
Disabled woman denied entry to U.S. after agent cites private medical details - slantyyz
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/11/28/disabled_woman_denied_entry_to_us_after_agent_cites_supposedly_private_medical_details.html
======
GigabyteCoin
The US border agents have many means of acquiring information.

I have a relative who lives in a Canadian border town.

She was crossing the border with a friend the other day (as they and other
locals do weekly if not daily). Her friend happened to make a comment about
the border agent's sunglasses when they were a few cars from the gate with
their windows closed. There was nobody outside of the car that could have
possibly heard them, or so they thought.

When they approached the gate, the first thing the agent said to them was
"what dont you like about my sunglasses?"

They ended up getting through, but it just goes to show you the type of game
they're playing over there.

I'm assuming they had either lip readers assigned to multiple hidden cameras
or directional antennaes manned by many workers inside.

I have personally been lied to numerous times by border agents. Perhaps they
just acccused her of being mentally ill because she was going on the march of
dimes tour and she got offended, who knows?

~~~
why-el
Or he could have pointed at his eyes making a sunglass shape and the agent
happened to be glancing over the cars really quick. I don't know, this is too
conspiratorial for me and it should not diverge from the real issue at hand.

~~~
nitrogen
How is the possibility of using listening devices near the border
"conspiratorial"? There are many ways to accomplish this using publicly
available technology. Using the C word to dismiss a conversation prevents us
from having a legitimate discussion about whether something is appropriate.

~~~
why-el
Listening devices in people's cars is what I think is taking it too far. I am
from from calling _anything_ conspiratorial.

~~~
enneff
They wouldn't need to be in people's cars. You could just bounce a laser off
the car windshield to hear what's going on inside.

This strikes me as a great tactic, as I can imagine people that are preparing
to lie to the authorities may be corroborating their story as they approach
the gate.

What surprises me is that the border patrol officer would tip this hand over
such a minor thing.

~~~
Houshalter
Would that work on a car, considering it's vibrating from the engine running?

~~~
nitrogen
Check this out:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpectraLayers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpectraLayers)
[http://vimeo.com/32731023#at=0](http://vimeo.com/32731023#at=0)

~~~
Houshalter
Ok that's pretty damn cool, I didn't know that was possible. But the car
vibrations might still be too much noise, and I don't know if it's possible to
automatically remove the noise like that.

------
typicalrunt
The same privacy leak story came up in Sept 2011 [1] when Wikileaks exposed
the practice and I guess nothing has been done since then. And yet people
still hold to the flawed argument that "if you have nothing to hide..."

Ironically (and sadly) TFA says that the US cannot talk about the issue due to
privacy laws. Ha! That takes balls to say.

[1]
[http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/canada/story/1.1034903](http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/canada/story/1.1034903)

------
Michael_Murray
Some of the other stories on the topic seem to indicate the most likely
indicator here - calls to 911 are automatically matters involving "law
enforcement", and are shared between countries.

It's actually something I hadn't considered before - if you call 911 for an
ambulance, that info goes in to police records/databases related to your name
even if not about an arrest.

The lesson here isn't about secret sharing - it's that if you (or someone you
care about) has an issue that may be used against you later, do everything in
your power to go to the hospital yourself rather than calling 911.

It depresses me to think I just wrote that.

~~~
ams6110
Not all that long ago newspapers published all hospital admissions and
discharges.

~~~
outworlder
Really?

What would that information possibly be useful for?

~~~
Amadou
I don't know if newspapers were publishing it, but this story is not very
comforting:

[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-05/states-hospital-
dat...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-05/states-hospital-data-for-
sale-puts-privacy-in-jeopardy.html)

------
chris_wot
What worries me is that those with a mental illness will stop presenting
themselves for care because they will be concerned that it will be used
against them. This is what happened here, after all!

~~~
Qantourisc
And this illness if untreated might lead to people doing weird things on
plains, which they are trying to prevent! So they are creating potential
terrorists... keep up the good work ?

~~~
pbmthompson
to make sure I am hearing you right, you think this agent was doing the right
rhing and realistically had good reason think this woman was a risk and should
be denied entry?

~~~
al-xss
No, the parent comment is saying that this policy will have the unintended
consequence of making passenger behavior more unpredictable by discouraging
the mentally ill from seeking treatment.

~~~
pbmthompson
ok. agreed...glad I asked first :)

------
zaroth
From the comments on thestar.com...

Border agents may have access to confidential medical records of Canadians
which they are using to screen visitors, but it certainly wasn't necessary in
_this_ case; a quick Google search turns up that she wrote a book about it,
published under her own name:
[http://ellenrichardson.ca/bio/index.html](http://ellenrichardson.ca/bio/index.html)

Whether we should be denying entry based on this criteria is certainly
debatable, but the medical details in question in this case appear to have
been made public by Ellen Richardson herself.

There may be a discrepancy with the dates, as the book and BIO obviously
reference the initial incident from 2001 but I didn't see anything pre-dating
this news about 2012 in 5 minutes of searching. At this point though, there
are already grounds for denying entry, and 2001 vs 2012 becomes he-said-she-
said.

------
Angostura
> U.S. Customs and Border Protection media spokeswoman Jenny Burke said that
> due to privacy laws, “the department is prohibited from discussing specific
> cases.’’

I imagine she had a massive grin on her face as she said that.

------
middleclick
Kakfa, meet Orwell.

Reading this story, my initial thought is - is there more to it? If indeed the
US Border Agency does this, then why have we not heard more stories about
this? And if this is the first case, then the future is very very scary.

~~~
artichokeheart
There have been more stories:
[http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/canada/story/1.1034903](http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/canada/story/1.1034903)

------
DanBC
That's a very sad story.

Unfortunately, many people with a history of mild to moderate mental illness
will have to lie about it to get holiday medical insurance. A regular policy
is affordable. A policy with a disclosed history of mild to moderate mental
illness is bafflingly expensive.

~~~
_delirium
That's one reason I see most of the campaigns about how people should seek
treatment for mental illness as problematic, or at least oversimplified. A
good number of people absolutely _should not_ seek treatment, because they
will end up in a worse situation than they were previously, as a result of
having a "black mark" applied to their record. Whether the net benefit is
positive is extremely dependent on many variables.

I would support reform that would reduce the downsides of seeking
diagnosis/treatment. But absent such reform, it is irresponsible to counsel
people to seek treatment without carefully weighing the upside and downside.

~~~
DanBC
That's a very harmful way of looking at the situation.

Someone getting treatment means they can stay alive, and have a decent quality
of life.

I'll agree that discrimination law is not enforced enough, but the UK and the
US (and probably other nations) have laws preventing discrimination against
people with mental health problems during recruitment or employment.

I strongly recommend people with a mental health problem to seek treatment.

> it is irresponsible to counsel people to seek treatment without carefully
> weighing the upside and downside.

But people may lack capacity to judge the situation properly, especially if
they don't seek early treatment and become more ill.

It's irresponsible to counsel people to not seek treatment (thus continuing to
suffer MH problems) because of the hypothetical risk of problems in future.

~~~
chris_wot
But Dan, that's the problem. It appears that here at least, there is a problem
whereby U.S. law actively discriminates against those who have had a mental
illness. If the law discriminates against you, then it might be sometimes
better not to get help.

That's the concern. I have depression, and it's made me pause. I live in
Australia - who knows what information the Australian government is sharing
with the U.S.?

~~~
DanBC
Here the problem is not with her seeking treatment for her mental illness.

The problem is with someone giving her confidential medical records to the US,
and with the US having a sub-optimal entry system for people with MH
histories.

I fully respect the decisions the people make about their own lives. But I
strongly feel that we don't fight stigma by not confronting the organisations
that perpetuate that stigma.

> I have depression, and it's made me pause.

I agree it's scary and weird. I agree there's a bunch of stuff around "when to
disclose an illness" during employment.

Hope you're doing good though!!

------
mgkimsal
There's multiple things going on, beyond the medical privacy thing. If someone
comes in and 4 years from now drives in to a grocery store, then it turns out
they had 'mental illness' from 10 years ago, heads will roll. Beyond privacy,
this seems very much like an overzealous "no tolerance" reading of "mentally
ill people can't come in the country" (because, of course we don't have any
here already, right?).

But... _come on_. She is a paraplegic - this is not someone who is a threat to
the safety of others. Or... to the extent she's a threat, she's s a threat
whether she's on US soil or not (ability to organize violent/terrorism from
abroad via the internet).

~~~
pstuart
What heads roll? At most someone at the top will "take responsibility" and
ride out the controversy until the public is distracted by the next

Oooh! The Kardashians did something again!

~~~
sleepyK
Exactly what seems to be happening.

The fluff takes your mind off the twisting of laws and violations of human
rights... If it's not the fluff that does the distracting, it's the threat of
some looming enemy like Al Quaeda or Iran or Syria...

------
steven2012
This is really troubling.

Maybe the only solution is to do something drastic, like everyone naming their
kid the same name, ie. John or Jane Smith. They can call them whatever name
they want at home, but for any formal documentation, everyone could use the
same name. This might make it extremely hard for governments to share
information back and forth like this is all they have a birth date and
birthplace to go off of.

~~~
MichaelGG
If the governments are actually sharing information, then they'll just share
your citizenship number, passport info, etc.

This story is only the opening round. Like other stories, there may be a
mundane explanation. She may have posted on some website or something. Or have
had something referencing her depression in her belongings. I'm glad Canada is
investigating, but I'd say it's a bit premature to say that the Canadian
government is sharing private medical records, wholesale.

~~~
steven2012
After everything we've seen from Edward Snowden, and the scale to which
countries are sharing data about their citizens together without our
knowledge, I think it's safe to assume that governments don't give a crap
about our privacy, and are sharing everything. Fool me once, etc.

------
venomsnake
I just love the way government agencies and companies refuse to discuss for
privacy issues, when the information is out and the person has given his
permission. Seems that is the only situation that they respect the privacy.

~~~
joe_the_user
Clearly the only "privacy" they respect is their ability to make decisions and
gather information without the slightest oversight.

------
drill_sarge
Thats why I avoid flying in the US/stopping there. I often visit Central
America and just take the flight which don't go through US territory. I had
some incidents with us customs too, those guys are nuts. If they want, they
put you in interrogation room for hours or just don't let you pass for shady
"reasons". Or literally harass you with questions. Thanks.

------
Amadou
Ho hum. Just another day at the office fighting the _The War on Dignity._

In it to win it!

------
geoka9
> Richardson’s bad luck continued when she tried to get the cost of her trip
> refunded.

For Canadians, many international flights leave from the US airports close to
the border. Normally, it shouldn't be a problem, but you can never be sure
they'll let you into the country to catch your flight. Every trip becomes
somewhat of a gamble.

~~~
MichaelGG
At least the checkpoint is in Canada, so you're not stuck in Texas or
something. In my limited experience, the agents are nicer in Toronto than
agents inside the US.

------
malkia
Way to make this woman even more depressed... WTF!

~~~
Kequc
USA USA USA etc.

~~~
kelvin0
If she said she was going to buy firearms to bring back to canada, she would
have had better chances of crossing, foolish tourist!

------
pbmthompson
Notwithstanding the privacy concerns, this agent is a real jerk. it also is
concerning how much leeway they have in blocking people. pretty subjective
what can be considered a medical condition that could pose a risk to others or
yourself.

------
alexeisadeski3
Is it unreasonable to think that the Canadian government forwards this
information to the US border agency?

~~~
middleclick
Yes.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement)

------
bayesianhorse
She needs a good psychic paper...

