Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox 8 Cleveland)   Supreme Court rules that the Federal government can tell the world about your HIV status if it wants to   (fox8.com) divider line 77
    More: Asinine, supreme courts, HIV, HIV test, supreme court ruling, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, federal government, Privacy Act, federal benefits  
•       •       •

10621 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Mar 2012 at 4:27 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



77 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-03-28 04:02:18 PM  
No, what they said is that Congress has to specify the types of damages allowed when they abrogate sovereign immunity. Congress only allowed for economic damages under this law.
 
2012-03-28 04:20:45 PM  

ArkAngel: No, what they said is that Congress has to specify the types of damages allowed when they abrogate sovereign immunity. Congress only allowed for economic damages under this law.


If there's one type of reporting that is, routinely, worse than Science reporting, it's reporting about the SCOTUS.
 
2012-03-28 04:24:33 PM  

ArkAngel: No, what they said is that Congress has to specify the types of damages allowed when they abrogate sovereign immunity. Congress only allowed for economic damages under this law.


i2.photobucket.com

Looks like you nailed the issue very succinctly. The Federal Government only gets sued when it decides it wants to be sued, and for what. If Congress doesn't provide for a specific form of relief, you won't get it.
 
2012-03-28 04:31:25 PM  
Are they positive?
 
2012-03-28 04:31:50 PM  
In B4 shiatstorm.
 
2012-03-28 04:32:46 PM  
The better question is why is the federal government being allowed to be immune from lawsuits everybody else would be subjected to.
 
2012-03-28 04:33:53 PM  

Berkez: Are they positive?


images2.fanpop.com

Only fools are positive.
 
2012-03-28 04:34:35 PM  
The federal government didn't do anything wrong. Just ask the federal government.
 
2012-03-28 04:36:37 PM  
FTA: government can collect and share information in the digital age makes the issue of personal privacy liability ripe for review

Getting info from the government? Meh, you'd gather much more via Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and Google-fu.

/Y'all know you're constantly broadcasting your mobile MAC addresses, right?
//Just sayin'
 
2012-03-28 04:36:40 PM  

Warlordtrooper: The better question is why is the federal government being allowed to be immune from lawsuits everybody else would be subjected to.


Probably because they mess up enough that a few big lawsuits would rather hurt the taxpayers. If they weren't immune you'd see some big hits and next thing you know, a bunch of people would be very rich due to these payouts. 1 percent of Americans would end up controlling a large share of the countries wealth.

I'm not so sure anymore but isn't congress free from drug testing and lie detector test (as opposed to other fed jobs)?
 
2012-03-28 04:37:50 PM  

TheManofPA: Warlordtrooper: The better question is why is the federal government being allowed to be immune from lawsuits everybody else would be subjected to.

Probably because they mess up enough that a few big lawsuits would rather hurt the taxpayers. If they weren't immune you'd see some big hits and next thing you know, a bunch of people would be very rich due to these payouts. 1 percent of Americans would end up controlling a large share of the countries country's wealth.

I'm not so sure anymore but isn't congress free from drug testing and lie detector test (as opposed to other fed jobs)?


Damn English Language and it's tomfoolery

/movin' right along
 
2012-03-28 04:38:31 PM  
HIV positive?? or just a good singer.

drugfreehealthsecrets.com
 
2012-03-28 04:38:55 PM  
cdn.fd.uproxx.com

"HEY YO MONICA! YO MONICA, YOU GOT AIDS, YO."

/better not be obscure
//RIP Greg
 
2012-03-28 04:39:09 PM  
I'm accused by some of being the libbiest liberal to every lib liberalism (which is odd, as I am fairly center right), but I'm completely fine with this ruling.

Next time don't lie on your application, dumb ass. They would have listed your name and the reason regardless. It wasn't to shame you because you had aids.
 
2012-03-28 04:43:41 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Next time don't lie on your application, dumb ass.


This had nothing to do with his lying on his application. Two completely separate issues.

The headline and the article seem to be completely at odds as well.
 
2012-03-28 04:46:04 PM  

Berkez: Are they positive?


HIV positive.
 
2012-03-28 04:47:22 PM  

downpaymentblues: Satanic_Hamster: Next time don't lie on your application, dumb ass.

This had nothing to do with his lying on his application. Two completely separate issues.

The headline and the article seem to be completely at odds as well.


downpaymentblues: Satanic_Hamster: Next time don't lie on your application, dumb ass.

This had nothing to do with his lying on his application. Two completely separate issues.

The headline and the article seem to be completely at odds as well.


I find it strange that you claim to have read the article.
 
2012-03-28 04:47:24 PM  
I thought it was just the issue that he didn't really show any damages.

violating your trust is bad, and the agencies involved are in the wrong, but you have to make a better case that there was damage.

Heck, Plame has a better case. Their family was affected materially.
 
2012-03-28 04:48:53 PM  

Warlordtrooper: The better question is why is the federal government being allowed to be immune from lawsuits everybody else would be subjected to.


Duh, it's because the government never does anything wrong, so there is never a good reason to bring a lawsuit against them. Why do you think we all want to put them in charge of our health-care? Accountability is only required for the fallible fools in the private sector.
 
2012-03-28 04:49:15 PM  
So it's OK to use that database I've been sitting on for years and tell the world the SSNs of a goodly number of Federal court judges? Sweet.
 
2012-03-28 04:49:43 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: They would have listed your name and the reason regardless.


Actually, according to the Privacy Act, they shouldn't have:
A federal judge found both the FAA and the Social Security Administration violated the Privacy Act with the information-sharing probe, but said under the law, only "actual damages" could be collected by plaintiffs seeking redress.
 
2012-03-28 04:51:08 PM  

ArkAngel: No, what they said is that Congress has to specify the types of damages allowed when they abrogate sovereign immunity. Congress only allowed for economic damages under this law.


Done in one. Subby misunderstood the article, article itself covers the issue nicely.
 
2012-03-28 04:51:10 PM  

Warlordtrooper: The better question is why is the federal government being allowed to be immune from lawsuits everybody else would be subjected to.


Punishing the government through economic sanctions doesn't change behavior because the bureaucrats and politicians who engaged in the malfeasance aren't the ones getting punished. Instead, it's the people as a whole (because it's their tax money that's disappearing).
 
2012-03-28 04:52:38 PM  

Nabb1: Looks like you nailed the issue very succinctly. The Federal Government only gets sued when it decides it wants to be sued, and for what. If Congress doesn't provide for a specific form of relief, you won't get it.


Well, if they'd rather have citizens petition for redress of grievances using firearms rather than lawsuits, I'm OK with that.
 
2012-03-28 04:53:14 PM  

AndreMA: So it's OK to use that database I've been sitting on for years and tell the world the SSNs of a goodly number of Federal court judges? Sweet.


DELETE FROM ILLEGAL_DATABASE;

OOH IM SORRY, SHOULD HAVE USED A SPREADSHEET INSTEAD.
 
2012-03-28 04:53:17 PM  

Theaetetus: Satanic_Hamster: They would have listed your name and the reason regardless.

Actually, according to the Privacy Act, they shouldn't have:
A federal judge found both the FAA and the Social Security Administration violated the Privacy Act with the information-sharing probe, but said under the law, only "actual damages" could be collected by plaintiffs seeking redress.


Yep. Both agencies broke the law, but because no "actual damages" occurred as a result of the violation, there's nothing on which to collect. Some debate occurred regarding the definition of "actual damages," but there isn't enough leeway in this case to justify the apparently ridiculous sums being requested by the lying ex-pilot plaintiff.
 
2012-03-28 04:54:17 PM  

Theaetetus: Satanic_Hamster: They would have listed your name and the reason regardless.

Actually, according to the Privacy Act, they shouldn't have:
A federal judge found both the FAA and the Social Security Administration violated the Privacy Act with the information-sharing probe, but said under the law, only "actual damages" could be collected by plaintiffs seeking redress.


Yes, I know. But what I'm saying is: If you lie on a document, don't be surprised if the actual lie becomes part of the court documents / publications about your conviction for the lie.

It's not like the government said "let's find some people with aids and tell the world about them."
 
2012-03-28 04:54:20 PM  

downpaymentblues: Satanic_Hamster: Next time don't lie on your application, dumb ass.

This had nothing to do with his lying on his application. Two completely separate issues.

The headline and the article seem to be completely at odds as well.


They covered the entire issue in one sentence, I paraphrase "...when his medical record became a matter of public record." The end. There's a number of issues here, but that's the one the headlines about.

This is one of those... "tough for you" type of things that the government is unlikely to bend on. And before there's a lot of whining, that's the default - sovereign immunity, not the exception. It's been waived in many situations, but still not the majority. The state you live in still retains most of it's sovereign immunity as well.

/just sayin
 
2012-03-28 04:54:23 PM  

AndreMA: Nabb1: Looks like you nailed the issue very succinctly. The Federal Government only gets sued when it decides it wants to be sued, and for what. If Congress doesn't provide for a specific form of relief, you won't get it.

Well, if they'd rather have citizens petition for redress of grievances using firearms rather than lawsuits, I'm OK with that.


I love the smell of ITG in the afternoon. I keep hearing Deadpool muttering "Oooh, he veiled a threat at me!"
 
2012-03-28 04:55:04 PM  
Let me join the list of otherwise socially liberal people who think that the relevant health authorities, prospective employers (where it's relevant) and prospective sexual partners (duh) have a right to know whether you know you have an STI. It's embarassing, I know, but the long game is people just like yourself being able to live their loves without worrying about HIV/AIDS, etc.
 
2012-03-28 04:59:06 PM  
ambiguous legal language is perfect for those in power. they can pick and choose when and what they want it to mean.
 
2012-03-28 05:00:25 PM  

Jon iz teh kewl: AndreMA: So it's OK to use that database I've been sitting on for years and tell the world the SSNs of a goodly number of Federal court judges? Sweet.

DELETE FROM ILLEGAL_DATABASE;

OOH IM SORRY, SHOULD HAVE USED A SPREADSHEET INSTEAD.


It's actually microfiche. Silver halide original, not diazo duplicate. Stored in a safe place, many miles from me.
 
2012-03-28 05:04:12 PM  

AndreMA: Jon iz teh kewl: AndreMA: So it's OK to use that database I've been sitting on for years and tell the world the SSNs of a goodly number of Federal court judges? Sweet.
DELETE FROM ILLEGAL_DATABASE;
OOH IM SORRY, SHOULD HAVE USED A SPREADSHEET INSTEAD.
It's actually microfiche. Silver halide original, not diazo duplicate. Stored in a safe place, many miles from me.


Like, near the WOPR?
 
2012-03-28 05:05:05 PM  
I work for the feds, and I can tell you we get sued a LOT. And the default is serious attempts to protect personal information in my office, not to give it away to any other component unless it has been vetted many times over.

That said, I agree with this ruling. It was information pertinent to a job application, during which he consented to background checks, etc. And there were no economic damages.
 
2012-03-28 05:05:23 PM  

FormlessOne: AndreMA: Nabb1: Looks like you nailed the issue very succinctly. The Federal Government only gets sued when it decides it wants to be sued, and for what. If Congress doesn't provide for a specific form of relief, you won't get it.

Well, if they'd rather have citizens petition for redress of grievances using firearms rather than lawsuits, I'm OK with that.

I love the smell of ITG in the afternoon. I keep hearing Deadpool muttering "Oooh, he veiled a threat at me!"


Reading comprehension much? I wasn't making any threats, veiled or otherwise. Just observing that if you deny people a means of correcting perceived wrongs through the legal system, you invite them to use other means. And if they do, I'm disinterested.
 
2012-03-28 05:07:02 PM  
SomethingToDo: Let me join the list of otherwise socially liberal people who think that the relevant health authorities, prospective employers (where it's relevant) and prospective sexual partners (duh) have a right to know whether you know you have an STI. It's embarassing, I know, but the long game is people just like yourself being able to live their loves without worrying about HIV/AIDS, etc.

Pretty much this
 
2012-03-28 05:08:01 PM  
So he wants to be rewarded for intentionally lying?

awesome.
 
MrT
2012-03-28 05:08:23 PM  

meanmutton: Punishing the government through economic sanctions doesn't change behavior because the bureaucrats and politicians who engaged in the malfeasance aren't the ones getting punished. Instead, it's the people as a whole (because it's their tax money that's disappearing).


Lawsuits are not generally intended to punish behavior, they are intended to provide redress to people who have suffered damages. Criminal law exists to punish malfeasance.
 
2012-03-28 05:09:58 PM  

ArkAngel: Berkez: Are they positive?

[images2.fanpop.com image 355x265]

Only fools are positive.


2.bp.blogspot.com

Are you sure?
 
2012-03-28 05:11:03 PM  
T

AndreMA: Jon iz teh kewl: AndreMA: So it's OK to use that database I've been sitting on for years and tell the world the SSNs of a goodly number of Federal court judges? Sweet.

DELETE FROM ILLEGAL_DATABASE;

OOH IM SORRY, SHOULD HAVE USED A SPREADSHEET INSTEAD.

It's actually microfiche. Silver halide original, not diazo duplicate. Stored in a safe place, many miles from me.


don't be afraid. it's just me.
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-03-28 05:12:34 PM  

downpaymentblues: Satanic_Hamster: Next time don't lie on your application, dumb ass.

This had nothing to do with his lying on his application. Two completely separate issues.

The headline and the article seem to be completely at odds as well.


His lying on the medical application is what started it all. When you get a new physical, what you put down gets cross referenced with what you previously reported as well as any other info the FAA has, like say, you lost your medical because of complications/medications from having HIV. If you don't answer 'Previously reported, no change', it raises red flags. In this case, that red flag spurred everything else that happened. Had he not lied, no red flag, and everything is peachy.
 
2012-03-28 05:14:20 PM  
don't ask, don't tell...
 
2012-03-28 05:22:25 PM  
Cooper became a licensed recreational pilot in 1964, but two decades later, the San Francisco man was diagnosed with the HIV virus.


The HIV virus? Did he get the news from the ATM machine? Did he use his PIN number? Is it the same as his VIN number?
 
2012-03-28 05:23:12 PM  
He used his HIV number which inextricably is guided by his propsal to marry his mother.
 
2012-03-28 05:24:03 PM  
I want to know why it is that pilots are required to disclose HIV infection in the first place....

if they have AIDS symptoms which impact their concentration, endurance, etc. that is one thing, but HIV+ status should have no bearing on one's ability to operate an aircraft.

unless there is a secret FAA requirement on the takeoff procedures Step 0: Bugger your copilot
 
2012-03-28 05:25:42 PM  

Whiskey Priest: ArkAngel: Berkez: Are they positive?

[images2.fanpop.com image 355x265]

Only fools are positive.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 320x320]

Are you sure?


I'm positive.

farm8.staticflickr.com

I fell for it! I should have known.
 
2012-03-28 05:26:47 PM  
Lehk: I want to know why it is that pilots are required to disclose HIV infection in the first place....

if they have AIDS symptoms which impact their concentration, endurance, etc. that is one thing, but HIV+ status should have no bearing on one's ability to operate an aircraft.

unless there is a secret FAA requirement on the takeoff procedures Step 0: Bugger your copilot


Why do you think its called the cock pit
 
2012-03-28 05:28:05 PM  

Oldiron_79: Lehk: I want to know why it is that pilots are required to disclose HIV infection in the first place....

if they have AIDS symptoms which impact their concentration, endurance, etc. that is one thing, but HIV+ status should have no bearing on one's ability to operate an aircraft.

unless there is a secret FAA requirement on the takeoff procedures Step 0: Bugger your copilot

Why do you think its called the cock pit


And not a penis pit?

Probably cause of FAA grammer regulations.
 
2012-03-28 05:32:43 PM  
Personally, I'm okay with that, subster.
 
2012-03-28 05:35:41 PM  
The critical issue, which they don't even address, is whether he's a butt pirate or if he got HIV in some other way.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that a pilot from San Francisco...

Oh, never mind...
 
Displayed 50 of 77 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report