 22 Aug
2013, 24 Hours 14. Courts protect public against scientific
“elite” - 14 Aug 2001, National Post 15. Genomes to fuel economic 'revolution' -
Michael Lewis, 31 May 2002, Financial Post 16.
Estonians bet on gene pool - Maeve Haldane, 11 Jun 2001, National Post 17. Estonia sells its gene pool (A genetic
database project is an ethical timebomb) - Michael Gross, 09 Nov 2000, The
Guardian
February 3, 2016
RIGHT
TO KNOW WEEK
When I was in
B.C. I attended a “right to know week” talk at the library. A woman who represented the library
introduced someone from the Privacy Commissioner's Office, someone from the
police department and another person.
These three people then gave their talk.
Basically, the Privacy Commissioner's Office and the police department
talked about how wonderful they were. It
was all one-sided; there was no one on the dais to disagree with anything they
said.
But the
audience had an opportunity for questions and comments. Most were directed at the Privacy
Commissioner's office. The first at the
microphone was a gentleman. Just after
he started talking he was interrupted by the woman from the library, who yelled
at him comments like “who cares what you think”, “who cares what you have to
say” and so on. He had the microphone
and she had no right to speak. When she
was finally finished, the gentleman continued with his comments/questions as if
she hadn't spoken. I admired his patience
and fortitude. I sat in the audience,
astounded by this woman from the library, and said nothing. I should have spoke up but I didn't. I would now.
A couple rows
behind the microphone sat three women in the last three seats of the row. They ridiculed the people who were speaking
at the microphone. I didn't get the
impression that these women just walked off the street and thought it would be
fun to listen to the speeches and then heckle the people in the audience who
spoke. It looked planned. I, and I'm sure others, gave them dirty
looks. Finally, they left. But again, I should have spoke up but I
didn't. I would now.
It seems that
you have the right to know, as long as it is what the government and their
toadies want you to know (otherwise known as propaganda).
Lack of
Independence
Mary Carlson
was Executive Director of the Office of the Information and Privacy
Commissioner for B.C. She then became
Deputy Registrar of the Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists for British
Columbia. The privacy commissioner's
office is suppose to operate independent of the politicians, both provincially
and federally. But, I don't believe you
can operate independently if your next job depends on being “liked” by the
politicians. It's all smoke and mirrors.
David
Loukidelis was the B.C. information commissioner before he accepted the post of
deputy attorney-general. As Vaughn
Palmer pointed out, by bringing him in-house they silenced a critic (in some
areas), at a convenient time and turned the critic into a lap-dog. (Sabotage?
Or merely incompetence?, Vaughn Palmer, 25 Jan 2010, View from the Edge).
January
28, 2016
PLOYS
(or TACTICS)
(Also read
prior posts “Assault” July 22, 2010, “Security Guards, August 8, 2009,
'Threats” September 4, 2008)
I include this post because I think
people should know what happens, in Canada, when they exercise free speech
against the government. You will be threatened (life, limb, family, job...),
intimidated and harassed, plus they will attempt to demean you, and will use
diversionary tactics when they can't prove that what is being said is
false. I don't say this to scare people
off, to prevent them from speaking the truth, quite the opposite. It is only when more voices speak out that
these threats against our rights, our democracy, our lives, will stop.
Someone told me at the beginning of my
time in front of St. Paul's Hospital that the degree to which they try to
intimidate, harass and threaten you is a reflection of how close you are to the
bulls-eye. I thank the person for the
comment because it helped me over the years to withstand the abuse.
A man, while
professing to agree with my handout, claimed that he did not buy into
conspiracy theories. I find the use of
the words “conspiracy” and “paranoia” very manipulative. If you want to demean someone and try to shut
someone up those words are usually used.
My response to this man was that since the politicians, and the
catholic/medical business, refuse to tell us with whom they are sharing our
information and how it is being used then obviously something unethical and
morally illegal is going on. These questions are so straight forward there
shouldn't even be an issue about answering them honestly. So, until possibilities are proven to happen
or not to happen, anything is possible.
I try to keep an open mind to all possibilities.
They also
tried the “I'm your friend” tactic. They
would pretend they agree with what you are doing, act as if they are on your
side so they can collect information on you and try to manipulate you. For example, a guy came up to me and said he
was a doctor, agreed with everything I was saying, knew information was going
all over the place, and so on. By now I
had given up talking to medical people because my experience was that they just
lie, con, and harass. But he knew
information was going all over the place, and did I know what they were doing
now so I was interested, he caught me.
As I listened to what they were doing now I heard him talk about medical
personnel and how they had to get immunized and a list was posted showing who
was and who wasn't immunized, etc. So he
talked about the medical personnel, not the patients. All he seemed to care about was his own
self-interest, not the patients. Then he
said, what I believe was the real message, “everyone that walks by thinks you
are striking, everyone who walks by thinks you are crazy, you can't accomplish
anything”, and so on. What I found
interesting in his comments was:
1. His assumption that he knows what everyone
who walks by is thinking.
2. People thought I was striking and thought I
was crazy. I think that says more about
him and the rest of the medical personnel than me.
3. If I wasn't accomplishing anything then the
medical system wouldn't have people like him constantly trying to persuade me
to “go away”.
I don't mind people debating the
issue(s) or telling me I'm wrong if they can prove it. But these people have no facts, evidence or
rational argument to dispute what I say so they attack the messenger, not the
message. In fact, I would have loved to
have had it proven that I was wrong.
But my own experience, investigations such as the auditor general's, and
breach after breach proves otherwise.
Actually I think they should change the word breach to a flood. When everyone's information is being shared
that is no longer just a breach. (see
post Auditor General – PARIS report – 5/24/2010 and post Our Privacy Is Not
Protected – Parts I and II – 12/27/2015 and 12/29/2015)
A man,
walking by while I was at St. Paul's Hospital, told me that if I pushed this
issue too far “they” would put me in a padded room and then only god could help
me. I wouldn't have been surprised
because that's our so-called democracy.
When I first
stood in front of St. Paul's Hospital it was mostly men who came to “talk” to
me. Some would try to be my friend, some would make comments like “looking for
a date”. I wondered if they were using a
typical government tactic that I call the “pimping tactic”. If a woman isn't happy in her job (or
whatever) just get her a man (or a second one) and get her F(well, you know the
word) and she'll be fine. That didn't
work so after a while, they sent the women to “talk” to me. That didn't work either so it must have
confused the hell out of their small minds.
The women sometimes even had “handlers”.
Example, a woman came to “talk” to me.
Realizing that she was from the hospital I turned and walked away. When I turned around again I saw her ask,
through gestures and voice, a male, standing on the steps of St. Paul's
Hospital, what to do next. He told her
to come back to the hospital. When he
saw me watching he weakly smiled and shrugged. I was at a public talk and the speaker
said that they didn't want anyone to be in the room who didn't support public
health care. I got the impression that
it was directed at me and possibly a few other people. Some people have tried to claim that by
raising awareness of what the medical system is doing that I am supporting
private health care. That was another
ploy to try to make me go away, to discredit me. I don't support private health care and I
have no doubt that their privacy issues are as bad or worse than the public
sector. You could look at the medical
system like a child. A child wants what
it wants and will throw a tantrum to get it.
If you want that child to grow/evolve into a decent human being/institution
then it has to learn morals, ethics, integrity, caring, compassion,
accountability, transparency and that it does not pick on those more vulnerable
(only cowards do that). And, of course,
a child/institution does not learn better behaviour if you ignore, or support, their
wrong-doings. Its people who don't
care about the public health system who ignore/support their bad behaviour.
Of course, those working in or running the catholic/medical system are
adults but, apparently, they still need to be taught the values we want the
institution to reflect. They do have a
bad influence, the politicians, so this will be difficult.
It was
obvious I had been researched. They
would tell me information, that was suppose to be private, in a variety of areas
non-medical. I assume the purpose was to
intimidate me, as in 'see we can access any information on you we want'. Example, I had responded, years ago, to a
request for comments, by the government, on the privatization of Canada
Post. The comment was suppose to be
confidential. At St. Paul's Hospital, a
person had approached me at the same time as another person, but supposedly
independently, yet both asked questions, for whatever reason, about my views on
the U.S. As one of them was leaving,
she had her back to me, then turned her head around and gave me a knowing look
and, out of the blue, said that Canada Post would be privatized (this had not
been part of our previous conversation).
So I guess that's a done deal although maybe not with Trudeau “in
power”.* But I don't think her comment
was about Canada Post per se but about letting me know they had access to this
confidential information. I was raising
awareness that our privacy was being violated and they thought they
could scare me away by continuously proving that I was right. Strange people!
I was
threatened, intimidated, assaulted... and not just in front of St. Paul's
Hospital but I encountered this in the other areas of my life. This is just one example of the many things
that happened, someone left a “gift” on my doorstep which I turned over to the
police. I could take it because I
believed in the necessity and importance of what I was doing. I actually found it fascinating, in a macabre
way. I knew that it wasn't about me but
it spoke volumes about them. These are
people who couldn't refute what I was saying.
So, instead they pulled every underhanded trick they could to make me go
away. And this from people who claim to
be caring, compassionate and democratic.
I would stand there and wonder, my gawd, what are they doing to us that
they have to go to such lengths to hide it.
So, instead of scaring me away, they make me realize how important it
was that I stay and raise awareness.
They said,
and did, anything that they thought would intimidate me or embarrass or demean
me. What they thought would
embarrass/demean me was really a reflection of THEIR discriminations. It certainly told me a lot of what they
thought of certain segments of the population.
I wondered how these segments of the population were treated as patients
(actually, I did find out a little bit -see “My Story”).
I reached a point where I thought they
couldn't shock me anymore and then they would do something that would shock
me. Finally, I realized that I can't
think as low as they can sink. So each
time they pull something that is even lower than usual I am shocked.
I had already
planned on leaving B.C. for a variety of reasons such as the continual
violation of privacy. I didn't want to
be sold/traded/bartered. So my illness
didn't scare me away but it did move the agenda up a bit (see future post “My
Story”).
It certainly
appears they have been trying to find something to hang me with, to blackmail
me into going away. Since I haven't
totally disappeared I'm sure they will keep trying. It's what they do to hide things. But who/what I am doesn't matter, whether I'm
evil or a bloody saint, what matters is whether the information I give out is
true. And that is easy enough for people
to determine besides the sources I provide.
Ask the health system exactly who they share your information with, and
the purpose, and when they won't give you a real answer, ask yourself
why. What information does the medical
system collect on you, why, and is it necessary for your specific health
concern? If they want information for
any other purpose, why don't they let you know and ask your permission? And, of course, there are the continual
scandals proving that our information is not being protected.
You do have
to use common sense when you ask them questions. When I was in front of St. Paul's Hospital a
person told me that she had asked the medical staff about whether her privacy
was protected. And they said it was
protected. Well, what did she think they
would say? Seriously, to assume that the
medical staff would admit that her information wasn't protected, was being
shared all over the place, was farcical.
You have to get any answers in writing or, otherwise, tell them to prove
it because they lie, as all the evidence proves.
*An aside –
After I moved I contacted Canada Post regarding an issue with mail
forwarding. I was told that, before they
would look into the issue, I would have to give them my phone number or email
address because they don't communicate by mail.
I read an article in the Globe and Mail titled Canada Post Head Makes
Big Bet on his 'winning horse' , by Barrie McKenna, May 25, 2015, in which
CEO Deepak Chopra chastised Canadians for not using mail. I wrote to the CEO Deepak Chopra about my issue
and his hypocrisy. I received a response
by mail. Was he selected as CEO
to ensure Canada Post's privatization?
January 27, 2016
SELF-ENTITLED
The
Charter of Rights and Freedoms
– Fundamental Rights:
Section
15.
1. Every
individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal
protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination (1)
The
privacy act is a legal document.
Yet, the
medical business has a two-tiered system,
those who have the right to privacy (those with a sense of
self-entitlement) and those who do not, those who are
sold/traded/bartered/experimented on and those who are not. The self-entitled people, as selected by the
medical business, have rights the rest of the citizens do not. The self-entitled people include medical
personnel. That's one of the reasons they
don't care about our rights because their rights are protected.
And isn't it
called discrimination when one group has privileges that is denied to another
group.
I believe the
two-tiered system, giving some people rights and privileges denied to others,
is a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a violation of the law, a
violation of our fundamental rights.
But, as we know, the medical business/government do not care about the
rights of most citizens or the law.
Elites,
Upper/Lower Class
I often
hear/read the terms elites, upper/middle/lower class which imply that some
people are better than others, that some people are “inferior”. It usually is used relative to money and
power. I would hope people would find
new words because some people are NOT better than others. For example, a person gains a lot of money by
brown-bagging (Brian Mulroney, and others, were accused of this), and other
unscrupulous means vs a person who wins a lottery and gives it away, not
because they have a lot of money but they have enough and others do not. Who would you consider the better person, the
elite, the upper class? I would hope
that people would start using specific terms like the 1%, or people with more
money or people with political control.
Sometimes the
terms are used in relation to someone who is well-educated in political science
or mathematics, etc. but who knows little or nothing about growing food,
building a house, or social work and so on.
So who is “more important” or is neither and each is simply educated in
a particular area (school and/or self educated).
This also
applies to the concept of social status; for example, doctors are usually
considered to have a higher “social status” again due to money and the “job
title”.
I find these
terms arrogant, manipulative, a form of brainwashing, as well as archaic,
baggage from the past that should be left behind. If the terms social status, elites, etc.
referred to people with values such as morals, ethics, integrity they might be appropriate.. But they don't. So – Let's evolve and get rid of them.
January 16, 2016
COMPLICIT
If you have to lie, steal, and con to
get information, then what you are doing is neither moral nor ethical.
I believe that everyone who knows
about the lies and the theft of our information and body parts, and does
nothing, is complicit
I thought at first that these people
might be pawns but, in fact, they are willing participants in the lying,
conning and theft of our information, our body parts.
I was taught when I was a child that
you don't pick on those younger, weaker, more vulnerable; that's only for cowards. I have to assume that the people in the
catholic/medical/government business and all they accomplices have yellow
streaks up their front, their back and their sides.
Someone told me, when I was in front
of St. Paul's, that these people were just getting a pay-cheque, jobs were hard
to find. Well, that's what any thief
would tell you -- it's just a job. The same for a hit man/woman, who just take
the money and carry out the dirty deeds.
What you are doing is still unscrupulous, unethical and possibly
illegal. And if you are just getting a
pay-cheque then there is no caring or compassion in what you do. You do not care about the patients, only
yourself.
I was told that I had a lot
of support in the medical business for raising awareness of what was going on
in the medical business. Is this
true? I don't know. But, even if it is, verbal support,
especially hidden, isn't enough. You
have to DO something.
A few people did provide me
with information, usually without evidence, so I had to be careful that I
wasn't being setup. But, for those who
gave me information, it shows you care but you, and the others, need to speak
louder.
Dr.
Warren Bell, Salmon Arm, BC wrote Doctor's Diagnosis: Pipeline Symptoms of “Social Pathology”, 04
Feb 2013, TheTyee.ca. He states how he
helped found the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment or CAPE
because they wanted to improve health by improving the environment. I find what I consider to be his hypocrisy
mind-boggling. “A 2007 Canadian Medical Association survey
showed that 11 per cent of patients already admit to holding back information
from health care providers because of privacy concerns.
A
2012 survey “indicated that 43.2% (of patients) have withheld or would withhold
information from their health care provider because of privacy concerns, while
31.3% of Canadian patients have or would postpone care over privacy concerns,
and 42.9% would seek care outside their communities for the same reason”
[Medical privacy breaches rising, Roger Collier, 06 Mar, 2012. vol. 184 no.4,
Canadian Medical Association Journal CMAJ)].
And I expect these numbers will continue to increase. And note this refers to patients. How many people don't just hold back
information but don't even see a doctor because of privacy concerns? But, do you see the doctors founding an
association to “Protect People's Health by Protecting Their Privacy Rights” so
they can improve health. NO. And this is an area where they are largely
responsible for the loss of privacy and trust.
So, what is it that they don't want to give up to protect patients
health; Is it pay-cheques, is it kickbacks, an attitude of arrogance/narcissism
that patients privacy is irrelevant to medical people?
But
getting on the bandwagon of promoting the environment, and other issues,
distracts the people from the fact that the catholic/medical/government
businesses are adversely affecting people's health by violating their
privacy. I think it's a diversionary
tactic. The pope is doing it and it
diverts people's attention away from the paedophile issue. It's purpose is the make the medical
people/pope look good and it doesn't cost them a thing. They don't have to change what they are
doing, or give up anything.
Dr.
Bell writes about the “structural pathology” in the governance system in
Canada. But he ignores the “structural pathology” in the medical system. He adds other comments which, again, he fails
to mention could also apply to the medical business. I guess it's a case of “look over there so
you don't see what I am doing”.
And
Dr. Bell is not alone. Lots of other
doctors and their organizations lobby the government for various reasons, such
as increasing funding to the health care system. But they don't lobby about privacy rights for
patients. Instead they lie, steal and
con. Why?
The
medical unions, at contract time, like to advertise what they do for the
patients. What they fail to mention is
how they steal patients privacy/body parts and the negative affects that may
have on the patients health and safety.
They know privacy is important because, in their own contracts, they
made sure their privacy was protected, but not the patients. If privacy is important to the medical staff,
why is it not considered important for the patients?
This is from a commenter
named cyndi: “I am one of those
nurses that is being forced to wear a mask for the next 4 months. I take
umbrage against that policy. My rights as a human being are being held hostage
to a Health Authority. Why dont they make it mandatory to just give
every admitted patient the flu shot on admission to the hospital should be the
question....that way all of us front line workers would be so called protected
instead of forcing us to get the flu shot every year!!! I think the real discussion here is Are
frontline workers human rights being maligned....I am extremely insulted by
this Health Authority policy!!! And employees have the right to work in a
respectful place free from discrimination. (Are Flu Shots as Effective as Billed,
Bill Tieleman, 08 Dec 2014, TheTyee.ca)
This is only one person's comment but I include this because it
represents an attitude I heard many times, from medical staff, in front of St.
Paul's. It's all about them. They get very upset if they feel their
rights as a human being are violated but don't care about patients rights as
human beings. In fact, she said to do to
the patients what they, the medical people, don't want done to them, make the
patients have the flu shot. Aren't patients rights as human beings being stolen
when the medical people steal their information/body parts? She talks about discrimination against her
but isn't it discrimination when medical staff and their special friends have
their privacy protected but patients don't.
My response, to paraphrase a couple of sayings, is: they came for my rights and you did nothing,
so quite frankly my dear, I don't give a damn about you.
I didn't want to spend a
lot of time standing in front of St. Paul's taking all the abuse. I didn't want to spend a lot of time
researching and writing a blog. But when
I realized that the medical business was lying, stealing and conning the
vulnerable, the sick, the newborns I couldn't walk away. I know the difference between right and wrong
and my values say that you must speak up against injustice. It cost me a lot, in a variety of ways. That was a choice I made because the cost of
doing nothing was much higher, to who I am as a human being.
Obviously
I won't be in front of St. Paul's anymore which I'm sure makes “them” very
happy. But I don't have to be. My blog is still on the internet, people have
linked their social media sites to my blog; my blog has over 100,000 page views
and counting. It has been, and continues to be, read not only
by people in Canada but by thousands of people around the world who are
learning how Canada treats its vulnerable, its sick, its newborns. I am on twitter and I will keep raising awareness
in one way or another. The information
is out there and they don't get it back.
And it will continue to spread, a lot of it from their own unethical,
immoral actions.
"In order for evil to flourish,
all that is required is for good men (people) to do nothing." - Edward
Burke
January
15, 2016
ANONYMOUS (OR NOT)
I read that
medical information should be shared if it is anonymous. I used to agree with that. Why would I not agree if everything is
above-board, if the information was being shared to improve the health care of
people and if things were done morally and ethically. But then I found out how the medical system
really works.
These posts
have examples of how, essentially, all our information has been shared
non-anonymously:
-Post –
Auditor General – PARIS report – 5/24/2010 – Vancouver Coastal Health audit
showed that there was virtually no protection of patient information. And there was no reason to believe that any
other hospital database was any better.
-Post - Our Information is not protected – Part I –
12/27/2015 - researchers could, and were, downloading and sharing our
information with no detection. They
could give it to anyone else, who could also “share” this information, again
without detection.
- Post – Our
Information is not protected – Part II – 12/29/2015 - more examples of how our
information is shared non-anonymously
Post (future)
- Patenting DNA – if you collect enough information on an individual, even if
it is anonymous, you can identify who they are.
And we know,
logically, that this is just the tip of the iceberg. The ones the media happen to find out
about. The rest are either not caught or
they are covered up.
Now, I would
only agree to my information being shared conditionally. The conditions being:
1. I am told if information is being collected
for “others” and not for my direct personal health care
2. I am told who it is being shared with.
3. I am told how it will be used.
4. I have proof that the information collected
under my name is being adequately protected.
5. It can be proven to me that this information
will only be shared anonymously
6. I can get this in writing.
7. There will be severe penalties if any of the
conditions listed above are “violated”.
This, of
course, presumes that I have any say in the collection and sharing of my
information, which in our low-grade so-called democracy; I don't. The medical system and their friends do what
they want. I am, like other patients
except the “special” patients, just
fodder for them to feed off.
But any
information that I determine they don't need for my direct health care (and
that is very little) I mix up between truth/lies. The information then becomes useless.
These people
in the medical/government business just steal, lie and con. Why? They eventually lose all trust and it
just comes back on them. What are they
getting in return for taking such risks?
Or did they really think they could do this forever with impunity? Are they that arrogant/narcissistic? Apparently, they are.
December 30, 2015
WHAT CAN YOU
DO - MEDICAL
Number of
Breaches Unknown
“The total number
of intentional health-related privacy breaches in Ontario is unknown because of
legislation allowing hospitals to handle such violations internally and report
them at their own discretion. The commission
is notified of about 400 health-related privacy breaches every year and a Star
investigation of eight Toronto
health institutions unveiled 218 privacy violations last year, the majority of
which went unreported to the commission”. (c)
So, the majority of privacy “breaches” you won't hear about because they
are being unreported (covered up), or, as in BC, legalized; and I believe it is
the same in all provinces
Mandatory Reporting of Breaches (or Not)
“Michael Crystal, a
lawyer currently representing thousands of patients” said it should be 'mandatory for hospitals to
report all privacy leaks.” (a) “69.5
percent of Canadian respondents stated that there should be a public listing
hosted by the Canadian government that lists which hospitals have had breaches
of patient health records”. (c) I suggest this should include “minor”
breaches that are not reported to the privacy commissioner and the so-called
“major” ones that are reported to the privacy commissioner. Otherwise, we will be hearing a lot of “we
didn't think this was serious” excuses.
We should be informed as to what defines minor vs major breaches.
“If hospitals were
obligated under law to report privacy violations, the (privacy) commission
would be able to identify trends, investigate specific areas of concern and
help hospitals prevent future incidents, Beamish said” (Ontario privacy
commissioner Brian Beamish). (a) This
will also help reduce the number of cases that the medical/government
organizations can cover-up without being caught. This must also include any breaches by
people/organizations with whom our information is shared.
We, the people,
need this transparency to ensure accountability.
For the status on
your province on mandatory reporting see Ontario lags other provinces in
updating health privacy laws, Olivia Carville, 06 Feb 2015, Toronto Star
Identify with
whom our information is shared
The
medical/government business in Ontario is discussing making changes so it looks
like, to use a metaphor, they are trying to lock the front door (hospital
violations), so people don't notice that the backdoor is being left wide open
(the researchers, suppliers, and other organizations, etc. with whom our
information is being shared). We need to
know exactly with whom our information is being shared, under what
circumstances, whether our consent has been obtained (real not manufactured),
what are the conditions that these “others” must meet to protect our
information and are these conditions being met.
Audits
We need on-going audits
of all people/organizations that handle our information to ensure that our
privacy is protected. The audits must be
done by people not appointed by the medical/government system. 'In the US, the government has taken several
steps to encourage health care providers to improve the security of their
information technology systems. In addition to requiring public disclosure of
breaches — an incentive in the form of the proverbial “wall of shame” — the US
government will be dropping in on some health care providers” to “check
compliance with privacy requirements”.
“Under their privacy act, health organizations are required to have
conducted a risk analysis and implemented policies to protect patient privacy.
The maximum annual penalty for violating the act is US$1.5 million.” (e)
Suing for Privacy Breach
“The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled earlier this year that patients can sue hospitals if their privacy was breached.” (d) This should be the law in all provinces and include any people/organizations who have our information.
“The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled earlier this year that patients can sue hospitals if their privacy was breached.” (d) This should be the law in all provinces and include any people/organizations who have our information.
Prosecutions
“Beamish told the
Star he wanted serious breaches to result in more prosecutions to deter nosy
health professionals” and the other people/organizations with our information.
(a) But we also need to hold accountable
those who are suppose to protect our privacy – the politicians, healthcare
executives... We need to know why they
aren't doing their job. And we need to
be able to prosecute them.
In some provinces
the health ministry may refer a serious breach to the privacy commissioner who
investigates. If the privacy
commissioner believes there are grounds for prosecution they refer it to the
attorney general, who may refer it to the police to reinvestigate.
So much wasted time
and effort because somewhere along the line the case gets dropped.
“Privacy
commissioner Brian Beamish has previously told the Star that confusion over the
roles of the attorney general, the Health Ministry and the privacy office have
also hamstrung potential prosecutions.” (b)
All these years and nothing has been done to fix the situation. No wonder there has been zero prosecutions in
Ontario, where thousands of privacy violations happen every year. But, I'm sure the politicians have been far
too busy going to photo-ops, or lining their pockets, to make adjustments. Or is it just “convenient” to have it this
way.
“Ontario is not
alone. British Columbia, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island and
Yukon have not seen any prosecutions under health privacy laws.” (b)
“Alberta has had three successful prosecutions, Manitoba
has had one and Newfoundland and Labrador has had two.” (b) Considering the extent of the problem, this
is a farcical record in any province.
Covering up the
extent of breaches, or sharing of information, so patients will trust the
medical business is not an answer.
Eventually patients find out and trust is lost, possibly forever. Withholding information is just another form
of lying to patients.
After all the
lying, the cover-ups, the conning, “trust us” just doesn't work any more.
(a) Hundreds of hospital privacy violations go
unreported - Olivia Carville, 13 Jan 2015, The Star
(b) Ontario government under fire over inaction
on health privacy law - Olivia Carville, 05 Mar 2015, Toronto Star
(c) Canada:
How Privacy Considerations Drive Patient Decisions and Impact Patient
Care Outcomes - December 2011, New
London Consulting
(d) Fines to double for breach of Ontario
patients' medical records - Keith Leslie, 10 June 2015, CTV News
(e) Medical privacy breaches rising - Roger
Collier, 06 Mar, 2012. vol. 184 no.4, Canadian Medical
Association Journal (CMAJ)
December
29, 2015
OUR
INFORMATION IS NOT PROTECTED – PART II
2. THOUSANDS OF B.C. PRIVATE HEALTH RECORDS
SOLD AT PUBLIC AUCTION. (a) Mike de
Jong was involved in this one too. He
was labour minister whose ministry oversaw the auction process. Again, extremely private information was sold
for $300 such as “medical status – including whether they have a mental
illness, HIV or a substance-abuse problem”, social insurance numbers, date of
births, names, phone numbers, and “caseworker entries divulging extremely
intimate details of people's lives”, and more.
Mary
Carlson, director of the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of
B.C. said “the government had sold sensitive information to the public once
before, but that the details of the case had not been made public. She added that she is 'disappointed' to hear
it has happened again”. (a)
3.
The Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC) “lost the personal
information of half-a-million Canadians last year.” They lost an unencrypted external hard drive
containing Canada Student Loan information and a USB key containing information
such as social insurance numbers, medical records, birth dates, education
levels, occupations, etc.” (b)
4. Ontario has had so many breaches that they
held a press conference to apologize.
They told people that most workers in the health system are honest
people. That may be true in terms of
downloading large amounts of information (lying/stealing/conning information
from patients is another issue) but you don't protect medical information from
those who won't steal it, you protect it from those who will steal
it. So, the government/medical system is
responsible for not protecting the information.
Just like a bank doesn't install a security system to protect its assets
from the 90% who won't steal but from the 10% that will steal. A bank might get its money back but with
medical information, once it's out there, it's out there, you don't get it
back. Examples:
i. An anti-abortion activist has been accused of
prying “into hundreds of abortion records”. DeCiccio worked at a hospital and “the
hospital placed no restrictions on what records she could or could not access”.
(c)
“Since
being informed of this case in May 2011, Beamish (acting privacy commissioner)
said he has noticed a concerning trend where increasing numbers of hospital
staff are accessing patient records without authorization, including the recent
breach of former mayor Rob Ford’s medical files”. (c)
ii. “Hospital workers in Toronto have been
disciplined, and some fired, for taking photos of patients without their
consent, losing scores of health records or inappropriately prying into a patient’s
file when they are not involved in their care.” (d)
“Earlier
this year, the Star unveiled two major hospital privacy breach cases involving
thousands of patients. In one case, hospitals inappropriately provided patient
information to baby photographers. In another, hospitals were handing out
patient contact information to private marketing companies.” (d)
iii. Six greater Toronto area hospitals apparently
sold patient information to photographer(s).
And yet, Mount Sinai, one of the six, said “Since we learned of this
breach (italics mine), we have changed our practice..”. This implies they didn't know what they were
doing; they had a contract to sell this information but they didn't know they
were doing it; how does that happen? (e)
iv. Other examples you may want to read
about: Rouge Valley hospital privacy
breach expands to affect 14,450 patients, Joel Eastwood, 27 Aug 2014,
Toronto Star; Hundreds of hospital privacy violations go unreported,
Olivia Carville, 13 Jan 2015, Toronto Star; Ontario lags other provinces in
updating health privacy laws, Olivia Carville, 06 Feb 2015, Toronto
Star. A few of the examples you will
read about in this articles: “pharmacist opening medical records of fellow
congregants”; “a doctor who snooped into 141 women's medical records, including
gynecology reports” (h); “while standing in line for a pizza...doctor chatted
on his cellphone about the private details of a patient” (i)
v. Another informative article: Peterborough lawsuit to set precedent for
Ontario patient privacy rights, Joel Eastwood, 03 Sep 2014, Toronto Star. Update:
This lawsuit was dismissed because the prosecutors bungled the case
(Ontario's sole health privacy prosecution quietly dismissed, Olivia Carville, 30 Mar 2015, Toronto
Star). How convenient. But two more cases are on the go.
The
worst that happens to the few privacy violators actually caught is they are
fired. “Beamish (acting privacy
commissioner in Ontario) is aware of only two provinces, Alberta and
Newfoundland and Labrador, which have successfully prosecuted under
health-related privacy acts”. (c) This
indicates that the privacy acts are useless, a facade. Quite frankly, I don't think just being fired
is much of a deterrent for severe cases of privacy violation (for example, when
information is shared). What happens to
these fired people?; do they get rehired after a period of time (see post “BC
Nurses”, Nov. 4, 2008), do they go to work in a nursing home or other facility
(Ontario's sole health privacy prosecution quietly dismissed, Olivia Carville, 30 Mar 2015, Toronto Star)?;
are they required to pay back any benefits from the privacy violation?
I
think the ability to sue the hospitals is important in order to get them to
take this issue seriously. Despite the
fact that the medical system always say “we take the protection of people's
privacy very seriously”, obviously they don't.
But, I believe, the prospect of being sued may encourage hospitals to
coverup even more violations. What is
also required is some kind of oversight/ongoing audits conducted by citizens
groups (or something similar), not chosen by, and outside the influence of, the
political/medical organizations.
When
I was in front of St. Paul's, a couple years before the press conference, one
person said he worked in a pharmacy in
Ontario and that Ontario had tightened up its privacy and people in the
pharmacy now had to get permission to access previously available
information. Apparently, it is VERY
INCONVENIENT. Isn't that sad. Protecting people's privacy is INCONVENIENT
for people in the medical business.
Accessing patient's information SHOULD be difficult and if that's
inconvenient to researchers, etc. then find another line of work. Yet, these recent scandals indicate that they
are still doing a very poor job at privacy protection.
I
commend the Toronto Star for its investigations and reports. If only other media, in other provinces,
would do the same, it would prevent a lot of patient suffering in the future.
5. “Personal health information belonging to
620,000 Albertans and stored unencrypted on a private company’s laptop was
stolen” in Sept. 2013. “The data on
the laptop included patients’ names, dates of birth, provincial health card
numbers, billing codes, billing amounts and diagnostic codes.
Medicentres
Family Health Care Clinics chief medical officer Dr. Arif Bhimji said
“Medicentres “immediately” contacted the Edmonton Police Service and Office of
the Information Privacy Commissioner”.
Apparently, immediately was four days later. But no one informed the Alberta Health (who
eventually received a letter) or the patients (informed by the media) until
January 2014.
The
politicians were, of course, “outraged”.
But isn't it their job to ensure that our privacy is protected, even when
they outsource? But I guess it sounds
good in the press.
Alberta
Medical Association president Dr. Allan Garbutt said physicians are trained
from early on to keep all medical information highly protected based on the
principle that it belongs to the patient and no one else”. He admitted that there are numerous ways
medical information can be misused (italics mine). The
British Columbia medical business seems to operate on the principle that
patient information belongs to everyone but the patient. Does Alberta medical staff give anything but
“lip service” to this principle?
As one patient said: 'I don’t want my diagnosis given to
just anyone. It’s up to me to disclose what is happening to me'. In my opinion, this also applies to
researchers. As we know from researchers
health scandal (prior post – Our Information Is Not Protected) the medical
business and anonymous are total opposites.
Apparently the Medicentres laptop has never been recovered.
There
have been more than “four other similar incidents that affected hundreds of
thousands of people in the last decade” (that we know of). (g)
Most involved the theft/loss of laptops.
6. “For a precedence on how bad privacy
breaches in Canada can be, one need look no further than the case of Captain
Sean Bruyea, a Canadian Air Force officer who served in the Persian Gulf War in
1991. Without his permission or knowledge, all of his personal, medical and
financial files were distributed across a wide swath of officials in the
Department of Veterans Affairs, who used this as ammunition to try to silence
what was a fierce critic for Canada’s returning veterans. A total of 54 people
had inappropriately accessed Bruyea’s file; 36 received an ‘administrative
memo;’ nine were reprimanded and nine received one-day suspensions. Nobody was
fired. No one. Let's put this in context: When government employees were
actually found to be egregiously breaking the law in accessing personalized
files, not a single person was fired.” Scandal
taints BC Ministry of Health's Pharmaceutical Services Division, Alan
Cassels, April 2013, Common Ground
7. I suggest you read Your Information Is Not
Secure, Michael Geist, 01 May 2013, TheTyee.ca. This report reveals that “virtually every
major [federal] government department has sustained [privacy] breaches and
gives examples. It also states that the
Privacy Commissioner of Canada is rarely notified of the breaches.
8. A binder was stolen from a doctor's car containing information on B.C. Transplant patients. It included patient names and other information. Patient Information Stolen,16 Dec 2011, 24 Hours
8. A binder was stolen from a doctor's car containing information on B.C. Transplant patients. It included patient names and other information. Patient Information Stolen,16 Dec 2011, 24 Hours
9. Other examples of the medical business'
hypocrisy regarding patient privacy:
i. When I had to go through the medical system
(see future post “My Story”) I would stand at reception at the doctor's office
or office of other medical people and be asked to provide personal information
while there were people directly behind and beside me, who could easily
overhear everything being said. In some
cases, I tried writing the information on a piece of paper or answering very
softly and they would repeat what I said so loudly the whole waiting room, or
most, could hear. At Burnaby General
Hospital, in emergency, they have the reception desk right in front of the
waiting room where everyone, or most, could overhear the conversation regarding
the collection of personal information.
ii. I was in a doctor's very small
reception/waiting room. The staff would
talk to patients on the phone, sometimes even stating the patient's name. People in the waiting room couldn't help by
overhear the conversation.
iii. I was in a pharmacy where they had a sign
which said “stand back to respect people's privacy”. The pharmacy wasn't that large so you would
have to stand half way, or more, across the room, to avoid hearing the
conversation. The counter was
also near the door so there was traffic coming & going.
But,
hey, just ask them and they will tell you “your information is protected”. They don't care about people's privacy.. It's inconvenient, to them.
THE
ONLY SAFE INFORMATION IS THAT WHICH ISN'T GIVEN
a. THOUSANDS OF B.C. PRIVATE HEALTH RECORDS SOLD
AT PUBLIC AUCTION - Jonathan
Fowlie, 04 Mar 2006, Vancouver Sun (a paper I didn't buy)
b. Human Resources bureaucrats questioned over
data breach - Jessica Murphy, 15 Feb 2013,
24 Hours
c. Anti-abortion activist snooped into 414
abortion files - Olivia Carville, 21 Jan 2015, Toronto Star
d. Hospital privacy violations rife in Ontario -
Olivia Carville, 29 Oct 2014, Toronto Star
e. Privacy breach: Six GTA hospitals gave patient info to
photographers - Joel Eastwood, 29 Aug
2014, Toronto Star
f. Laptop with 620,000 Albertans' personal
health information stolen - Robson Fletcher, 22 Jan 2014, Metro News
g. 4 other cases of stolen health data in
Alberta - 22 Jan 2014, CBC News
h. Ontario lags other provinces in updating
health privacy laws - Olivia Carville, 06 Feb 2015, Toronto Star.
i. Hundreds of hospital privacy violations go
unreported - Olivia Carville, 13 Jan 2015, Toronto
Star
December
28, 2015
SOME
PARTICIPANTS IN HEALTH MINISTRY FIRINGS
-
Alana James – a lawyer who worked as a
senior health information advisor; whistleblower who no longer works for the
ministry (g)
-
John Doyle – auditor general (p)
Alana and John – I have the utmost
respect and admiration for both of you.
Premiers (n) The big turdits, ultimately responsible
for ensuring that our information was protected and none of them followed the
law, i.e. FIPPA (in effect since 1993) or The Privacy Act . Isn't this, at best, a dereliction of duty?
-
Christy Clark (Liberal) – 14 Mar 2011
- Gordon Campbell (Liberal) – 5 Jun 2001 to 14 Mar 2011 - Ujjal Dosanjh (NDP) - 24 Feb 2000 to 5 June 2001
- Dan Miller (NDP) – 25 Aug 1999 to 24 Feb 2000
- Glen Clark (NDP) - 22 Feb 1996 to 25 Aug 1999
- Mike Harcourt (NDP) – 5 Nov 1991 to 22 Feb 1996
Health Ministers (o) (next in line regarding ultimate responsibility)
- Gordon Campbell (Liberal) – 5 Jun 2001 to 14 Mar 2011 - Ujjal Dosanjh (NDP) - 24 Feb 2000 to 5 June 2001
- Dan Miller (NDP) – 25 Aug 1999 to 24 Feb 2000
- Glen Clark (NDP) - 22 Feb 1996 to 25 Aug 1999
- Mike Harcourt (NDP) – 5 Nov 1991 to 22 Feb 1996
Health Ministers (o) (next in line regarding ultimate responsibility)
-
Terry Lake – 10 Jun 2013 - current health minister
-
Margaret MacDiarmid – 05 Sept 2012 to June
2013 - then health minister - *
-
Mike de Jong – 14 Mar 2011 to 05 Sep 2012 – health minister when two of the
known “leaks” occurred and the “investigation” began - *
-
Colin Hansen – 30 Nov 2010 to 14 Mar 2011 - *
-
Kevin Falcon – 10 Jun 2009 to 30 Nov 2010
-
George Abbott – 16 Jun 2005 to 10 Jun 2009 - *
-
Shirley Bond – 15 Dec 2004 to 16 Jun 2005
-
Colin Hansen – 05 Jun 2001 to 15 Dec 2004 - *
-
Corky Evans - 01 Nov 2000 to 05 June 2001
-
Mike Farnworth - 29 Feb 2000 to 01 Nov 2000
-
Penny Priddy – 18 Feb 1998 to 24 Feb 2000
-
Joy MacPhail – 17 Jun 1996 to 18 Feb 1998
-
Andrew Petter – 28 Feb 1996 to 17 June 1996
-
Paul Ramsey – Sept 1993 to Feb 1996
Also,
there are deputy ministers, associate deputy ministers and assistant deputy
ministers and the opposition health critics but no one did, or said,
anything. This wasn't a small error, a
slip up, this was/is huge, this was/is intentional. Did it make it easier to share our information
with all their despicable friends and party donors, for example the
pharmaceutical companies??
Opposition
party leaders and heath critics, such as Adrian Dix, also had a responsibility
to speak up but they didn't. And I don't
believe that they didn't know that the health ministry was massively violating
people's privacy and the law. And as
John Doyle said, this issue goes beyond the health ministry (see post “Our
Information Is Not Protected – Part I”).
Some
of these people will leave office and try to redeem themselves. But we know who they are and, at least some,
of what they have done. It's like Tony
Blair and Condaleeza Rice who are responsible for hundreds of thousands, or is
it millions, of injuries and deaths of innocent people during the Iraq war
(some consider them mass murderers), but after they leave office they go on a
“peace” mission to redeem their reputation.
Like other politicians, they can't.
They are what they are and they did what they did and nothing will
change that. Their stench will continue
to emanate from them forever.
OTHERS
INVOLVED
-
Graham Whitmarsh – “deputy minister at the time of the firings and later fired
by the government” (c) ( lost his job as part of a post-election “shuffle” of
cabinet ministers and deputies); “was
one of the people who signed off while working in the finance ministry last
year on forgiving David Basi and Bob Virk's $6 million legal fees after they
pleaded guilty to charges in the BC Rail corruption case.”(h)
- John
Dyble – was deputy minister of health services, now deputy minister to the
premier (g)
-
Stephen Brown – assistant deputy minister until April 2011, then to Ministry of
Children and Family Development (p), now deputy minister for health (c) - Elaine McKnight –
“associate deputy minister in health supervised the people who conducted the
early stages of the investigation” (c) and current head of the public service
agency (replaced Tarras)(g)
- Health Ministry assistant deputy ministers Lindsay Kislock, Manjit
Sidhu and Barbara Walman, were put in charge of the investigation (f), and the public
version of the report had their names redacted from the terms of reference for
the 2012 review that eventually led to the firings, included in McNeil's report
as Appendix C. (j) Manjit Sidu was also
direct supervisor to Alana James (see his comments to her concerns).f)
- Bob Nakagawa “left his position as assistant deputy minister in charge of the pharmaceutical services division in April 2012” (h) - John Bethel – “a former BC Liberal candidate and member of Premier Clark's transition” team replaced Bob Kakagawa (h)
- Linda Tarras – head of PSA and retired at the end of October 2014 and wrote the terms of reference for the review (i)
- Rebecca Warburton – co-director of research and evidence development in the ministry's pharmaceutical services division and Roderick MacIssac's thesis supervisor (h)
- Bill Warburton – has a PhD in economics and worked as the director of the economic analysis branch for the former ministry of human resources, had a $1 a year contract that gave him access to drug data (h), a health economist who had just been hired by the University of Victoria to oversee an Alzheimer's disease drug research project, (29)
- Roderick MacIsaac – a PhD student in the University of Victoria's school of public administration, on a co-op work term, Rebecca Warburton was his advisor. Mr. MacIsaac committed suicide. (l)+ - Bob Hart – the director of data access, research and stewardship (k), with the ministry for 30 years(h) - Ramsay Hamdi, a senior economist in the utilization health care and risk management branch (14)
- David Scott – a senior researcher in the analysis branch (h)
- Malcolm Maclure – a director of research and evidence development with the ministry's pharmaceutical services division (30) and had appointments to Uvic and the University of BC (14)
- Ron Mattson – a special projects manager with PharmaCare, was involved in the Alzheimer's Drug Therapy Initiative (14), an employee for 27 years (h); a View Royal city councillor(m)
- Sara Brownlee – led the team that undertook the investigation and member of staff of PSA (c)
-Investigator from the chief information officer's office. “Sara and Wendy were, to my knowledge, the only individuals who attended every meeting and employee interview." [Graham Whitmarsh]. The pair was key, he said. "They collected all evidence and wrote all reports with respect to the entire investigation process. In addition, they drafted all the letters advising employees of disciplinary actions." (c)
- Dale Samsonoff – advanced education executive director (d) - Ted Boomer - director of the Ministry’s Accounting Operations Branch (b)
- Bob Nakagawa “left his position as assistant deputy minister in charge of the pharmaceutical services division in April 2012” (h) - John Bethel – “a former BC Liberal candidate and member of Premier Clark's transition” team replaced Bob Kakagawa (h)
- Linda Tarras – head of PSA and retired at the end of October 2014 and wrote the terms of reference for the review (i)
- Rebecca Warburton – co-director of research and evidence development in the ministry's pharmaceutical services division and Roderick MacIssac's thesis supervisor (h)
- Bill Warburton – has a PhD in economics and worked as the director of the economic analysis branch for the former ministry of human resources, had a $1 a year contract that gave him access to drug data (h), a health economist who had just been hired by the University of Victoria to oversee an Alzheimer's disease drug research project, (29)
- Roderick MacIsaac – a PhD student in the University of Victoria's school of public administration, on a co-op work term, Rebecca Warburton was his advisor. Mr. MacIsaac committed suicide. (l)+ - Bob Hart – the director of data access, research and stewardship (k), with the ministry for 30 years(h) - Ramsay Hamdi, a senior economist in the utilization health care and risk management branch (14)
- David Scott – a senior researcher in the analysis branch (h)
- Malcolm Maclure – a director of research and evidence development with the ministry's pharmaceutical services division (30) and had appointments to Uvic and the University of BC (14)
- Ron Mattson – a special projects manager with PharmaCare, was involved in the Alzheimer's Drug Therapy Initiative (14), an employee for 27 years (h); a View Royal city councillor(m)
- Sara Brownlee – led the team that undertook the investigation and member of staff of PSA (c)
-Investigator from the chief information officer's office. “Sara and Wendy were, to my knowledge, the only individuals who attended every meeting and employee interview." [Graham Whitmarsh]. The pair was key, he said. "They collected all evidence and wrote all reports with respect to the entire investigation process. In addition, they drafted all the letters advising employees of disciplinary actions." (c)
- Dale Samsonoff – advanced education executive director (d) - Ted Boomer - director of the Ministry’s Accounting Operations Branch (b)
-
Grace Foran - health director of executive operations (d) - Greg Tonn and Don
Rintoul (d)
-
Ryan Jabs – Ministry spokesperson (f)
-
Laine Coopsie – senior audit advisor in the health ministry (f)
-
Jay Chalke - Ombudsperson
- Linda
Kayfish – she's wasn't a participant - sister of Roderick MacIssac, an
outsider, she's fighting for his rights
Other Names You May Find
Interesting
(e)
Board
Chair: Wynne Powell
President and Chief Executive Officer: Carl Roy
President and Chief Executive Officer: Carl Roy
Board
Chair: Wynne Powell
A/President and Chief Executive Officer: Dr. David Ostrow
A/President and Chief Executive Officer: Dr. David Ostrow
Dr. David Ostrow – was CEO of Vancouver Coastal Health
Authority (VCHA) – see post “Auditor General's report” – now a/president and
CEO of Fraser Health Authority (things never change, just moved around) (see
post “AUDITOR GENERAL – PARIS REPORT, May 24, 2010 and post “AUDITOR GENERAL, June 10, 2011)
Board
Chair: Norman Embree
President and Chief Executive Officer: Dr. Robert Halpenny
President and Chief Executive Officer: Dr. Robert Halpenny
Board
Chair: Dr. Charles Jago
President and Chief Executive Officer: Cathy Ulrich
President and Chief Executive Officer: Cathy Ulrich
Board
Chair: Kip Woodward
President and Chief Executive Officer: Mary Ackenhusen
President and Chief Executive Officer: Mary Ackenhusen
Board
Chair: Don Hubbard
President and Chief Executive Officer: Dr. Brendan Carr
President and Chief Executive Officer: Dr. Brendan Carr
Geoff
Plant, former BC Liberal attorney general, now chair of Providence's board of
directors (and round and round they go)
:How much did we pay these “people” to lie and/or know NOTHING
* Margaret MacDermid said "It's not clear
at all to me and I don't believe it's clear to anyone as to why this
happened." (s)
Mike
de Jong said about the situation: “"it's disappointing, it's
troubling." "One of the things I as health minister had endeavoured
to promote is responsible access to the treasure trove of data we hold as a
society with a PharmaCare program"; (t)
Colin
Hansen said, in March of 2012, "They're being overly cautious, let's put
it that way. And the result of that is that the process is way too
time-consuming and frustrating for those responsible researchers who want to
get access." and “sufficient safeguards are already in place to assure
both the anonymity of records and to ensure they will only be released to
responsible researchers”. (q)
George
Abbott said, regarding the firings, "I have no idea how something like
that came to be," (r)
Margaret
MacDiarmid and Terry Lake lied repeatedly about the non-existent RCMP
investigation (see post “Our Information Is Not Protected – Part I)
a. Fired health ministry employee 'mystified' by
dismissal – Andrew MacLeod, 12 Sep 2012,
The Hook
b.
The best place on Earth (for pharmaceutical companies) –
Alan Cassels, Mar 2013, Online
c. What We Know So Far about the Health Ministry
Firings – Andrew MacLeod, 19 Dec 2014, TheTyee.ca
d.
BC Gov't Hiding 'Embarrassing' Reports,
FOI Advocate Says – Andrew MacLeod, 26 Jan 2015,
TheTyee.ca
e. British Columbia Health Authorities Webpage –
17 Mar 2015
f. Emails Shed Light on Origins of Health
Ministry Probe, Firings – Andrew MacLeod, 21 Oct 2014, TheTyee.ca **
g.
Key Health Ministry Advisor Was Surprised Firings Targeted Just 'Low Level
People': Emails – Andrew MacLeod, 6 Nov
2014, TheTyee.ca **
h.
'I Thought I Was Doing a Good Job': Fired
Health Ministry Staffer, Andrew MacLeod, 12 Sept
2012, TheTyee.ca
i. Sister of Fired Researcher Losing Faith in
Government Probe – Andrew MacLeod, 5 Dec 2014,
TheTyee.ca
j. Fork over Full Health Firings Findings: Dix –
Andrew MacLeod, 8 Jan 2015, TheTyee.ca
k.
BC Gov't Faces Third Lawsuit over Health Ministry Firings – Andrew MacLeod, 12
Mar 2013, TheTyee.ca
l. Fired Health Ministry Worker Found Dead –
Andrew MacLeod, 10 Jan 2013, TheTyee.ca
m.
Research Stopped by Ministry Might Have Cut Big Pharma Profits – Andrew
MacLeod, 8 Sept 2012, TheTyee.ca
n. Premiers of British Columbia 1871 – today,
British Columbia government website
o. How many health ministers does it take to run
B.C.'s medical system...? - Pamela Fayerman,
14 Mar 2011, Vancouver Sun (a paper I never buy)
p. Independent inquiry urged into botched
health ministry firings - Rob Show, 2 Jul 2015, Vancouver Sun
q. Bill
easing research access to ehealth data sparks privacy fears - Craig
McInnes, 03 May 2012, Vancouver Sun
r. George Abbott Quits Liberals He Sought to
Lead - Andrew MacLeod, 30 Jun 2015, TheTyee.ca
s. B.C. Health ministry says RCMP called to
investigate conflict allegations - Dirk Meissner, 06 Nov 2012, The Canadian Press
t. Health ministry fires fifth person in data,
contract investigation - Andrew MacLeod, 13 Sep 2012, The Hook
**Alana
James comments
December 27, 2015
OUR INFORMATION IS NOT PROTECTED –
PART I
If you can't protect it, don't
collect it.
Personal health information is one of the most sensitive
categories of personal information held by public bodies. (11)
Personal health information is much
more than ‘just data’ – it is sensitive information provided confidentially in
the context of care. (11)
The
politicians and all their friends keep lying about protecting our
information. For example:
1. The BC Ministry of Health was tipped, in
March of 2012*, by the office of the BC Auditor General that it had “received
an anonymous allegation about contracting irregularities and research
practices, including inappropriate access to personal information” at the Pharmaceutical Services Division. (11) Another
ministry division was also involved.(11)
The
Health Ministry fired seven people and froze several drug research contracts.
(42)
The
B.C. Privacy Commissioner conducted an
investigation after the Ministry of Health revealed, on July 13, 2012, that
“government employees downloaded large amounts of personal health data onto
unencrypted flash drives and provided it to unauthorized individuals”. And this wasn't one loss. First it was unauthorized sharing of 21,000
people. Then it was 38,000 people. Then it was “the data of five million**
British Columbia’s covering a number of years.”
According to Wikipedia, the population of BC in 2011 was 4,400,057. In other words, everyone's information was
shared NON-anonymously, including those who had moved out of province. It included “sexual history, Medical Service
Plan claims, hospital admission records, healthcare numbers, dates of birth and
gender.” (1, 6) plus “alcohol and drug use, ... postal codes” (2). Enough information to identify the patients.
“One
incident breached an agreement with Statistics Canada involving 38,000 people
whose information in the Canadian Community Health Survey was collected from
census data between 2000 and 2010, said a Health Ministry spokesman.” “Individuals participated in that survey and
shared their most sensitive information such as sexual health and sexual
preferences on the basis that that information would not be shared,” she said.
(2)
“There
was an agreement and a consent to have that information used only for specific
purposes within the Ministry of Health. When that information was disclosed
that was really a breach of an agreement and it goes to the issue of trust that
individuals have in the health-care system.” (2) Statistics
Canada had promised individuals who completed the survey that the Ministry
would not disclose any of their information in personally identifiable form.
(11) Again, the government just
lies. They either didn't check the
Ministry of Health to determine if there was adequate security or they didn't
care. Statistics Canada was apparently
content with a worthless agreement, and, it seems, has taken no action on the
violation of the agreement.
Margaret MacDiarmid said that “It
appeared researchers were getting data for one purpose, then using it for
another research purpose”. (14)
“The purported recipients of the
information were two contractors and a researcher” (11) and involved the University of Victoria,
University of BC and the Therapeutics Initiative.
BC's
Privacy Commissioner made 11 recommendations (Note: the privacy commissioner can only recommend,
not enforce). You can read the report at
www.oipc.bc.ca , Investigation Report F13-02, dated June 16, 2013. “The report does
not address criminal or civil culpability on the part of the Ministry, its
employees or contractors. “
Some
points from the report (35 pages, some of it repetitive):
- The Privacy Commissioner stated the Ministry didn't even have
“adequate safeguards to protect personal information, both in the
delivery of health care and research using health data.” (11)
(bolding/italics mine)
- The ministry failed to translate privacy and security policies
into meaningful business practices. The
primary deficiency at the ministry was a lack of effective governance,
management and controls over access to personal health information. (11) In other words, the policies, the protection
of our information, were just words on paper.
- The information was shared via portable storage devices (easily
lost/stolen/copied/given away).
-
“The ministry didn't have an inventory of its personal-information databases or
a program to monitor any unauthorized use and disclosure of citizens’
information by contracted and academic researchers”. (3) So, people could steal this information and
sell/trade/barter it without risk of being caught, unless a whistleblower comes
forward, and maybe not even then.
- “There were no mechanisms to ensure that researchers were complying with the
privacy requirements, as stipulated in contracts and written agreements”.
(11) Again, the contracts/agreements
were just worthless words on paper.
- There were insufficient physical and technological
safeguards to prevent copying of sensitive personal information onto portable
storage devices. The Ministry failed to monitor the access, use and disclosure
of sensitive personal information. It also failed to impose effective security
provisions in some of its contracts and information sharing agreements. Given
the level of sensitivity of the personal information involved, the Ministry did
not provide reasonable security. (11)
Terry Lake, Minister of Health as of
June 10, 2013, blamed the employee's for the lack of “mechanisms to ensure that
researchers were complying with the privacy requirements”. (48) Isn't that the Minister's job to ensure
“mechanism's” are in place for the proper running of a ministry? Plus, this went beyond researchers; the
Ministry didn't have adequate safeguards even for the delivery of health
care. But this is typical politician
behaviour to blame someone else for the politicians obvious incompetence or
chosen behaviour.
In a report, dated February 9, 2009,
The Acting Information and Privacy Commissioner, Paul Fraser, “found MCFD and
MHSD failed to make reasonable security arrangements to protect personal
information from risks such as unauthorized access, collection, use, disclosure
or disposal as required by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy
Act (FIPPA). In addition, 'Commissioner Fraser found a troubling lack of
knowledge within the Ministries about the rules respecting the protection of
personal information'”. (prior post, Privacy Breaches, 11 Jun 2011)
And again, a report was released in
2010 by then Auditor General John Doyle who had conducted an audit of a
Vancouver Coastal Health Authority database
He found almost identical “problems”.
(prior post “Auditor General – PARIS report” 24 May 2010) So, nothing changes.
It
sounds like the Ministry of Health has been running a free-for-all. They only knew about this “breach” from a
whistleblower (so they say). There is a
minister of health, a deputy minister, assistant deputy ministers, associate
deputy minister... – and no one knows what's going on (or more likely they do
and chose to have it this way). And
there is no doubt this “breach” is the tip of the iceberg, since this lack of
privacy protection has been going on for 20+ years. (49)
The
term “breach”, has a couple of definitions.
One definition is “to make an opening in” (as in a security system) But I think you first have to have a security
system to “breach”. The second
definition is to “break or act contrary to (a law, a promise)”.
(Wikipedia) This post uses the second definition
of breach. Christy Clark and other BC
premiers and their lackeys, breached or contravened the privacy act, for
20+ years, by, for all intents and purposes, not having a security system and
broke a promise to the people to protect their information. The fired contractors/employees were believed
to have committed a breach by accessing/sharing patient information without
authorization (illegally?).
So
what really happened? CBC News has
provided a timeline of the events but we still don't know what really
happened. (55) I do know that there are only two people I trust who were involved in this
whole disgraceful affair, Alana James (whistleblower) and John Doyle (former
auditor general)(more information on John Doyle***). Unlike the researchers, these two came forward when the only
thing they had to gain was maintaining their self-respect and integrity. And they risked losing their jobs, which they
did.
But
some points to consider are (note the many contradictions and outright lies in
this scandalous fiasco): (40)
-
The ministry did not discover the unauthorized disclosures until a
whistleblower came forward, leading to a review of thousands of emails and
files on the hard drives of several employees. (11) The whistleblower, Alana James, is no longer
working for the government either by choice (disgusted with the way things
operate?) or “let go” (government doesn't want someone who works for the people?)
-
Alana James “had been raising concerns about the legality of numerous contracts
the ministry had entered" "for several years before the firings“(italics
mine). (25) She had contacted eight
senior ministry officials about her concerns
and “they were saying policy trumped the law and government could do
what it wants even if it breaches the law and legislation", (bolding
mine). Alana James also identifies quite a lot of
concerns that the Ministry of Health did not address in their investigation.
(17)
-
Two of the employees settled wrongful dismissal and defamation suits out of
court and were rehired (Bob Hart and Malcolm Maclure), a third employee (Ron
Mattson) received an out of court settlement and an apology and retired. These settlements were done behind closed
doors and with a non-disclosure clause.
Bill Warburton has settled his lawsuit with the province but has filed a
defamation claim against Margaret MacDermid. (43, 9, 44) Dave Scott and Ramsay Hamdi remain
fired. Roderick MacIssac committed
suicide. (12,18, 45, 46). Rebecca
Warburton has her case before the courts. Why were the non-union employees
rehired/retired (except Rebecca Warburton) but the two union people were not
rehired and yet not charged with an offence/crime? (13) A source claims the non-union employees
threatened to tell what is really going on (bolding mine). (23) Is there something that prevents union
employees from doing the same thing?
-
The firings were done by Graham Whitmarsh, deputy health minister “on the first
day that Margaret MacDiarmid was health minister”. (12) She replaced Mike de Jong who was moved to
the Finance Ministry.(20) What
interesting timing! Did Christy think he
was too much of a political asset to take responsibility for his actions (or
lack of actions)? The breaches happened
on his watch, the initial investigation which led to the suspension, and later
firing of seven employees occurred on his watch and the lack of overall privacy
protection continued on his watch. Now,
it appears, he ran and hid in another ministry.
Isn't that called being a coward?
And, he can claim that he “can't comment” on what is going on in another
ministry and MacDiarmid can claim that she was not minister at the time it
happened so she can't answer what happened.
-
Mike de Jong said about the situation: “"it's disappointing, it's
troubling." "One of the things I as health minister had endeavoured
to promote is responsible access to the treasure trove of data we hold as a
society with a PharmaCare program"; (20) "It's not clear at all to me and I don't believe it's clear
to anyone as to why this happened," said MacDiarmid.(5) Now that they have had time to read the
privacy commissioner's report perhaps the ministers could explain what they do
to earn their large pay-cheques, expense accounts and golden pensions. Imagine if a bank was robbed and an executive
said “I didn't know there wasn't any security” or “we had no security because
we expected everyone to be honest.” How long would that executive be
employed? So, are they incredibly
incompetent, liars or both?
-
We have paid for an internal investigation, RCMP responding to claims of an investigation
(a non-existent investigation), a privacy commissioner investigation, a
University of BC investigation, and possibly a University of Victoria
investigation, settlements to fired employees, a pending court case, 37,000
notifications of the breach, $1.1 million (or $950 per phone call) to Maximus
for a toll-free call centre, $400,000 in severance payments to Graham Whitmarsh
(18) and on and on. “It is worth noting the high costs of
such after-the-fact privacy breach management as opposed to investing in
comprehensive privacy and security risk management up front. Senior management
time is an especially high component of this burden.” (11) I think the management should have worked for
free, then been fired. But no management has been
held responsible for the “breach”, for the lack of privacy protection and there
has been no accountability. Whitmarsh
was fired, without cause, with a $461,643 severance package. (55) The citizens, will just work a little harder,
work a little longer, or do without to pay for the useless, incompetent,
self-serving politicians and their toadies.
- “The Ministry
believed the research credentials of the individuals involved suggested that
there was little risk for misuse” of patient information. (11) How convenient. Excuse me but aren't these the people who,
“without authorization” (illegally?) requested, shared and accepted
confidential patient information!!!
- Health Minister Margaret
MacDiarmid said “We want the data back” (1).
How stupid can you be (but I guess it sounds good in the press). You don't get it back especially after
several years. Once it's out there, it's out there. “In attempting to contain
the breaches, the Ministry had to rely on declarations from the employees and
contracted researchers under investigation that they did not have any Ministry
information stored outside the confines of the Ministry.”(11) In other words, the Ministry is, again,
relying on the word of people who had “without authorization” (illegally?)
given and accepted identifiable patient information. One person said they had deleted the
information from their hard drive. But,
my understanding is that if information is transferred onto your computer and
then deleted, it is not totally gone, unless the hard drive is wiped clean. I doubt very much if that was done. Also, these systems usually have at least one
backup. This shows, again, that the
ministry has no idea (or doesn't care) how our information is accessed or
shared.
-
“Jim Wright, the managing director of the University of B.C. pharmaceutical
research group” said people working with him “only get fully anonymous data,
making a privacy breach impossible”.(33)
The Privacy Commissioner's report said a contractor (doesn't mention which
university) “requested that the personal health
numbers (PHNs) be masked or removed, as the testing process did not need such
sensitive personal information.” (11).
This seems to imply that the norm is to give the information
NON-anonymously.
-
The press keeps repeating, or paraphrasing, the MacDiarmid statement that
“there was no evidence that anyone had benefited financially from the breaches
and that the data had been used for nothing other than public health
research”.(36) This is misleading at best.
What isn't being said is that there was no evidence that anyone hadn't
benefited financially or that data had not been used for purposes other
than public health research. The
government was so mismanaged (intentionally or just incompetently) that they
had no record of what was happening to our information. They only became aware of two cases of
“unauthorized” (illegal?) access/sharing (or so they say) because the
employee's accessed and shared the information after they were told
that they were being investigated. (11, 30)
Presumably, they found our about the 2010 “unauthorized”
access/sharing by stumbling across some emails.
And,
do you really believe that in 20+ years no one personally benefited from
sharing our information, especially when there was virtually no chance of
getting caught. Just think of all the
people/organizations who would willingly pay a lot of money for this “treasure
trove” of information. Example, “records
were allegedly stolen from two Toronto hospitals and used to market registered
education savings plans to new mothers.” (34) Just because a criminal has not been caught or
convicted (see prior post “Nurses”, Nov.
12, 2008) does not mean a crime has not happened.
-
“The Ministry convened a news conference on January 14, 2013,
to inform the public of details of the breaches (three months after the
September 2012 announcement, and 10 months after being notified of the breach,
or so they say). It mailed letters of notification to affected individuals
(approximately 37,000) in batches over five days starting on January 16, 2013.
The Ministry made use of a website and a toll-free call centre to make
additional information available to affected individuals”. (11) A lot of people would not have known
about the unauthorized access/sharing, especially if they had left the
province. But presumably the turdits
didn't want to mail out over 4 to 5 million notifications. And how much personal information was a
person required to give the foreign-owned call centre, and their probably
low-paid employee's, to get scripted answers?
I also find it interesting that the media
labels this as a ministry firing scandal and not as a ministry privacy
violation scandal (of epic proportions).
Is this because it's so shocking that someone would get fired for
violating our privacy but the massive violation of our privacy is so common or
is this to deflect attention away from the 20+ years of privacy violation?
Dix,
and others, including the media, have also portrayed this as the government
making up a fictitious situation to close down the Therapeutics
Initiative. He implies that the people
involved are innocent. Therefore, he is implying that Alana James is lying,
that the Privacy Commissioner is lying, that information was not transferred
“without authorization” (illegally?), and that the union was incompetent
because they couldn't protect innocent union members. Maybe this is a distraction, a red herring
because he can't condemn the essentially non-existent protection of our
information because both the NDP and Liberal governments have allowed the
medical business to ignore FIPPA, to lie about the protection of patient
information for 20+ years. Although I do
wonder if having an essentially non-existent security system makes it easier to
get information to their friends (party contributors). Is this how they get the large pharmaceutical
companies to locate in BC? (21) I've read that the collusion between
government and Big Pharma borders on criminal.
Do
these comments sound like we were dealing with innocent people? Does it sound like these people have any
remorse for what they did/are doing?
Alana James said that the ministry was making data disclosures, which
were illegal, to outside researchers every week. (17) And, "I have been told things such
as: I don't understand how government works; that it doesn't matter what the
legislation says, we have government policy; that it's unfortunate that we
don't follow the law but that we plan on changing the legislation at some point
so that we will (bolding mine)."(28) “Moreover, they'd been doing the job the same
way for years with the approval of their superiors. 'There was a whole chain of
command that knew what I was doing,'” one of the people fired said. (14) Dix said the government ”targeted a small
group of people who were acting in ways that were well known and accepted in
the ministry”. (25) But that doesn't
make it legal or acceptable. If you hit a person because you were told to, does
that make you any less guilty of assault?
I believe that just makes you both guilty. It's just a question of exactly WHO is
guilty. And it also indicates the
complete contempt the politicians and their toadies have for the law. (41)
Also,
it's possible that Dix's is just trying to brainwash people into believing that
the medical/research system is trustworthy so people will be gullible enough to
continue to give personal information to be sold/traded/bartered to all their
political friends.
Dix's is calling for an
investigation, which should happen, but it's a safe demand because, with a
Liberal majority, it won't happen.
It appears that the only
investigation into what happened was a review by the health ministry in 2014.
However, this review was only focused on policies and procedures on how the
public service responds to allegations of employee misconduct, not on the
actual decisions themselves, not on who fired whom and for what reason, or who
wrote deficient contracts. (18) And they
certainly did not investigate why the Ministry of Health didn't even have
“adequate safeguards to protect personal information. The government stated that the 2014 review
will not be put on the internet for privacy reasons (seems they have a sense of
humour). (8) Stephen Brown, deputy
health minister, was suppose to have conducted a review, in 2013, that led to
the rehiring of some fired employees.
However, an FOI request received a “no records” of the review response.
(24) And, what happened to the information
on the initial investigation, in 2012, that led to the firings and all the
files that were suppose to be turned over to the RCMP. (5)
“British Columbia's Health Minister has called in the RCMP”,
“last month, after reviewing the internal probe results, the ministry handed
its files over to the Mounties.” (5)
MacDiarmid was health minister at the time. In 2013 Lake, health minister, said they
continue to share information with the RCMP... ”So it will be up to the RCMP to
determine next steps based on their conclusions from the investigation."
(7) RCMP had been asked
to investigate allegations (22, 3, 31).
A source told the Tyee "They seemed to make the decision about the
fired people and told the whistleblower that if they wouldn't take the issues
public they would deal with it internally but that their role was to protect the
government as the employer and thus they wouldn't be pursuing people higher
up." (23) The government then said
that it doesn't want the RCMP to investigate. (36). Also, did you note that “their role was to
protect the government as the employer”.
Isn't it time that the people got back to being the employer so the
people are protected? The RCMP have
stated that the politicians lied, that there was no investigation and they
“largely relied upon media reports to track the case”. (38) Then, Christy Clark admitted that they had
“misled” (blatantly lied to) the public about the non-existent investigation
for three years, but only admitted it after the Vancouver Sun released
documents, obtained through a freedom of information request, incriminating the
politicians. (47). If you
or I lied and used the RCMP, wouldn't we be charged, at least with mischief or
some such thing. So why aren't the
politicians charged? And why did the
politicians lie about an RCMP investigation?
“The Vancouver Sun's Vaughn Palmer
revealed that the comptroller general's office has been conducting an
investigation into 'suspected financial improprieties in procurement and
contracting procedures in the pharmaceutical research division of the ministry
of health,' since October 2012. (3) The findings are to be kept confidential except to 'assist
RCMP or other law enforcement agency with a criminal investigation or
prosecution.'”(28). It appears that this
“investigation” is going in the same direction as the health privacy breach/firings.
(39)
"What we're trying to do is
capitalize on data collection that is anonymous," said Minister de Jong.
"Protecting individual privacy remains a hallmark and a fundamental
priority." (15) The Privacy
Commissioner's office obviously disagrees, as does all the evidence. And
Ministry of Health claims they didn't have the resources for protection.
(11) But everyone in the health business
says our information is protected. All
these conflicting statements (lies). And
note that they had the money for the Integrated Management System (see post of
same title, June 14, 2011). So they had
the money to link all our information but none to protect it. Sounds about right for the turdits.
The privacy commissioner has 11
recommendations. Do you really think
they will be implemented? Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy
Act (FIPPA), which
governs public bodies, came into effect October 1993. So, it's been 20+ years since this privacy
act came into effect and obviously they have ignored it so far.
The privacy commissioner also claims that the Health Ministry is
“fixing” things. But, of course, she
only has their word, which hasn't been worth a damn for 20+ years. They quickly came up with millions to
“contain” the “unauthorized” (illegal?) access/sharing. And, suddenly, there was no problem coming up
with the money to “fix the system” now that they had been “found out”, or so
they said. PROVE IT.
The government has looked into joint
medical research with India (32) and has held workshops to encourage “BC
researchers to compete for contracts from the United States military”(35) and
were in discussions to sell (openly/legally) our information (36); that was
“officially” suspended, but for how long.
So all the people in foreign countries will have our information, if
they don't already have it. And it will
be identifiable because we know the government/medical business make a mockery
of the word “anonymous”.
And they passed Bill 35 which is
pharmaceutical legislation to increase use of patient information with reduced
accountability, including sharing our information outside of Canada. (15,
37) (also see post “Bill 35 –
Pharmaceutical Act” 25 Sept. 2012).
Now the turdits are going to do
another “investigation” to quiet all the questions around this sordid
affair. BUT it will be done by the
Ombudsperson, Jay Chalke, who isn't qualified to do it and is subject to many
restrictions. Also, it will be done
behind closed doors. (50)(51) They claim that it would be too expensive and
time consuming to have a public inquiry.
Which is more expensive: a
useless investigation by the Ombudsperson, designed to be a whitewash, or a
REAL public inquiry, designed to get answers.
The fired people, plus Roderick
MacIssac's sister, have issued a letter requesting a public inquiry. I find this more than a “bit” hypocritical
coming from those (not MacIssac's sister), who had an opportunity to get this
into the open by going to court but instead settled behind closed doors, with a
non-disclosure clause. Are some of them
doing a “Dix” (including Graham Whitmarsh), demanding a public inquiry, because
it makes them look good, when they know it will never happen? However, the points they outline in their
letter regarding why there needs to be a public inquiry are valid. (42,
53)
But, even with a public inquiry you need people with some ethics,
integrity and moral fibre, to tell the truth and not just lie, or a damn good
lawyer who can get to the truth.
More
importantly, B.C.’s former auditor general says the government needs a fully
independent public inquiry into the firings of health researchers because
allegations of improper activities go all the way up to the politicians.
“John Doyle, who received the
whistle-blower’s original complaints that led to the government’s investigation
in 2012, said appointing the Ombudsman to review the case would be a 'waste of
time' because it would too
limited to capture the full scope of potential problems.
'My view is that this isn’t just
about a few people in the health department,” he told The Vancouver Sun in an
interview Thursday.
'The information that we were
getting covered a lot of government and a lot of behaviour right up to the
political levels.
Some of the issues also
involved the Ministry of Justice, said Doyle, where Jay Chalke worked as a senior official for the past four
years, before starting as Ombudsman Thursday. The
government is poised to appoint Chalke’s office to look into the matter. He
shouldn’t be involved, said Doyle. 'If they are going to narrow the
inquiry right down to looking at the firings, then it doesn’t matter who does
it because it’s a waste of time anyway,' said Doyle. They've
done that to death already. It’s really about the patterns of behaviour, the
movement of funds, the decision making that was going on in regard to quite a
range of different activities, and the interaction with senior politicians
(bolding mine).' Doyle
suggested a corruption commission model used in Australia, where he is now the
auditor general for the State of Victoria. 'I believe
the agenda is going to be swung towards the seven or eight people who were
fired. And really that’s a smokescreen. Some of them were right in the
middle of it but some of them were in the periphery. The big things occurring
outside the health ministry were some more senior people and a lot of, as I
said, politicians involved in the process as well (bolding mine).' “ (49)
An Aside: John Doyle and Alana James married and are
living in Australia. I am happy that two
such people with ethics, decency, integrity, and bravery got together. Congratulations to Australia for getting our
best. And BC gets left with the
scrapings of humanity.
In addition, David Ostrow violated
the privacy act (see post Auditor General – PARIS report, May 24, 2010), de
Jong was in charge when the recent health violations occurred and the health
ministry violated the privacy act, Margaret MacDiarmid lied about the RCMP (and
gawd knows what else) and Terry Lake continued the lie(s), and these people
still work in the government. In fact,
MacDiarmid was fired by the people when she was voted out of government in the last
election but Christy flipped the citizens the finger and gave her a job on the
Vancouver Coastal Health Authority board.
That tells me that all of this is run from the top of the dung
pile. Whatever Christy is hiding, about
what she/they are doing to us, must be pretty damning. WHAT ARE THEY DOING TO US!!!
Plus, "The deputy minister of health sent an email yesterday to all
staff in the ministry asking them not to delete or destroy any records related
to the 2012 firings that the provincial ombudsperson is investigating", at
the request of the ombudsman.
"Health policy researcher and author Alan Cassels said that it's
odd that Brown would be reminding people to keep records three years after the
firings were made. 'The horse hasn't just escaped from the barn, the barn's
burned down,' he said. Despite numerous requests
to the government since 2012 for information about the firings, little that's
substantial has been released, Cassels said. 'To be told there aren't any
records, it stretches credibility to the breaking point. You just can't believe
them.'" (52)
If the NDP were to get "in power", do you really think they
would have a full public inquiry of the scandal? I don't.
They would cover for their compatriots as they would expect their
compatriots to cover for them, not to mention that the NDP are likely just as
guilty.
The reality is that the only people who can call a public inquiry and get the truth out in theopen are the accused (the politicians and their lackeys), and obviously they are not going to
do it. We have no means to hold the government accountable -- do you call that a democracy?
So, sit back folks in BC and start
counting the millions more that will be wasted in the charade, all to cover up
what the politicians are doing to the people.
I have no doubt that the politicians, and many others, know exactly what
happened and why. But, the people can
just work harder, or work longer to make up the millions, or do without. The people doing without will be the
children, the homeless, the disabled, the aged .... but the politicians don't
care.
Lies, lies, more lies, constant
contradictions and cover-ups. It isn't
just a case of breaching security measures, it's a case of not having security
measures. It's a case of intentionally
violating the privacy laws for 20+ years. Common sense indicates that the
“unauthorized” (illegal?) access/sharing we hear about are just a tiny fraction
of the violations of our privacy.
It's a culture of secrecy, of lies,
of deviousness, of corruption.... and the culture is set at the top, at the
Premier's office. And followed, blindly,
by her toadies, with the rare exception of someone like Alana James, someone
who has ethics, morals, and a backbone.
This attitude (contempt, disrespect) toward the people and this
“government/medical” sense of entitlement is the core problem. And until that changes the privacy situation
won't get any better.
I might not mind my information
being shared with researchers if I believed they had my back; If patient
information was not being protected, that the researchers would make that
known. But they don't (see future post “complicit”) . I have not heard of one person, in 20+ years,
speaking up (Alana James was not a researcher). The first rule in medical research should be
to protect the patient's rights and confidentiality. Currently, this is either their last rule or
not even on their radar. Yet these are the people the privacy commissioner
tries to portray as paragons of virtue.
You would think these researchers would speak up, or otherwise let it be
known, as a matter of professional integrity.
Plus, “Government employees are sworn to uphold Standards of Conduct as
explained by a policy statement which clearly states: 'Employees have a duty to
report any situation relevant to the BC Public Service that they believe
contravenes the law, misuses public funds or assets, or represents a danger to
public health and safety or a significant danger to the environment.'”
(21) But they don't care about us. Another government/medical business
contradiction, and meaningless words on paper because the only person to uphold
the Standards of Conduct is no longer with the government/medical business.
It doesn't matter what the
medical/research people are doing. The
ends do not justify the means. Under no
circumstances should they have the right, or sense of entitlement, to treat us
like lab rats, a commodity to be used and abused as THEY choose, with no
accountability or transparency to the citizens, much less real consent
by the patients.
But, all we see here is the scorn
the medical/research/government people have for the citizens. And they expect us to trust them. In my opinion, you would have to be
brain-dead, or a masochist, to voluntarily give these people any
information. They have lost all
credibility, all trust, all respect.
WHAT
ARE THEY GOING TO DO WITH CORRUPTED INFORMATION
WHAT
ARE THEY GOING TO DO WHEN THEY WANT SOMETHING, FROM SOMEONE LIKE ME, THEY CAN'T
STEAL. (see future post “My Story”);
*This
date may be not be correct due to another government “inconsistency”.
**
This number has varied between 4 million and 5 million. So, presumably the government doesn't even
know how much information was “shared”.
Any number over the current population could be due to including the
information of people who have left the province.
***Champions are hard to find, harder to keep, 06 Feb 2013,
Burnaby Now (Our View); Keeping Accounts, 10 Apr 2013, Newsleader
(Newsleader's View); Expense cleanup must continue, Tom Fletcher, 12 Jun
2013, Black Press; also see posts “Auditor General – PARIS Report”, 24 May 2010
and “Auditor General”, 10 Jun 2011 and “Auditor General John Doyle”, 13 Apr
2013; Protect whistleblowers to protect public good, 12 Dec 2012,
Burnaby Now (Our View)
1. Health data of millions breached - Tyler
Orton, 13 Jan 2013, 24 Hours
2. Protect personal health info with security
measures: privacy commissioner - Camille
Bains, 26 June 2013, The
Associated Press
3. Vaughn Palmer: The plot just thickened on those mysterious
government health firings - Vaughn
Palmer, 15 Oct 2014, Vancouver Sun (a paper I didn't buy)
4. Policies tightened on pharmaceutical deals -
6 Sep 2012, 24 Hours
5. B.C. Health ministry says RCMP called to investigate
conflict allegations - Dirk Meissner, 06
Nov 2012, The Canadian Press
6. B.C. Health ministry suspends workers over
privacy breach - Jonathan Fowlie, 14 Sep 2012,
Vancouver Sun
7. Protect personal health info with security
measure privacy commissioner - 26 Jun 2013, The
Canadian Press
8. Fork over Full Health Firings Findings: Dix - Andrew MacLeod, 12 Jan 2015TheTyee.ca
9. Health Worker fired to Protect Liberal
Donors, Suit Alleges - Andrew MacLeod, 07 May 2013,
TheTyee.ca
10. Health Ministry Firings Review an
'Accountability Gong Show,' Says NDP - Andrew MacLeod,
22 Feb 2014, TheTyee.ca
11. Investigation Report F13-02, Ministry of
Health - Hamish Flannigan and Pat Egan, 26 Jun 2013,
Privacy Commissioner's Office
12. Fired Researcher Who Killed Self Was
Evaluating Drug Backed by Clark - Andrew MacLeod,
03 Oct 2014, TheTyee.ca
13. Health Ministry Mum on Fired Worker's
Rehiring - Andrew MacLeod, 07 Mar 2014, TheTyee.ca
14. 'I Thought I Was Doing a Good Job': Fired Health Ministry Staffer - Andrew
MacLeod, 12 Sept 2012, TheTyee.ca
15.
Privacy Commissioner to Health
Minister: Whoa! - Andrew MacLeod, 3 May
2012, TheTyee.ca
16. Taxpayers Dinged for a Thousand $1,000 Phone
Calls - Andrew MacLeod, 16 Jan 2014, TheTyee.ca
17. Emails Shed Light on Origins of Health
Ministry Probe, Firings - Andrew MacLeod, 21 Oct 2014, TheTyee.ca
18. Former Official Fears Blame for Health
Ministry Firings - Andrew MacLeod, 20 Nov 2014, TheTyee.ca
19. Health minister MacDiarmid confirms fifth
firing morning after - Andrew MacLeod, 14 Sep 2012,
The Hook,
20. Health ministry fires fifth person in data,
contract investigation, Andrew MacLeod, 13 Sep 2012,
The Hook
21.
The best place on Earth (for pharmaceutical companies) - Alan
Cassels, Mar 2013, Online
22. Research Stopped by Ministry Might Have Cut
Big Pharma Profits - Andrew MacLeod, 8 Sep
2012, TheTyee.ca
23. Key Health Ministry Advisor Was Surprised
Firings Targeted Just 'Low Level People': Emails
- Andrew MacLeod, 6 Nov 2014, TheTyee.ca
24. 'No Records' of Requested Health Ministry
Review - Andrew MacLeod,16 Feb 2015, TheTyee.ca
25. What We Know So Far about the Health Ministry
Firings - Andrew MacLeod, 19 Dec 2014,
TheTyee.ca
26. Former Senior Gov't Official Won't
Participate in Health Firings Review - Andrew MacLeod,
25 Nov 2014, TheTyee.ca
27. Health ministry lacked means to protect
personal info - Andrew MacLeod, 26 Jun 2013, The
Hook
28. VIEW:
Time to appoint a special prosecutor on healthcare firings - Andrew
MacLeod, 27 Oct 2014, The Hook
29. Health research scandal still
shrouded in secrecy - C. McInnes, 15 Dec 2012, Vancouver Sun (a paper I wouldn't buy)
30. Fired BC Health Worker Sues
Province - Dirk Meissner, 04 Dec 2012, The Canadian Press
31. Police Called, then Stalled
on Health Firing Probe - Andrew MacLeod, 19 Feb 2015, TheTyee.ca
32. Asian trip's aims include medical
tourism and shared research - Andrew MacLeod, 04 Nov 2011, TheTyee.ca
33. Lack of drug data is blocking
important research - Andrew MacLeod, 12 Sept 2012, The Hook 34. 34. OSC lays charges in patient records privacy
breach at two Toronto hospitals - Diana Mehta.
02 Jun 2015, Chronicle Journal: Health 35. BC Medical R esearchers encouraged to seek US
military funding - Andrew MacLeod, 12 Oct
2012, The Hook
36. At Time of Firings, Health Ministry Discussed
Selling Patient Data - Andrew MacLeod, 20 Mar
2015, TheTyee.ca
37. Bill 35 – 2012 –
Pharmaceutical Services Act, passed May 31, 2012 38. RCMP probe of fired B.C. Health workers never
happened - Rob Shaw, 05 Jun 2015, Vancouver
Sun
39. Health Ministry Firings Police Probe Still
Possible - Andrew MacLeod, 04 Jun 2015, TheTyee.ca
40. Letter Shows Discrepancy in Gov't Version of
Health Firings - Andrew MacLeod, 3 Feb 2015,
TheTyee.ca
41. On Health Ministry Firings,
Who Actually Received an Apology? - Andrew MacLeod, 9 Jun 2015, TheTyee.ca
42. Wrongly Fired Health Workers
Sign New Demand for 'Thorough' Inquiry - Andrew MacLeod, 24 Jun 2015, TheTyee.ca 43. Fired drug researcher drops lawsuit against province - Cindy E. Harnett, 5 Jun 2015, Times Colonist 44. Victoria drug researcher wasn't silenced, B.C. Government says - Cindy E. Harnett, 29 May 2015, Times Colonist 45. Fired researcher's sister seeks answers in report due today, Cindy E. Harnett, 18 Dec 2014, Times Colonist 46. Fired Researcher's 'Last Words' Deleted from Computer, Sister Says - Andrew MacLeod, 8 Jul 2015, TheTyee.ca 47. Christy Clark: Government has apologized for misleading public over B.C. Health firings - 05 Jun 2015 , CBC News 48. Is Health Firings Probe Doomed to Be Too Narrow? - Bob Mackin, 15 Jul 2015, TheTyee.ca 49. Independent inquiry urged into botched health ministry firings - Rob Show, 2 Jul 2015, Vancouver Sun 50. Ombudsperson Pleads for Delay to Health Firings Probe - Bob Mackin, 16 Jul 2015, TheTyee.ca 51. Editorial: Inquiry must be independent - 4 Jul 2015, Times Colonist 52. Health Ministry Asks Staff Not to Delete Records Related to 2012 Firings - Andrew. MacLeod, 24 Nov 2015, TheTyee.ca 53. Wrongly Fired Health Workers Reject Ombudsperson Review - Andrew MacLeod, 28 Jul 2015, TheTyee.ca 54. Many Theories, No Answers from BC Gov't on Health Ministry Firings - Bill Tieleman, 23 Jun 2015, TheTyee.ca 55. B.C. Health researcher firing scandal timeline - Jeremy Allingham, 13 Jun 2015, CBC News
December 23, 2015
I have heard
people ask what they can do. Politicians
(past, present, future, wannabes) need to know that when they lie, steal, con,
destroy our democracy, freedoms, and rights, there are consequences. So, here are some suggestions:
Smaller
Things
- If I unexpectedly encounter a politician, or
any member of their family, I turn my back on them and walk away.
-
I try to avoid any event where the turdits will be. Or if I feel a need
to attend, then, when the turdit speaks, again I turn my back and walk away
until they are finished with their self-serving, campaigning, talking points. - I will not serve on any board
or committee that has a politician or a member of their family.
- I try to avoid purchases from company's owned by politicians and their
family members. For example, I never ate
at an A & W because I knew at least two were owned by a politician, but I
didn't know which two.
- I try to avoid purchases from large corporations that hire politicians
or their family members. If I think I
need something from one of these stores then I first consider if there is an
alternative method (ex DIY product), can I do without or buy second hand,
etc. And, for example,
I did not listen to a certain radio station that hired turdits.
- And I do not join organizations (usually non-profits) run by
politicians. They use others (the slaves) to do all the work while the
politician gets the attention. They
don't care if their organization accomplishes anything because it's primary
purpose is to get the politician attention - I won't take a course, etc. taught by a politician
- And I don't buy their books, although I may read it in the library to
see if it is a white-wash. I don't fall
for that “Oh, now that I am out of politics, I see the error of my ways and
besides I want to make more money off the suckers called citizens".
- You could start a website that lists where the politicians get there next job, directorships or other remunerations/gifts, and companies they own. When a politician has been hired by a company it says a lot about the ethics and integrity of the company so I don't purchase their products or I minimize what I do buy. Plus the job may have been paid for by the people, if the politician gave the corporation “special consideration”. - You could have a protest at election time to let politicians know you are not voting for them because they don't deserve your vote so politicians can't use the line that the people are just apathetic. Or start the “Do Not Vote” party for all those who are offended by the political options and peopIe can sign their name, on election day, at the party's site
- You could start a website the allows people to input their ideas on what we can do. - You could start a website that tracks what politicians DO, not what they say (thanks Lynn)
- You could start a website that lists where the politicians get there next job, directorships or other remunerations/gifts, and companies they own. When a politician has been hired by a company it says a lot about the ethics and integrity of the company so I don't purchase their products or I minimize what I do buy. Plus the job may have been paid for by the people, if the politician gave the corporation “special consideration”. - You could have a protest at election time to let politicians know you are not voting for them because they don't deserve your vote so politicians can't use the line that the people are just apathetic. Or start the “Do Not Vote” party for all those who are offended by the political options and peopIe can sign their name, on election day, at the party's site
- You could start a website the allows people to input their ideas on what we can do. - You could start a website that tracks what politicians DO, not what they say (thanks Lynn)
Bigger
Things (or
Overall Change)
The
system is broken. We need, as a
group, to fix it. Eventually intelligence or
disaster (and I expect it will be the latter) will force people to make a
change.
We need to be prepared to provide an
alternative system or nothing will really change, except the faces.
So I suggest that someone(s) set up a
website (people with more advanced tech skills than mine) to allow people to
input their ideas for a new governing system; a system that gives the people
control. Someone(s) with no agenda but
to find a real democratic system. We will need to know who runs the website so
we can be sure that it isn't one of the politicians, their friends or their
shills
We
can create a framework and start to fill in the parts. I think of it like a puzzle, but with parts
(or pieces) that may be interchangeable, that may be modified, or removed as
circumstances change and as we (hopefully) evolve.
We can start groups to discuss new
ideas or ideas listed on the website, research and submit ideas, and how they
can be implemented, or we can do this individually; You can network
with other groups/individuals to “brainstorm' new ideas. You
can also recommend books, websites, etc. for others to review, how-to's, information,
definitions, maybe like-minded people getting together to do something
specific, etc. In essence, identify what
we want, what routes are available to get there, and what can we do now.
I've heard that the Yukon, Nunavat,
and the Zapatistas have interesting systems.
Some elements may be worth considering.
I have heard that there were
democratic societies but they were destroyed by the 1%. If this is true then we
may not have to reinvent the wheel. But
we will need to know about these societies.
We need to have a say in what is
happening to us and our country all the time, not just some phony vote every 4
or so years. Some people suggest direct
democracy - voting issue by issue; others claim this would be time-consuming. But would it be time-consuming if something actually got
done? It seems, right now, we just keep
going over the same issues, nothing gets solved, nothing gets
accomplished; the children are not being
cared for, the homeless are homeless, our industries are disappearing, jobs are
disappearing, the environment is not being cared for. Maybe we just need a REAL plan, an ability to
hire the most qualified people in Canada and then the issues would be fewer.
Also, I wonder if there is a way of
organizing society in a horizontal, sharing method vs the vertical,
hierarchical, power structure that we now have; a web-like organization, with
people operating in different “nodes” to reinforce the interconnectedness and
reduce/eliminate power struggles. I have
seen concepts of this but not in terms of overall society. Perhaps this could be discussed if a website
is setup or, if it has already been discussed, that could appear on the website
for discussion with other ideas.
A suggested way to start:
Stage/Step 1
– Knowing that what we have doesn't work
Stage/Step 2
– Ask questions – what do we want, what don't we want,
Stage/Step 3
– Research other systems, including small groups of people that may have a
workable form of democracy.
Stage/Step 4
– We need some standard information but also some “out of the box”
thinking. Read/study
on creative thinking, how to think outside the box, brainstorming (or just do
it) and then use that to generate new ideas.
When brainstoming, any idea is a good idea no matter how strange it may
seem. It's to be decided later if all,
or a part of the idea, fits into where we want to go or maybe the idea will be
useful at a later time.
Stage/Step 5
– Create a framework of a system or more than one and later decide which is
preferred. A system that allows for
changes. Our current system is too rigid and serves the wrong people.
Stage/Step 6
– Work on details, see the effect one thing has on other things that have been
determined to be important to people's lives, work on compromises for
contentious elements. Determine if step
5 meets our (all life forms/the planet) needs.
Each step will likely require going back and revising one or more parts
in prior steps and moving forward again and you keep doing this until things
fit.
Stage/Step 7
– Implement. This will likely have to be
done in a mixture of small and large steps working around politicians and their
friends. These people will do everything
they can to disrupt and destroy this process because it does not serve them. What will they do without the slaves? What will they do if they can't think
themselves “better” than other people?
Stage/Step 8
– Adjust what doesn't work or start again.
At least this time we will have a clearer idea why something does or
does not work. And it does need to be a
system where NO ONE, NO GROUP can be in control because these people will
corrupt the system until it only serves them.
And this must be a system that can evolve.
And,
of course, when the website is setup you have to let people know it's there.
I believe that this has to be a
Canadian effort for Canada. This does
not mean that foreigners cannot input ideas.
But they have to be identified as foreigners. We
need to know what is wanted by Canadians for Canada.
Others can use it as a template to change their system if they choose.
If we know where we want to go, we can
figure out how to get there and the trade-offs and we can keep doing this with
every issue. Right now we have no idea
what is happening because of the lies and the culture of secrecy
If we create a vision forward, a plan,
maybe Canadians will build/create it, one step at a time; a plan which includes
all Canadians, which gives them a voice,
a REAL role in their own governance.
At the very least we will have an backup plan WE WANT, “when we decide we need
it”.
It can be done but it requires work
and time. There are groups/websites,
etc. with ideas on how to save the environment, on the economy, on so many
things. But nothing can change with our
current system because the politicians and their friends won't allow it. Now we need grassroots to design a new
system. When change happens will we be
ready for it or will we, in desperation, take whatever is offered to us or
forced on us?
There is a cost to doing nothing. So, the real question is - Is saving the life
forms, the planet, having a real democracy, ending our enslavement,
poverty, and so on, worth it to you???
"You never change things by
fighting the existing reality!
To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete!"
-- Buckminster Fuller
To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete!"
-- Buckminster Fuller
If
anyone creates any of these websites please let me know. You can reach me at the comment section of my
blog or my email: searcher@teksavvy.com.
December
22, 2015
FACADE ORGANIZATIONS
I'm adding this because I think I
think it exemplifies the obstructionism we face. And, to inform people who haven't encountered
them, or didn't realize that was what they were/are doing. And to let others, who have dealt with these
people, know that they are not alone.
These examples also illustrate that obstructionism is part of the
culture in the government, including the medical system.
a.
Privacy Commissioners Office:
After moving, I looked into opening an account at the Bank of Nova
Scotia. I ended up writing to the
Privacy Commissioner regarding, what I considered to be, excessive information
requirements. For example, the bank
wanted the names of all my family members (wouldn't that be a violation of
their privacy?). The question was
whether this bank was allowed to “demand” (i.e. no choice) this information in
order for someone to open a basic bank account, The Privacy Commissioner told me that I had
to contact a number of others first. I
had already contacted the president of the bank and received a non-answer. It didn't fall under the mandate of the bank
ombudsman. The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada said they would look into it
but I would not be informed of the result.
Then what is the point of looking into it and why can't I be
informed? As far as I know the staff at
the Financial Consumer Agency just went back to sitting on their butts, doing
nothing but sticking their hands in our pockets.
So back to the privacy
commissioner. First I received a
response from Nicole Menard telling me that the bank had the right to ask the
questions. Her decision was based on the
Canadian Bankers Association website “Opening a Bank Account.” I read it and it said that you were only
required to provide two pieces of identification. I pointed this out to her and asked to have
someone else review the file.
So, next I get a letter from Christina
Derenzis who tells me that she has reviewed my file and that I have to contact
the Ombudsman. I told her that if she had
read my file she would know that I had already done so.
Next, I am contacted by Kyle
Larsen. He wants to start the process at
square one and ask the Bank of Nova Scotia the same questions I had already
asked and would I like them to contact me directly. No, I said; been there, done that. I wanted to know if they had the right to
demand this information. I sent this
letter in August. I sent a follow-up
letter in October pointing out that I had not received a reply. I sent an email in November, again pointing
out that I had not heard from him and threatened to go to my MP (it appears
there is a use for an MP). He responded
and is now working on my case (so he says).
Even if the privacy commissioner
agrees with me, NOTHING will happen. But
this is the set-up. They run you in
circles and do NOTHING. The only reason
I filed the complaint with the privacy commissioner's office because, if the
the Bank of Nova Scotia has violated my rights as I suspect, then I want it on
record. If the privacy commissioner's
office decides the Bank of Nova Scotia has not violated my rights, I want that
on record as well.
An Aside: I opened an account with a different bank and
the bank manager said they didn't share my information. I said except with their associates,
suppliers and so on (and whoever they share our information with). And she said “but we don't share it with,
ummm”, she thought for a moment, “with 7-11”.
That did make me feel so much better (sarcasm alert).
About ten years ago I filed a similar
complaint with the privacy commissioner, but regarding the Royal Bank. The privacy commissioner did an investigation
and found the bank had violated the Privacy Act, the Bank Act and I think
another act. As far as I know, nothing changed with the bank but at least the
privacy commissioner did an investigation and I knew that what was being done
was illegal. Then again, maybe something
did change. Maybe the government decided
they needed to protect their friends and implemented an obstructionist policy
regarding any inquiries.
b.
Then there are the federal integrity commissioners. Christiane Quimet, first, and Mario Dion (1,
4, 5), second integrity commissioner in a row accused of incompetence and mismanagement. This office, created by the Conservative
government, “is supposed to protect public
servants who blow the whistle
on wrongdoing within the federal government”. (1) “He (David Hutton) said Ouimet and Dion are
both lifelong bureaucrats who come from a culture where protecting those above
you is a career-enhancing prerequisite. (1)
“Now you’re
putting these people in a position where their job is to expose wrongdoing
which will embarrass their deputy minister and departments, if it’s done
properly,” said Hutton.” (1) So,
Wouldn't it be better to have a citizen committee(s), not appointed by the
politicians or their lackeys, select the commissioners.
Sheila
Fraser, auditor general, audited Ouiment and “also found Ouimet was bullying
her staff, sometimes yelling and swearing at them in public”. (2)
“During her
three years on the job, Ouimet investigated only five of the more than 200
complaints her office received, and never produced any recommendations or
findings of wrongdoing committed against whistleblowers. (2)
In addition to three years of wages
and benefits for doing apparently virtually nothing, Christiane Ouiment was
paid $500,000 of our money when she was forced to resign in disgrace (isn't
this called fired). (Do you get
paid to quit a job/fired, especially because you failed to do your job).
“But since Ouimet was an officer of
Parliament and not beholden to the government, opposition MPs are now wondering
why the prime minister was the one to buy her out.”
“'Why does
the prime minister get to decide?' asked Liberal MP Navdeep Baines, adding
Ouimet's closeness with the government, "puts into question her
independence as well.
'Why was
the prime minister's office and his department (the privy council) interfering
with her independence, and why did she receive half a million dollars to walk
away?'” (3)
I am
pleased to hear that over 200 people, in about three years, in the federal
government are courageous enough to become whistleblowers. It is always disappointing, of course, that
it's necessary and that nothing is being done about it because the politicians
have created fake organizations.
Remember we pay for all these sham
organizations who treat us with contempt.
1.
Auditor general: 'Gross mismanagement' in files handled by integrity
commissioner, Bruce Cheadle, 15 Apr 2014, Toronto Star.
2.
Former integrity commissioner ignores summons, again, 08 Feb
2011, Toronto Sun
3.
Ouimet calls AG's 'special' audit a personal attack, Bryn Weese, 10 Mar 2011, Toronto Star
4.
Canada's integrity commissioner should be fired,Guiseppe Valiante, 15 Apr 2014,
Toronto Sun
5.
Integrity Commissioner Dion should be replaced, Allan Cutler, 14
Apr 2014, Canadians for Accountability
December 21, 2015
I
include in the definition of a politician those who are past, present, future
and wannabe politicians. A politician is
not what you do, it is who you are as a human being – liar, thief, con,
destroyer of democracy and freedom, parasite, and so on.
Not voting does not mean doing
nothing. See future post “ What Can You
Do – Politicians”; Some may choose to
vote while still working on changing the system. I even made an exception to not voting in the
last federal election because I wanted Bill C-51 revoked and a proportional
representation system. But this is
probably wishful thinking based on lies by the turdits. (In reforming
electoral system, parties favour what benefits them most, Campbell Clark,
29 Jul 2015, The Globe and Mail).
I checked the box “Do Not Add
to Register of Electors” so my information would not be shared with political
parties and all my information is deleted after the election. But this is another government farce because
inside scrutineers can add to their list any names they don't already have and
share with outside scrutineers. They can
use it for the next election or sell it or whatever they do with this
information (see prior post “BC Bill 20).
I will also be sending a letter to the
province and municipality to have my name kept off the voters list. If I choose to make an exception and vote, I
can always register. But first I have to
find out what “triggers” get my name on the voters list, for example does
making any change on your driver's licence act as a trigger.
It's sad that when you do vote you
have to hold your nose and vote for the party you hope will do the least amount
of damage; you can't vote for a party you think will do their best for the
people and country of Canada because there are none.
Justin Trudeau got a majority of the
seats, largely I believe due to strategic voting and a desire to get rid of
Harper. One always hopes for the best
but, in reality, a politician is a politician.
How do you get a politician? You walk behind satan and scoop up what drops
out of his lower cavity. Crude but
true. So I refer to these “people” as
turdits (I may have borrowed this, if so thank you) and a few other words. I
reserve my opinion of independents.
The turdits are why things don't get
better, and in many areas, are getting worse.
Can you imagine how different it would be if we had people working for
the citizenry.
I don't vote because: (Note: this is for those people who don't keep up
with the misconduct of, and abuse of trust by, the politicians and this is just
a partial list)
1. We don't have a democracy, only a
pseudo-democracy, a fake, an illusion or barely-there, non-functioning,
democracy; some people call it a constitutional dictatorship. We are allowed, even encouraged to vote
but “If voting changed anything, they'd
make it illegal” (Emma Goldman) (We have the form of a parliamentary
democracy, but not the substance – Andrew Coyne, 27 May 2015, National
Post).
2.
Politicians lie, steal, con, destroy our democracy, freedoms and rights. One of my other words for them is sewer
trash, which is a reflection of the level of my disgust/contempt.
3.
Who do you vote for? turdit 1, turdit 2,
turdit 3.. They are all the same. You get really disgusted with turdit 1 in
“power” and you vote for turdit 2. Then
you get really disgusted with turdit 2 and you go back to voting for turdit 1.
So, what has changed? NOTHING. It's just a merry-go-round. Insanity: doing the same thing over and over
again and expecting different results (Albert Einstein)
4. Slavery comes in different forms but it is
still slavery. This is a government run
by and for the politicians and their friends, not for us We just pay their expenses and line their
pockets. Politicians are part of the
problem, not the solution
5. To quote commenter
Mooney7 “After all they claim to rule with the consent of the
governed".
When I don't vote I take away my consent for them to govern. I don't enable them.
The
following examples are, federally, largely conservative examples because they
are the most recent and the Conservatives were “in power” for 10 years. I'm sure there is a list for the Liberals
somewhere, the sponsorship scandal being one of the most notorious. We will see how many democracy destroying,
and corrupt, acts Trudeau and his minions commit, or if he eliminates the
abuses and corruption. Examples:
1. Politicians take away our rights and
sell/trade/barter us. Isn't that what you do to slaves? Examples BC Bill 11 (which gives the Minister of Health
power to collect, gather, use and share personal information without any notice
to or consent from affected individuals..), BC Bill 35 – 2012 - The
Pharmaceutical Services Act (see post dated 25 Sept 2012), federal Bill C-51
(the bill is a massive invasion of the privacy of innocent people), (The
state gets more intrusive, again, Lawrence Martin, 17 Feb 2015, The Globe
and Mail); (Privacy Commissioner Slams Bill C-51, 09 Mar 2015,
TheTyee.ca); Canada's New Privacy Rights Battles, Sean Condon, 17 Jul
2013, Megaphone Magazine); Bill C-13 - the lawful access and cyberbullying
bill, Bill S-4 - The Digital Privacy Act and so on (With Elections Act,
Canada Slides into Ventriloquism Democracy, Michael Harris, 21 Mar 2014,
iPolitics); (The Canadian Government Has Given Up on Protecting Your
Privacy, Michael Geist, 03 Jun 2014, TheTyee.ca)
2. Power of the PMO (Prime Minister's
Office); and I believe this would apply to the Premiers office
“the greatest threat to responsible
government in Canada is none other than the Prime Minister’s Office.
The PMO uses its toxic tentacles to
neutralize every part of government that might compete with it for power, so
that today we are ruled by an imperial prime minister, unaccountable to anyone
or anything.
Today the PMO is virtually a
government unto itself.
The PMO enforces its will two ways:
through the prime minister’s power to appoint and fire cabinet ministers,
committee members and deputy ministers; and his or her power to approve the
nomination of everyone who runs for the party. “ (a)
“It has morphed into a 90-person juggernaut of
political strategists, 'issues managers' and party enforcers who exercise
strict control over cabinet, the houses of Parliament and the bureaucracy.“(b)
“The PMO
gains strength by weakening the institutions around it.” (b)
The Prime Minister also makes appointments ranging “from heads of
agencies and CEOs of crown corporations to members of quasi-judicial tribunals”
(Government in Council Appointments Overview, Government of Canada). In
other words, “all national positions of consequence are appointed or
approved personally by the prime minister” (Canada Needs Proportional Representation Now, Rafe Mair,
05 Jan 2015, TheTyee.ca). The PM selects judges
usually from “recommendations made by the 17 Judicial Advisory Committees
across Canada” (Ottawa picks gay marriage critic to sit on Ontario's highest
court, Sean Fine, 24 Jun 2015, The Globe and Mail). These recommendations are shortlisted by
parliamentarians and then the shortlisted are vetted in parliamentary hearings
but at least part of this process is being eliminated and the judges are simply
selected by the PMO (Unvetted Quebec judge takes Supreme Court seat, 06
Oct 2015, The Globe and Mail). Controlling
the institutions is how the PM controls the society and the people in the
institutions are loyal to him.
The politicians complain about the senators and their scandals. But many, or all, senators were appointed by
the prime minister of the day as a reward for past and/or future “services”
to the political parties and not for what they can do for the people. For example, I read that Mike Duffy was
appointed because he was a great fundraiser and speaker for the conservative
party.
We could take back some of the power of the PMO by having citizen's
committees, or something similar (not selected by politicians), make these
appointments. Then we also wouldn't have
the massive payouts to the political appointees when a new party gets in
“power” and appoints all THEIR crony's or when they lose their position due to
incompetency, resignation, “reshuffling or firing without cause. Example: Taxpayers dinged $1.25 million
for Post-Election Pay, Bob Mackin, 24 Aug 2013, TheTyee.ca.
We need a system where we, the people, can hire
the best, from across Canada, based on qualifications, not selected by some
backroom turdits. Employees who can be
fired, with two weeks notice, if they are not doing their job; who work for us,
not to those who contribute to the turdits coffers & pockets. A system where we can make long term plans,
not plans until the next election, employees who have to tell us what they are
doing and who are accountable and transparent or immediately get fired. So we will no longer be ruled, so WE will be
“in power”. There are lots of citizens
who can draw up job descriptions and/or assess applications who are not
turdits. But this will not happen while
the turdits are “in power”.
See also 4 (1) Cronyism
a. Ottawa's accountability problems start at
the top, in the PMO, editorial, 20 Aug 2015, The Globe and Mail
b. The problem with the PMO (2), editorial,
25 Aug 2015, The Globe and Mail
You may also be interested in reading Canada's
Slide into Sleaze with Stephen Harper (or, the problem with running
government like a business), Murray Dobbin, 13 Jan 2014, TheTyee.ca; will
Trudeau operate the same?; Our Democracy on trial, Donald
Savoie, 14 Aug 2015, The Globe and Mail; Duffy
trial cuts to the heart of the PMO, Lawrence Martin, 18 Aug 2015, The Globe and
Mail
3. What do they do? (Also, see prior post “DEMOCRACY --- OR NOT April 25, 2013) BC MLA's are paid (I won't say earned) a lot of money and it's increasing (Peter McMartin: The cost --- and worth --- of our politicians, Peter McMartin, 05 Jul 2013, Vancouver Sun – a paper I didn't buy). So what do they do in this “job”? If you have seen “Whipped” a documentary by Sean Holman (it's online) then you know that:
3. What do they do? (Also, see prior post “DEMOCRACY --- OR NOT April 25, 2013) BC MLA's are paid (I won't say earned) a lot of money and it's increasing (Peter McMartin: The cost --- and worth --- of our politicians, Peter McMartin, 05 Jul 2013, Vancouver Sun – a paper I didn't buy). So what do they do in this “job”? If you have seen “Whipped” a documentary by Sean Holman (it's online) then you know that:
a.
The MLA's/MP's/MN's don't represent us.
They are suppose to represent the interests of the constituency that
elected them but, instead, they represent the party. The decisions are made by the PM/Premier and
a few people in the inner circle (some may not have been elected) and they are
not interested in the opinions of the MLA's/MP's/MN's.
b.
They are told how to vote on any bills by the party whip.
c.
They are told what to say to the citizens (scripted answers/talking points).
“Members of Parliament on the
government benches are as useless as tits on a bull. They perform no function
other than to vote the way they are told by the Party Whip. Opposition members,
while having more freedom to speak, only oppose that which their leader tells
them to.” (Canada Needs Proportional Representation Now, Rafe Mair,
05 Jan 2015, Thetyee.ca).
Political candidates are selected
based primarily on how much money they can raise and name recognition, NOT
qualifications to run a government.
So, a brain or knowledge on any topic
is not a requirement. Some “people” say
they are politicians because they want to make a difference (for the citizens
benefit). But they can't make a
difference in government because either they toe the line or they get out.
d.
When people write to them with questions, or for help, they either do
nothing, pass the request to some government bureaucrat or the request may be
answered by the politicians staff (whose wages we pay). So again the politicians do NOTHING.
In the last BC provincial election they didn't even have
an all-candidates meeting in my riding so we could ask what they had to offer
but then maybe they were afraid of the questions, they might not have talking
points for all of them. Gee, what do I
as a politician think on this topic, oh, that's right I don't think.
e.
Brent Rathgeber was a conservative MP who quit to become an
independent. He wrote a book called
“Irresponsible Government: The Decline
of Parliamentary Democracy in Canada”.
He states that politicians would work on committees but their work would
be discarded unless it supported a decision already made by the inner
circle. In other words, committee work
was a make-work project, of no real value since the decision was already made.
"Rathgeber relates how they all have their Commons
speeches written for them by the Prime Minister's office as well as powder puff
questions to put to ministers in question period, both of which they are
expected to give verbatim -- no personal thoughts, now!" (What We Forgot on Remembrance Day, Rafe
Mair, 24 Nov 2014, Thetyee.ca); Duffy trial sheds light on PMO's power, hand-holding
of parliamentarians – Jennifer Ditchburn,
25 Aug 2015, The Canadian Press
So, again, what do these people
do? They go for photo-ops. They will go to any event, speak when
requested (but only give the scripted answers/talking points), ribbon-cuttings,
bar-b-que's, openings, anything to get their name/picture in the news. In other words, they are campaigning. We pay these turdits to campaign for the next
election. But that's what slaves do,
they work a little longer, a little harder or do without for the benefit of the
turdits.
Ex.
gentleman in trailer park in BC – The power in the trailer park went off and the owner
didn't fix it. The gentleman couldn't
move to a different trailer park because his trailer was too old. Pleas were made to the politicians to do
something, to make the owner fix the power, but the turdits did nothing. With winter coming on, the people stepped in,
bought him a used but better trailer, acceptable to another trailer park that
had power, and the people bought him a few extras. When it came time to hand over the keys to
the trailer, the turdits, who had done nothing, showed up for the photo-op. Trailer-park nightmare
finally over for one resident, Kate Webb, 25-27 Oct 2013, Metro News; UPDATE: BC Hydro responds to 88-year-old left without power for more than two months in Surrey trailer park, Paula Baker, 04 Dec 2013, Global News
f.
And there are the politicians who become ministers, for which they get
paid even more. What qualifications
(education, experience, knowledge) do these people have to run ministries? Actually, I don't think they run them, I
believe they are just figureheads, who occasionally issue orders as directed by
their political masters and create chaos.
And they get moved from ministry to ministry. Some examples: Peter Mackay was educated as a lawyer but
became Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, the following year he became Minister of National
Defence, then Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada (wiki). So, what education/training did he have that
gave him expertise in international affairs, or the military – none; Mike DeJong (BC) was also trained as a lawyer
but was Minister of Finance, Minister of Health, Attorney General, Minister of
Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, Minister of Labour and Citizens'
Services, and Minister of Forests. (Ministers of BC, Government of BC,
June 2015). Margaret MacDiarmid was trained as a doctor but she was
minister of Education, then Tourism, Trade and Investment (Education
Minister Margaret MacDiarmid: she's baaaaack, Noel Herron, 29 Nov 2010),
then Minister of Health (for less than a year).
In Manitoba, it was found that the
MLA's were presumably too busy with their photo-ops or doing nothing (same
thing really) to know, or care, that foster children were being warehoused in
motels. And most staff weren't qualified
to look after the children. The community
put in the complaint. And, similar to
the future post “Our Information is Not Protected”, apparently the politicians
lied and had actually known about it for 20 years and did nothing. Kids warehoused in hotels not a new story
in Manitoba, Tom Brodbeck, 3 Oct 2014, Sun News. It isn't a new story. Minister promises bed for foster children
displaced by Grey Cup, 10 Nov 2006, CBC News. The MLA's promised, in October 2014 to fix
the situation but six months later the situation was even worse. Last year a young girl was murdered. Recently, a young girl was assaulted and
nearly killed. Family Services Minister
Kerri Irvin-Ross called the assault a “cowardly attack on a vulnerable
child”. What a hypocrite. After all, isn't that what the turdits have
been doing to these children for 20 years. The turdits were able to move the
children out of the hotels within 60 days, although they don't say where to or
for how long. They also hired more
permanent, and presumably, qualified staff.
So, they can do it. But
apparently only when it hits the news. Manitoba
vows action after teen attacked, Kathryn Blaze Carlson, 02 Apr 2015, The Globe
and Mail. Watchdog says lack of foster spots keep Manitoba children in jail
longer, 15 Apr 2015, The Globe and Mail; Manitoba on track to end hotel
placements, minister says, Kathryn Blaze Carlson, 28 May 2015, The Globe
and Mail
And we know how the children in BC
have suffered even though Mary-Ellen Turpel-Lafond fights the turdits (see
prior post “Children Hurt, Dying in Care of Politicians” April 12, 2013); Canadian
foster care in crisis, experts say, The Canadian Press,19 Feb 2012, CBC
News; The Foster Care Discussion BC
Politicians Ignore, Pieta Wooley, 13 May 2013, TheTyee.ca, Over 1,000 BC
Kids Wait on Adoption Changes, Katie Hyslop, 19 Jun 2014, TheTyee.ca; Families
No Longer First in BC, Says Children's Rep, Katie Hyslop, 09 Oct 2014,
TheTyee.ca; MCFD
approval of child restraint, confinement “inconceivable”: child and youth rep, Katie
Hyslop, 07 Feb 2013, TheTyee.ca
How low into the cesspools do you have
to sink to treat children, any children much less those already suffering, in
this way. People hire these politicians
and pay taxes so the children are cared for, but the depraved turdits prefer to
line their pockets on the backs of little children. But some people think we have a duty to vote
for these monsters.
What do the turdits think of the
citizens? Well, one politician said (and
I paraphrase) that it didn't matter what the politicians did, the people would
still vote. Aren't we suckers. Such contempt for the people.
So, apparently all you need to qualify
as a politician is the ability to lie (to lie effectively is preferred but not
required), to schmooze, to do exactly what you are told and nothing more, and you
must lack morals and ethics. We could get
clapping seals, puppets or parrots to represent us. And, at least, it would be honest, a lot
cheaper and we could accomplish so much with the savings.
You may also want to read a book
called Tragedy in the
Commons by Alison Loat and Michael MacMillan.
This is from a commenter whose name I
have misplaced (my apologizes): “Very
few in society work so little, for so much”. So true.
And to quote Robert Reich: “It's
whether an economic system can survive when those at the top get giant rewards
no matter how badly they screw up while the rest of us get screwed no matter
how hard we work.” Biggest Myth About Inequality Is We Can't Fix It, Andrew
MacLeod, 06 Feb 2014, TheTyee.ca
I
don't think they really know what they are doing which is partly why they don't
want to explain it to us; the other part is that when they do know what they
are doing they know it is corrupt. No
wonder things never get fixed. We just
keep rehashing the same problems.
4.
Our Money Used for their benefit - if we got rid of the
politicians and their theft, porkbarrelling, kickbacks, enriching their
friends, unnecessary advertising, buying their post-political jobs, and so on,
we could probably eliminate homelessness, take care of the children, prevent
the selling/trading/bartering of the citizens, especially the vulnerable/sick/newborns/children,
and give all people a decent living, and more.
Examples:
a)
Buying Votes – Government favours infrastructure projects to
Conservative ridings, Bill Curry and Chris Hannay, 14 Jul 2015, The Globe
and Mail; 'Rules were broken' over G8/G20 summit spending: Auditor-General, Jason
Fekete, 06 Oct 2011. National Post
b)
“This advertising, this information just happens to be the same as the
government's own election platform, using public funds for partisan purposes;
possibly $600 million over 10 years; “a government must not be allowed to use
public money to fund promotional ads for itself”; Globe Editorial, And now, a completely
non-partisan word from your Harper government, 18 Nov 2014, Globe and Mail;
A message from the Harper government, editorial, 19 Nov 2014; Clark
propaganda starts here with $15-million taxpayer-funded ad campaigns, Bill
Tieleman, 19 Nov 2012, 24 Hours; Watchdog Group Wants Audit of
Taxpayer-Funded Ads, Jeremy J. Nuttall, 28 Apr 2015, TheTyee.ca
I received two pamphlets and a booklet
in less than 2 weeks, in this case from the conservative MP in my riding,
promoting the conservative agenda. Since
it is not regarding information specifically related to my riding or even the
province I live in, and it doesn't say “paid for by the conservative party”, I
must assume that I, and you, are paying for their campaigning. They are so arrogant that they flaunt it in
our faces, “we are stealing from you” so vote for us. These people may be seriously braindead, I'm
not. And I continued to receive this
campaign material until the election.
(c)
Christy's inconvenience – BC Premier Christy Clark was voted out
by the people in her riding so she had Ben Stewart, the MLA for
Westside-Kelowna, step down (a safe Liberal riding) so she could run in a
by-election in his riding (only cost the BC citizens about $500,000). And after she won she didn't want Stewart
still wandering around in the riding and she had to “reward” him so she created
a new position, B.C.'s trade and investment commissioner for Asia based in
Beijing and off he and his family went to China. He will promote products such as BC wine,
with his own winery no doubt at the top of the list. So, the citizens pay for his wages
($150,000-a-year), his moving expenses, his new office expenses, possibly
housing expenses, and other expenses including benefits and pension. (Could
Premier Clark Go from Safe to Sorry in Kelowna's Byelection?, Bill
Tieleman, 25 Jun 2013, TheTyee.ca; Christy Clark's New Ending Campaign, Bob
Mackin, 14 May 2014, TheTyee.ca)
Shortly afterwards, Christy started
charging the disabled for wheelchair maintenance. (Seniors Still Spun by BC Liberal
Wheelchair Tax, Bill Tieleman, 10 Sep 2013, TheTyee.ca)
To pay for her “inconvenience” she
will limit the number of people who care for the children and if the children
die, as they have, she apparently doesn't care. She started charging the
disabled for wheelchair maintenance – that brought in a few extra dollars, cut
back on ferry service, etc. After all
paying for her “inconvenience” is more important.
So whenever I think of Ben Stewart,
his family, and/or his wine, I think of the children being abused/dying, I
think of the disabled forced to pay for wheelchair maintenance, I think of the
number of homeless who could have had a home.
d)
$3.1 billion missing (Where the heck's that $3.1-billion? Where's the fury - Lawrence Martin, 19 Nov 2013, The Globe and
Mail). How do you lose $3.1 billion,
never to be found? In my opinion, I
think they know exactly whose pocket has the money.
e) Parliamentary secretary positions
have been described as "empty titles" used to mollify MLAs who would
have preferred to be ministers, but they do come with pay of about $15,000 more
per year. ('Empty titles' come
with $15,000 a year bonus pay, Andrew MacLeod, 18 Mar 2011, TheTyee.ca)
Some people may think these are small
amounts but a few “empty titles” could pay another social worker to look after
the children, each empty title would take a homeless person off the streets and
so on. It all adds up.
f) All the scandals and their
continuation. I don't expect people to
be perfect but this is sooo far beyond.
Then we have to pay for the investigation, the court cases, the lawyers
and usually nothing of consequence happens to the criminals. And most, or all, of it is covered up. We
just get all the bills, ex. Vasi/Birk ($6 million+) after they pleaded guilty,
Health ministry firings (see future post “Our Information Is Not Protected),
Kim Haakstad and Ethnicgate, Nigel Wright, Pamela Martin, Mike Duffy, Chuck
Strahl, Brian Bonney and Mark Robertson and others. (List of Canadian Political Scandals, Wikipedia
lists a few scandals); the G8/G20 spending scandal, ('Rules were broken'
over G8/G20 summit spending: Auditor-General, Jason Fekete, 06 Oct 2011,
Postmedia News)
g) Politicians do things for political
reasons, to benefit their friends and their own grandeur, not for what is best
for the people, the provinces, or the country.
In BC, the politicians promised that if they got the olympics, they
would eliminate homelessness. They got
the olympics, the homeless are still homeless. The politicians got what they wanted,
with front row seats, and, well, the homeless are still on the streets. Budgets
get balanced, or at least give the pretence of being balanced, at election time
when it's politically convenient (Canada's
deficit drama is all theatre, 29 Jan 2015, Globe and Mail). BC was “funding a municipality without any
citizens” (Jumbo Resort's Last-Minute Construction Push, Judith Lavoie,
11 Oct 2014, Desmog Canada). And, of
course, lots of OUR money is spent around election time buying our votes.
Instead of putting forth, honestly,
what the problems are and how they plan to resolve them, in order to win the
next election, the politicians lie, manipulate, using fear and any other tactic
to coerce people into voting for them.
And don't tell me that this is how the system works because I don't
believe this is how it was meant to work but the turdit's create the system
that works for them.
h) Cronyism. - “Cronyism
is partiality to long-standing friends, especially by appointing them to
positions of authority, regardless of their qualifications. Hence, cronyism is
contrary in practice and principle to meritocracy. Cronyism
Cronyism exists when the appointer and the beneficiary are in social contact. Often, the
appointer is inadequate to hold his or her own job or position of authority,
and for this reason the appointer appoints individuals who will not try to
weaken him or her, or express views contrary to those of the appointer.
Politically, "cronyism" is derogatorily used.[1]” (wikipedia). These people are appointed to ministries,
boards of government, semi-government organizations, the Senate and so forth.
For example: Clark supporter gets Lotto
Board gig; patronage appointment; Clark Supporter Gets Lotto Board Gig, Bob
Mackin, 06 Jan 2014, TheTyee.ca; Clark accused of 'cronyism' over
contract with insider, 22 Nov. 2011, CTV News; Harper's patronage appointments
become a holiday tradition, Andy Radia, 23 Dec 2011, Yahoo News
"It is a real Liberal inside
family," Corrigan said outside the house. "It is Liberal-appointed
boards of the universities and colleges who are employing Liberal insiders to
lobby the Liberal government. It just goes round and round." Universities Spend Big Bucks to Bend
Government's Ear, Andrew MacLeod, 25 Feb 2015, TheTyee.ca
It's interesting how many politcians,
no longer elected, are appointed to boards, organizations, etc. Ex. Colin Hansen, former minister of various
things was appointed to the Treasury Board and the Select Standing Committee on
Health (Colin Hansen - Wikipedia); Jessica Mcdonald, former deputy
minister to previous BC premier Gordon Campbell, was appointed CEO of BC Hydro,
who has no experience in the energy sector.
Former top bureaucrat to take helm of BC Hydro, Justine Hunter
and Wendy Stueck, 29 May 2014, The Globe and Mail. It doesn't look like they did a nation-wide
search for the most qualified person.
BC appoints the majority of board
members to the universities, transit and health authorities, police boards and
regional economic development bodies.
Many of these board members are contributors to the BC Liberal party. (UBC
Feud Casts Light on Who Sits On University. Agency Boards, Dermod Travis,
31 Aug 2015, IntegrityBC). And I'm sure
there are many other examples.
Lobbyists play “leadership roles in
the parties' campaigns”, federally and provincially. They “build relationships with elected
officials”, and, let's face it, a debt is owed by the politicians which is paid
by the people. (Lobbyists gather in
Conservative war room, Simon Doyle, 07 Aug 2015, The Globe and Mail)
i) Donations are given to politicians and their
parties, and some of those people/corporations receive contracts/special
policies, etc. for what appears to be paybacks.
This is sometimes called “buying politicians”. This benefits the politicians and their
parties and the people/corporations involved at a cost to the taxpayers/citizenry
because the decisions are not made in the best interest of the citizenry.
Everyone knows this but we keep letting it happen. Money going out right and left, from the
taxpayers, into the pockets of a few people.
5. Facade Organizations. I don't waste
time writing about what the politicians should do because I know they won't do
it. They may make laws or policies that
sound good, to placate the normal people, but then ignore the laws/policies. They will create organizations, such as the
privacy commissioner's office, so people think they have rights until they try
to exercise those rights. Then they find out that the organization is just a
sham, a facade, that does nothing but covers for the politicians and their
friends (with the occasional exception).
Someone referred to the people in these organizations as
obstructionists. And it is true. They are hired to obstruct the citizens' complaints
and right to honest answers to questions.
They are the barrier between the citizenry and the politicians who are
suppose to be working on our behalf. See
future post “Facade Organizations” for examples.
6. The politicians get rid of anyone who serves
the people, not them, ex. Auditor general John Doyle (see posts “Auditor
General Apr 13 2013 and Auditor General
– PARIS report May 24 2010), Alana James (see future post “Our Information Is
Not Protected”) and Edgar Schmidt (Edgar Schmidt, 23 May 2014, Voices).
People
with ethics, morals, integrity, principles don't go into politics or don't stay
long (only long enough to learn that you give up your ethics, morals,
integrity, principles or get out).
7.
Lies. The politicians will
promise you anything before an election and then do whatever they want after
the election. Examples: HST, accountability & transparency... Christy Clark campaigned, in the last BC
election, on fiscal restraint.
Immediately after the election political staff got huge pay raises, no
doubt believing it would be forgotten by the next election (not everyone
forgets). She ended up having to rescind
some increases but her intent was obvious. Her staffers get huge rewards and everyone
else...well, who cares, they can just work a little harder, work a little
longer, or go hungry/homeless... to pay for Christy's friends. And, it wasn't long before Christy was
telling people, like teachers, that there was no money for their pay
increases. Opposition questions hikes
to political aide salaries, 11 Jun, 2013, CBC News; Barbara Yaffe: B.C. To Christy Clark – Rollback 'incendiary'
pay hikes, now, Barbara Yaffe, 12 Jun 2013, Vancouver Sun (a paper I never
bought); Teachers Strike 'Imminent' as Sides Remain Far Apart, 16 Jun
2014, TheTyee.ca; BC Libs Give Secret Payouts, but No One Pays for Breaking
the Rules, Bill Tieleman, 22 Jul 2014, TheTyee.ca
8. Biggest Law Breakers. These are “people” who believe they are,
and operate, above the law. They will
write policies/laws so you think they are doing something beneficial, then they
will ignore/violate those same policies/laws;.
They do not work for OUR interests.
When you go to access the laws/regulations you find that the government
doesn't enforce them because it would be inconvenient to them and their
friends; the laws are just a farce, a facade, words on paper to con the
people.
For
example:
a. Proposing/Passing legislation in violation of
the Charter of Freedom and Rights. Government
Lawyer Edgar Schmidt courageously blows the whistle: Editorial, 19 Jan 2013, Toronto Star
b. The government has ignored the privacy
legislation and privacy commissioners.
Some examples: The Canadian
Government Wants To Pay Someone to Creep Your Facebook, Ben Makuch, 13 Nov
2014, Motherboard; Veteran advocate's privacy breached, Murray Brewster,
13 Feb 2012, The Chronicle Herald; Privacy Commissioner Slams Bill C-51, Jeremy
J. Nuttall, 06 Mar 2015, TheTyee.ca; Commissioner raps health ministry for
attack on privacy, Andrew MacLeod, 23 Apr 2010, TheTyee.ca; Health minister 'fundamentally disagrees'
with commissioner's privacy worries, Andrew MacLeod, 28 Apr 2010,
TheTyee.ca; B.C. Government charges ahead with ID card, despite major
privacy and transparency concerns, 08 Jan 2013, FIPA; Bill easing
research access to ehealth data sparks privacy fears, Craig McInnes, 03 May
2012, Vancouver Sun; Bill C-51: Privacy watchdog Daniel Therrien blocked
from committee witness list, Kady O'Malley, 12 Mar 2015, CBC News
c. Illegally accessing our online
information. Some examples: CSE
monitors millions of Canadian emails to government – Critics question how long
data is stored and what it's used for, Amber Hildebrandt, Dave Seglins,
Michael Pereira, 25 Feb 2015, CBC News; Creepy
Canada, Mitchell Anderson, 11 Feb. 2014, TheTyee.ca; How Canada Can End
Mass Surveillance, David Christopher, 27 May 2015, TheTyee.ca; Supreme
Court to Personal Data Plunderers: Get a
Warrant!, Michael Geist, 22 Jul 2014, TheTyee.ca
d. Illegally destroying emails. Some examples: Rachel Notley puts halt to shredding at
Alberta legislature pending probe, Dean Bennett, 13 May 2015, CTV News; Doubling
Down on The Dobell Doctrine, Ross Kat, 09 Nov 2011, The Gazetteer; Former
BC Gov't Staffer Alleges He Was Told To Erase Records, Andrew MacLeod, 29
May 2015, TheTyee.ca; BC Government Put Itself Above the Law with Email
Deletions, Paul Wiollcocks, 28 Oct 2015, TheTyee.ca
e. Ignoring the courts and the Parliament of
Canada Act. The politicians certainly
wouldn't want people to know the impact of budget cuts. Ottawa denies nearly
half of budget officer's requests, Paul McLeod, 27 Jan 2014. The Chronicle
Herald
f.
a mayor owes a duty of care to their residents to ensure maintenance and other
standards are enforced but they often don't thereby forcing people to suffer,
governments ask questions on forms that they have no legal right to ask, they
illegally share our health information, they steal DNA from newborn babies, and
so on.
g. “Ottawa is drawing up an inventory of
protesters” - I don't know if this is illegal but it should be. The state gets more intrusive, again,
Lawrence Martin, 17 Feb 2015, The Globe and Mail.
They
should apply the law and teach respect for it by example. Instead, they break the law whenever it is
inconvenient TO THEM and thereby teach disrespect for the law and the
politicians.
When
I am asked to provide information I ask them about any questions I think
unnecessary. Under the privacy act they
are suppose to tell you why they want the information and the reason has to be
logical. I usually get a response such
as “because it's on the form” or “ because the computer asks for it”. This is not a real answer. So I contact management. And they usually end up saying that I don't
need to answer the question. And I get a
phone number to directly contact the manager (or other title) if I have any
further problems. When I recommend that
they change the form to indicate that the question is optional I am usually
told that “they will consider it”. They
don't of course. They just want to shut
me up by giving me special treatment so they can continue stealing from others
who do not know the laws or are too timid to stand up for their rights.
9. Revolving Door. A situation in which people with
experience in an industry take government jobs in agencies that set policy for
that industry and in which government employees take private-sector jobs in
order to use their connections and knowledge to favourably influence government
policy regarding their industry. (The Free Dictionary). This often leads to
conflicts of interest to the detriment of the citizenry. For example, a government employee may make
policy favourable to the industry in return for a high-level job/directorship
in the industry. Or a person in industry
may take a government job for the sole purpose of setting policy/regulations
favourable to the industry and not in the best interests of the citizenry. Examples of people who have gone from
government to industry: Clark Aide
Joins Firm that Lobbies for Kinder Morgan (and lobbies for, at least, one
drug company), Bob Mackin, 25 Nov 2013; Former Tory minister on the hot seat
over Enbridge lobbying gig, Kady O'Malley, 07 Jan 2014, Inside Politics; Crony
Capitalism?: Revolving Door between Telecom-Media-Internet Industries in
Canada, 08 Aug 2011, Dwayne Winseck's Media Blog; Government Ethics
Coalition, Democracy Watch; Harper not doing enough to end cozy
relationship between lobbyists and politicians, critics say, Stephen Maher,
09 Mar 2015, National Post; Ex-BC Gov't Gambling Boss Apologizes for
Conflict of Interest, Bob Mackin, 11 Jul 2014, TheTyee.ca
10. Culture of Secrecy. Some (most) MLA's, MPP's, MNA's, and MP's won't answer any
questions or they provide a non-answer, others only answer questions if it
makes them look good and they are spewing the party propaganda so we don't know
what is going on except what the turdits tell us (muzzling the press,
scientists, politicians, etc.) .
They
won't tell us who has access to our information (medical and otherwise) or how
it is being used.
They
refuse to tell us how they are spending the citizens money or why, ex. BC Place
roof, Vasi/Birk.
The
politicians and their lackeys use personal email to avoid freedom of
information requests. Some examples: Libs
Quick Wins Plan Didn't Break the Law, Bob Mackin, 01 Aug 2013, TheTyee.ca; Doubling
Down on the Dobell Doctrine, Ross Kat, 09 Nov 2012, The Gazetteer; Probe
Details How Clark, Aides Erased Communication Trail, Bob Mackin, 04 Mar
2013, TheTyee.ca
They
shove through omnibus bills with little or no time to read or debate, sometimes
its budget bills have non-budget items, usually because there are changes to
laws that they don't want brought to light or debated or compromised so they
want to hide (bury) it in the omnibus bills and ram it through. Some examples:
federal bills C-51, C-38, and C-45. A
monster loose on parliament hill, 13 May 2015, The Globe and Mail; Thrown
Under the Omnibus: C-51 The Latest In
Harper's Barrage of Sprawling Undemocratic Bills, Carol Linnitt, 07 May
2015, DeSmog.ca; With Elections Act, Canada Slides into Ventriloquism
Democracy, Michael Harris, 31 Mar 2014, TheTyee.ca; Feds Massively
Changing Trademark Law with No Debate, Michael Geist, 22 Apr 2014,
TheTyee.ca; 10 reasons to oppose the Conservatives' Bill C-38, Chloe
Makepeace, 12 June 2012, rabble.ca
“Referencing
such bills, former auditor general Sheila Fraser said that 'Parliament has become so
undermined that it is almost unable to do the job that people expect of
it."' Harper, Serial Abuser of
Power: The Evidence Compiled, David
Beers and Tyee Staff and Contributors, 10 Aug 2015, TheTyee.ca
What
are they doing to us that they have to hide it?
This culture of secrecy allows them to
be neither accountable nor transparent.
Is that democracy??
11.
Propaganda - 1500 Communications Staffers (estimated)(federal) – Not
only are they trying to brainwash us but think of the cost of paying all these
people. But then, we will just have to
work a little harder, a little longer or do without. Some Examples: PM Harper takes communications strategy to
new level, Laura Ryckewaert, 21 Nov 2011, The Hill Times online; Tories
eager to outsource more ad work, 19 Jan 2012, The Globe and Mail; Clark propaganda starts here with
$15-million taxpayer-funded ad campaign, Bill Tieleman, 19 Nov 2012, 24
Hours.
The politicians' communication
departments or imbedded journalists write exactly what the politicians want
them to write. Part of the problem is
that it is frequently not identified as information directly from politicians
or their communications department and people are led to believe that the
person writing the article has researched the topic and is “independent”. What is written is misleading at best.
Harper had decided to name a building
after a politician and this person was
given a state funeral. Why? He wasn't
better than anyone else, just a government employee. Why don't they name the
building after a fallen soldier, someone who gave the ultimate for his/her
country instead of a government employee who was never in the line of
fire. It's all about exploiting the deceased
politician to make themselves look important, saint-like, so people won't see
that they are really bottom-feeders.
It's the same as using the titles like “honourable” and “Your Worship”. If it's said enough times people might
actually believe it and not see that the opposite is true.
If you were in business and the person
you hired, your employee, did what these politicians do, how long would they be
working for you? If you have any common
sense it wouldn't be for long. And if
you kept getting the same type of employee, what would you do? Give up and keep paying them to lie, steal,
hide information, etc. from you or would you start to look for a new way of
doing business that did not require hiring lying thieves?
As long as we keep voting nothing will
change. Why would it? The politicians and their friends have the
system they want?
Voting is akin to someone saying that
they are coming to your home next week to steal from you and they would like
you to keep the door unlocked and you do.
I
consider it my duty NOT to vote for those turdits called politicians who
destroy my rights, my democracy. I owe
it to all those who died, who have suffered to protect my rights, my democracy
to try to change the whole system, to not support the turdits (with the
exception of this last federal election as noted above, in hopes of minimizing
the damage being done).
As long as people vote, the turdits
are going to be there; they can say that the people want them, that the people
support them
These are not leaders, they are not
our representatives, they are parasites.
To quote a commenter, Igbymac,
“...they (voters) are the water that nourishes this insatiable thirst for
power” and “voting itself disqualifies anyone from complaining since this
corrupt, self- serving system cannot exist without people breathing life into
it with their endorsement at the voting booth”.
Personally, I just want the turdits to
stay away from me from now until forever.
And that goes for their families, who benefit from everything the turdits
steal from us and do to us. There will
be the rare exception, a politician who stands up to the other politicians and
shows that he/she works “for the people” but, as mentioned before, they don't
last long.
You can read a list of some of the
abuses of power by Harper and his Conservative party. These are just more examples of what
politicians do to us. Harper, Serial
Abuser of Power: The Evidence Compiled, David
Beers and Tyee Staff and Contributors, 10 Aug 2015, TheTyee.ca
December 20, 2015
ALLOWING POLITICAL PARTIES TO KNOW WHO VOTED
The next
few posts will be more political because it is the politicians who are
responsible for protecting, but far more often destroy, our privacy, our
rights, our democracy. A future post
gives some examples of what you can do, that does not include voting.
It's
interesting all the excuses people come up with for why people don't vote
except the obvious - they are revolted and fed up by the turdits called
politicians. But the excuses are just
another political ploy to try to manipulate people by trying to make them feel
guilty; if you had voted this would/would not have happened; the “blame the
people” tactic. There is, however, a slow, but growing
recognition, by intelligent people, that many informed people chose not to vote
because they are just disgusted by the turdits and their friends. They know that their vote would make minimal,
or no, difference except to legitimize the politicians (there are rare
exceptions). They are now called anti-voters.
The
Environics Institute “found Canadians expressing civic disengagement in a
number of ways besides voting. These
included signing petitions, sharing political information online, and
participating in demonstrations and protests”.
(7)
Now BC Bill
20, passed by the BC Liberals, “would allow political parties and others to
know who voted in the previous election”. (1) They will be given your name and
address (and possibly more), and whether you voted and then they go “dig” for
more information. Well, they don't have
to do much digging; it's one-stop shopping for information in BC. This will allow them to harrass you, ridicule
you, discriminate against you or blackmail you (do you work in government, have
a contract with government or does your boss have friends in the government, do
you receive money through the government), into voting because THEY need people
to vote to justify their existence.
Bill
Tieleman says they already have that information, that inside scrutineers pass
the information to outside scrutineers (party workers). Well, they should not have it. Remember the workers are just people who walk
into the campaign office and volunteer, no screening required. The information already given to the politicians
and their “workers” tells them, or implies, your gender, whether you live
alone, a phone call will tell if you are elderly, etc. So this information puts you in harms
way.
Bill 20
does say in the act that the information is only for the purposes of the act,
not commercialization. There are a lot
of ways this bill can harm people that does not involve “overt”
commercialization.
It also
states that political parties/candidates/individuals must file a privacy policy
acceptable to the chief electoral officer.
That is better than nothing but what is “acceptable” to the chief electoral
officer and are they serious about this or are these just “words on paper” as
is normal for the government? What
“individuals” would want this information and why?
Will this
information be linked to your database profile to sell/trade/barter, next year
or some future year? After all, our
medical/personal information is suppose to be used only for our health care and
yet it is linked to citizens driver's licence.
And your history of voting, or not, will be maintained in the government
database so it can be used for whatever purpose now, and in the future.
“It's when people do not vote that we get into
trouble. Not when we find out that they actually did.” No, not voting is the sympton. The disease, or when we get into trouble, is
when politicians quit working for us and do all the things listed in the next
post and a lot more despicable things. I
think there would be a lot more people voting if the politicians had some
integrity, ethics, morals, transparency, and accountability but that is sooo
un-politician. I don't think it's a
coincidence that as trust in politicians/government decline, as belief that we
have a healthy democracy declines so does voter participation. (6, 7)
Some people
think we have a duty to vote. I
disagree. We have an duty to defend/get
back/evolve our democracy, freedom and rights.
Voting is a tool. If the tool
isn't working then you discard it and find another tool. And, I would feel PROUD, not shamed, for NOT
voting to defend my province/country against the destroyers of my
democracy/rights/freedoms. I do not
have to be on the frontline of a foreign battlefield to defend my country; I
can defend my country by doing things such as not voting.
Bill
Tieleman defends the bill by saying that Washington state in the USA does
it. Well, apparently that automatically
makes it right and democratic (sarcasm alert).
After all, the US is listed No.19 on the world democracy index (as
defined by the Economist Intelligence Unit), whereas Canada is listed No. 7.
(8) I guess we need to sink lower.
The bill,
apparently, isn't asking to know how people vote but I'm sure that will be
next. After all, I have read that the
U.S. asks people for their political affiliation.
Also,
“the digital revolution has fuelled intensive data analysis south of the border
that allows political parties to zero in on people who support rival candidates
and then find ways to prevent them from voting”. (The Canadian Press, 22 Sept 2015, The Globe
and Mail. So, the less information
parties have on specific voters the better.
Green party
MLA Andrew Weaver spoke out against the bill. Weaver says it is an end run
around the privacy of British Columbians. (3)
“Government watchdog Integrity BC, and B.C.'s privacy commissioner also
oppose the bill.” (4) A poll was done
regarding Bill Tieleman's article and 62% of the people voted for “not only how
I voted but that I voted at all should be private”. (1)
BC MLA
Moira Stilwell also spoke out against the bill.
She said “'she could not find one constituent in her riding who thought
it was smart to allow political parties to have voter information, including if
someone had voted or not. They couldn't
see the line between how it would help get people who don't vote to vote or how
it would help to secure governance and enforcement of voting rights.' Stilwell says
giving political parties information like that would be like 'throwing chum in
the water to attract sharks'. She added
the distribution of voter information in the bill are in the interest of
political parties and not BC voters.” (2)
I commend her for speaking out but then she just does as her political
master tells her, not what the people tell her, and votes for the bill. And, of course, the other politicians again
gave the finger to the people and passed the bill (5). It's all about what the politicians want, the
people be damned.
I think
this just illustrates the desperation of the politicians to get people to vote
to legitimize their “power”. I expect
the demand by politicians, and their shills, for mandatory voting will also
increase. Anything but giving people a
real reason to vote.
How to get
people out to vote? Putting “none of the
above” on the ballot is one way, if ethics, morals, integrity, transparency and
accountability are too much for the politicians.
1. B.C.'s Bill 20 will combat apathy, Bill
Tieleman, 18 May 2015, 24 Hours
2. BC Liberal MLA breaks party ranks over bill
to encourage people to vote, Shane Woodford, 11 May 2015, CKNW
3. Green party says Bill 20 privacy concerns now
much worse, Shane Woodford, 14 May 2015, CKNW
4. A Know-Who-Voted Bill? Bring It On, Bill Tieleman, 19 May 2015,
TheTyee.ca
5. Bill 20 – 2015, Election Amendment Act, 2015,
Third Reading, 26 May 2015
6. Standing at Door of 2014: Who Shapes the
'Next' Canada?, Michael Valpy, 06 Jan
2014, TheTyee.ca
7. Many Canadians aren't voting. Have they stopped caring about democracy?, Michael
Adams and Maryantonett Flumian, 26 Jan 2015, The Globe and Mail
8. Democracy Index, Wikipedia
October 16, 2015
Are the
politicians selling/trading/bartering (it's all the same thing) us? Are we a product, a commodity, to be
sold?
In B.C.
researchers (whoever they are because we're not told), claim that
privacy laws make it difficult to access patient information. “Instead of asking why should we open things
up, what we really want to ask is, why shouldn’t we?” observed Margaret
MacDiarmid, Minister of Labour, Citizens’ Services and Open Government (1).
You'll find this statement particularly interesting when you read future post
“Our Information Is Not Protected” (the privacy/firing scandal).
Point 1 –
That should be the purpose of privacy laws, to make our information difficult
to access.
Point 2
- Evidence proves that our information
is, in fact, not protected (2).
Apparently the problem, for researchers, is that the information is not
linked so they have to go to different databases. And they want to track us. All without OUR explicit consent and
knowledge.
Richard
Rosenberg, professor emeritus in computer science at the University of B.C. and
a spokesman for the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, said patients should have
the right to determine whether their medical records can be used for research. “The argument shouldn’t be that because we’re
doing good work, we should have access to whatever we want.” (1)
Point 3 – Are they all doing good work?
We don't know because we don't know who THEY are or what THEY are
doing. Many
research/pharmaceutical/biotechnology firms, etc. have been charged for various
crimes. (17, 18, 19, 23 – I could not find any Canadian charges against
pharmaceuticals – interesting!!) And the
government has been caught experimenting on Aboriginal children and adults (3,
4), and giving permission for experimentation on psychiatric patients and
others (9, 10, 11, 12, 13). This
information never comes to light until many years later, if at all, because the
government hides the information. An
article written by Les Perreaux and Sandra Rubin states:
“The courts may be the final barrier to
protect Canadians from unfettered genetic experimentation as scientists abandon
public interest research in favour of corporate funding and ambitious,
cutting-edge science, lawyers heard yesterday”.
“The independent scientist who
conducts research for the public good 'barely exists any more,' according to
one leading expert on technology and public policy”.
'They get up and talk
as if they are neutral. But they almost
always have some share in the company or some self-interested gain for their
work,” said Philip Bereano, a professor from the University of Washington in
Seattle. (5) Also, read future post
“Follow the Money”.
Iceland and
Newfoundland provide an example of how your information can be
sold/traded/bartered. In Iceland, the
most famous example, a single company, deCode Genetics landed a monopoly on the
national genome after acquiring exclusive access to the national health data base. ...The fundamentals of genetics are still
being debated, questions such as whether companies should be allowed to patent
human genes.
An article in
the Financial Post states: “...which
makes Newfoundland something of a motherlode to the drug development
industry. Indeed, despite the fact that
modern genetics is still in its infancy, the race to exploit Newfoundlanders'
genetic heritage has become so intense that some groups have been accused of
“helicopter genetics” - basically, rushing in, grabbing a few blood samples,
then jetting off to file the necessary patents.
There is now a growing belief among political leaders of the province
that Newfoundlanders should maintain control over their unique genome. But the politicians are faced with a tough dilemma: How do you build a wall without scaring off
the wealthy customers? It is “becoming
an increasingly treacherous debate about ethics and profit”. (6)
There is a
story about Henrietta Lacks, a woman from Baltimore, who, 60 years ago had her
cancer cells taken without consent (isn't that called theft? And
unethical?). Those cells (called HeLa)
were used in the biotech industry and helped create medical treatments. “Neither she nor her family ever shared in
the 'untold riches' but they recently gained 'some control over scientists
access to the cells' DNA code.” “Since
DNA is inherited, information from her DNA could be used to make predictions
about the disease risk and other traits of her modern-day descendants.“ “The main issue was the privacy concern and
what information in the future might be revealed,' “David Lacks Jr. said in a
news conference.” “In the past the Lacks
family had been left in the dark about research stemming from HeLa cells.” (7)
So, is your
DNA, and other body parts (fluids, etc.) and information, being
sold/traded/bartered? Are the
politicians encouraging companies to locate in BC in exchange for our personal
information? Is the government and their
lackeys (for example, the corporations that run the hospitals, the universities)
outright selling it? When you donate
blood, are they taking a sample and putting it in a DNA data bank for use by
all of THEM. "The Province had
commenced programs and financing to attract major drug companies to British
Columbia," the notice said. "Also, the Liberal Party was receiving
significant contributions from these drug companies. And I wouldn't be surprised to find that the
politicians are lining their pockets in other ways by selling/trading/bartering
us. (16)
And what
about all the other increasing amounts of information that is being collected
on us. The government calls it an “'e-government'
strategy – a comprehensive identity management system meant to facilitate
online access to government services and the integration of databases that
contain citizen’s personal information.” (20) 'Crime and convenience are the ways these
things are always sold', Mr. Gogolek said.
'They were using that with the fraud argument, but now it's being
portrayed as some kind of convenience card.' (21) What you end up with is one card with ALL your
personal information, accessible to almost anyone who has your card
number. The government can't/won't
protect it. If it is in a database it is
accessible (ask anyone who works in information technology, ie computers). But now THEY don't have to try to access
different databases, it's one stop shopping for all your information. A hacker just has to hack one database, a
government employee just has to access one database. If the government says your information is
protected, ask them to prove it because there is a load of evidence to show
they DON'T protect our information (see my past/future posts, The Tyee,
newspapers...) You might also want to
read Orwell's book called1984 (I'm sure it's at the public libraries).
Do they
even want it protected? If it is
discovered that a company/individual has your personal information, the
politicians can hide the fact that it has been sold/traded/bartered by saying
that it has been stolen. After all, it
isn't as if we are dealing with honest, ethical, caring people.
When the
LNG doesn't provide the big tax flow the politicians promised, they have
another source to generate income. (14)
The government will cover up the loss of projected revenue by selling
more of us (our information, our DNA, etc).
In fact,
the government “was actively discussing selling patient health information to
private companies”, around 2012.
(8) But why else would they be
collecting a treasure trove of information?
(1) I have also been told that,
although the BC Hospital Act prescribes keeping patient information for 10
years, there is a BC directive that all hospital records be kept
indefinitely. (from email) Is this true? Well, unlike anywhere else, B.C. has
digitalized records of every prescription filled by a pharmacist since 1995,
all doctor billings, hospital admissions and treatments from the same period,
and results of all blood tests done since 2002. (1) And some information has been kept since 1985
(see post “I've Returned).
This may
also be a case where the government is already selling/trading/bartering us
because “...policy trumped the law and government could do what it wants even
if it breaches the law and legislation."
(22) And, "...it doesn't
matter what the legislation says, we have government policy; that it's
unfortunate that we don't follow the law but that we plan on changing the
legislation at some point so that we will, so it's ok for now." (22) (see
future post “Our Information is Not Protected”).
The law that allows the medical
business to steal from us is immoral and unethical. It is legalized theft but theft nonetheless
when you take from people without their explicit consent, and in most cases,
without their knowledge.
As Micheal
Vonn, of the BCCLA (British Columbia Civil Liberties Association), says:
“It's not a conspiracy, it's a business
plan!”.
1.
Plan to unlock B.C.'s trove of medical data raises privacy concerns. Rod
Mickleburgh, 18 Apr 2012, The Globe and Mail
2. Past posts such as Auditor General – PARIS report 5/24/2011, Privacy Breaches 6/6/2011 and future post “Our Information Is Not Protected”
3. Aboriginal children used in medical tests, commissioner says, Darryl Dyck/Canadian Press, 31 Jul 2013, CBC News
4. Hungry aboriginal people used in bureaucrats' experiments, The Canadian Press, 16 Jul 2013, CBC News
2. Past posts such as Auditor General – PARIS report 5/24/2011, Privacy Breaches 6/6/2011 and future post “Our Information Is Not Protected”
3. Aboriginal children used in medical tests, commissioner says, Darryl Dyck/Canadian Press, 31 Jul 2013, CBC News
4. Hungry aboriginal people used in bureaucrats' experiments, The Canadian Press, 16 Jul 2013, CBC News
5. Courts protect public against scientific “elite', 14 Aug 2001, National Post
6. Newfoundland a motherlode for geneticists, 24 Jun 2000, Financial Post
7. Family of Henrietta Lacks, Baltimore woman whose cells were taken without consent, wins recognition for immortal cells, 08 Aug 2013, Malcolm Ritter, Associated Press, National Post.
8.
At Time of Firings, Health Ministry Discussed Selling Patient Data, 20
Mar 2015, Andrew MacLeod, TheTyee.ca
9.
Mind-Control Part 1: Canadian and
U.S. Survivors Seek Justice, Arlene Tyner, March-April 2000 issue (Vol. 7 No.
3), Probe
10. The McGill mind behind 'soft torture', 23 Nov 2005, National Post
10. The McGill mind behind 'soft torture', 23 Nov 2005, National Post
11. CIA Activities in Canada (see the
section on Project MKULTRA), Wikipedia
12.
MK-UlTRAViolence, 06 Sept
2012, The McGill Daily
13. Donald Ewen Cameron, Wikipedia
13. Donald Ewen Cameron, Wikipedia
14. Premier's LNG Dreams Given Reality Check By
Japanese Expert, Geoff Dembicki, 30 Jun 2014, TheTyee.ca
15. Health Worker fired to Protect Liberal Donors, Suit Alleges – Andrew MacLeod, 07 May 2013, TheTyee.ca
15. Health Worker fired to Protect Liberal Donors, Suit Alleges – Andrew MacLeod, 07 May 2013, TheTyee.ca
16.
List of the largest pharmaceutical settlements, wiki
17.
GlaxoSmithKline to pay $3 billion healthcare fraud settlement, U.S.
Says, Tiffany Hsu, 02 Jul 2012, Los Angeles Times
18.
Nuremberg Trials: Big Pharma's
Crimes Against Humanity, Gabriel Donohoe, 18 Oct 2008, Natural News
19.
Privacy groups demand halt to BC ID Card roll-out. 08 Feb 2013, BC
Freedom of Information and Privacy Association (FIPA)
20.
Critics worry ID, Compass cards could be linked, Gordon Hoekstra,
2013/08/16, Vancouver Sun (a paper I do not buy)
21.
Emails Shed Light on Origins of Health Ministry Probe, Firings – Andrew
MacLeod, 21 Oct 2014, TheTyee.ca
22.
Big Pharma behaving badly: A
timeline of settlements, 05 Oct 2010, Fierce Pharma
October 15, 2015
TRANSLINK
“The
possibility of linking TransLink's new Compass card to the province's new
identification card raises significant privacy concerns and the possibility
that transit users could be tracked by authorities, say privacy advocates.” (1)
“The idea of
linking or combining the cards is laid out in a B.C. Government white paper for
the new ID card program and in the Transportation Ministry's technology plan
for 2012-13 to 2014-15. The technology
plan notes the ministry is working with TransLink and other transportation
providers to “identify opportunities” to link their card functions with B.C.'s
identity management program or add new functions.”
...the white
paper says the B.C. Services identification card could “replace or augment” bus
passes and credit cards, becoming a key part of a digital wallet.” (1)
Currently,
the Translink information will not be linked (at least not when I left BC) but,
no doubt, it will once the new Translink system has been operating for a
while. Then all the information they
have been collecting will be linked and you probably won't even hear about
it. If the government wants to know
where you were yesterday, all they have to do is check the database. “You will
be able to create a picture of their daily commute, bus routes they take, times
they tend to do things,” said Josh Paterson of BCCLA. (2) And, in many instances, you would even be
able to draw conclusions as to what stores/homes they visit. Very useful if you are a thief, marketer,
politician/toady or for a variety of other people/organizations.
”'I don't
expect my bus pass to track me,' said Vincent Gogolek, executive director of
the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association.”(1)
“Gogolek said
the concern over adding the functions of the Compass and the ID card is part of
a general concern that compiling or linking personal information creates
digital personas that are susceptible to identity theft and allows people's
movements to be tracked.' (1)
'The
province's privacy commissioner has already raised concerns over the new ID
card and its intended expanding uses, including flagging the need for greater
encryption of digital personal information of British Columbians held and used
by the government. The B.C. Government's
intention is that as the identity program develops, other government services
will be accessed online and in person using the card. (1)
I asked a bus
driver if I could get a compass card, put money on it by paying cash, without
providing any personal information. She
said that I could register it through the internet and I explained that I did
not want to register it, that I did not want to be tracked. She then went into this long talk about how
we are already tracked in ways we don't know about so why worry about Translink
tracking us. That is as illogical as
saying that a person/organization steals from you so everyone should be able to
steal from you. I repeated my question
and she said that there were something like 57 ways to pay and they reduced it
to six. I repeated my question. She finally said she did not know if you
could pay in cash but apparently she knew all the other ways you could
pay. I phoned Translink and I was told
that you could get a compass card, put money on it by paying cash, without
providing any personal information. If
your card is stolen then you lose the money on it so, if you choose to pay in
cash, either be very careful with your card or don't put a lot of money on it
at any one time. However, I expect the
card can still be tracked (no doubt, it will have a number or some other
identifier) but they won't have your name and other information although they
may be able to link it to your picture on a bus/skytrain and through facial
recognition technology. (3)
If you pay in
cash, and don't use a compass card, then you will have to pay twice if you
transfer from a bus to another bus or skytrain and vice versa. Translink said that they failed to take cash
fares into consideration and now it would be too expensive to change. Just think, all those people working on this
project for, no doubt, huge amounts of money and they failed to consider
something so obvious and basic. Or, was
it intentional to get people to get a compass card so they can be tracked?
Your
provincial identification will be available to so many people and
businesses/organizations that, in effect, everyone will have it. So, if they want your information, they won't
have to try to find your care card number, they will just access your
provincial identification number which will be on file.
There are
other reasons for collecting the information.
They and their friends will know more about you than you know about
yourself. If you think putting your
information on social media is bad, this is worse. At least with social media you decide what
information you provide, if any. On the
government database you won't have a choice.
Doctors, other people in the government, teachers, etc. can write what
they want about you. Will a potential
employer have your information, will your bank, insurance company, etc.? Just think about all the people you would not
like to have access to all your information.
Identity theft is very likely (see future post “Our Information is Not
Protected”). It will put your safety in
jeopardy - do you live alone, are you older or disabled, do you have money, are
you female? If the politicians and their
lackeys say your information is protected ask them to prove it, starting
with listing the names of organizations, people in the organizations, other
people, who will have access to your information (physical access, not just
legal access, because the government has very “creative” definitions for the
term access) and under what circumstances.
Then ask them to prove, and continue to prove, that no one else has
access (Remember, the word of a politician, and their toadies, isn't worth a
damn). If the politicians/lackeys
can't/won't provide this information, then they are lying to you. Until such time as the politicians prove
to us what they are doing with our information, who has access, under what
circumstances, who benefits, who loses, anything is possible. One thing I know, the politicians, their
toadies and friends aren't doing this for us.
If they were they would have asked us and they wouldn't have to hide what
they are doing. I do believe that they
and their friends will reap the rewards and we will pay the cost – in so many
ways.
I
thought the following was a very good comment from Mr. Nagotco:
“The fact that a certain behavior is
common does not negate its being corrupt. Indeed, as is true for government
abuses generally, those in power rely on the willingness of citizens to be
trained to view corrupt acts as so common that they become inured, numb, to its
wrongfulness. Once a corrupt practice is sufficiently perceived as commonplace,
then it is transformed in people's minds from something objectionable into
something acceptable.
Indeed, many people believe it demonstrates their worldly sophistication to express indifference toward bad behavior by powerful actors on the ground that it is so prevalent. This cynicism 'oh, don't be naive: this is done all the time' is precisely what enables such destructive behavior to thrive unchallenged.” (2)
Indeed, many people believe it demonstrates their worldly sophistication to express indifference toward bad behavior by powerful actors on the ground that it is so prevalent. This cynicism 'oh, don't be naive: this is done all the time' is precisely what enables such destructive behavior to thrive unchallenged.” (2)
When people
tell me “this is done all the time” I just say “that doesn't make it right”
and/or “then it's time to stop it”.
October 10, 2015
“British
Columbia has one of the most valuable reservoirs of health-care data in the world
(bolding mine) ... Unlike anywhere
else, B.C. has digitalized records of every prescription filled by a pharmacist
since 1995, all doctor billings, hospital admissions and treatments from the
same period, and results of all blood tests done since 2002” (1). So, why have they been collecting all this
information without our knowledge, much less our permission??
The
politicians are now connecting our driver's license with our medical records
and making it our provincial identification.
And this is only the beginning of the linking of all your personal
information to this one card. In other
words, everything about you will be accessible by one card and one number and
everyone to whom you show your provincial ID will know the number to use to
access your information (legally or otherwise).
They say that you have a choice to “upgrade” your license or not until
2018, at which time you lose the right to choose. An “upgrade” for whom? It certainly isn't an upgrade for the
patients whose information will now become more accessible. How is this “smart”? Although I expect this will be an “upgrade”
to all the people in the government, the researchers (many, no doubt, from
multinational pharmaceutical companies) plus suppliers and everyone else who
accesses our information, but not an upgrade for the patients. What is the purpose except to link all your
information to one central database available to all the low-life's (see future
post – our information is not protected).
Acronyms: FIPA - B.C. Freedom of Information and
Privacy Association – www.fipa.org
BCCLA – BC Civil Liberties
Association – www.bccla.org
ICM – Integrated Case
Management
Concerns:
“...,
those tasked with protecting the privacy of British Columbians say the new
cards are a form of surveillance and will centralize personal data in a way
that makes it attractive to hackers.”
'When you have that much information stored
or linked together, it becomes much more valuable for criminals to attack,'
“said Vincent Gogolek, executive director of the B.C. Freedom of Information
and Privacy Association.” (3)
And it's not only outside criminals but those inside the government (see future post “Our Information Is Not Protected).
And it's not only outside criminals but those inside the government (see future post “Our Information Is Not Protected).
“In a statement released today, Information and Privacy Commissioner Elizabeth Denham pointed to a number of shortcomings with the plan, and called for a halt to any further expansion of the Services Card without extensive public consultations on the risks and benefits of data linkage. And while they agree with the pause, the BCCLA and FIPA say that it will take more than a public consultation to fix what’s really broken in the government’s plan.”
"This government has got to come clean on the card before we are all forced to use it," said Micheal Vonn, BCCLA Policy Director. "British Columbians have been provided almost no real information about it, and the Commissioner herself says she was only given an 'abbreviated time for review' of the program.” (4)
The
ICM debacle also raises serious concerns over other government IT and identity
management projects like the new B.C. Services Card, set to launch in
mid-February (2013). “If we’re seeing this level of mismanagement with the ICM,
not to mention other government IT programs like JUSTIN and BCeSIS, it’s a
pretty safe bet we will see more of the same with the new ID cards. It’s time
for a public inquiry into data linkage systems across government before more
money is wasted and personal information is compromised.” (5)
See FIPA's 2010 report on Integrated Case Management, "Culture of Care or Culture of Surveillance?"
See FIPA's 2010 report on Integrated Case Management, "Culture of Care or Culture of Surveillance?"
“In
a legal ruling that cuts to the core of medical privacy in the age of the
genome, a woman who nearly died in a Calgary house fire and is suing the
landlords for negligence has been ordered to undergo testing for Huntington's
disease, because if she has it, she may be entitled to less compensation.”
“Critics
worry that the precedent of forced testing will enable insurance companies and
employers to discriminate against people who are merely at risk of genetic
illnesses like Huntington's, and they call Canada an outlier in the developed
world because it lacks formal legislative protection for genetic information.”
(7)
Another
article states “ ...authorities are deliberating whether to allow the Chinese
company to buy Complete Genomics of California, a major U.S. Sequencing
company.” “ ..but the deal has officials there fretting
over both the security of genetic data and national security.”
“ ...Because the technologies involved “have
national security implications related to bioweapons...”. (6) Is
your information being used to create bioweapons. We have no idea who is using our information
or how it is being used so anything is possible. The point is that WE should know where our
information is going and how it is being used.
-
“Heightened national security concerns, the growing business appetite for
personal information and technological advances are all potent – and growing –
threats to privacy rights,” said Stoddart (privacy commissioner) in a news
release.
When
I was in BC, I was asked many times, by banks, etc. for my care card number for
“identification”. I gave it on one
occasion, after being assured that they did not enter it into their system (for
whatever that's worth). I later decided
it would be wiser not to give it again.
In the future post “Our Information Is Not Protected” you will read how
our medical information is being shared “without authorization” (illegally),
with our identifying number attached and you will understand how the care card
number, or B.C. Services card number, can be used to identify you and your
medical information.
Your
provincial identification will be available to so many people and
businesses/organizations that, in effect, everyone will have it. So, if they want your information, they won't
have to try to find your care card number or search through numerous databases,
they will have your B.C. Services card number.
(1) Plan to unlock B.C.'s trove of medical data
raises privacy concerns, Rod Mickleburgh, 2012/04/18, Globe & Mail
(2) Security concerns, technological advances
threaten privacy. Joan Delaney, 07 Jan 2008, The Epoch Times
(3) B.C.'s new identity cards raise host of
privacy concerns, critics say, Luke Simcoe, Metro, 2013/01/09
(4) Privacy Groups demand halt to BC ID Card
roll-out, FIPA, 2013/02/08
(5) Report finds B.C. Government's $182 million
Integrated Case Management system plagued with “fundamental deficiencies”,
FIPA, 2013/01/25
(6) Why China is a genetic powerhouse with a
problem, Carolynn Abraham and Carolynne Wheeler, The Globe and Mail, 2012/12/15
(7)
Court orders woman who almost died in fire to undergo tests to prove symptoms
not linked to genetic disease, Joseph Brean, 26 Sep 2013, National Post
October 9, 2015
I'VE RETURNED
I had to take
a break due to illness (see future post – my story) and moving to a province
that is much less of a surveillance state.
As often happens, things take longer than expected but I learned more. Unfortunately, most of it isn't good.
I moved to a
province where (in no particular order):
1. there are no cameras in the streets or on the
buses
2. no retention of medical information over
seven years; BC has retained medical information since 1995, so 20 years and
counting (5). In some cases they have
data from 1985 (see #10), so 30 years and counting
3. there is no BC Services Card where all your
information is linked (to be used for many purposes I'm sure the people of BC
haven't heard about)
4. no MSP, much less one where the “storage,
handling and administration” of our personal medical records is handled by an
American company, subject to the US Patriot Act and other US laws (4)
5. no Translink compass card on the buses (3)
6. Use of facial recognition technology limited
to driver's license (6)
7. no smart meter or, as some people refer to
it, the stupid meter
8. As far as I know they have not taken away our
right to determine who has access to our body parts and information
9. As far as I know, they do not track children
(see The Children, June 17, 2011)
10. As far as
I know, they do not track everything else on people.
For example (from The Children –
June 17, 2011), in BC “HELP partner,
Population Data BC, offers the research community access to one of the world’s largest collections of
health care, health services and population health care data; “Population
Data BC offers qualified researchers access to a rich source of linkable, person
specific, but de-identified data on British Columbia’s four million residents,
in many cases from 1985 forward. Current data holdings include health care
and health service records, population and demographic data and occupational
data. This post also identifies all the
other information these “people” want and, as for, de-identified, I believe
that lie has been laid to rest (See future posts “Our Information Is Not
Protected” and “Anonymous”).
11. No automated license plate recognition
technology (ALPR system) as far as I know (1)(2)(7)
12. No Gag laws (see posting “Gag Law”, May 12,
2013)
13. No giving political parties/candidates/individuals "who voted" lists (see future post "BC Bill 20)
13. No giving political parties/candidates/individuals "who voted" lists (see future post "BC Bill 20)
Look at the
amount of information BC is collecting vs another province and BC plans to
collect a lot more, such as Translink's Compass card (2). In other words big brother/sister has a MUCH
smaller footprint in another province and the citizens have more privacy, more
rights.
When you look
at the list of ways the people in BC are being tracked and information
collected you have to come to the conclusion that this information, and our
body parts, are being sold/traded/bartered (see future post
“sold/traded/bartered).
* (see next
three of my posts “Selling/Trading/Bartering”, “Smart Carecard”, “Translink”).
(1) Former
solicitor general applauds license plate privacy report – Andrew MacLeod, 23
Nov 2012, The Hook
(2) Police
use of licence plate scans breaks privacy law:
commissioner, Andrew MacLeod, 15 Nov 2012, The Hook
(3) Critics worry ID, Compass cards could be
linked, Gordon Hoekstra, 15 Aug 2013, Vancouver Sun
(4) 100+ reasons the BC Liberals must go, No Strings Attached : Laila Yuile on politics and
life in B.C.
(5) Plan to unlock B.C.'s trove of medical data
raises privacy concerns, Rod Mickleburgh, 18 Apr 2012, The Globe and Mail
(6) Investigation Into The Use Of Facial
Recognition Technology By The Insurance Corporation of BC, 16 Feb, 2012, The
Office of the Privacy Commissioner
(7) We Know Where You Drove Last Night: Police, Andrew MacLeod, 16 Nov 2012,
TheTyee.ca
(8) Powerful new card to replace B.C. Care Card,
The Canadian Press, 08 Jan 2013, CBC News
(9) Privacy concerns raised over Translink's new
fare card, 18 Jan 2013, CBC News
May 12, 2013
GAG LAW
I would
normally be starting to hand out information in front of St. Paul's
at this time. But I can't because the politicians have decided that
anyone, who spends even $1, actually I believe that is even a
penny (there are still some in use) can be fined if they do so
without registering with them. The politicians want to know who we
are, who we support and that goes into their computer system (and is
shared with everyone). The BCCLA (B.C. Civil Liberties Association) has taken the
issue to court, but that will probably take years. So,
the politicians get to shut up a lot of people so it will be mostly
the voices of the politicians that are heard (brain-washing as I see
it).
People
like me, on the front lines, regularly threatened for exercising our
democratic rights, aren't going to give out our name and contact information. But
I can write on the blog as this doesn't cost anything and because I am an individual.
April 25, 2013
DEMOCRACY
- - - OR NOT
Update: This is now on YouTube
You may wish to go to the following
websites to read the rest of the articles and for information on a
documentary showing in the Lower Mainland on
|
Www.thetyee.ca
– See 'Whipped,' Sean Holman's Expose on Slavish Politicians by
David Beers, April 22, 2013. After you read David Beers article
and/or see the documentary you may want to ask yourself what the
MLA's do for us – the people. We pay them wages, expenses,
golden pension plans but for what?? They don't represent us,
only their party.
Sean
Holman says "Are we happy with a political system where most
MLAs only have a say in secret? Are we happy with a political system
where MLAs are often unable to tell voters when they disagree with
their party? Are we happy with a political system where government
has the power to get whatever it wants in the legislature?
"Because that's the system
we've got." …...
www.straight.com
-The Georgia Straight – Sean Holman documentary exposes how
political parties keep MLAs in line – by Charlie Smith – April
24, 2013.
David Chudnovsky said “They sent us
here to govern, and we don’t,” the MLA said. “Everybody who
works here knows that the real governing takes place in the premier’s
office with a few handpicked friends and advisers.” …....
And you wonder how the politicians
(and their friends) can steal your democracy, your rights. It is
obviously very easy. Who is going to stop them.
Www.thehuffingtonpost.com
– Whipped: The Secret World of Party Discipline – by Sean
Holman. He said: “In fact, I've discovered,
out of the 32,328 votes cast between June 2001 and April 2012, just
80 or 0.25 percent were cast by MLAs voting against their own party.
That means a party with a majority can essentially do whatever it
wants in the legislature -- so much so that the last time a government
bill was defeated was 1953, the same year Joseph Stalin died. But
those numbers also suggest, as one former MLA told me, "There's
got to be times -- random chance if nothing else -- that some of us
actually disagree with what we're voting on."April 15, 2013
WHISTLEBLOWERS
Why
don't the politicians support a Whistleblowers Protection Act.
Because the misconduct, bad policies, corruption, etc. the
whistleblowers report would include the politician's. Politicians
don't want people making the politicians accountability, they want to
shut them up.
People
in the medical business might speak up if they weren't afraid of
losing their jobs.
To
learn more about whistleblowers see website www.fairwhistleblower.ca
April 14, 2013
FIXING THE MEDICAL SYSTEM
Do
you think the politicians will ever “fix” the medical system. I
don't. What would they have to blackmail us with. If you don't
support the oil and gas drilling we won't have money for hospitals
and education. If you don't support the olympics we won't have money
for hospitals and education. If you don't support the HST we won't
have money for hospitals and education. If you don't support__ __ __
(fill in the blanks) we won't have money for hospitals and education.
April 13, 2013
AUDITOR GENERAL JOHN DOYLE
Mr.
Doyle I am truly sorry that a man of your calibre as a human being is
leaving but I wish you the very best in Australia. I hope that you
won't run into the same difficulties, as you have here, in doing your
job in an ethical, responsible, moral manner.
This,
unfortunately, is what happens, when a good person gets into the
government and works “for the people”. The dirty (is there any
other kind?) politicians get rid of them. The politicians want
immoral people, people who work for the politicians, covering up what
they do, or at the very least, not exposing it. That's why politics
has such an ugly reputation – because the good people never last.
But I am
grateful for people like Mr. Doyle, the auditor general, who show us
that decent, ethical people do get into government, and, although
they don't last long, they can accomplish a lot of good things during
the time they have.
Source:
No extension. B.C. NDP want auditor general decision reconsidered –
Metro, January 11, 2013
April 12, 2013
CHILDREN HURT, DYING IN CARE OF POLITICIANS
This
is a very, very serious problem that I have been reading about for
some time, from different sources. Mary Ellen Turpond-Lafond, one of
the rare people working in government who actually work for the
people, has been fighting to protect the children. She is the B.C.'s
representative for children and youth. The children in the care of
the “government” (the politicians), in a democracy it would be
considered “our care”, are dying or being injured in truly
disturbing numbers. She has been battling the politicians. The
politicians either don't care, or are incompetent, about protecting these
children. But the politicians want us to vote for them so they can
continue to let these children be harmed or die. THESE ARE CHILDREN.
But I guess spending time at photo-ops, or trying to cover up their latest scandal or spending money on
advertisements is more important. And I don't think one party is any
better than another.
I
wonder how long Mary Ellen Turpond-Lafond will remain employed by the
politicians (see next blog).
April 11, 2013
Not
Voting
I don't
vote anymore. The politicians lie, steal, kill and destroy our
democracy and rights. Then they ask us to vote for them so they can
continue to do the same. I finally realized that this was a really
stupid thing to be doing. Why would I dignify people who steal from
everyone, but in particular, the vulnerable, the newborn babies, the
sick and put them in harm's way, by voting for them. These are
people who, when you demand that your right to privacy be respected,
simply take away your rights; no vote, no discussion, not even a
notification to the public, just hide it in a bill with a lot of
other things (see prior post).
I was
taught, from the time I was a child, that you don't pick on the
vulnerable, those weaker, smaller than you but those seem to be the
prime target of politicians.
We hear
about scandal after scandal. The politicians and their friends
looking after themselves at the expense of the people. And you know
that for every scandal we hear about there are many, many more that
they have managed to hide, to cover up. I now believe that
politicians are the bottom of the human race, the garbage. Mind you,
they have a lot of company down there. And I think all political
parties, run by politicians, are the same bottom feeders.
People
have said that if you don't vote horrible things will happen, that
you will get the people you deserve, etc. I've noticed that horrible
things happen when I do
vote and I don't get the people I deserve whether I vote or not. The
politicians, the medical system, the police all collect information
on law-abiding, and many of them vulnerable, people but we aren't
allowed to even know why and who it is being shared with
I've
heard people say that you should vote even if you ”spoil” the
ballot . I tried that one year. What I noticed was that little or
no mention was made of the number of spoiled ballots but everyone
talked, and tracked how many people didn't vote. Of course, they
like to say that people don't vote because they are lazy, apathetic,
not interested. It sounds a lot better than saying that people don't
vote because they are so disgusted with, so repulsed by the dirty
excuses for human beings called politicians.
As the
number of people who vote continue to drop, there is now a suggestion
that people should be forced to vote. I once said that I would agree
to that if they put “none of the above on the ballot”. But then
I realized that forcing people to vote in a so-called “democracy”
is an oxymoron. What is democratic about it? You take away people's
right to choose whether they want to vote or whether they want to
protest by not voting. Of course, with online voting possible, it
would allow the politicians to screw the numbers. But forcing people
to vote would make it appear
that the people supported
politicians.
The
politicians are people for whom I have such contempt. They are the
people that I try to ignore, or work around. Every time I have
contact with them I find out that another right I am suppose to have
is just writing on a piece of paper, like them useless (at best).
Politicians
like to say they are the “servants of the people” or “public
servants”. But when a political party and the politicians get
“elected” they are said to be “in power”. And evidence shows
that 99.9% of the time, it is the politicians who have the “power”,
not the people (the HST being one of the rare exceptions). We are
the servants of the politicians.
In a
democracy politicians are suppose to be accountable to the people.
They are suppose to answer the questions of the people honestly and
openly. But these politicians are people who do everything they can
to avoid being accountable, avoid transparency, just read any paper,
online or otherwise. Just ask a question and try to get a real
answer, not some con.
But, for
those planning to vote, and even those not planning to vote, ask you
local politician some of the following questions:
1. Why
did they take away our right to privacy in the medical system?
2. Why
are hospitals refusing to state, specifically, who has access to medical
records?
3. Why
do we not have a “right” to know who has access to our personal
information?
4. What
information will (is) go to the provincial medical database and who
will have access and how much?
5. Ask
about the committee set up to look into privacy issues in the health
sector? Does it still exist? Who was/is on the committee? How
would we contact them?
Ask them
to prove anything they say. And be sure to record anything they say
because they lie.
September 25, 2012
BILL 35 - PHAARMACEUTICAL SERVICES ACT
Collection, use and disclosure of personal information
22 (1) The minister may collect personal information under this Act for one or more of the following purposes:
(c) for
a prescribed purpose.
(2) The
minister may use and disclose, inside Canada, personal information
collected under subsection (1) for one or more of the following
purposes:
(i) to
conduct or facilitate research into health issues;
(k) for
a prescribed purpose.
(a) to conduct or facilitate research into health issues;
This act
gives the government and their friends the right to use our
information without our knowledge, must less our consent.
How will
it be used? We don't know. For example, as Vincent Gogolek of FIPA
states, a prescribed purpose “could be anything”. He also
believes that we should have the right to say NO to having our
information shared even anonymously. So, in essence the politicians
have given themselves, and their friends, the legal right to do
whatever they want with our personal/medical information as opposed
to doing it illegally as they have in the past.
Personally,
if they want my information, I want to answers to questions such as
(for starters) who they are (name of research organization), I want
to know what type of research they are doing, I want to know if it is
being done outside Canada, if it is being done anonymously, how the
information is being protected (with proof). If they want my
information they should be required to set up a webpage providing
this information. Then I can decide if my information is being
shared appropriately. I want them to be transparent so they can be
held accountable. They don't want to be transparent, and therefore
accountable, which proves I do have reason to be concerned. Also I
want to know what money, or other form of gain, is being exchanged,
who pays and who receives.
I would
also like more details. The Act is vague (do you know what it means
to you?) and if the politicians can't provide more specifics about
what they mean then they don't know what they are doing or they are
trying to hide what they are doing.
Even the
privacy commissioner Elizabeth Denham states: “In Bill 35, I have
a concern about the broad and unfocused authority for the minister to
collect and share personal health information under that act,” she
said. Again, it appears the politicians have ignored the privacy
commissioner when implementing this act. It appears that, as usual,
the privacy commissioner wasn't even consulted.
According
to the Vancouver Sun (a paper I never buy) “Hansen says sufficient
safeguards are already in place to assure both the anonymity of
records and to ensure they will only be released to responsible
researchers.” We are not given the opportunity to determine if
these researchers are responsible, only the politicians do that and
we know how ethical they are. Also, see my next blog about the
latest scandal on patient information being shared, apparently
illegally, with researchers (which contradicts Colin Hansen's
statement of safeguards). As usual the politicians will ignore the
evidence that our information is NOT being protected and just tell
you what they want you to believe (brainwashing).
Our
information can now go into other countries. What information is
going into other countries? Whose laws apply to our information in
this other country? Can our information be accessed under the U.S.
Patriot Act (I really don't believe that all the information shared
will be anonymous now any more than it has in the past).
The
politicians would have you believe that all researchers are ethical,
and moral but they are not. I don't think that anyone who takes my
information without my personal knowledge and consent has any ethics,
morals or integrity. And pharmacetical companies, one of (if not
the) main funder of researchers, have been charged and convicted
numerous times for various illegal acts. Not all research benefits
society. In fact, some of it harms society.
Information
has been shared with researchers in the past and is supposedly done
so under specific circumstances. But as shown in the past, for
example the Auditor General's audit of the Vancouver Coastal Health
database and the recent scandal, the rules aren't followed. The
hospitals just give the information and nothing is done to ensure
that the information is properly used or protected. There are words
on paper and there is reality.
Colin
Hansen has been pushing to give our information to researchers while
he was in the Liberal government and even now that he has left. I
will be interested to hear where he gets his next job or
directorship.
Again,
if they have to take OUR information without our knowledge/consent,
if they have to hide what they are doing with OUR information, then
they are doing something wrong, something they don't want you to know
about.
WITHOUT
TRANSPARENCY, THERE IS NO ACCOUNTABILITY
AND
THERE IS NO DEMOCRACY
Sources:
- Bill
35 – Pharmacetical Services Act
- FIPA –
Piecemeal Repeal of FIPPA? - June 1, 2012
- The
Hook – Drug Bill Includes Personal Information Grab: Advocate –
Andrew MacLeod, April 30, 2012
-
Vancouver Sun, Craig McInnes, May 3, 2012
September 24, 2012
WHAT/WHO ARE THEY SELLING
There
was an article in The Province (not a paper I buy) on Aug. 12, 2012.
The article was by Geoff Plant, chairman of Providence Health Care,
which operates St. Paul's and other hospitals/clinics. I don't know
if this article was paid for by the taxpayers, but that's another
issue.
In
the article G. Plant extols the virtues of St. Paul's (a very
one-sided view) but what interested me was the statement that St.
Paul's brings in research dollars of $43 million from outside sources
annually. So, what are the research companies buying --- us?
Is
St. Paul's selling us?? We, of course, are not allowed to know.
Geoff
Plant is a former liberal attorney general and teaches at UBC (who is
involved in research with St. Paul's). Interesting how it's all
connected by the same people.
But,
it keeps coming back to the same issue. If everything is
above-board, honest, ethical, moral, then why won't they tell us who
they are sharing our information with (names of companies/individuals
and under what circumstances); why do they hide this information?
No transparency, no accountability.
July
20, 2012
POLICE AND PRIVACY
A little over a year ago the BC Civil Liberties Association raised
the issue of the police database (called PRIME-BC) collecting
information on law-abiding citizens (1). They state “that as many
as 85% of British Columbia's adult population have “master name
records” in the PRIME-BC police database”. The Solicitor General
was asked to investigate. According to the BCCLA, they have received
no additional information. The Solicitor General's office has not
responded to my email.
The Privacy Commissioners office is
“examining the issue of employment-related criminal records checks”
and the report is, apparently, due out this month. This is a very
narrow focus and does not answer the broader questions.
My
questions are:
1.
Why are the police collecting information on law-abiding citizens
and under what circumstances is it being collected?
2.
How is this information being used?
3.
With whom is it being shared?
4.
How long is it kept?
Apparently,
no government office thinks we have the right to answers.
It
was pointed out to me that the records of a criminal are legally
required to be deleted after a certain period of time. A law-abiding citizen, apparently, has no such right and, it appears, records may be kept indefinitely.
Apparently
the database includes “negative police contact” which, I
understand, includes being a witness to a crime, or “residents of
a building in which crime was occurring in a different unit, and if
you refuse to answer their questions you are listed as
“uncooperative”. Personally, I would rather be listed as
“uncooperative” than provide personal information (it does depend
on the situation). At least I know that all they have to enter in
the database & share is “uncooperative”. When I have answers
to the questions above I will reconsider my willingness to
“cooperate”. Until then, as far as I am concerned, they don't
deserve my cooperation.
The
next two blogs will show how this may become an issue with medical
information.
(1)
BCCLA – www.bccla.org
- More than eight out of every 10 BC adults in police database, March
22, 2011 (topic: police accountability) –
BC's
PRIME police database – March 29, 2011
Vancouver Sun – Are you in the
police bad book? March 29, 2011
“According to diplomatic cables released earlier this year by WikiLeaks, any information entered into the national Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) database is accessible to American authorities.”
July
21, 2012
MEDICAL INFORMATION SHARED WITH U.S.A.
MEDICAL INFORMATION SHARED WITH U.S.A.
CBC
News, September 9, 2011, By Sarah Bridge – Canadians with mental
illnesses denied U.S. Entry – Data entered into national police
database accessible to American authorities: WikiLeaks
Police had been called to a woman's home because she attempted
suicide with a pill overdose (she had been battling chronic pain,
anxiety, & depression for years). This was 4 years prior to
2011. There were no charges as it was not a criminal matter but a
medical emergency. Suicide (actual or attempted) is not illegal in
Canada or the U.S. But when she went to the U.S border in 2011 she
was denied access because the U.S. had the “dated” police
information (it did not report her mental health recovery). More
than a dozen others have reported similar stories about being refused
entry to the U.S. because their records of mental illness was shared
with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
“So
far, the RCMP hasn’t provided the office (The Toronto Psychatric
Advocate Office) with clear answers about how or why police records
of non-violent mental health incidents are passed across the border.”“According to diplomatic cables released earlier this year by WikiLeaks, any information entered into the national Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) database is accessible to American authorities.”
Stanley
Stylianos, program manager for the Psychiatric Patient Advocate
Office says his organization is trying to get this information not
included in CPIC. “Once that information gets into the American
system, you can’t control it,” he says.
You
may or may not agree whether the information should be included in
CPRIC. I personally don't see any reason why it should be. But that
is another issue to be debated.
My
questions are:
1.
Why do people have to go to a foreign country to find out that this
information is being shared, or find out from Wiki-leaks or from
brave people, like the lady in this article, who must share very
personal information to raise awareness. People make plans and
travel to a foreign border, usually with friends and/or family, only
to find out they can't cross a border. Their travel plans are ruined
and how do they explain to family/friends what is extremely personal
information, and perhaps no longer even relevant. What happens when
you fly to a country, for example, France? After you have flown
across the Atlantic, do they force you to get on another flight home,
after all your flight/hotel, etc. expenses have been paid? Or is
this an issue strictly with the U.S.? The point is that OUR
GOVERNMENT should be telling its citizens that this information is
being shared and what to do about it.
2.
“Brad Benson from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security says
medical records aren't shared between countries.” Yet, while I
have been in front of St. Paul's, several people, with AIDS, have
told me about being refused entry to the U.S. And one person said no
one but his doctor knew about his condition. So, if people with
certain medical conditions are not allowed in the U.S., how does the
U.S. know who they are? (Note: the restriction on people with AIDS
entering the U.S. has been recently reversed but this does not change
the question).
3.
Who else has access to CPIC?
The
lady did get entry to the U.S. but first “she had to submit her
medical records to the U.S. And get clearance from a Homeland
Security-approved doctor in Toronto, who charged her $250 for the
service.”
And
the U.S. has been continually complaining that they don't get enough
of our personal information.
PRIME-BC
and CPIC are different databases but are they linked?;
Does the U.S. and others have
access to PRIME-BC as it does CPIC?
July
21, 2012
U.S. WILL BE ALLOWED TO SHARE BORDER DATA ABOUT CANADIANS
U.S. WILL BE ALLOWED TO SHARE BORDER DATA ABOUT CANADIANS
A new
binational privacy charter will allow the U.S. to share information
about Canadians, collected at the border, with other countries. “The
U.S. won't have to explicitly tell Canada about its plan to pass
along the personal information in most cases.” “But the U.S. can
only do so in accordance with U.S. law and relevant international
agreements and arrangements.”
“In the absence of such
"international agreements and arrangements," the U.S. must
inform Canada prior to the transfer, or as soon as possible after
the transfer in the case of urgent circumstances.”
Emily Gilbert, director of the
Canadian studies program at the University of Toronto, raised
questions:
1. "When somebody is a person of interest in the United States, but is a Canadian, what does that mean?" "And then what does it mean if that information is then being sent to the European Union or somewhere else?"
2. it is unclear how the distinct constitutional and legal frameworks of the two countries are going to be maintained in the context of cross-border information sharing.
3. where will data collected under the border processes be physically stored and who will have access to it.
1. "When somebody is a person of interest in the United States, but is a Canadian, what does that mean?" "And then what does it mean if that information is then being sent to the European Union or somewhere else?"
2. it is unclear how the distinct constitutional and legal frameworks of the two countries are going to be maintained in the context of cross-border information sharing.
3. where will data collected under the border processes be physically stored and who will have access to it.
4.
regarding the principles of "effective remedies before a fair
and objective authority" when a person's privacy has been
breached”,” who would fulfil the role of authority and whether
the body's rulings could be appealed.”
Some
points to consider:
1.
Note that the U.S. Is only required to inform
Canada when sharing Canadian information, not get permission.
2.
Also, as usual, so many questions and no answers; questions that
should have been resolved before signing an agreement.
3.
Do they only collect the information when you physically go to the
border and what information is collected?
4.
What do they do with all the other information they have access to
on Canadian citizens who never enter the U.S.?
5.
What are the U.S. laws (today, bearing in mind they can change
tomorrow), what are the international agreements and arrangements?
It's very convenient to throw around the words “laws, agreements,
arrangements” but what are they? What information can be
collected, under what circumstances, who has access, etc. We are
told none of this.
5.
Canadians have never been consulted as to whether they agree with
this sharing of personal information.
6.
To again quote Stanley Stylianos (see prior post), “Once that
information gets into the American system, you can’t control it,”
And this would be made worse when it is shared around the world.
The U.S. shares it with, for example, Iraq, Iraq shares it with (fill in country),
who shares it with (fill in country), who shares it with (whoever).
At what point does it enter the hands of the marketing companies,
the U.S. military (who had already started an illegal DNA database
on its own citizens – see prior post).
7.
We have already seen that the hospitals can't/won't protect the
information in its database. So it is highly unlikely that the
information will stay confidential once it starts entering even more
databases.
From
the Globe & Mail's comment section:
1.
andhalamadola.
How does this privacy charter take precendece over our own
Citizens Charter?
4.
Richard Roskell:
It is SUCH an honour to have personal information
about Canadians shared with and administered by the USA, for use as
they see fit. All the sucking up that our governments do with
America is really starting to pay off!
5.
Chris
in Ottawa:
Harper should be tried for treason at some point. The
only jurisdiction that should be allowed to share information on
Canadians derived from Canadian sources should be Canada and that
should only be done under the umbrella of international agreements
that protect privacy. I have no confidence at all that the Americans
will not abuse this!
AND
6. Mr.Helpful
Responses:
OldBear:
Read 1984, it's called Doublespeak.
Wren10: "marketing",
"re-branding", "spin".
Now,
even more Canadians are planning to never enter the U.S. again.
But is that enough?
Calgary
Herald – by the Canadian Press – U.S. Will be allowed to share
Canadian border into under new privacy charter – 6/28/12
Global
News – U.S. Will be allowed to share Canadian border info under new
privacy charter – Jim Bronskill – The Canadian Press - 6/28/12
International
Trade E Newsletter Content – Toronto Star – 6/29/12
CBC
News – U.S. Can share Canadian border info under privacy deal –
The Canadian Press – 6/28/12
The
Globe & Mail - U.S. Will be allowed to share Canadian border
info under new privacy charter – Jim Bronskill - 6/29/12
June 30, 2012
HOSPITAL EMPLOYEE'S UNION - CONTRACTING OUT
According to Hospital Employee's Union (HEU) website “a plan by Lower Mainland health authorities to contract out all medical transcription services threatens to put the confidentiality and accuracy of patient records at risk. On Thursday, health authorities issued a request for proposals to contract out the work of more than 130 medical transcriptionists who work out of three hubs located in Vancouver, New Westminster and Abbotsford. HEU secretary-business manager Bonnie Pearson says the move will transfer control over the accuracy and confidentiality of sensitive patient records to a private contractor. “Health authorities have a responsibility to both patients and physicians to maintain close control over highly sensitive patient records,” says Pearson. “This ill-thought out move by health employers comes with an unacceptably high degree of risk.” Medical transcriptionists are responsible for transcribing physicians’ voice-recorded dictation of surgical procedures, consultations, patient histories, laboratory and diagnostic test results, and various reports.” www.heu.org/take-action-protect-your-medical-records
I have never had any indication that HEU gives a damn about patient privacy (this is a generalized statement about the organization as I believe there are some individuals who do care). HEU is the organization that made sure their employee's privacy was protected but not the patients. I also don't recall them starting a “campaign” when the politicians and their friends took away patient rights to their own medical information. Nor do I recall hearing a peep out of them while, for over 10 years, the DNA of babies was being stored by a private contractor and shared without parent knowledge or consent; in fact, some of these HEU members would have been among the people who conveniently all decided that “the parents wouldn't be interested”in knowing what was happening to their baby's blood. Etc. I only hear about their “concern” for patients when HEU jobs/working conditions are involved.
And to suggest that patient records are confidential, when so much evidence indicates otherwise, is just incredible hypocrisy. But, like the politicians and corporations that run the hospitals, they figure that if tell say it often enough people will believe it or, at least, they won't have to explain why it isn't confidential (I would like to see their evidence that patient records are protected, not just hear the spin). I believe HEU really only cares about the jobs/working conditions of its members and the privacy angle is simply a means to that end.
Having said that, if what they say is true in terms of contracting out medical transciption it probably will worsen an already bad situation. I was told that the contract will go to Accenture (I don't know if this is true), a US corporation which means it is subject to the US Patriot Act. This would be the Accenture that, I understand, did not have its contract renewed with BC Hydro.
I heard there will be a documentary on CTV on Sunday night. It will be interesting to see how much of it is about the patients and their loss of rights and privacy vs HEU and their self-interest.
June 29, 2012
COLLECTING NEW INFORMATION THROUGH VALIDATION PROCESS
This
blog is about privacy but not necessarily hospitals but I thought it
might be useful information.
I
recently phoned to cancel my utilities with Accenture/hydro and
Terasen/Fortis. I was asked for information to validate that I was
who I said I was which I think is good. However, both companies
asked me for my date of birth. I was fairly sure that I had never
given it. When I asked I was told that they were now collecting this
information. So, a few problems:
1.
Collecting new information is not the same as validating
information. In fact, I would think that it would be illegal to
collect information in, what seems to me to be, a very devious
manner.
2.
I asked why they wanted this information and they refused to say.
Under the Privacy Act, when you collect information you are required
to state why you need it. But then the politicians and their friends
do tend to ignore the Privacy Act except when it comes to spin.
3.
The information they had on me was obviously good enough all these
years.
Everyone wants your date of birth
these days. Presumably this has to do with linking computer
information. Is this information being shared? I thought the
information held on you was suppose to be private so why do they want
it?
September 22, 2011
THEME COMMENTS
When I am in front of St. Paul's I get some comments that run in themes. It's as if some people get together and decide to make very similar comments all within a few days. The latest theme is “You can't complain because it's free”. The following are some of the “passer-by” comments and my comments are in brackets.
It's free (no, the citizens pay for it)
They pay for it (assume she meant the politicians and no, we pay for it), but it comes from out taxes (which we pay)
They need it to pay for health-care (That would imply that they are selling our information which, I understand, is illegal)
Isn't it great that in Canada you can complain about something that's free (it isn't free).
If one takes that line of thinking that it's free then we can't complain if the roads are not repaired because their “free”; we cannot complain if the fire department does not go to fires because their “free”; we cannot complain if water doesn't flow through pipes and through our taps because it's “free”, and so on.
Then again maybe I'm wrong, maybe our health-care is free. Maybe we don't pay a dime towards our health-care. In which case, would someone please explain why we pay taxes? Where does the money go? Who does pay for our health-care? Do the medical people work for free?
Then again, maybe I'm right and this is the best excuse “they” can come up with for illegally sharing our information and destroying our rights.
______________________________________________________
Here's another comment that was quite bizarre (well, more bizarre than usual). A woman told me she worked in the pharmacy area of the hospital, that she had noticed changes over the last two years and wasn't that enough for my purposes. I asked her what changes had occurred and could she prove it. She refused to answer either question. It's like being given a blank piece of paper and having someone tell you there is writing on the paper so isn't that good enough. Presumably, she operates on the premise that she said it therefore it is. Isn't that a god complex?
September 21, 2011
PRIVACY COMMISSIONER
I understand the BC privacy commissioner is reviewing BC Hydro's privacy protection (or lack thereof) regarding the information the smart meters will be collecting.(Metro, 7/29/11). I'm sure she will find that everything is just fine. That seems to be the privacy commissioner's job.
Because I try to protect my privacy rights, I have filed a few privacy complaints with both the provincial and federal privacy commissioner's office. Even when I have been absolutely right – NOTHING CHANGES. Even when the privacy commissioner quotes a specific act or law that has been violated/broken – NOTHING CHANGES. Even when the privacy commissioner's office recommends that the organization/company make changes – NOTHING CHANGES.
So, I consider the privacy commissioner essentially useless to normal people. However, it seems that they are an invaluable asset to the government and organizations/companies. When a person complains to a ministry or other organization/company, that ministry or other organization/company just tells that person that if they are not happy then that person can take the matter to the privacy commissioner, knowing full well NOTHING WILL CHANGE. It's the equivalent of telling someone to file their complaint in file 13 (for those of you not familiar with the term, that's the garbage can where things are dumped, never to be seen again). It seems to be a very comfortable diversionary tactic.
In fact, I strongly suspect that the government set up the privacy commissioner's office just for this purpose.
So sad, I had such hopes for it. Instead, it seems to be just another government organization wasting taxpayer money.
June 17, 2011
THE CHILDREN (bold and italics are mine)
An organization called Kids First Canada has been raising awareness of the violation of children and parent privacy rights. Information is collected and linked, from preconception to adulthood, on your children and family (in fact, it appears that the information will be collected from preconception to death). Twenty-four pages of information, on each child entering school, has been collected by the Ministry of Education using a personal education number (PEN). This information was linked to HELP (Human Early Learning Partnership). HELP is a government funded research consortium of universities. According to HELP's, and associates, websites, it links the child's information to their family data such as medical, birth, death, hospital, perinatal, mental health, census, pharmaceutical, school achievement, daycare, children in province's care, stress, injury and Workers compensation board. This list is expected to increase; for example, HELP wants access to our personal income tax data, patterns of employment, time use, etc. Note that this is not information that is shared that can never be tracked back to you; it can be tracked back to you.
I understand that this is part of the Integrated Management System (see prior blog). This means that there will be thousands of access points to this information.
Until 2010 this information was collected and linked without parents consent. In 2010 this was changed from no consent to passive consent, in other words you have to sign a paper that says you don't want you child's information collected/shared? What if the paper gets lost, or you are busy and forget, or don't read very well, or don't understand what you read, etc. The schools say they will explain it to parents but I suspect they will not explain all the negatives to collecting/sharing your child's information (as much a time as knowledge issue). If your child's personal information ends up in the database all HELP has to say is that “they didn't receive a signed paper”. It would be hard to prove them wrong. On the on the hand, if they must have a signed paper before collecting/sharing the information then they would have to have the paper on file to prove they received it.
Kids First Canada are asking that written parental consent be required and all information collected without parents permission be destroyed.
Some concerns:
- information is being collected without the consent of parents
- information used for purposes not identified
- “HELP has stated in media and elsewhere that names and addresses are not used. However, given that HELP obtains Personal Identification Numbers, medical numbers and postal codes, etc. names and addresses would not be needed to individually identify a person or a family.” (1)
- “Judging from the types of data being collected -i.e. perinatal records, hospital records, census, etc. - parents' and mothers' personal records are also linked.” (1)
- “with increased use of electronic testing in school, children's personal beliefs, plans, opinions and experiences expressed in writing could potentially be linked.” (1)
- Will this pigeon-hole the kids, i.e. are they compliant, do they fit certain peoples expectations, are they “different”, etc.?
- Commercialization - HELP and its group has funding from organizations like the Canadian Institutes for Health Research whose mission is to “work with all partners in a concerted effort to move research from an academic setting to the marketplace”. Also from the CIHR website “CIHR is committed to facilitating the commercialization of health research in Canada in support of its overall mandate.”
- “The public has not consented to this collection of data or its use”.(1)
- Cost – we are paying a lot of money for these people to take our information and use it as they choose, sharing with those they choose, without our knowledge or consent
- The “rules” can change tomorrow without our knowledge, much less our consent.
- Security – The government has shown repeatedly that it cannot, and will not, protect the information in its care.
Just think when your children/grandchildren, nieces/nephews grow up, all their personal information will be available at the press of a button by probably just about anyone (banks, insurance companies, employers, future spouses/friends, universities, and so on). Did your children misbehave in school, did they get along with other kids, were they slow starters in school, did they have any medical issues, what is their family background, were there family problems, etc.
As Kids First Canada say “ Our children are not resources to be mined through schools at huge public expense while many parents struggle to pay for basics”. And neither are we adults.
It is not a question of whether all this information, linked to each person, will be “accessed” but how fast. We were told our medical information was confidential, to be shared only with those directly involved in our medical care, only to find out that it is shared with doctors, hospitals, clinics, pharmacies, their suppliers, researchers (and apparently lots of other people/organizations – who go to the “business office” and plug their computers into the database); and that information is now going to be linked to government ministries and I am sure the list will expand; all without our consent (and in most cases – our knowledge). The government just took the information. And once it's “out there”, it's “out there”. You don't get it back. The people who have this information will know more about you, and your family, than you know about yourself and your family; and they will use it for their own gain.
Some other databases they could link with include the police database. Apparently they've been keeping information even on law-abiding citizens (2). And, of course, the Smart Meter. Just think of the information those graphs would provide – the time you get up, the time you go to bed, whether you work out of home, if you go out in the evening and which nights, if you go on holidays and when, have family/friends over for the holidays, and much more.
And, as has been shown, once the government has your information, they can change the rules (laws) at anytime, without consulting us – unless we make that illegal. If you want our personal information, get our written permission.
We have a right to privacy. We have a right to control our own personal information. The politicians, and their friends, are repeatedly violating that right.
Here is some additional information from HELP, Population Data BC's and Edudata Canada's websites:
HELP'S website states “HELP's leading edge research has resulted in British Columbia being the first and only jurisdiction in the world to monitor the development of young children as they enter kindergarten at a population level.” - versus person-specific?????
“Researcher access to data will be approved by the Data Steward for a holding using a harmonized Research Agreement process through Population Data BC. Named programmers have access to Identifiers to perform linkages on intake only. Content Data are stored on a separate server, and are accessed by named programmers to perform Research Extracts as defined through a Research Agreement. In no cases are Content Data and Identifiers brought back together. This separation of information safeguards the privacy of personal information. “ (HELP)
If you have all the personal information of an individual, I doubt it would take much to “connect the dots”. A person lives in a particular postal code, has x number family members, is x age, etc. And, as Kids First say: “this is a false assurance of privacy as names are not needed when personal numbers are used.” Plus, there will be numerous “links” to all these other databases, and the more links, the greater the likelihood that this “separate server” with all your information,with your identifier number, will be accessed. How hard would it be to track, or intercept, a link? We also know that government people have accessed individual's information in violation of the law when it suited their agenda (The Veteran's affair for example) The Data Stewards are the government ministries and public agencies (but they don't seem to list them all), nor are the agreements shown.
As noted above in one sentence they say that “separation of data safeguards ...your privacy” then later admits that your data isn't safe by saying “Risk of exposure is significantly lower than that of most Data Providers as we separate Identifiers from Content Data”. So, they do admit that there is a risk of exposure, they just don't say how high a risk (and I'd want proof, not just words). By the way, HELP is looking for a part-time privacy officer whose duties will involve “addressing breach response management” - application deadline – April 19, 2011. Nothing like being prepared with the right excuse to explain why your very personal, confidential, information was shared with the world.
“HELP partner, Population Data BC, offers the research community access to one of the world’s largest collections of health care, health services and population health care data; “Population Data BC offers qualified researchers access to a rich source of linkable, person specific, but de-identified data on British Columbia’s four million residents, in many cases from 1985 forward. Current data holdings include health care and health service records, population and demographic data and occupational data. Population Data BC continues to expand its data holdings and is working to bring in datasets from education, early childhood development, work place, and the environment”. Who are these researchers? Are they people from supplier/pharmaceutical/other businesses (many foreign companies subject to the Patriot Act) and how is the information being used?
“The Canadian Education Data Network (Edudata Canada) is developing user-friendly educational research databases from British Columbia and elsewhere. The mission is to create an infrastructure that makes K-12 education data available to researchers, policy makers and other qualified individuals and organizations, subject to privacy and confidentiality guidelines”. Now they say that in addition to sharing with researchers, they will also share with government & “others”. Also, when they say education data it sounds like they are sharing school grades when, in fact, it includes much more.
How can we monitor Population Data BC's use of the data to ensure it is being used as contractually agreed upon?
All usage of the data will be regulated by an Information Sharing Agreement with the data provider which will outline how the provider can monitor the use of the data on an individual basis. This will include regular reports and is outlined further in Population Data BC's Audit Policy. Again this tells us absolutely nothing since we won't know what is in the contract, how they are being monitored or if Population Data BC is upfront about any violations. And no mention of independent audits. In fact, their audit policy is not on their website. And, as we know from the Auditor General's audit of the hospital database, the data provider wasn't monitoring the use/disposal of the data they had shared, so why would we believe that hundreds or thousands of other data providers will monitor the data they share..
CYDTRU – Child and Youth Developmental Trajectories Research Unit - “an emerging research unit within HELP is developing a program of research that will track children's development over time” “...utilizing linkable health, child development (school readiness), education, community resource and socio-demographic data. These databases will enable research projects that can trace individual developmental trajectories (anonymized) from conception to high school leaving, across various facets of the health, social and educational systems for all children in B.C." “CYDTRU researchers are working in collaboration to identify and create additional data sets that will enhance the current stock of trajectories data... - ...to develop and expand the number of population-based person-specific databases and to conduct research projects.” In other words, they are planning to collect even more information on us. As long as there are links back to the person it is not anonymous.
“The BCLHD (BC Linked Health Database) infrastructure brings together person-specific, population-based, longitudinal* data across a broad range of health and societal factors from the late 1980s onwards. The BCLD is one of only a small number of resources in the world where longitudinal research on an entire population can be conducted”. I guess other countries respect their peoples privacy, their peoples rights. Also note that they say entire population, not just children.
For more information you can contact www.kidsfirstcanada.org, www.earlylearning.ubc.ca, http://www.popdata.bc.ca/; www.edudata,edu.ubc.ca, www.soeh.ubc.ca
* a longitudinal study is a correlational research study that involves repeated observations of the same items over long periods of time – often decades. Longitudinal studies track the same people. - Wikipedia
(1) Kids First Canada
(2) Office of the Information & Privacy Commissioner for BC (OIPC), March 25, 2011, Commissioner Shares BC Civil Liberties Concerns Over Information In Police Database
June 16, 2011
NEWBORN BLOOD SAMPLES
In BC, a lawsuit is now underway, after it was discovered that about 800,000 newborn blood samples, together with names and birth dates, had been stored on information cards since 1999, in a storage facility operated by a private contractor; and the blood samples had been shared with researchers - WITHOUT THE PARENTS KNOWLEDGE, MUCH LESS THEIR CONSENT. (1)
CONCERNS:
1. This is, in fact, a DNA database. “DNA is your personal signature, and it uniquely identifies us” (Jennifer Puck, University of California, San Francisco) (5)
2. These spots are being shared with researchers, without the parents knowing who the researchers are, who they work for, what kind of research they are doing, to whom they subcontract, etc.
3. Bill 11, passed in May 4, 2010, gives the Minister of Health power to collect, gather, use and share personal information without any notice to or consent from affected individuals.. In other words, your personal information can be shared with governmental and law enforcement agencies, without notice or consent. The B.C. Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) is trying to have this reversed. (7)
4. The information may be used to discriminate against the individuals by employers, banks, insurance companies, your child's future spouse, etc. “You could make inferences about their future health, about their future behaviour, and if you got samples from their parents or a DNA databank, you can make inferences about family relationships.” (4)
5. The DNA also provides information on other family members (8)
6. The researchers/private companies may manipulate, alter or splice the DNA. (3)
7. The amount of information that can be obtained from DNA is expected to increase (8)
8. The genetic information could be used for unethical purposes such as human cloning,etc.(5)
9. De-identified blood samples are linked to personal information and you can trace the link. The blood samples are stored with a code number in one place that can be easily matched to names stored in another place. (4)
10. The blood samples and other information could be accessed by pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, commercial companies who might bias or manipulate research findings. (10)
11. “The dark side is the commercial value of the human body. If the nature of the specifics of a given individual is available to the people searching for organ matches, the finding of a match might be someone who is not dead. Yet. (Ultra Bob) (5)
12. How securely is access controlled or is it like our hospitals, where audits have shown that almost anyone could access information. It has also been suggested that there isn't any system, no matter how good, that can't be abused and “once it's out there, it's out there” (10) And it's not just hackers that are a concern but employees with, for example, a flashdrive which can be put into a database to download information.
13. Conflict of interest - “...Just look at the conflict of interest statement in any pharmacogenomics journal today and you will find that the head of each of the major studies and a select group of investigators, funded by public tax payers money from NIH, and YOUR DNA, are going to make huge profits from royalties and huge salaries these physicians-researchers earn because they control proprietary samples that are otherwise hard to come by. Just by tying a SNP to a treatment outcome or diagnostic outcome, there are big profits in the healthcare business to be made; with no real innovation! Hence, one wonders about the real motivation underlying collection of blood samples with consent and especially without consent - a cure or a profit!” (11)
14. Ownership - Who owns the specimens and anything created from the specimens. (10)
15. Cost – It apparently costs quite a lot to store the blood samples in the right climatic environment. Is this how you want our health care dollars spent? (3)
Medical people certainly had lots of opportunity to tell people and ask for their consent. They verbally explained why the “heel prick” (taking a newborn's blood) was important for testing for diseases, they handed out pamphlets, and there was a website. But apparently not one person in the medical field, in over 800,000 births, mentioned that the children's blood was being stored indefinitely and used by others. Apparently no one in the medical field thought people would be interested in knowing the bloodspots were being stored and shared (or so they say), despite the fact that this had become an issue worldwide. (2)
In 2002, the public forced South Carolina to pass a law regulating the collection, storage, and use of blood samples. (9)
In Texas a lawsuit was settled when the state agreed to destroy the stored blood spots. New legislation requires parental consent and allows parents to opt out and all projects must also be published on the agency’s newborn screening website. However, a second lawsuit has been filed because they (the plaintiffs) had not been told, during the first lawsuit, despite asking numerous times, that the blood spots had been sold, traded and bartered. (13)
Blood spot samples apparently were also sent to the U.S. Department of Defense and Homeland Security. The U.S. Department of Defense, who were using the blood samples to build an international database, reportedly destroyed the samples (of course, you never really know, do you???). (13)(6)
A Dublin hospital has stored the DNA of all the people born in the country since 1984, creating a database. This was done without the individual's or parents knowledge, and apparently in contravention of the law; and despite having an ethics committee. (14)
Now that this issue about the children's blood spots has been brought into the open by the public, the BC Newborn Screenings Program has a notification on its website regarding storage. But, of course, it only mentions the positive and not the negative aspects of storing the blood samples. It allows parents to fill out and submit a form requesting the destruction of the blood spot (opt out), as opposed to being asked for their written permission to store/use the blood spot (opt in). It seems that the blood spot cannot be stored unless the parent agrees to it being used by others.
What happens if your form gets "lost". The medical/researcher people could say they never received it. It would be hard to prove them wrong. On the other hand, if they must have a signed paper before storing/sharing the blood samples/name/DOB then they would have to have the paper on file to prove they have a legal right to store/share the blood samples.
So what happens to everyone else's health samples. For example, when you go for a physical or an operation and blood/tissue samples are taken, are they being stored somewhere? What else has the medical/political people decided we don't need to know.
Some comments that I thought were particularly interesting:
Researcher | 10:11 a.m. Feb. 9, 2010
“I have worked in research for over 10 years. My job is to make sure that everyone obeys the law. When it comes to human research, the law is designed to protect the people who are the subject of research. Blood and tissue samples are your property even after they have been removed from your body, and researcher(s) can only do with them what they have gained your legal consent to do. That is the issue here. These researcher(s) do not have legal consent to do what they are doing. So many researchers feel like this is a hindrance. They would prefer to just be able to do whatever they want. They all think that what they are doing is for the greater good. If it is going to produce valuable results, it can and should be done legally. If you don't think these regulations are necessary, do an internet search on the Nuremberg Code, the Tuskeegee experiment, etc. Whether you care what happens to your child's samples or not, it is in everyone's best interest that researchers are forced to be accountable for what they do, and gain the proper consent. “(5) In BC, the politicians have taken the right to give legal consent, to decide what happens to your body parts, from you and given it to themselves.
"It's fine and good to say these can't be identified, but how real is that?" said Hank Greely, a Stanford University bioethicist. "Just because you don't have a name or Social Security number doesn't mean you can't identify it. Once we start using DNA for more and more things like regular medical records, somebody could do a cross-check and say whose blood it is." (12)
One: Telling people that their biospecimens are retained and used for important research, that strict privacy and confidentiality protections are in place, and that “we’re good stewards” of the biospecimens without providing accessible, clear information about those policies, fails to meet even minimum standards of transparency.
Two: Failure to acknowledge that public attitudes and values about consent, genetic research, and privacy/confidentiality may conflict with those of researchers and policymakers can lead to pubic distrust of biospecimen research and impede important research.
Three: Genuine public engagement in developing policies for biobanking initiatives takes time and resources. But the payoff – trust in the research enterprise and willingness to provide biospecimens – is worth the effort. (9)
IT'S YOUR DNA AND IT DOESN'T GET ANY MORE PERSONAL THAN THAT. (Michelle Salas)
1. The Globe & Mail, May 11, 2010, Jane Armstrong, Vancouver Parent Challenges Unauthorized Archiving Of Infant's Genetic Blueprint
2. CBC News, May 12, 2010, Scott Applewhite, Storing B.C. Babies' blood violates privacy: group
3. Infowars Ireland, February 8, 2010, Newborns' DNA Routinely Harvested For Government Bio Banks
4. In the Media, February 26, 2009, Barbara Sowell, DNA Testing Without Parental Consent?
5. Deseret News, February 8, 2010, Lauran Neergaard, Blood tests of newborns stirring major ethics debate
6. American-Statesman, May 10,2010, Mary Ann Roser, State agency swaps babies' blood for supplies
7. British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, May 12, 2010, New law may create largest DNA database in Canada
8. Statement of Claim filed with the Supreme Court of Canada, May 14, 2010, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association website www.bccla.org
9. The Hastings Centre Report, September 8, 2009, Karen J. Maschke, Disputes over Research with Residual Newborn Screening Blood Specimens
10. Exploring existing and deliberated community perspectives of newborn screening: informing the development of state and national policy standards in newborn screening and the use of dried blood spots; Ian Muchamore, Luke Morphett and Kristine Barlow-Stewart, December 13, 2006
11. The Scientist – Magazine of the Life Sciences, December 23, 2009, Consent issues nix blood samples, Anonymous poster - Non-Profit banking of DNA from blood for Profit
12. Washington Post, June 30, 2009, Rob Stein, Newborns' Blood Samples Are Used for Research Without Parents' Consent
13. Infowars Ireland, NaturalNews, February 20, 2010, Ethan A. Huff, Texas ordered to destroy five million blood samples illegally taken from babies without consent
14. Sunday Times, December 27, 2009, TJ McIntyre, “Is Temple Street Hospital Holding A De Facto National DNA Database
June 15, 2011
The government wants to share our information with social media groups like Facebook. Let me tell you a bit about the ethics of Facebook. Apparently they are “profiling” (I don't know what else you would call it) people who don't even have an account with them and who do not knowingly use their site.
I received some emails from Facebook wanting to know if I wanted to be someone's “friend”. I am trying to figure out how Facebook gets my email address. The people I spoke with said they never gave it to Facebook; one said Facebook “just went in and took it” (whatever that means).
But on the last email, Facebook also listed other people that I know (interestingly, I never received a “do you want to be their friend on Facebook” email for some). I call that profiling, tracking people you communicate with. I am not registered with them and do not knowingly use their site but still they collect information on me. And obviously Facebook benefits from this information (and whoever they share it with) or they wouldn't be collecting it.
In a letter (regarding another privacy complaint) on the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada website (OPC to CIPPIC – under Commissioners Findings – PIPEDA 2009) it states “On the issue of retaining non-user's email addresses, Facebook confirmed it does not use email addresses to track the success of its invitation feature. In fact, it states that it does not keep a specific list of such addresses for its own use.” It appears that Facebook lied to the Privacy Commissioner.
I filed a complaint with the federal Privacy Commissioner's office in May of 2010. The Privacy Commissioner's office is “negotiating” with Facebook. I have asked the Privacy Commissioner's Office not to negotiate away any more of my rights.
Facebook has had a number of privacy issues, yet the government wants to share with Facebook our personal, confidential information. This would give Facebook even more information for their profiling and, quite possibly, the government will get more information on us, such as of list of the people with whom we communicate.
June 14, 2011
INTEGRATED CASE MANAGEMENT (ICM)
This is some additional information regarding ICM.
My blog of April 12, 2009 mentions a project called the Information Access Layer, which includes electronic health information and what is called the “Integrated Case Management Project (ICM)”.
The intent of this project is to collect all the client personal data collected by community service organizations that accept money from the government and link (share) the information to government ministries and their private sector contractors. And, it is believed, this information will eventually be shared nationally, and possibly, internationally. In other words, all information that you provide to the government, and any organization that takes a dime from the government, could be linked and shared.
According to a bulletin by the Ministry of Housing and Social Development, Deloitte Inc. has been contracted to develop the computer system. They claim that it will cost $181 million over six years but may start to be implemented by the end of 2010.
If you read “Culture of Care...or Culture of Surveillance?” at http://www.privacyresearch.ca, you will note the many concerns. These concerns include identity theft, people not accessing needed services because of privacy issues, legal risks and liabilities to the organizations, the lack of resources to implement the privacy and informational requirements (not to mention the diversion of those resources from aiding the people to providing information to the government), the constitutional right of the province to implement this system
The government has shown, repeatedly, that it neither has the desire nor is capable of protecting the information they collect. As has been proven, when the government says that the information will only be accessed by those who “need” the information, they lie, or, at the very least, have yet to prove that it is not a lie.
Once this information is shared, it is “out there”, it cannot be taken back. The information shared will follow the people for the rest of their lives. And, the government, once it has the information, can change the rules and do whatever it wants with the information (example is the e-health system – when you gave your personal information to a doctor or hospital, over the years, did you know that it would be shared).
Also, the government has yet to operate in an open, transparent, accountable manner. So, we will not know specifically who is accessing the information.
June 13, 2011
DUTY TO DOCUMENT
In comments to the privacy review (1), Paul Fraser, Acting Information and Privacy Commissioner, recommended to “Add to FIPPA a “duty to document” key prescribed government decisions”. “The OIPC has investigated hundreds of complaints concerning the fact that a requested record does not exist, as one was never created”. “...a “duty to document” be contained in access to information legislation, which would include a requirement for detailed documentation of key government actions and decisions, and an obligation to keep records up to date and readily retrievable, with penalties for non-compliance. A duty to document key government decisions is critical to good governance.”
The government and all the agencies and corporations of the government don't like to document anything because that makes them accountable, which I assume, is one of the reasons the hospitals/clinics refuse to state specifically who has access to our information. So, I will provide some tips based on my own experiences:
1. We have a right to have the information provided by government in writing so I have been told by government staff. And, that you can report them if they refuse to put it in writing.
2. They (those who don't want to put it in writing) will tell you that it is easier to discuss it on the phone (or in person behind closed doors) and they will put the conversation in writing later. I have found that what is later written (if something actually gets written) usually has little resemblance to what was said. So now I insist that it be put in writing, and it helps to prevent misunderstandings.
3. They insist that they just want to say one thing on the phone (or in person). I think of it as the “foot in the door” tactic. They don't stop at one thing and, before you realize it, they have said everything. And nothing is in writing. If I get caught in this tactic now, I let them know that, since they lied and nothing was in writing, it didn't happen, the conversation never took place. And, because it isn't in writing, they can't prove the conversation took place.
4. I had one person from the government who kept phoning me, despite the number of times that I said that I wanted to communicate only in writing. I should have reported him but instead, if I answered the phone I would repeat that I wanted everything in writing and hang up. If he left a message on my answering machine, then I would email him, restating what he had said on the phone and providing an answer. That way he either had to deny what was in my email or, by default, agree that it was what he had said. The end result was that it was in writing.
5. If someone refuses to put it in writing when asked (government or other), if they won't be held accountable, then I know that what they have to say isn't worth my time (the hospitals are an example). And, in fact, may put me at risk because there is a reason they don't want it in writing. I also think it lacks in ethics and integrity.
There are obviously occasions when I don't need it in writing. It's a judgement call. But if I have to think about whether I need it in writing or not, I get it in writing.
(1) Office of the Information & Privacy Commissioner for BC, March 15, 2010, Submission of the A/Information and Privacy Commissioner to the Special Committee to Review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act
(2) The Tyee, April 1, 2010, Andrew MacLeod, BC Lousy at Guarding Privacy
June 12, 2011
PRIVACY REVIEW
In an earlier blog (November11, 2009) I wrote that the government had decided to review the Privacy Act for the 3rd time since its inception, and that the committee was composed entirely of politicians and that I didn't have high hopes for a positive outcome.
Well, it is worse than even I expected. It appears that the real purpose for the review was to have the Privacy Act changed to allow the government to legally centralize control of all the personal information obtained from citizens who receive government services. This information would come from all sources contracted to provide government services, including independent community service organizations. The ICM (Integrated Case Management) system would be shared across provincial ministries (and god knows who else) since I'm sure they won't tell us who has access. ALL WITHOUT OUR CONSENT.
And the government wants to store the database outside of Canada. I'm sure that would be in the United States, where the Patriot Act would give the US access to all our personal information. That, of course, assumes that they don't already have it. To add insult to injury the “government” hired a foreign company to handle all our personal information. What's wrong with Canadian companies, Canadian people. The government always talks about promoting Canadian companies, Canadian jobs, then hires foreign companies.
Currently the government is only allowed to store our information outside Canada for short periods of time. Why does our information have to go outside Canada at all? As you will see in future blogs, the government is prepared to spend huge sums of our money in collecting our information, why don't they invest in protecting it – inside Canada. Then again, Nancy Napolitano of U.S. Homeland Security did say she wanted more information on Canadians. Maybe this is how it happens.
June 11, 2011
PRIVACY BREACHES
The Acting Information and Privacy Commissioner, Paul Fraser, to his credit, has pointed out the governments inability to protect personal information. This was shown in a report, dated February 9, 2009 (I believe they mean't 2010), from the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for BC, on an investigation on the large-scale privacy breach by the Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD). In the report “Commissioner Fraser found MCFD and MHSD failed to make reasonable security arrangements to protect personal information from risks such as unauthorized access, collection, use, disclosure or disposal as required by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). In addition, “Commissioner Fraser found a troubling lack of knowledge within the Ministries about the rules respecting the protection of personal information”. So, not only do they not protect personal formation, they don't even know the privacy rules.
Some of the recommendations in the report by the Special Committee to Review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (based on recommendations of various groups/individuals) are:
Recommendation 20: Amend the Act to allow an individual to consent to the collection, use and disclosure of their personal information by a public body (similar to the Personal Information Protection Act).
“OIPC and privacy advocates....questioned whether the concept of consent was meaningful because of the power imbalance between the clients and providers of on-line, integrated government services.”
This was from OIPC – Cantelon letter 21 Apr 10 – From Paul Fraser under Consent, Collection and Disclosure:
“We strongly disagree with government’s submission that FIPPA should permit collection of personal information with consent. One of the internationally recognized privacy principles is that the collection of personal information must be limited to that which is necessary for the purposes identified by the organization. Permitting government to collect more than is necessary via a consent mechanism violates this privacy principle and would be inconsistent with all other public sector privacy legislation in Canada. Any “consent” would be meaningless given that citizens would not have any genuine or real choice to consent if they want or need to obtain government services.”
As you will note in a later post on the children, this can result in a situation tantamount to blackmail, i.e. give us your consent or we will deny you medical service.
Recommendation 22: Consider holding public consultations on data sharing initiatives.
The OIPC submission, presented to the Special Committee on March 31, 2010, also focused on the privacy provisions of the Act. The submission pointed out that new information technologies enable
data sharing initiatives on a scale and frequency that were never contemplated at the time the Act was drafted. The new ways in which the personal information contained in electronic databases is being collected, used and disclosed in data sharing projects raise significant privacy issues. When there is a bulk disclosure of personal information from a large database of one public body to another public body, citizens usually do not know how their personal information is being reconfigured, who is accessing it, for what purpose, whether it is accurate and how they can access it. This is particularly true where the transferred data is linked with personal information in other databases.
For this reason, the OIPC argued the public must be engaged in discussions around protecting privacy rights in data sharing projects. Its submission recommended that a code of practice be
developed by government in an open and transparent manner with stakeholder consultation through something like a White Paper process. A public consultation process on data sharing was successfully conducted by government and the Commissioner’s office in Britain in recent years.
The Special Committee supports the idea of a consultation process because we see it as a way to educate British Columbians on how the Act works now and how requests are treated by public bodies. We have concerns, though, about the prescriptive tone and broad scope of this OIPC amendment (as well as the one requiring the Commissioner’s approval for data-sharing initiatives).
Our own recommendation to government in regard to consultation is more modest.”
“Recommendation 23: Appoint a Government Chief Privacy Officer.
The OIPC submission also stated that a government-appointed Chief Privacy Officer is urgently required to act as a privacy advocate in the decision-making process and to ensure that privacy is fully
considered and respected in any new initiative. This recommendation had been made by the former Information and Privacy Commissioner, and the current A/Commissioner in his investigation report
into a recent privacy breach.
While the Special Committee is reluctant to create a new layer of bureaucracy, we think there is a need to educate ministries about what they can and cannot do in regard to privacy matters.”
If the public servants haven't learned to read, to take courses or have an interest in protecting privacy by now, or interprets the Privacy Act in a self-serving way, I wonder if adding another layer of government bureaucracy will have any value. I still believe that we need transparency. I believe the public servants need to know we are monitoring them, holding them accountable. We need to know exactly what information is being collected, why it is being collected, specifically who has access, and specifically what measures are taken to protect that information. This should be followed up by independent reviews.
“Recommendation 24: Amend the Act to require that data sharing projects for the purpose of research must be subject to ethics review by an arm’s length stewardship committee.
The OIPC submission suggested too that some form of specific ethics review is necessary and desirable for government’s data sharing activities for the purposes of research. Complementary research-governance measures should be adopted in addition to the approval role for the OIPC. A committee of experts should be appointed by government that would function in a manner similar to research ethics boards of universities and the stewardship committees of the Ministry of Health Services. It would apply the criteria in s. 35(1) of the Act and such other criteria as are considered desirable in the committee’s terms of reference. The committee’s approval should be a mandatory precondition to disclosure of personal information by any public body for research purposes.”
This comes back to transparency and accountability. A committee of unknown individuals, agreeing to share our information with unknown research organizations, for unknown purposes – unknown to the individuals whose information will be shared. Why not recommend that consent be obtained from the people whose information is being shared? Why not identify who the researchers are, who they work for, what type of research they are doing with our information, and who will have access to our information, and who profits. After all, who selects these committees – not us!! Whose interests will these committee members serve? And if everything is above-board, then there is no need to hide this information. I just see this as another form of secrecy, and if you have secrecy you must have something to hide, and that may be fine, if it's your information but it isn't, its ours.
And from BC Office of the Privacy Commissioner - 2010 Annual Report News Release
“The risks to privacy presented by the growth of networked databases is a growing concern for public and private sector agencies, and a key challenge for the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. This message was delivered in the office’s annual report, issued by Acting Information and Privacy Commissioner Paul Fraser, Q.C. today. “The erosion of privacy protection is nothing new, but the nature and magnitude of the risks to privacy provide increasing cause for alarm.”
New technologies are enabling, and driving the creation of more and more personal information data bases. “These systems collect and match disparate pieces of information about us and create a digital persona that not only may we be unaware of, but which may not represent an accurate picture of who we are,” the Acting Commissioner stated. “Yet this information will be used in decisions that affect us. I cannot understate the urgency of building these systems in a transparent, restrained and accountable way.”
Perhaps the first questions should be – do we (the patients, the citizens) need these systems, and who benefits.
I have not heard what the government will do. It can ignore all recommendations, or some recommendation; in essence it can do what it wants.
June 10, 2011
AUDITOR GENERAL
I understand from a newspaper article (The Province, August 27, 2010 pg. A10) that Auditor General John Doyle is in trouble with the politicians. There seems to be a conflict regarding who he works for – the politicians or the people. Fortunately, he believes that he works for the people and keeps doing his job and exposing wrong-doings of the politicians, including the violation of privacy rights. I hope he continues and doesn't bend to political pressure.
There is a question I have regarding his report on the hospital database audit. Mr. Doyle's report says that so many people were accessing patient information that it was impossible to sort out who was accessing the information. Doesn't the CEO Dr. David Ostrow know who his suppliers are and which were accessing patient information? Doesn't the CEO, Dr. David Ostrow, know who was allowed into the “business room” to plug their computers in the database and whose information they downloaded or was this available to anyone walking in off the street, no questions asked?
Madam Justice L'Heureux, of the Supreme Court of Canada, – Dube in R.V. O'Connor stated:
“Respect for individual privacy is an essential component of what it means to be free...When a private document or record is revealed the invasion is not with respect to the particular document or record in question. Rather, it is an invasion of the dignity and self-worth of the individual, who enjoys the right to privacy as an essential aspect of his or her liberty in a free and democratic society.” - R.v O'Connor [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411 at paras. 114, 119 – pg. 17
So, when someone violates your privacy rights they are also destroying your freedom and democracy.
We appear to have a segregated society in B.C., those whose privacy rights are respected in word and in action, and the rest of us whose privacy rights exist only on paper. Which group are you in??
July 22, 2010
ASSAULT
Last night, as I handed out information in front of St. Paul's, I met a lot of supportive people.
However, one man came up very close to me, at first I thought he had been drinking, and I started to back away but he grabbed both my wrists very tightly, holding my arms straight down, and said “You had better find a new activity in life”. He then went into St. Paul's. It all happened very quickly. I didn't smell any alcohol and I believe that he new exactly what he was doing. Later I noticed that I had a red mark on part of one wrist and broken skin.
I mention this because I think it is important that people understand the difficulties and risks that people face when they are peacefully and legally exercising their democratic rights in this country.
May 24, 2010
AUDITOR GENERAL - PARIS REPORT
AUDITOR GENERAL - PARIS REPORT
The Auditor General and the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of BC (OIPC) conducted independent audits of one database (called PARIS) of Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (VCH). I commend them, particularly the Auditor General, for finally exposing the truth (or at least a good part of it) -- that our privacy within the health care system is virtually non-existent. I highly recommend that you read/skim the reports. Even if you don't understand it all, it will give you an idea of how badly our privacy and rights have been violated.http://www.oipc.bc.ca/orders/investigation_reports/InvestigationReportF10-02.pdf
http://www.bcauditor.com/pubs/2010/report7/paris-system-community-care-services-access-and-security
http://www.bcauditor.com/pubs/2010/report7/paris-system-community-care-services-access-and-security
I will reiterate some of the findings from the audits, with a few comments of my own. Please note that PARIS is just one of eight core databases operated by VCH. Patients are referred to as clients.
Privacy Commissioner's Audit:
- “One of the ethical obligations of every health professional is to protect the confidentiality of patient information. The assurance of privacy is essential for patients to be willing to engage in the frank communication with their health care providers that providers rely on to deliver quality care. Patients assume that their personal health information is kept confidential because it is such a well understood hallmark of the provider/patient relationship.” (pg. 5)
The protection of privacy is a fundamental value in modern democracies and is enshrined in ss. 7 and 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.2 - (pg. 5)
- “The following types of information are collected into PARIS: Names of clients, contact information of clients, personal health numbers of clients, allergies of clients, employment, funding or eligibility of funding, education, languages, case notes relating to treatment of clients, names of family members or friends of clients (known as “associated persons” in PARIS), contact information of associated persons, whether the associated person is receiving health care from VCH, financial information and social insurance numbers of clients.” (pg. 13)
- Information was illegally shared with other organizations. When the PCO pointed this out, the government just passed legislative amendments making it legal for VCH to share some of the information. (pg. 16) (pg. 27)
- The information provided to clients (pg. 16) by VCH was “incomplete”, in other words VCH wasn't telling everything about what happened to personal information. You will find this to be a recurring tactic in the health care/government system. It appears that the premise is that the less we know, the less we will question, the more we will trust the system and the more they can hide. And, as you will see, there was/is a lot they didn't/don't want us to know.
And, not surprisingly, I didn't find any reference to the audits on the VCH website.
- “VCH does not have a secondary use policy in place to ensure the conditions for the use of personal information for research are met.” (pg. 34) In other words, when giving research organizations personal information, VCH did not ensure that “high standards for privacy and security” were met. The Auditor General found that they was no follow-up to ensure that the information was used and disposed of appropriately.
- I found this information particularly interesting. “An important privacy principle is that individuals should have control over their own personal information to the maximum extent possible. One mechanism that provides an individual with the ability to control their personal information in an electronic system is a “masking” feature. This allows an individual to restrict access to personal information that is collected by the public body. In order for this option to be meaningful, the public body must inform individuals that the option is available; there should not be any barriers for the individual to exercise it; and the individual must be advised of the implications and have access to clinical advice. The ability of a client to mask their personal information is particularly important when its collection is mandatory.” “In PARIS, there is an Enhanced Information Security Client (“EIS”) flag feature in the system that enhances the ability of clients to control their own personal information in PARIS. “ (pg. 35) However, the only people who could utilize the EIS were “staff or family member of a staff person, notable person, and clients who can demonstrate the the PARIS security model does not provide sufficient security.” It's been my experience, through Providence Health Care, that VCH keeps its security arrangements, or lack thereof, secret, so how would anyone know if their information was secure, much less prove it. In essence, staff members and “notables” had rights, the rest of us didn't.
- I had a doctor ask me why I was concerned about my privacy, after all I wasn't important. I tried to explain that I thought I was a damn important person, just as important as anyone else. This was interpreted by the doctor as meaning that I thought I would be important in the future. The concept that I am important now, just as I am, with the same rights as anyone else, was beyond this doctor's comprehension. This attitude seems to be pervasive in the medical system, and I suspect, all government.
- “Because of the large number, and serious nature, of the deficiencies in security, we have chosen not to elaborate on them in this report.” (pg. 37) The Auditor General's report exposes these deficiencies (see below).
- “Archiving records is an effective means to minimize inappropriate access.” “We found that there was no archiving of records in PARIS.” (pg. 42)
- “In our view, the information that is provided to clients about their right to make access requests is inadequate in that it does not inform them about the process for making access requests, the possible scope of the request (e.g. audit logs), timelines, fees and where the request must be made. Improvements are needed to better inform clients about their access rights under FIPPA. With respect to an electronic health record system, clients should have access to the audit logs for their health record so that they are able to monitor disclosure of their own personal information.” (pg. 43)
- “there is so much access to client records that it is impossible to analyze the [audit] reports.” (pg. 51) Except, of course, for those privileged few using EIS.
- “It must be noted that many of the problems were not caused by PARIS, but instead were the result of human decisions in respect of how personal health information would be collected into, made available by and disclosed through the system, which is a human issue.” (pg. 53)
- “We found that VCH is routinely, and without legislative authority, disclosing identifiable data sets to other public and not-for-profit entities...” (pg. 54
- For employee's, “privacy training and education at VCH is inadequate.” (pg. 52) Actually, it appears to be almost non-existent.
Auditor General's Report:
- “ Maintaining the confidentiality and integrity of individuals’ health care records is profoundly important. Failure by health care organizations to properly manage and safeguard this information could have serious consequences, from compromising an individual’s privacy to enabling identity theft or other fraudulent use of personal information to occur.” (pg. 1) ” If adequate controls are not in place, the results could be loss of individual privacy, corruption or manipulation of client information, medical identity theft, or system failure.” (pg. 5) Remember that this system has not been properly managed since its inception in 2001 and this probably applies to all health care information in other systems.
- “I undertook an assessment of a clinical information system used by the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (VCHA)...In every key area we examined — from the management and assignment of user access to security controls within the health authority’s computing environment — we found serious weaknesses.” (pg. 1) (bolding is mine)
- “Because PARIS users are not granted access on a “need-to-know” basis, sensitive and confidential health care records were accessible to thousands of users who have neither the need nor the right to see the information. Security controls throughout the network and over the database were so inadequate that there was a high risk of external and internal attackers being able to access or extract information, without VCHA even being aware of it. Fundamental controls to prevent or detect unauthorized access to the system were lacking, and monitoring to determine what data exchanges occurred was also insufficient.” (pg. 1)
- “In several areas, the governance and direction that staff needed to build a secure environment were not in place. Staff were not provided guidance on security controls to mitigate risks. The organization did not have an IT security policy and basic security practices (such as building layers of defense within the system) were inadequate.” (pg. 1)
- “Due to the seriousness of the deficiencies, I delayed the publication of this audit report to allow sufficient time for VCHA to address the security vulnerabilities we identified, thereby ensuring that this report would not further expose the system to potential compromise. I have been satisfied with the responsiveness and significant effort that VCHA has put into addressing the most significant problems, in a relatively short time. Over the next months, my staff will continue monitoring the actions of the VCHA in addressing the remaining audit findings. Based on the conclusions of this audit and other work performed by my staff, some of the fundamental security weaknesses identified in this information system may be present to some degree in other government systems. The findings and recommendations reported here should therefore be of use to other organizations in the health industry, as well as in other sectors. Adequate security controls should be built into any system, and it is equally important to undertake regular reviews of critical systems to ensure that they remain sufficiently secure.” (pg. 2)
- “We have not published all the details of the findings and recommendations from the detailed management report, to avoid introducing additional security risks. We consolidated the most significant recommendations from the detailed management report into 10 key recommendations.” (pg. 6)
Recommendations (Please go the Auditor General's Report for the complete version):
“Access is beyond “need-to-know” - Access granted to PARIS client records is excessive, with users in many cases having full, unmonitored access to all client records. ( pg. 6)
System Security is Inadequate – Controls to detect and prevent external or internal attacks are not adequate. (pg. 7)
Security Policies are Lacking – The lack of a comprehensive security policy for PARIS has contributed to the absence of other fundamental security controls in the system and of the processes affecting the network, database, operating system and application security. The overall organizational security culture has not set the right tone for a secure environment. (pg. 7)
The database is not secure - Lack of proper database security controls means that errant data could be input, data could be corrupted, unauthorized viewing or data extraction could occur. There have been several irregularities, including connections made to the production database by non‑production servers; vendors having continuous database access; users gaining access to the database directly through unprotected roles; and support staff having access to powerful database privileges that should be restricted to database administrators. - (pg. 8)
Risk of data leakage - There are insufficient controls to ensure that client information stored on PARIS has been safeguarded from inappropriate disclosure for the personal or financial gain of insiders or external intruders. Logs are not monitored; traffic to the database is not restricted; information extracted from the database is not tracked; default passwords have not been changed; and the database management privileges are not properly restricted. - (pg. 8)
Monitoring is not Adequate – Inadequate visibility, logging, monitoring, analysis and management of audit trails could result in external or internal attacks going undetected. Most logs are not monitored, limited information is collected, and log management capabilities are insufficient for consolidating and analyzing the logs. (pg. 9)
Access Is Not Properly Maintained – Inadequate user ID and password management practices could put the system at risk of unauthorized and undetected access. (pg. 9)
Unsecure network access - Current system settings and practices do not restrict unsecure connections to be made into sensitive systems. Physical connections in meeting rooms allow non-VCHA computers to connect to the internal network and the Internet. Unaccounted-for laptops are able to connect to the internal network, remote access servers are allowing connections to bypass perimeter defences, and Virtual Private Network (VPN) users are granted too much access within the internal network. - (pg. 9)
Inadequate Traffic Control on the internal Network – Within the internal network, there are no access control mechanisms to restrict traffic to critical servers or to reduce the spread of viruses or malicious code throughout the network. (pg. 10)
Record management practices are lacking - No classification system or retention policies are in place to effectively guide or manage the removal or archiving of client records that are no longer relevant. These records therefore remain accessible and viewable in the system indefinitely.” - (pg. 10)
Additionally, on page 20 the report states: “We found that a comprehensive security policy for PARIS does not exist. Only a few security policies are in place, and some of those have only recently been established. In all of the IT areas we assessed, we found little guidance provided to IT support staff to tell them what security controls should be implemented.”
On page 22 the report states “Both IT and application support staff have full, unmonitored access to all information”, and “Open vendor accounts exist, allowing health care data to be copied even outside the VCH at any time.”
On page 24 the report states “We found that that some users with former employment or contractual relationships with the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority are still able to access the PARIS network and its resources.
„. Processes are not always followed to remove or change a user’s access when his or her employment or contractual status changes.
„. We found that hundreds of former users, both employees and contractors, still have access to resources through active application accounts, network accounts and Virtual Private Network accounts.
„. Passwords for powerful, privileged IT support accounts have, in some cases, not been changed even though users who know the passwords have left the employment of the health authority.”
After reading this – major deficiencies in every area, 127 recommendations by the Auditor General, you really need to read VCH's response on pg. 11. I think this is symptomatic of the system – the creation of an illusion. Some quotes from Dr. David Ostrow, President and Chief Executive Officer:
“We also know that safeguarding that information is crucial — not just to comply with legislation, but to build confidence and trust in those we serve.
VCH believes that PARIS has served our community patients and clients well without any demonstrated risk to safety.
As you are aware, VCH has always placed a strong emphasis on the protection and confidentiality of patient/client information.
VCH acknowledges it cannot become complacent in the areas of security, confidentiality and protection of privacy.”
I really think this guy wants an award. There is no apology, no recognition of the damage done. Quite the opposite, he just wants to blow it off, an “oh well, no harm done” and “aren't we wonderful” attitude, as if his words still had value. Major deficiencies in every area, virtually open access to all our information but he says that “VCH has always placed a strong emphasis on the protection and confidentiality of patient/client information” A complete disconnect between words and actions, to put it politely. Really, how disgusting, how reprehensible.
As one woman, who came up to speak to me at St. Paul's, pointed out, that even if the security was made perfect today (won't happen) all our information up to today is “out there”. We don't know who has it, how it's being used, or when it will be used against us. Actually, some people I have spoken to have already run into problems.
Dr. Ostrow's kind of statements I think of as propaganda/brainwashing. If you say something often enough, no matter how far it is from the truth, people will start to believe it. It is the difference between words and actions. It is a recurring tactic in the government system.
The medical/government system has lost and does not deserve our trust. In my opinion, they have lied, manipulated and conned about the status of our personal/medical information. In fact, it appears that that our personal/medical information has never been protected, at least since they started using computers, and probably before then.
When I filed my complaint with the OIPC 6 years ago, I was told that the hospitals had never taken steps to determine if they were in compliance with the Privacy Act. So, to the best of my knowledge, this is the first audit that has been done since the Privacy Act came into effect in 1993. So, it took them 15 years to do one audit.
To add insult to injury, I still have people, who say they work at St. Paul's, tell me that the system is good. One person said that at meetings they are told to “ssh”, they aren't suppose to say certain things that are private. Presumably I am suppose to believe that our information is safe because they have a “ssh” policy (at least at meetings). This is someone who works in the system and who, therefore, must have a good idea of the lack of privacy.
As pointed out by the Auditor General, the systems will evolve to meet changing needs, and “Any computing environment has risks that must be constantly addressed and managed.” If the medical system has such a complete lack of concern on security issues now, how can we trust that, even if forced to meet minimum standards today, they will do what is required to meet future minimum security standards.. And again I reiterate, only one core database in one health authority as been audited.
“They [VCH] have told us that the most significant deficiencies identified have been fixed.” (pg. 6 – Auditor General) First of all we cannot trust the VCH to tell the truth. Have they fixed the major deficiencies? We don't really know because it has not been checked by an independent source and VCH has repeatedly lied to us about the security of the system.
The OIPC and Auditor General offers “recommendations”. They will monitor VCH over the next year to see if VCH implements the “recommendations”. Again, I assume they will rely on VCH's “word”. Will we be told if VCH doesn't implement some of the recommendations? Quite honestly I doubt it.
The rest of the medical system is presumed to be as bad or worse. Who is going to ensure that they are “fixed”.
While I commend the Auditor General on the audit, I want to point out that I take exception to a statement by the Auditor General that “security is not the main focus of the health care system”, implying that it is understandable that they made these horrendous errors. People walking or driving don't have the traffic laws as their main focus, but will be fined and even jailed if they break the laws. Most people's main focus is earning an income, not paying taxes. Yet, they will be fined and even jailed if they break the tax laws. VCH will not be fined (of course they would pay with our money anyways), no one lost their job, was disciplined or was charged. These people who have been violating our rights for years will not be punished in any way. That's how much our rights matter.
When there is no trust, it leads one to wonder if some of the information collected illegally was done so because people, who had illegal access to our information, wanted it. Are tests, not necessary to the patient's health care, being done for other purposes? Etcetera.
Also, has anyone heard from the doctors or nurses, etc. or their associations or unions? Have you heard of any of these standing up and saying this is wrong and needs to be fixed? I haven't, with the exception of a report, from the doctor's association, outlining their concern regarding the central health database, and I don't believe it addressed the essentially non-existent security in the medical system. I have had some doctors, etc. come to me and tell me that I'm wrong, that our information is safe. But I have also had doctors, etc. tell me, quietly, that I was right. One doctor told me that the loss of information from the hospitals wasn't a leak but a flood. So true. But the reality is that one person, such as myself, shouldn't have to spend 5 years, and counting, standing in the streets, bringing this to people's attention, taking all the abuse, when so many people knew the truth.
Suggestions:
Please note that I hope these suggestions are just the start of an open discussion by the people of this province on how best to make the medical system, and the protection of our information, more transparent and accountable to us (ie. all the people).
1. We need to have the medical system continually monitored
2. We need someone who is independent of the government to continually monitor the health system. PCO calls itself independent but when the privacy commissioner is appointed by the politicians and your career advancement is dependent on the politicians, you are not independent. In addition, PCO has to stick to looking at what is legal, what is allowed under legislation. We need someone who can look past that, to what should be made legal, or what legal rights should be revoked, and what other methods/systems could be used to accomplish the same purpose (ex. sharing information) that would not impact our privacy.
3. I am concerned with the frequent reference in the OIPC report that if the hospitals want to share information, just have yourself designated as a health information bank under the E-Health Act, which legally allows sharing. I think this needs to be reviewed.
4. Possibly this person(s), group(s) could be elected. I would suggest we have more than one person/group reviewing different hospitals or they could alternate health authorities so a person (group) does not become embedded. Their findings could be put on a website and/or their could hold public forums to hear people's concerns and experiences.
And for those of you who would like to accuse me of doing what I do for reasons other than “protecting my rights”, I would not be the slighest bit interested in auditing the hospitals. And my word has value.
5. We should know about any person/group who is looking into privacy issues in the health care sector, who they are, who pays them, and the scope of their mandate. They should not be allowed to hide in the shadows.
6. Information should be shown on a website and/or other means, accessible by the public, sufficient to allow the public to know who has access to their information and under what circumstances. For example, The OIPC has recommended a role-based access control system. “role-based access control (is) capable of mapping each user to one or more roles, and each role to one or more system functions.” (pg. 20). This mapping could be provided to the public.
7. The public should be told, via a website and/or other means, what information is being provided to what research organization for what research. If everything is above board, then there is no need for all the secrecy. The general topic of the research would probably be sufficient.
8. As recommended by the OIPC, people should be informed what to do to mask their personal information.
9. As recommended by the OIPC clients should receive a copy of audit logs automatically.”(pg. 42). Plus, there shouldn't be roadblocks to a patient accessing their medical information. One of the most frequent complaints I hear, when I am outside St. Paul's, is how difficult it is to get access to their own information. Interesting isn't it, when everyone else has access. I also think of this as a tactic to make it appear that the front door is locked tight so people wouldn't notice that the back door is wide open.
10. One central committee should prepare the forms for the health authorities. This would help to ensure that all forms ask legal questions, are easy to update and audit, and would save taxpayers a lot of money by reducing redundancy.
11. Efforts should be made to determine who has illegally collected our information, and have it deleted, after informing the “client”. A law should be passed which states that anyone having and using patient information, unless directly related to patient care, will be severely punished. But I don't know what you do about the information that has gone out of Canada.
The medical system has lost all right to be trusted. I now operate on the basis that if they can't prove, it isn't true.
And, in the medical system, the only safe information is that which isn't given or is false.
May 10, 2010
A lot has been happening in the last few months. For example, an audit showing the appalling lack of privacy protection of our medical information, Gordo et al wanting all our information (medical plus all our other information) in a database in the US, etc. So, there will be several new postings in the next short while, as soon as I have finished reading all the reports.
April 13, 2010
REVENUE CANADA
I am going tell you about a privacy problem with Revenue Canada. The story is true but I will use Party A and Party B to protect the privacy of the people involved. It illustrates so well the huge gap, the contradiction, between what the government (any level of government) says and what it does.
Party A received a notice from Revenue Canada stating that authorization had been given to Party B to access Party A's tax information, in accordance with the form signed by Party A. Party A immediately phoned Revenue Canada informing them that Party A had never signed any such form. Revenue Canada immediately removed Party B's authorization to access Party A's supposedly confidential information.
Party A then asked for more information, such as a copy of the form, how it was submitted (by mail or fax), etc. because this involved potential violation of privacy rights, fraud, forgery, etc. Party A was told to fax a request and given two fax numbers. A fax was sent to the first number and when a reply wasn't forthcoming, a fax was sent to the second number. Two months later Party A still had not received a reply. Despite contacting Revenue Canada several times and explaining that the situation involved a potential crime, requesting to talk to someone or be given an email to contact someone, no help was given. There was no one that Party A could talk to, or email, regarding this potential crime.
Finally, Party A sent emails to the Minister of National Revenue and the local MP (who was from a different party). No response was ever received from the Minister of National Revenue but the local MP was able to get an answer from the local Revenue Canada office.
An “investigation” was conducted, and Party A was told that Party A's identifying number had been inadvertently entered on the form but Party A's information had never been accessed. Revenue Canada obviously hoped that would be the end of it.
But Party A pointed out the list of errors, the problems in their system:
1. Party A's identifying number was entered "in error" on a consent form (or so it was claimed).
2. The information was input into Revenue Canada's system even though the other information on the form did not match the identifying number.
3. Two faxes were sent to Revenue Canada and "lost".
4. Despite the fact that this was identified as a potential CRIME, there was no one Party A could speak with. Was this an error on the operators part (because Party A spoke to several) or was this policy? If this was policy, why does Revenue Canada have a policy that a person cannot talk to someone about a potential crime
5. Revenue Canada stated that the consent form was processed at the same time that the notification letter went out. In other words, access was granted before there was time for the notification letter to reach the recipient and allow the recipient to take action. In other words, someone wanting to access another person's information has however long it takes for the notification letter to reach the recipient and have the authorization cancelled and, if the recipient is away, even longer. Is it policy to allow access at the same time the notification was sent out or was this another error?
Party A asked why the mistakes were made and what they were doing to fix the problems? Revenue Canada's response was that they were committed to providing the best possible service but refused to answer the questions. This is also the government that says that they will get tough on crime, but in fact don't even want to hear about it.
Do you see the difference between the words and the actions? Do you really think the provincial government and its agencies care, any more than the federal government, about the protection of your privacy?
January 10, 2010
HEALTH CARE IS NOT A GIFT
HEALTH CARE IS NOT A GIFT
People have said to me that we should be grateful for our health care system and not complain because other people don't have as good a health system. They speak as if this is a gift from the hospitals. It isn't. The people of this province and this country, in their wisdom, chose this system. The citizens of Canada pay for this system because they want every person who needs health care to have access to it. This health system belongs to the people. The medical system, and the people who work in the medical system, work for the people of British Columbia and Canada. If the people who fund the system want to know where their information is going, why won't the people we employ provide it?
Tracey Tyler, wrote in the Star, Jan. 14, 2009, of a court ruling in Ontario (in this case regarding the Toronto Police Services Board) that required , “municipal government institutions to produce any electronically stored information the public has a right to see, even if it requires using new technical expertise to develop new software”. So, if the police are required to provide information that the public “has a right to see”, why aren't the hospitals?
November 11, 2009
PRIVACY ACT REVIEW
The government has decided to review the Privacy Act for the 3rd time. The committee reviewing the Act is composed entirely of politicians. Needless to say, I don't have high hopes for any beneficial outcomes (for the general public).
Even if the politicians actually did make a beneficial change, what do we gain. If you don't implement the Privacy Act, it is nothing but useless writing on paper. As we have seen, the government seems to be one of the worst organizations for ignoring the Act. When I first asked questions about privacy at the hospitals, the hospitals had not brought themselves into conformity with the Act, even though the Privacy Act had been in effect for 13 years. When I made phone calls to the hospitals inquiring about the Privacy Act, the people I spoke to had no idea what I was talking about. I was asked what I meant by the Privacy Act, what was the Privacy Act, what is a Privacy officer, etc. These were front line people dealing with the public. So, if after 13 years, hospital staff had no idea what the Privacy Act was, how could they be expected to implement it, to protect our privacy.
Have you walked into a retail store, or an insurance office, etc. and been asked questions? If you ask them why they need this information, do you get a straight forward answer, as is your right under the Privacy Act. Or, do you get answers such as “the computer needs it”, “everyone asks these questions”, “I don't know so just answer it otherwise I won't sell you the product”? In most cases, you have to be very persistent to get a real answer; in some cases even that doesn't work. Most people (general public) aren't that knowledgeable regarding the Privacy Act and/or assertive. And those who are, I suspect often get tired of the fight or, like me, just try to minimize buying anything new. So, the end result is that people's privacy rights are not respected or protected because the Privacy Act is, for the most part, not enforced.
I find it ironic that the politicians will be commemorating Remembrance Day, commemorating the people who fought and died for our rights (including our right to privacy), while they make a mockery of those rights.
I continue to receive threats, some subtle and some not so subtle, while handing out information in front of St. Paul's. For example, I was told that if I came back again I would be given something to be really concerned about (I have been back since). I was told by another person that people who do what I do (peacefully exercise my democratic right to hand out information) “often go missing”. I will not be out as much during the winter months but if I am not in front of St. Paul's for any length of time -- I may have gone missing. This is our democracy.
October 8, 2009
RIGHT TO KNOW WEEK
Were you aware that the government had proclaimed September 28 to October 2 as “Right to Know Week” in BC. The government recognizes that the BC Privacy Act grants the people of BC a right of access to information in the custody or control of public bodies.
Ok, I'm back. I had to take a break. I was laughing so hard I couldn't type. I'm sure the politicians are laughing equally hard at the “Right to Know” statement and anyone who actually believes it. “Right to Know” week – what I can only consider as another hypocritical farce brought to you by the government of BC.
August 8, 2009
SECURITY GUARDS AT ST. PAUL'S
Today, as I stood outside St Paul's handing out information, I was approached by two of their security guards, two big guys, who stood in front of me and told me that I was on public property and did I have a permit. Believe me, this was not said nicely; it was said in a tone and manner that I felt to be very threatening. One guy told the other to contact ? (I didn't catch who they were phoning), as far as I knew it was the police, athough I wish they had been called. I was very confused because I knew that I didn't need a permit. I thought they mean't that I was not allowed to have my things on St. Paul's property so I moved my papers and petition off the ledge and put them on the sidewalk and said “I am on public property, now get the hell out of my face”. They did not move, they didn't explain what they were doing, just continued with their phone call and I felt as if I was about to be thrown in jail or charged with some crime although I had no idea what that would be.
A few minutes later they walked up the street and talked to someone. This person then walked towards me and told me that he had explained to the security guards that I was on public property and that I had a right to be there, and they didn't know that. It would appear that he was their supervisor, although he never introduced himself. He did have courtesy to apologize but then said “no harm done”. Well, there was harm done. When you threaten someone, when you treat them like a criminal, when you demand information you have no right to demand, especially when the person has done nothing wrong, there is harm done. And I am sure the people walking by thought I had done something wrong by the way I was being treated.
The three boys made a rapid retreat into St. Paul's.
June 10, 2009
CHANGING THE WORLD
A woman came up to me and claimed that she worked in a hospital (not St. Paul's) and said that everything was corrupt so why was I worried about the hospitals. I find it sad that someone, and I'm sure there are others, believes that everything in our society is corrupt. Have we really reached that stage? But, whether you believe that “everything” is corrupt or if you believe that just some things need to be fixed, rather than give up, is it not better to strive to change things?
She also said that I cannot change the world. I don't think I'm trying to change the world, only a very small part of it. But on the other hand, yes I can change the world by doing something positive. I can do one small thing, even if it's just raising awareness, and someone else can do one small thing and so on and change will occur.
April 12, 2009
E-HEALTH
According to BCGEU, the BC government is planning to outsource, to a US company, the operation and maintenance of the mainframe computer servers that contain all provincial documents and e-mails. Does this include your health information? Just in case it doesn't, another US company will maintain the provincial health data base.
As early as June 2009 the BC Government will implement its provincial database collection of your personal/medical information. The website www.optout.ca provides detailed information, information that should scare you.
This site will tell you that the Province has not stated who will have access (although apparently it will include the government), and whether it will be given to third parties. It does say that the Province used a US-based multi-national company which will be subject to the Patriot Act, allowing the US Government to access this database.
Will it save money? It's possible. Because I'm sure a lot of people, who need medical care, will not access the health care system because of privacy concerns.
A few excerpts from a talk given by Michael Vonn of the BC Civil Liberties Association (Database Nation and Health Privacy)-
“And just so you are clear about the scope of the access, the plan is ultimately for a Pan-Canadian e-health record system. Canada Health InfoWay -- which is an organization which receives a lot of money from the federal government, but is not “government” for the purposes of access to information laws, so is completely unaccountable to citizens – exists solely to promote centralized electronic health records, first provincially and ultimately linked so as to be accessible nation-wide.”
“....this is ultimately the thin edge of the wedge. BC’s electronic health information infrastructure is meant to anchor an integration project called the Information Access Layer, which includes the Integrated Case Management Project. This is a massive information-sharing project meant to encompass the entirety of social services in British Columbia and to link information about us from the Ministries of Employment and Income Assistance, Children and Family Development, Health, Education, Justice and the private sectors contractors for all of the above. The government has already issued an RFP, (a Request for Proposals) for this project.”
Please read this article in full, plus “So, what the heck is eHealth”, as well as the other articles. It's your health, it's your privacy, or at least it was. You can choose to do nothing and give away your rights or you can choose to try to protect those rights.
November 4, 2008
BC NURSES
According to a Vancouver Sun article, by Chad Skelton, September 17, 2008 “BC nurses are being allowed to quietly leave their jobs, even under the cloud of accusations of drug misappropriation, abuse and rank incompetence.” They have not been formally disciplined , prosecuted or fined and may apply to return to nursing. No details of their misconduct were made public. This is another example of the shroud of secrecy the medical system has around its actions. Also, if hospital staff are not being disciplined for these offences, how likely are they to be disciplined for violating a person's privacy??
However....An article in the Globe and Mail, by Catherine O'Neill, October 17, 2008, states that Alberta is putting the “often sensitive and private” personal health information online. I read that Ontario is doing the same but on a limited, trial basis. So, hospitals certainly don't mind putting your information online. How safe do you think that is??? How long before it's in BC???
October 12, 2008
PHARMACIES
A man, who said that he worked for the computer section of a hospital authority, stated that pharmacies have access to our medical records. He said that you could put a password on your record at the pharmacy so no one in the pharmacies could access your records without this password. I had heard something very similar last year from a person who I understood to be a pharmacist. He said it was the way of the future and implied that we had no say in it.
I visited a couple of pharmacies and they denied having access to our medical records. The people at the pharmacies said that they only have access to the information provided by a person to that individual pharmacy. I will continue to monitor the situation and find out if it changes.
-->
One of things I have noticed, when giving handouts, is the range of people interested in the privacy problem. The people are not only from all over BC but from other provinces and countries. People from other provinces expressed an interest in learning if their province had similar problems.
The European's discuss how the different countries protect people's privacy. Some European countries appear to have really good rules for protecting patients privacy. Many Europeans expressed disappointment that we would be having these privacy problems as they had heard that our medical system was good.
September 4, 2008
THREATS
One of the things that surprised me, when giving people my handouts in front of the Catholic hospitals, is the number of threats that I have received. I have not proposed blowing up the hospitals, I have not engaged in civil disobedience, instead I have legally exercised my democratic right to question and to inform people. Yet, I have received comments such as “Give them what they want or die”; a couple of times I was told that I am probably now in the hospitals records as a troublemaker and that I may be given a very difficult time if I go to the hospital; I have heard comments such as “I hope you never, ever have to use their services” (implying that if I do I will receive substandard or worse “care”). I have heard quite a number of variations on these threats. Will my health/life be in danger if I go to one of these hospitals? I don't know. However, I do not intend to go to a Catholic hospital again for a number of reasons, nor will I ever again step foot in a Catholic church.
What concerns me is that not only should an individual expect to receive the same care as everyone else regardless of their beliefs, politics, religion, nationality or because they stand up for what is right, there should not even be a perception that a person would receive inferior care.
Of course, money will continue to be taken from my pocket to pay the wages of the hospital administrators and staff and otherwise support these hospitals.
I won't describe the other abuses that have been heaped on me. But it is telling that these people support the medical/catholic system as is. I have obviously hit on a very, very sensitive nerve. I can only wonder why this topic is considered so sacrosanct that these people would do the things they do and say the things they say.
The other side of the coin are the people who have offered their support because they are concerned, even fearful, about who is receiving their personal information. And they agree that we have the right to know.
September 3, 2008
CRIME
I have had a few people say to me that I shouldn't be concerned with whom the hospital shares our information. After all, anyone can get all your personal information off the internet. Well, it appears this is not true. If it were, there would be no need to use methods such as buying the information from employees, as noted in the article below.
National Post, August 23, 2008, pg. A6 [bolding is mine]
Personal and financial information is becoming just as attractive as cocaine and marijuana to Canada's organized crime groups.
The problem of identity theft and fraud has become such a concern to police who investigate organized crime that it is the main focus of Criminal Intelligence Service Canada's annual report.
“As we move more and more to the Internet and the technology being used, the risks are increasing. A lot of the public are not very careful about their identity,” said Commissioner Elliott....
Inspector Roberty Chartrand of the Montreal police said investigators are noticing an increase of cases in which employees of companies and institutions are being tempted by the lure of easy money and selling large quantities of personal and financial information.
“We've noticed over the past year that there are a lot of people involved in different companies who give information from the inside to organized crime members. It's not necessarily on the street [level]. It's more like companies, government, it's almost everywhere,” said Insp. Chartrand, who is also head of Quebec's criminal intelligence bureau.
“It's a pretty new phenomenon for us. It's a nationwide problem.”e people are not very careful about their identity. But a large part of the problem are the companies/organizations, such as hospitals, who demand information they do not need and who refuse you service if you do not provide it. Obviously, the more companies/organizations that have your personal information, whether you give it to them directly or it is given by companies/organizations such as hospitals, the greater the risk.
This is why we need to know with whom our information is being shared, how much is being shared and the circumstances. We need to monitor that our information is being shared appropriately and that the appropriate safeguards are in place.