Just in case you had slipped into some sort of uneasy comfort thinking maybe, JUST MAYBE, the government had already gathered as much personal information as it "needed" (all without warrants), along comes the news that another agency is looking to get just a little more.

Via Reason comes the news that the DEA is attempting to bypass state law in Oregon in order to access private prescription records without a warrant. Some might argue that the DEA has some sort of right to know who's taking what considering its position as "drug war enforcer," but as the ACLU points out, prescription records can reveal some very sensitive information.

Records of the prescription medications we take can reveal some of the most private and sensitive information about us. Knowing that a person self-administers prescription testosterone injections can reveal that he is a transgender man undergoing hormone replacement therapy. Knowing that someone takes Xanax, Valium, or other anti-anxiety medications can reveal a diagnosis of mental illness. If a person is on Marinol, a medication containing synthetic THC, she is likely fighting weight loss associated with AIDS. A prescription for a narcotic painkiller such as codeine or oxycodone might indicate a chronic or terminal illness. Ritalin and Adderall are associated with treatment of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.

The state of Oregon tracks prescriptions like these for several good reasons: to prevent drug overdoses and cut down on substance abuse. While it would seem the DEA should be able to access the records carte blanche because of the latter concern, Oregon has made the right move and added a warrant requirement in order to protect patients' information. The DEA, like many other government agencies (*coughFBI*), has been using administrative subpoenas to circumvent this requirement.

Fortunately, the state of Oregon is fighting back, with some help from the ACLU.

The State of Oregon sued the DEA in federal court to defend its right to require law enforcement, including federal agencies, to obtain the warrants required by state law. Today, the ACLU filed a motion to intervene in the case on behalf of several patients and a doctor whose prescription records are contained in the PDMP. Our clients are concerned that the privacy of their medical information will be violated if the DEA is allowed to search through prescription records without a warrant. If the DEA can demonstrate to a judge that it has probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that prescription records will provide evidence of that crime, then it can legitimately obtain records from the PDMP. Because prescription records and the medical information they reveal are such a sensitive matter, protecting their privacy is vital, and we argue that obtaining private and confidential prescription records without a warrant constitutes an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The ACLU points out that the "third-party doctrine" is being used to portray information provided to a doctor or pharmacist as exempt from warrant requirements. Courts have shown in the past that information turned over to a third party is no longer protected by the "reasonable expectation of privacy." This is a false equation, the ACLU states:

We disagree with this principle—but even on its own terms, the third party doctrine should not apply here. Medical records are different than the trash we put out on the curb, or the canceled checks we provide to our bank, or the electrical usage records we transmit to the power company. The information we share with our doctors and pharmacists can be some of our most private information. Just because we trust our doctors with our medical information doesn’t mean the DEA should be able to easily access it too.

In case you were wondering what sort of harm could come from unfettered access to medical records by law enforcement, here's a splendid example that combines prescription records with the domestic wing of the War on Drugs into one horrible (and horribly stupid) incident.

Barbara Alice Mahaffey died of colon cancer in her bedroom last May. [Vernal, UT resident] Ben D. Mahaffey, 80, said he was distraught and trying to make sure his wife's body would be taken to the funeral home with dignity, when he says officers insisted he help them look for the drugs.

"I was holding her hand saying goodbye when all the intrusion happened," he told the Deseret News.

Barbara Mahaffey died at 12:35 a.m. with Mahaffey, a Navy medic in the Korean War, and his friend, an EMT, at her side. In addition to police, a mortician and a hospice worker arrived at the home about 12:45 a.m., Mahaffey said. He said he doesn't know how police came to be there.

Mahaffey said he was treated as if he were going to sell the painkillers, which included OxyContin, oxycodone and morphine, on the street.

Yep. If your loved ones use certain painkillers, you can expect to be raided at any time, especially if they've just passed on, leaving behind a treasure trove of highly marketable controlled substances. But don't worry, Vernal City Manager Ken Bassett would expect nothing less than a raid by Vernal's finest during the final moments of his loved ones' lives:

In his suit, Mahaffey alleges that Vernal City Manager Ken Bassett told Mahaffey he was being "'overly sensitive' and that police were just trying to protect the public from illegal use of prescription drugs." The suit also alleges that Bassett then told Mahaffey "his own parents had recently died and he wouldn't have cared had police searched their house for drugs."

Also noted: this is "common practice" for Vernal police, although it's often "selectively applied." Yay! A badly written law, randomly enforced and noxious from any angle, that latter of which perfectly describes the DEA's attempt to circumvent patient privacy by exploiting a few loopholes. 
 

Nastybutler77 was the first of a few people to send over this story of a church pastor, Charles O'Neal, of the Beaverton Grace Bible Church in Oregon, suing a former church member, Julie Anne Smith, and her family, for posting a negative review of the church online. O'Neal claims that the review was defamation, and apparently responded to Smith's review on Google with a post about how Smith was lying and how he was planning to sue.

Some of the specifics argued in the lawsuit do seem to quite critical of the church, but it's not clear they rise to the level of defamation:
The original report also claims that part of the lawsuit claims that using the word "creepy" is defamatory. While the factual statements might be defamatory, opinion statements such as calling a place creepy are clearly not.

For what it's worth, Oregon appears to have a reasonably strong anti-SLAPP law, and I wonder if Smith will make use of that. It will depend on the details of her statements to see if they were truly defamatory, but the general descriptions provided certainly make it appear like a vindictive lawsuit to silence a vocal critic.

There's the old saying that "when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." But how is it that when you have big dead animals to get rid of, people reach for dynamite? Clearly, people just like to blow things up.

• The Colorado Forest service wants to remove six frozen cows from a mountain cabin, and they've looked into using explosives to try to get rid of these carcasses. There's a bit of urgency for removing these frozen cows because if they aren't removed soon, they'll thaw out, decay and potentially ruin a popular hot springs attraction nearby. [url]
• The infamous "Oregon Whale" isn't an urban legend. In 1970, the Oregon Dept. of Transportation tried to vaporize a beached sperm whale, but the explosion just created a big, smelly mess. [url]
• The US Department of Agriculture actually has an official procedure for "Obliterating Animal Carcasses With Explosives" published in 1995. So that makes everything cool—don't forget to put on your goggles. [url]
• To find some more bizarre/crazy stuff, check out some things that other StumbleUpon users have found. [url]  

By the way, StumbleUpon can also recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.

You may recall last year that the state of Oregon tried to claim copyright in preventing others from republishing Oregon laws. Yes, that seems incredibly counterproductive, and eventually the state backed down. However, it looks like Oregon's Attorney General is now also claiming copyright on the Attorney General's Public Record and Public Meeting Manual. Yes. A government official claiming copyright over a document on the public record. Wonderful. Carl Malamud is trying to get the Attorney General to issue an opinion that such things will not be covered by copyright. But, again, can anyone provide any good reason why any government document should be covered by copyright?

While all federal documents in the US are under the public domain, state governments don't always follow that rule, and the state of Oregon has a history of trying to lock up its documents. Last year, there was some attention generated when some people uploaded copies of certain Oregon laws. Yes, it seems positively ridiculous that the state might claim copyright over the laws people are expected to follow. The state claimed that it was just complaining about the fact that the laws were scanned from its own book, with its own notes and page numbers -- and that it wouldn't complain if people had just copied the law. But that's a weak excuse, and the state backed down later.

However, Oregon is back in the news on a similar issue, as Slashdot points us to the news that a professor is challenging the state's attorney general to sue him after he scanned and posted a state-produced guide to using public-records laws. You would think, again, that the state would want such a document spread as widely as possible, as it would better help Oregonians understand the law. But the state claims it needs to sell the book for $25 to cover production costs. That doesn't seem like much of an excuse. The fact that the state needs to produce a guide to understand its own laws seems troubling enough. Then locking them down with a copyright claim just makes it that much worse.

You may recall that a guy named Gary Odom, who refers to himself often in the third person as "Patent Hawk," has been known to stop by here every so often to insult us without ever, you know, backing up a point. His day job is helping companies do patent/prior art searches. Last year, he made a bit of news by suing Microsoft for a patent he held on "editable toolbars" (exciting stuff). Microsoft later accused him of violating a contract, in that Odom (whoops) had worked for Microsoft, and had an agreement about not filing for certain types of patents, or asserting them against Microsoft.

Now, with the Supreme Court agreeing to hear the Bilski case, which could have a big impact on the patentability of software and business models, a bunch of folks have been dutifully filing their amici briefs attempting to convince the Supreme Court one way or the other. These latest briefs more or less reflect what was in the original briefs filed prior to the CAFC ruling. Still, there was one interesting one: Odom and a buddy filed their own brief (which Odom, again in the third person praised his own brief as being "cogently potent in its brevity and conservatism" -- nothing like patting oneself on the back).

The brief itself is fine (though I believe a bit misleading in what it leaves out... but that's what these briefs tend to do). However, what stood out, was the odd claim on the brief that it was filed on behalf of the State of Oregon (where Odom resides). That's quite a claim... and it appears the State of Oregon, in the form of its Attorney General, doesn't agree with Odom that this represents the state:

Tony Green, a spokesman for the Oregon Attorney General, said no one in his office had heard of Odom's purported statewide representation before [Joe Mullin at The Prior Art] called. "It is our preference that people accurately convey who they're writing an amicus brief on behalf of," says Green. "We neither authorized this or had any knowledge of it."

Of course, Green also points out that the Supreme Court figured out that Odom's claim to represent the State of Oregon was backed up with about as much weight as his typical insults, and properly filed the brief as just being from Odom and his friend, rather than the state of Oregon.

It's been well over five years since we first heard about a plan in Oregon to attach GPS devices to cars and tax drivers based on how much they drove and the idea hasn't become any better in the intervening years... but apparently it's still being pushed. Against Monopoly points us to the latest report that Oregon's Governor is trying to move forward with the plan. One of the reasons behind the bill has nothing to do with a more efficient way to tax drivers, but because the state is gaining less revenue from its gas tax since there are more fuel efficient cars on the roads these days. Of course, rather than reward drivers for driving more fuel efficient cars, this sort of tax punishes them, and actually encourages the use of less fuel efficient vehicles. And, of course, that doesn't even begin to get into the potential (and likely) privacy problems brought about by any system whereby the government has full access to a GPS system on your car.

Well here's a story about copyright that's so bizarre it makes you think that there must be a mistake somewhere -- but it seems to be completely true. Apparently, Oregon is complaining to sites like Justia (which publish public domain legal documents) that they are violating copyright by republishing some of Oregon's laws. The state admits that the text of the laws are not covered by copyright, but that everything else about the way the law is presented is covered by copyright (such as the numbering, the notes and annotations). This is an accurate portrayal of copyright law, which does allow such things to be covered by copyright (though, the "numbering" part seems questionable), but it's difficult to see how the state could possibly get upset that someone is trying to better publicize Oregon's laws. The state does make one good point: Justia adds its own copyright notice to the text, which is bad form, but was probably just a template issue. Either way, it's difficult to see what Oregon could possibly gain in trying to force copies of its laws off of public resource legal sites.

Over the summer, we wrote about a lawsuit someone had filed against the RIAA in Oregon, claiming that the RIAA's investigation tactics were illegal, since the firm it used to sniff out unauthorized users, MediaSentry, was not a licensed investigator in Oregon. This seemed like a relatively weak claim (or at least one focused on the letter of the law more than the spirit). However, it appears that argument has caught the attention of Oregon's Attorney General who already is unhappy with the RIAA. You may recall that earlier this month, the Attorney General stood up to the RIAA after it tried to get the University of Oregon to identify students. It was surprising to see the AG get involved in such an issue, but clearly, he believes the RIAA is going too far. The RIAA responded to his filing, opposing the motion, of course. And now the Attorney General has responded, not just about this particular issue, but slamming the RIAA on a number of fronts, suggesting that the RIAA may be in a bit more hot water than it believed. He repeats the argument that the RIAA's investigation techniques are illegal and then goes on to slam the evidence the RIAA has, how it's gathered, how it uses these cases to squeeze money out of unsophisticated people and many other points about these RIAA cases. The response then points out why this is an important matter for the Attorney General to take a stand on and how it would like to get some answers from the RIAA:

"Because Plaintiffs routinely obtain ex parte discovery in their John Doe infringement suits, as they themselves have pointed out, their factual assertions supporting their good cause argument are never challenged by an adverse party and their investigative methods remain free of scrutiny. They often settle their cases quickly before defendants obtain legal representation and begin to conduct discovery.... While the University is not a party to the case, Plaintiffs' subpoena affects the university's rights and obligations. Plaintiffs may be spying on students who use the University's computer system and may be accessing much more than IP addresses. The University seeks the Court's permission to serve the attached interrogatories on Plaintiffs and conduct telephonic depositions of the individuals who investigated the seventeen John Does named in this lawsuit to determine 1) what their investigative practices are and 2) whether they have any additional information with which to identify the John Does."

It looks like the RIAA may have messed with the wrong university in the wrong state.

Earlier this year, the RIAA began to focus many of its file sharing lawsuits on college students. The RIAA incorrectly referred to it as an education campaign, when it might more accurately be described as pissing off the very people the RIAA needs to support any future business model (oops, too late for that). While the RIAA tried to force universities to just hand over the names of those it accused of file sharing, it was nice to see at least a few universities fight back. In most cases, this mean telling the RIAA to shove off, as it wasn't the university's job to help serve legal complaints. Eventually though, when subpoenas came through, most universities would hand over the info. However, it looks like the University of Oregon is taking a stand. Together with the Attorney General of Oregon, they've actually filed a motion to quash the RIAA's attempt to identify students at the school. In other words, they're not just refusing to pass on the info, they're actively pushing back against the RIAA's lawsuit.

Specifically, the Attorney General points out that with just IP addresses, it's basically impossible to identify the students that the RIAA is asking the university to hand over: "Plaintiffs' subpoena is unduly burdensome and overbroad. It seeks information that the university does not readily possess." In order for the university to figure out who was associated with those IPs, it would involve a level of investigation that isn't required (and shouldn't be required) under law. In other words, the university isn't there to be the free investigative arm of the RIAA. It doesn't get to just throw some weak evidence over the wall and tell the university to figure out who's responsible. Either it comes up with a better way to find the information itself, or it should stop filing these lawsuits. It should be interesting to see if this works... and if other universities follow suit.