<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.2" -->
<rss version="2.0">
    <channel>
        <title>MedWorm Tags: government information</title>
        <description>MedWorm provides a medical RSS filtering service. Over 6000 RSS medical sources are combined and output via different filters. This feed contains the latest medical blog items that have been tagged with 'government information'.</description>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.medworm.com/rss/search.php?qu=%22government+information%22&t=%22government+information%22&r=Exact&o=d&f=tag]]></link>
        <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2011 03:00:10 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <item>
            <title>Speech, Privacy, and Government Infiltration</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3993871&amp;cid=t_164730_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2Fy_VormTVQeM%2F</link>
            <description>By Julian SanchezYesterday, I mentioned a recent report from the Justice Department&amp;#8217;s Office of the Inspector General on some potentially improper instances of FBI monitoring of domestic anti-war groups. It occurs to me that it also provides a useful data point that&amp;#8217;s relevant to last week&amp;#8217;s post about the pitfalls of thinking about the proper limits of government information gathering exclusively in terms of &amp;#8220;privacy.&amp;#8221;
As the report details, an agent in the FBI&amp;#8217;s Pittsburgh office sent a confidential source to report on organizing meetings for anti-war marches held by the anarchist Pittsburgh Organizing Group (POG). The agent admitted to OIG that his motive was a general desire to cultivate an informant rather than any particular factually grounded inve...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3993871</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 22 Sep 2010 19:52:26 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3993871</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>How Much Government Snooping? Google It Up!</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3490619&amp;cid=t_164730_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F0x5vZVZKWLs%2F</link>
            <description>By Julian SanchezThe secrecy surrounding government surveillance is a constant source of frustration to privacy activists and scholars: It&amp;#8217;s hard to have a serious discussion about policy when it&amp;#8217;s like pulling teeth to get the most elementary statistics about the scope of state information gathering, let alone any more detailed information. Even when reporting is statutorily required, government agencies tend to drag their heels making statistics available to Congress &amp;#8212; and it can take even longer to make the information more widely accessible. Phone and Internet companies, even when they join the fight against excessive demands for information, are typically just as reluctant to talk publicly about just how much of their customers&amp;#8217; information they&amp;#8217;re requir...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3490619</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 21 Apr 2010 12:44:18 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3490619</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Lying and the Federal Government</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3056618&amp;cid=t_164730_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FfB-YnI-ojB4%2F</link>
            <description>Speaking of White House gate-crashers Tareq and Michaele Salahi (as we were trying to think of an excuse to do, to increase blog traffic), Slate says they might be guilty of a federal crime. What crime? Well, possibly trespassing on federal property. Or maybe the &amp;#8220;broad prohibition on lying to the federal government.&amp;#8221; Title 18, section 1001 of the U.S. Code
can be used to prosecute anyone who &amp;#8220;knowingly and willfully … falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact&amp;#8221; or &amp;#8220;makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation&amp;#8221; to the government. That could include lying about your arrest record on a government job application, claiming a fake deduction on your taxes, or telling someone you&amp;#8...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3056618</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 20:11:24 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3056618</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Public Information and Public Choice</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2796410&amp;cid=t_164730_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FyT5ymf3kGm4%2F</link>
            <description>One of the high points of last week&amp;#8217;s Gov 2.0 Summit was transparency champion Carl Malamud&amp;#8217;s speech on the history of public access to government information &amp;#8212; ending with a clarion call for  government documents, data, and deliberation to be made more freely available online. The argument is a clear slam-dunk on simple grounds of fairness and democratic accountability. If we&amp;#8217;re going to be bound by the decisions made by regulatory agencies and courts, surely at a bare minimum we&amp;#8217;re all entitled to know what those decisions are and how they were arrived at. But as many of the participants at the conference stressed, it&amp;#8217;s not enough for the data to be available &amp;#8212; it&amp;#8217;s important that it be free, and in a machine readable form. Here&amp;#8217;s on...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2796410</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2009 20:41:48 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2796410</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Case of Hannah Poling: The question of disclosure</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1411789&amp;cid=t_164730_133_f&amp;fid=35096&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.b5media.com%2F%7Er%2Fb5media%2FAutismVox%2F%7E3%2F281241171%2F</link>
            <description>On April 11th, a new document in the case of Hannah Poling was filed. The document&amp;#8212;Order Deferring Ruling on Petitioners&amp;#8217; Motion for Complete Transparency of Proceedings&amp;#8212;-can be read here. The petitioners are Terry Poling and Jon Poling, the parents of &amp;#8220;Hannah Poling, a minor.&amp;#8221; The respondent is the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The Polings have requested that two Rule 4 Reports filed by the respondent be disclosed. (A Rule 4 Report is filed by respondent in a vaccine proceeding and incorporates medical information pertaining to the petitioner.)
One report states that Hannah&amp;#8217;s seizure disorder was &amp;#8220;not related to her vaccinations&amp;#8221;; the second states that this was the case and that she qualifies for compensation. In late February-ear...</description>
            <author>Autism Vox</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1411789</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 01 May 2008 04:31:26 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1411789</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>NIH Research Access Mandate</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1152696&amp;cid=t_164730_86_f&amp;fid=35596&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ibiblio.org%2Fsecretlibrary%2Filib%2F%3Fp%3D24</link>
            <description>The newly enacted Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2007 (H.R. 2764) includes a provision directing the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to provide the public with open online access to findings from its funded research. This is the first time the U.S. government has mandated public access to research funded by a major agency.
Under the Act, researchers will now be required to deposit electronic copies of their peer-reviewed manuscripts into the National Library of Medicines online archive, PubMed Central. Full texts of the articles will be publicly available and searchable online in PubMed Central no later than 12 months after publication in a journal. From ATA report:
&amp;#8220;Facilitated access to new knowledge is key to the rapid advancement of science,&amp;#8221; said Harold Varmus, pre...</description>
            <author>iLib</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1152696</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jan 2008 16:08:06 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1152696</guid>        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

