Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Disabled Woman Denied Entrance To US Due To Private Medical Records

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the no-trip-for-you dept.

United States 784

Jah-Wren Ryel writes "In 2012, Canadian Ellen Richardson was hospitalized for clinical depression. This past Monday she tried to board a plane to New York for a $6,000 Caribbean cruise. DHS denied her entry, citing supposedly private medical records listing her hospitalization. From the story: '“I was turned away, I was told, because I had a hospitalization in the summer of 2012 for clinical depression,’’ said Richardson, who is a paraplegic and set up her cruise in collaboration with a March of Dimes group of about 12 others.'"

cancel ×

784 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

at least (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45553245)

they got rid of that bulldyke looking bitch that was running DHS before .. was anyone else feeling uneasy about a bulldyke running the security of the united states?

Not at all. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45553307)

No carpet was left unswept in the search for terrah.

USA,..... (4, Insightful)

andy_spoo (2653245) | about a year ago | (#45553329)

USA, a country full of control freaks and paranoia.

Dude, you're way off base. (5, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year ago | (#45553557)

That creature was no bull dyke.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not a fan of bull dykes, at all. I've no use for them, and they have no use for me. But, a bull dyke is a woman, after all, and human.

That creature you refer to, who was running DHS, is a full fledged fascist pig, with an agenda of her own. She has no love for the United States, or any segment of the country's demographics.

As little as might like bull dykes, I would have preferred that there actually WAS a militant lesbian bull running DHS.

While... (5, Insightful)

Dj Stingray (178766) | about a year ago | (#45553249)

..literally hundreds of others crossed the border illegally. USA USA USA!

Re:While... (5, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year ago | (#45553313)

They can walk, and they can work cheaply.

very understandable (5, Funny)

bob_super (3391281) | about a year ago | (#45553259)

We don't want no evil Canadian paraplegic terrorist to assault our defenseless citizens with kind words.

Re:very understandable (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45553305)

The article conveniently left out that that the March of Dimes makes no commitments to organizing non-violent marches. It's clearly a radical, dangerous group.

Re:very understandable (5, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about a year ago | (#45553339)

We don't want no evil Canadian paraplegic terrorist to assault our defenseless citizens with kind words.

Irrational fear is the new patriotism.

Re:very understandable (5, Insightful)

pablo_max (626328) | about a year ago | (#45553407)

Irrational fear is the new patriotism.

No, it is not new. Irrational fear has ALWAYS been the keystone to American "patriotism". Hell, just look at the whole McCarthyism thing.

Re:very understandable (5, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | about a year ago | (#45553605)

irrational fear has been the keystone to all patriotism

nothing american about a human phenomenon

Re:very understandable (4, Informative)

Etherwalk (681268) | about a year ago | (#45553373)

We don't want no evil Canadian paraplegic terrorist to assault our defenseless citizens with kind words.

Meh. Canadian medical privacy is kind of ridiculously done--they put diagnosis (rather than just prescription) on the slips they give the pharmacist, which means for most of small-town Canada, there is near-zero medical privacy. (These are places where the post office knows everyone by name.)

Re:very understandable (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45553455)

The pharmacist still has to keep it private, even in a town of 10.

Re:very understandable (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45553551)

That's wishful thinking at its finest. I suppose you have never lived in a village.

Re:very understandable (3, Insightful)

Antonovich (1354565) | about a year ago | (#45553565)

And having another medical professional (also under medical secrecy), particularly one that has fairly intimate knowledge of the patient's consumption of medicines, is a bad thing? And of course it makes a massive difference whether it says "depression" or "Prozac" on the script... Because no one knows what any medicines are used for treating. No where is perfect but Canada's medical system is far from the worst if I understand anything about it.

Re:very understandable (2, Informative)

El Puerco Loco (31491) | about a year ago | (#45553389)

All the recent mass murders in the U.S. have got the right wing blogosphere screaming for a crackdown on the mentally ill.

Re:very understandable (3, Informative)

emt377 (610337) | about a year ago | (#45553471)

I think you got it backwards; it's the right wing which associates what it considers vague wu-wu diagnoses of mental illness a way for a potentially tyrannical government to deny them rights. Like the right to bear arms. It's generally liberals and lefties who want to limit such rights, and if they can't get enough traction to limit them for everyone they'll settle for what they might consider a dangerous subset. The former is clearly a more theoretical concern as we don't have a tyrannical government (in fact it's pretty damn benign, obsessed with rule of law, not dictatorial), while I think the latter is a bit naive. Clearly once made law to be enforced it will include some number of people not originally envisioned. And I think this is more what we're seeing here, so I don't think we can really blame the right wing on this one.

Re:very understandable (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45553559)

the US governement is obsessed with rule of law ? are you kitting me !?!
your president has killed several of your countrymen with drones and without even so much as a trial, rule of law is long gone in the US

You're correct, mostly (2, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year ago | (#45553587)

There actually is valid reason to assess people's mental capacity and mental state though. A lot of the centrists and right wingers are agreeing that maybe it would make sense to keep crazy people from acquiring weapons.

The problem is though, as you hint, that left wingers are going to define "crazy". Already we see children being taken into custody for the act of play acting in schools.

Bite a pop-tart into the shape of a gun, and school officials call in the cops. Imagine that. Point a finger and say "POW", and you're marked for life as a crazy person prone to violence.

I suppose that some liberal will read your post, and mine, and be begging for the opportunity to drag us onto an analyst's couch.

Re:You're correct, mostly (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45553695)

I wish you would all take your partisan crap and shovel it down your own throats... oh wait, I forgot you enjoy eating shit. YOU (and the parent) are what's wrong with this country. You're busy pointing the finger at one "side" or the other, ignoring the fact that they're the same damn thing when you really boil it down. Both of them are out to screw you, they just take turns. Good cop, bad cop.

Re:very understandable (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about a year ago | (#45553553)

Yeah, but this woman is a spacker.

Re:very understandable (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45553601)

Oh behalf of a all Canadians...

Sorry.

How could it Possible? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45553265)

Wow, I tough American Government only against the Mexican regarding the border issues, I guess the Canadian should aware too.

Http://droidflow.com

she should have just come in undocumentedly... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45553271)

hell, Obama might have even given her citizenship!

Statue of passing judgement (4, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a year ago | (#45553281)

Give me your tired^whealthy, your poor^wrich/Your huddled masses^wvisa-workers yearning to breathe free^w"managed"

Only a few more words to go people; you can do it!

Re:Statue of passing judgement (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45553355)

Give me your tired^whealthy, your poor^wrich/Your huddled masses^wvisa-workers yearning to breathe free^w"managed"

Only a few more words to go people; you can do it!

Well, it seems popular to hate on the EPA lately, so "breathe" may be next.

D for douchebag? (5, Insightful)

Misagon (1135) | about a year ago | (#45553285)

Does the D in DHS stand for douchebag?

Re:D for douchebag? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45553571)

Does the D in DHS stand for douchebag?

No:
D= CUNT
H= CUNT
S= CUNT

Collusion (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45553287)

How did they get her Canadian medical records? Canada's hospitals are run by government... did the government really hand over all of Canadians' private medical records to a foreign country?

What scum.

Re:Collusion (3, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year ago | (#45553303)

As far as I can tell, the only part we have of this story if from the woman herself, who is apparently delusional (at least, has had problems with that in the past). For all we know, they found out because she told them (they apparently didn't know about her suicide attempt; again, I'm going based on my understanding of the article).

It's the kind of situation where you want to hear all the evidence before passing judgement. We don't have it all here.

Although I don't really understand why they want to keep depressed people out, it's just a tourist visa, not even a long term thing.

Re:Collusion (5, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about a year ago | (#45553375)

Although I don't really understand why they want to keep depressed people out, it's just a tourist visa, not even a long term thing.

Bruce Schneier calls it "the war on the unusual" - I like "the war on diginity" because it better encompasses the kafka-esque nature of the unthinking and unyielding bureaucracy that produces this sort of result.

Re:Collusion (2)

emt377 (610337) | about a year ago | (#45553513)

I like "the war on diginity" because it better encompasses the kafka-esque nature of the unthinking and unyielding bureaucracy that produces this sort of result.

Yes, but it's probably better than the alternative - a thinking, opinionated bureaucracy. That's just one step shy of fascism, because once it can make decisions individuals will be empowered, and they will soon structure around the exercise of power. A bureaucracy permitted to think is prone to fascism and corruption.

The US just spies on everything (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45553625)

The point is that the NSA knows about everyones personal medical records. And they abuse that information.

Umm, what? (5, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#45553289)

It's not exactly a surprise at this point that the only thing keeping the DHS from telling you where you left your keys this morning is the fact that they are unhelpful assholes, not the fact that they don't know; but why would the DHS consider a depressed Canadian (whose itinerary, and thus the fact that she'd be on a boat for most of her time here, were presumably also known to them) an entry problem? Tourists, while occasionally irksome, are basically pure profit, and it's not like she's going to be sponging off our kick-ass public health system, or stealing our jobs from her wheelchair.

Is there some catch-all 'medical refusal' category left over from the good old days of TB screenings at Ellis Island that somebody felt like powertripping on? What sort of insane logic is at work here?

Re:Umm, what? (1, Flamebait)

emt377 (610337) | about a year ago | (#45553395)

What sort of insane logic is at work here?

The U.S. is a country ruled by law, and the federal government is an anal-retentive regulatory machine. There is probably a rule somewhere that says entry is to be denied for the mentally ill, and that depression is a mental illness. It's not up to whoever stamps passports at entry to decide or make personal judgements - if the rules say the person can't enter, then they can't enter. This is no different than any other rules applied - be it corporate accounting, environmental protection, labor laws, etc; it doesn't matter how ridiculous it may seem on the ground, the rules will be enforced.

This is exactly why it's the only government in the world I'd trust to obey the law. It's also exactly why it's incapable of even building modest insurance retail site for less than half a billion dollars - because its regulatory system isn't compatible with the need of reality.

Once something is made law it's no longer in the domain of common sense and judgement. Laws are binary; either you're in compliance or you're not.

Re:Umm, what? (-1)

weilawei (897823) | about a year ago | (#45553475)

Found the shill! Do I get a prize?

Re:Umm, what? (4, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | about a year ago | (#45553623)

he's explaining a shitty reality, not condoning it

ever hear of the phrase "shooting the messenger"?

Re:Umm, what? (1)

weilawei (897823) | about a year ago | (#45553667)

A shitty reality? You're suggesting that the US government is strictly ruled by law, and THAT's its problem? I think you must have missed all the NSA leaks as of late.

Re:Umm, what? (0)

weilawei (897823) | about a year ago | (#45553673)

Man, I can't believe I replied to obvious troll. It's circletimessquare.... my bad for feeding the trolls.

Re:Umm, what? (4, Interesting)

rioki (1328185) | about a year ago | (#45553537)

That is why any sane legal system allows some leeway to the decision makers. In many jurisdictions a judge has a wide range of sentencing room, like from 1 to 5 years in prison. He can than look at the specific case at hand and precedents and decide appropriately. Recently all those "zero tolerance" laws are producing absurd situations, for example where a 10 year old boy is expelled from school because he brought a toy gun or knife. (I need to look that article up some time again.) The problem is not the law as intended, it is that the added zero tolerance addition. This makes the administrative staff liable when no action is taken. This creates the stupid situation where people get prosecuted even when the situation runs totally against the intent of the law.

Re:Umm, what? (4, Insightful)

Idimmu Xul (204345) | about a year ago | (#45553609)

This is exactly why it's the only government in the world I'd trust to obey the law.

best troll ever?

Re:Umm, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45553635)

The U.S. is a country ruled by law,

Lol. Kill yourself you fucking retard. Idiots like you are too dangerous to be allowed to live anymore.

Meanwhile (3)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year ago | (#45553645)

Our southern border remains as porous as sandstone. No one knows, or cares, how many people are infiltrating on the southern border. No one cares what their mental state might be, no one gives the slightest thought to their loyalties, or their purposes for crossing the border.

But, we must prevent some Canadian from entering the United States who just might possibly could do harm to herself!

Re:Umm, what? (2)

NoKaOi (1415755) | about a year ago | (#45553661)

but why would the DHS consider a depressed Canadian (whose itinerary, and thus the fact that she'd be on a boat for most of her time here, were presumably also known to them) an entry problem?

False positives. Some dumb algorithm that was designed by committee red flagged something, and any lower-level human in the [TSA|FBI|DHS|ICE|CIA] doesn't want to be the one to push it up the food chain to get overridden because their primary job responsibility is to keep their head down to avoid getting in trouble.

interesting though stupid comment (5, Insightful)

khallow (566160) | about a year ago | (#45553301)

From the comments, there's this gem by a "jaiab":

The US can deny anyone entry into their country for any reason or no reason.

While I think we all agree that flying like many activities is something of a privilege. But at the same time, who really thinks it's a good idea to let some preening, unaccountable bureaucrat decide whether or not you should be granted that privilege with no justification needed?

While the commenter goes on to note that US Customs and Border Protection should not have had access to that medical information (with the poster claiming that is the only "deeper issue" at stake), it's interesting how many issues this one incident bring up.

In addition, we have regulations that can block someone from flying on dubious medical grounds. And that US Customs and Border Protection has the authority to block people from merely flying through the US on their way to other foreign locations.

It's like someone knocked a whole crate of worms off the locking dock.

Re:interesting though stupid comment (1)

mysidia (191772) | about a year ago | (#45553393)

While I think we all agree that flying like many activities is something of a privilege. But at the same time, who really thinks it's a good idea to let some preening, unaccountable bureaucrat decide whether or not you should be granted that privilege with no justification needed?

They shouldn't, but someone should have the power to exercise the "for no reason or any reason" bit.

The "not allowed to enter" on medical grounds; can come in handy, if the disease is communicable, highly contagious, highly deadly, and likely to become a pandemic.

Re:interesting though stupid comment (1)

khallow (566160) | about a year ago | (#45553453)

They shouldn't, but someone should have the power to exercise the "for no reason or any reason" bit.

Yes, the passenger flying. Nobody else should.

The "not allowed to enter" on medical grounds; can come in handy, if the disease is communicable, highly contagious, highly deadly, and likely to become a pandemic.

Since when has mental depression met those conditions?

Re:interesting though stupid comment (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45553515)

>> The "not allowed to enter" on medical grounds; can come in handy, if the disease is communicable, highly contagious, highly deadly, and likely to become a pandemic.

> Since when has mental depression met those conditions?

Depends. When was Fox News founded?

Re:interesting though stupid comment (1)

emt377 (610337) | about a year ago | (#45553531)

They shouldn't, but someone should have the power to exercise the "for no reason or any reason" bit.

This would violate constitutional requirements of equality before the law. If the law applies to me it applies to you, too. It's not someone's judgement call that it should be applied to me but not you.

Not due to private medical records (5, Informative)

Arduenn (2908841) | about a year ago | (#45553309)

Due to her medical condition being advertised all over the internet: https://www.tatepublishing.com/bookstore/book.php?w=978-1-60604-911-2 [tatepublishing.com]

Re:Not due to private medical records (5, Informative)

Cochonou (576531) | about a year ago | (#45553335)

This book is from 2009. Unless it was very foreshadowing, it is hard to think that it can refer to events that happened in 2012.

Re:Not due to private medical records (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45553359)

Of course it doesn't refer to events that happened in 2012. It refers to events that happened to the author, who is the person in TFA, before 2009. Her medical condition is public knowledge, because it's in a book that she wrote.

Re:Not due to private medical records (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45553433)

If you check the article, you'll see that the DHS agent who rejected her specifically cited the medical incident from 2012.

Re:Not due to private medical records (5, Interesting)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about a year ago | (#45553349)

Not due to private medical records, due to her medical condition being advertised all over the internet

There have been at least 12 others with similar experiences at the border. [www.cbc.ca] I think it is unlikely that they've all written books about their circumstances.

Re:Not due to private medical records (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45553411)

If you tell the world of your scucidal tendencies online, don't expect us to welcome you with open arms into our planes. You might want to die, but we don't. DHS did the right thing, their job is to protect Americans, she can fly throug another country to her final destination, we won't miss her fair.

Re:Not due to private medical records (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about a year ago | (#45553441)

Right, and the page you linked to refers to Canadian Police records that are shared with the US that contain information on police incidents involving suicide attempts and other issues and states clearly that Canada is not sharing medical records with the US.

So it appears there is good reason to believe that US Immigration officials are not accessing Canadian Medical Records but are rather basing there entry denial on public records of attempted suicides etc.

Since it's in US Law that people with this history need to be cleared by an agent of the US I really think the border agents are just doing their job here.

Not whether or not you believe the US should be screening based on this sort of thing is another question. But there could be a case made for it.

Re:Not due to private medical records (1)

khallow (566160) | about a year ago | (#45553473)

Right, and the page you linked to refers to Canadian Police records that are shared with the US that contain information on police incidents involving suicide attempts and other issues and states clearly that Canada is not sharing medical records with the US.

If that were the case, then there would be no medical reason for the US to block these passengers from entering the US. A suicide attempt, for example, is not in itself indicative of a medical problem, much less one that would block a passenger from boarding a plane. Also, once you start interpreting police records as medical records, you have just created medical records.

Not whether or not you believe the US should be screening based on this sort of thing is another question. But there could be a case made for it.

Everything is arguable. If you're allowing things on the basis of whether one can make a case for it or not, then anything goes as long as you have the power to make it happen.

Re:Not due to private medical records (5, Interesting)

qbast (1265706) | about a year ago | (#45553525)

Interesting theory, but TFA says: "A personal relationship breakup in 2012 caused her clinical depression and hospitalization (there was no police involvement)." So in other words they could not have known about hospitalization in 2012 (which was specifically cited as reason for denial) from police reports. The book mentioned in comments also was published several years earlier, so it could not be source of information either. It leaves either Canadians voluntarily sharing confidential medical record with US (which makes health minister lying scum) or NSA obtained illegal access and is sharing with other agencies.

Re:Not due to private medical records (1)

Zemran (3101) | about a year ago | (#45553383)

Apart from the obvious mistake regarding the book being written prior to the medical condition in question, are you honestly suggesting that the DHS can read?

Re:Not due to private medical records (1)

Scott Ragen (3378093) | about a year ago | (#45553437)

Are you saying someone should be denied entry into a country for a holiday because they attempted suicide?

OMG, you might have to ship their body home!!

WE HAVE ENOUGH ILLEGAL CANDADIANS ALREADY !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45553311)

We don't need no more !! Go back to your socialist country and stay the hell out of America !!

That's quite impressive access (5, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | about a year ago | (#45553317)

That is absolutely amazing. (Not in any good way) TSA/ICE people literally have access to this stuff. It amazes me in an utterly horrifying way. That it's more international data sharing at this level should be cause for all manner of scrutiny and corrective action.

I'm sure Canadians and others are just about done with the US and what the government is up to.

Re:That's quite impressive access (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45553387)

You're done with us? ohnos... we're shaking in our boots. Don't like it, don't fly through our nation, and if you don't like it here, get the fuck out of our country, we won't miss you.

Re:That's quite impressive access (5, Insightful)

Aighearach (97333) | about a year ago | (#45553579)

It's not our government that gave away your information, it was your own government that did that.

Since you refuse to blame the right party, your attitude is hardly going to help solve your problem.

And I might also point out, the UK, Australia, and Germany probably also have all your information. But don't blame them, they're also not the ones who gave it away.

Medical Data Storage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45553319)

She wouldn't have been singled out, so DHS must have the medical records of everyone in the province. Maybe Ontario is in the same position as BC. Our medical records have been stored in Colorado for years. That means the US Department of Homeland Insecurity can troll through them at will without even needing a warrant. You'd expect that with the Snowden revelations this door would be bolted shut, but nobody seems to care.

Maybe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45553323)

Maybe NSA intercepted her internet forum post titled, "Gee, I Wonder What It Would Be Like To Jump Overboard?"

Re: Maybe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45553495)

How do you jump with a wheelchair?

Re: Maybe (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about a year ago | (#45553569)

Use a ramp.

Avoid a psychiatric diagnosis at all costs (-1)

bitrex (859228) | about a year ago | (#45553333)

And certainly avoid being hospitalized for a psychiatric issue, if you can at all help it. Without even going into the potential damage that psychiatry's drug "treatments" can cause, having a psychiatric diagnosis (which will remain in your medical record for eternity) can bite you in all sorts of ways. Not least of these is the fact that if you develop a physical illness which is at all difficult to properly diagnose, your doctors will take not of the psychiatric history in your medical record and spend forever attempting to attribute your physical symptoms to your "mental illness."

Re:Avoid a psychiatric diagnosis at all costs (2)

Cochonou (576531) | about a year ago | (#45553361)

Avoiding at all costs a cure when you need treatment is not a good idea. Even if some of the side effects you cite are really irksome, most of the time the benefits of a treatment greatly offset these inconveniences.

Re:Avoid a psychiatric diagnosis at all costs (4, Insightful)

seebs (15766) | about a year ago | (#45553379)

This is basically the opposite of good advice, and none of it conforms to any experience I've ever had, or that anyone I know has had. I have a psychiatric diagnosis or two, and I've gotten treatment, and you know what? It's made my life a heck of a lot better actually getting some help. I've never had a doctor try to somehow disregard physical illnesses based on this, either.

The thing with "treatments" in scare quotes is a pretty strong indication that you're not merely unaware of the state of the art in the field, but actively avoiding any risk of being contaminated by actual information about it. And I guess if you wanna be that way on your own dime, that's your business, but when you start telling other people they should avoid basic health care services because you're afraid of them, that's sorta harmful to other people.

Re:Avoid a psychiatric diagnosis at all costs (1)

qbast (1265706) | about a year ago | (#45553549)

This is basically the opposite of good advice, and none of it conforms to any experience I've ever had, or that anyone I know has had. I have a psychiatric diagnosis or two, and I've gotten treatment, and you know what? It's made my life a heck of a lot better actually getting some help. I've never had a doctor try to somehow disregard physical illnesses based on this, either.

Yet. And pray you don't ever have to deal with law enforcement - no matter if you are victim, witness or suspect. You can be 100% sure your treatment will be immediately dug up and used to discredit anything you say.

Re:Avoid a psychiatric diagnosis at all costs (2)

Aighearach (97333) | about a year ago | (#45553611)

So if we take what you said, and what the other person said, the obvious answer is that he is right; you should avoid diagnosis and hospitalization, and seek out a black market doctor so you can still get treatment. The treatment isn't the dangerous part, it is the diagnosis and hospitalization.

Re:Avoid a psychiatric diagnosis at all costs (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | about a year ago | (#45553649)

this is extremely ignorant and dangerous advice

all of the concerns this idiot lists do not even begin to compare to the relief of getting psychiatric care for your condition

please mod the malignant and stupid comment above into oblivion

Re:Avoid a psychiatric diagnosis at all costs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45553665)

Going to a therapist instead of a PhD and paying out of pocket is probably the safest option.

And I also don't think the full story is being told here -- the only time people are hospitalised (in Canada) is if they threaten suicide, or to hurt their children, or something.

Either of those will certainly cause DHS to raise an eyebrow at you. But I'm still not convinced that would be enough to get you barred from entry either...

Maybe not NSA snooping (2, Informative)

cphilo (768807) | about a year ago | (#45553337)

If this is the same Ellen Richardson, a disabled author, the DHS did not need her medical records. She posted her suicidal tendencies on the internet. http://ellenrichardson.ca/ [ellenrichardson.ca] http://ellenrichardson.ca/bio/index.html [ellenrichardson.ca]

Re:Maybe not NSA snooping (4, Insightful)

KitFox (712780) | about a year ago | (#45553377)

If the book was published in 2009 and the exact event stated by DHS for denying entry occurred in 2012, how did the 2012 event get known by the DHS from a 2009 book?

Re:Maybe not NSA snooping (2)

JustOK (667959) | about a year ago | (#45553511)

They're THAT good.

Re:Maybe not NSA snooping (1)

Aighearach (97333) | about a year ago | (#45553631)

how did the 2012 event get known by the DHS from a 2009 book?

Precogs.

Re:Maybe not NSA snooping (1)

NoKaOi (1415755) | about a year ago | (#45553671)

If the book was published in 2009 and the exact event stated by DHS for denying entry occurred in 2012, how did the 2012 event get known by the DHS from a 2009 book?

Remember that "Minority Report style interface" that /. is always talking about it? The DHS has the whole setup.

Re:Maybe not NSA snooping (1)

Nyh (55741) | about a year ago | (#45553401)

These are her suicidal problems but that wasn't a problem according to the DHS. Her hospitalization for clinical depression in 2012 was. That is nowhere mentioned in the links (the book is from 2009).

Sad Canadian, huh? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45553371)

Good to see the DHS didn't buy her story (everybody in the states knows that Canadians are all constantly cheerful).

Nations have no friends. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45553397)

It's an old wisdom, USA. you can stop proving it over and over again.

Re (0)

DeloFaith14 (3448133) | about a year ago | (#45553399)

what is DHS mean?

Re:Re (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45553487)

Department of Homeland Security, created after the 9/11 fundraiser because the National Security Agency could not do its job.
So now we have two behemoth black budget agencies that spy on us but do not provide any actual security, so if there is another incident on US soil we will need to create the Fatherland Department of Security and of course we also will not get to see how much money they spend each year to spy on us.

Re:Re (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45553493)

Are you asking what the DHS initials stand for (Department of Homeland Security), or are you asking what their purpose is? As far as the Canadians are concerned, they are the border agents and Coast Guard, but they are also a lot of other things:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Homeland_Security

Re:Re (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45553499)

It's what the fox says.

Visa Waiver (1)

marka63 (1237718) | about a year ago | (#45553463)

I'm not sure about Canada but to get a Visa Wavier from Australia for the US you get asked about you mental health when filling it out. If you had attempted to commit suicide and you are still on medication for the condition, then I can't see how you can tick the no box and not be lying. I presume you would them be informed about the extra procedures you would need to complete to enter the US.

What I am trying to work out here is how she got to the border without this being flagged earlier.

On Covert Acoustical Mesh Networks in Air (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45553489)

On Covert Acoustical Mesh Networks in Air (RE: Bad Bios)

"Abstract-Covert channels can be used to circumvent system and network policies by establishing communications that have not been considered in the design of the computing system. We construct a covert channel between different computing systems that utilizes audio modulation/demodulation to exchange data between the computing systems over the air medium. The underlying network stack is based on a communication system that was originally designed for robust underwater communication. We adapt the communication system to implement covert and stealthy communications by utilizing the near ultrasonic frequency range.

We further demonstrate how the scenario of covert acoustical communication over the air medium can be extended to multi-hop communications and even to wireless mesh networks. A covert acoustical mesh network can be conceived as a botnet or malnet that is accessible via nearfield audio communications. Different applications of covert acoustical mesh networks are presented, including the use for remote keylogging over multiple hops. It is shown that the concept of a covert acoustical mesh network renders many conventional security concepts useless, as acoustical communications are usually not considered. Finally, countermeasures against covert acoustical mesh networks are discussed, including the use of lowpass filtering in computing systems and a host-based intrusion detection system for analyzing audio input and output in order to detect any irregularities."

Index Terms-malware, network covert channels, wireless mesh networks, ultrasonic communication

Cite: Michael Hanspach and Michael Goetz, "On Covert Acoustical Mesh Networks in Air," Journal of Communications, vol. 8, no. 11, pp. 758-767, 2013. doi: 10.12720/jcm.8.11.758-767"

Volume 8, No. 11, November 2013

http://www.jocm.us/uploadfile/2013/1125/20131125103803901.pdf [www.jocm.us]
http://www.jocm.us/index.php?m=content&c=index&a=show&catid=124&id=600 [www.jocm.us]
http://www.jocm.us/index.php?m=content&c=index&a=lists&catid=124 [www.jocm.us]

##

RE: #BadBios, BadBios, badbios, bad bios

The 'beasts' share the same scent (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45553497)

The 'beasts' share the same scent - how to piss off an alien/human hybrid

the hybrids carrying filthy spawn (like in the days of Noah) are easy to SNIFF out, literally, they all smell the same when you're in the proper state of mind.

some of them have eyes which appear to be bugging out of their face.

even if you can't detect the scent of the hybrids, or 'beasts', inhale deeply whenever the hybrids are close, don't express any emotion, just keep inhaling deeply and make your facial expression be that of deep contemplation.

when you do this, they know that you know what their true reality is - it's like the movie THEY LIVE where Nada sees the truth through the glasses and confronts them.

don't confront, just inhale deeply. maybe shake your head and laugh, mumble about stupid aliens but nothing deep.

Why bring up her physical disability? (4, Insightful)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#45553533)

Disabled Woman Denied Entrance To US Due To Private Medical Records

While it wouldn't necessarily be a surprise to find out that her physical disability (paraplegia) might have had some affect on her mental wellbeing over the years, is it not just a little bit disingenuous to make it the first word of the headline, implying that it was her physical disability rather than her mental illness that caused the issue at the border?

You wouldn't write the headline "Black man arrested for insider trading" would you?

Re:Why bring up her physical disability? (4, Insightful)

qeveren (318805) | about a year ago | (#45553599)

Aren't you assuming that mental illness isn't a disability?

Re:Why bring up her physical disability? (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about a year ago | (#45553621)

it wouldn't necessarily be a surprise to find out that her physical disability (paraplegia) might have had some affect on her mental wellbeing over the years

Actually, it's the other way round.

Don't start a cruise from the USA (3, Informative)

gnasher719 (869701) | about a year ago | (#45553543)

There are plenty of cruises that will leave from Britain, mostly Southampton. 1. You avoid idiocies like the one in the article. 2. There are no Americans on board!!!! Or only those that want to avoid Americans.

Let's be honest, they're a pain in the arse and the last people you would want near you on a relaxing holiday.

Please, someone invade the US (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45553613)

And give us a constitutional-based government with elections.

Re:Please, someone invade the US (1)

NoKaOi (1415755) | about a year ago | (#45553687)

And give us a constitutional-based government with elections.

Our government is constitutionally based. Of course, the government doesn't actually follow the constitution when they don't want to, but it's still based on it. We have elections too. That doesn't mean they're meaningful in any way, but we still have them.

I think what you mean is:

And give us a government that actually follows the constitution and has fair and meaningful elections.

There is something missing from this story... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45553653)

The US has access to fingerprint, wants & warrants, criminal records etc. The medical information is not accessible by DHS, nor are expunged (juvenile records) -- although the fingerprints would still be on file with no link to anything which if you don't explain properly will cause problems. The hospitalization is probably linked to one of these accessable records.

attention seeking cunt miscalculation (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45553677)

attention seeking cunt, miscalculates her attention seeking "suicide" attempt. Attempts to use her monumental fuckup for profit by writing a book, instead of finishing the job and doing the world a favor.
Now needs new source of attention, accusing the US of stealing information using NSA instead of the fact she published the information.
US machine thinks cleaning up her bloated corpse after successful (hopefully) fourth suicide attempt might cost taxpayers more than she is worth to them.
Entry Denied!

Ridiculous border restrictions (5, Interesting)

GauteL (29207) | about a year ago | (#45553691)

This reminds me of a former co-worker of mine at a university in Britain. My co-worker was Indian, held an MSc and a Research Fellow position at said university, while also being halfway through a PhD at the same university.

He was scheduled to attend a conference in the US together with our line manager, but had to cancel as the US blankly refused him entrance on the grounds that the risk of him becoming an illegal immigrant was too high. Letters from the university did not help.

Now, you may well be proud of your country, but is it really realistic to expect someone to be so desperate to live in the US that they will drop a relevant, career-progressing and decently paid job in another Western country to work in the kitchen of a golf club as an illegal immigrant?

He now ironically works in the UK for a large, very high-tech US company.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?