Especially with the governments overarching reach. Wonder how long communications would last when the gov't presses that internet kill switch (which they claim they don't have - yeah, perhaps a bit tinfoil hat wearing, but after all, we were all assured there were no illegal phone monitoring/data harvesting either). Guess we should all go back to shortwave radio - unfortunately it has become a lost art now a days.
There can be a problems with this, especially with tele/web-based/distance therapy. The resources to intervene within a crisis environment do not exist. For example, if someone is suicidal or homicidal, how does one intervene appropriately? What if a patient/client in a tough situation (ie divorice) and their coping skills are less than adequate, and they just terminate the session after stating "they hate their spouse. There is no way to ensure that the patient is safe. Even a 911 call to the police for a wellness check, the 10-12 minute response time is not immediate enough for crisis intervention. This could potentially setup any therapist using this type of session to have there A$$ sued off, even more than they already are.
Certain patients/clients would be appropriate for this type of delivery for therapy - Any of the various paranoid flavored diagnoses would likely not work well (after all, we all used to be called paranoid when we thought the NSA was tracking our internet usage eh?). Border-line personality disorder are extremely difficult to work with in the first place... they can go from I love you, to I hate you in seconds - try and deal with that over the web, when their first instinct will be to disconnect the session. Leaves the therapist in an extremely vulnerable situation.
The other issue is, as a therapist, you don't have control over the environment. What about the phone ringing during a session, or the young child that constantly wants to see mommie or daddy or the or the interruptions from the over-caffeinated teenager? Often people in therapy are lacking in coping skills and/or boundaries. That is where the office visit will be superior, because those boundaries are more clearly defined.
The security/confidentiality/privacy of sessions would be extremely difficult to keep under control. Most relevant code of ethics have specific rules (and not to mention federal and state regulations) regarding this. If you are cross-state, which laws apply? Those of the therapist, those of the patient, or a blending of the two? In this regard, the duty/responsibility generally falls onto the therapist - talk about a liability nightmare.
I'm not saying this method of delivery is not completely without value... there are circumstance that make it necessary or even desirable. Long distance, and/or limited access to mental health services, those that are constantly traveling for work, etc. would be some examples. In my own practice, this method of delivery would only be used in limited and very specific circumstances.
encrypted or not, with the access the bad-guys had, would it not be likely that the encryption keys would be the first things they would have harvested? A lock box is not good when the keys are stole with it.
It reminds me of my past information security officer, that would always call down in a panic, after watching CNN describing a security vulnerability and if we knew about it, and could this impact us. He just didn't seem to get it.... If he found out about it on the daily news, we knew about it for at least at week, typically a month, and often a year before.
I remember an auditor just showing up unannounced, requesting a new 'audit' account be setup with domain admin rights. I just loved telling him that would be a breech of security procedures, and he would have to go through the proper channels to get the account created. When I was told to just do it, I refused, stating that a security audit should not be able to by-pass in-place security procedures... and speaking directly to the auditor "would this not be something that you would be compelled to write on the final report as a security violation?" By the looks on both of their faces, neither of them had never considered that - which is pretty sad for an auditor.
Needless to say, almost getting me fired, saved me from almost getting fired. Irony loves company.
Yet again, the extent of government overreaching continues. Lie about what really is really being done, and with a subtle move along, nothing to see here... "Ohh, look over there,Kim Kardashian."
Simply amazing that what is being assured is not being done, is in reality being done.
And they also want you to include your mobile number - nothing better than being able to link separate data pieces from multiple sources with a phone number. Might as well call that a unique numeric identifier for yourself.
How about we pull a reversal and be permitted to monitor the FBI, NSA and CIA own internal network?
Considering that Kennedy wanted to do pretty much the same thing (and look where that got him), I have a feeling it's going to be kind of tough to pull off...
It was stated for argument sake, and to also illustrate the ineffectiveness of the existing 'checks and balances' along with 'Congressional oversight.' But that is stating the the obvious. It is more of a how would you feel if the same was done to you. I would be willing to bet they would have their knickers all up in a bunch too.
Making two different sci-fi quotes, from two different universes and while still keeping it on topic... Simply brilliant!
Bows down to your quote-fu
Since I have nothing to hide, YOU have no reason to look!
How about we pull a reversal and be permitted to monitor the FBI, NSA and CIA own internal network? All in the name of the constitution to ensure they are not overstepping their mandates and/or boundaries.
I wonder how well that would go over with them?
Easily understood as... How does someone process/analyze their information. Do they think and come to their conclusions internally through internal self-thought (introvert), or do they come from to their conclusions through external sources (ie: do you gather all your information from the team) and process your information via that method.
I'm sick and tired of people equating extrovert=social and introvert=recluse. But I suppose I can't blame them, those words/descriptions have very different meaning when used in the context of personality theory. I always have had an issue with the dichotoic nature introvert vs. extrovert. Very few things in life are so black & white/all or nothing... People exist on a continuum somewhere in between the two extremes.
In my studies (MA Clinical Psych), I have seen so many different citable sources that have so many different (and conflicting) interpretations of introvert vs. extrovert... so honestly it doesn't surprise me that there are so many different definitions out there.
so regardless, when all is said and done, agreements, cable providers, or what-not, it is the viewer that suffers.
But the gubmint is infringing on our rights to enjoy someone else's work without paying for it!
But I would argue that the gubmint is infringing on our rights to enjoy someone else work by paying for it. Ever tried to watch HBO without cable? Not going to happen.
You are nuts. The NRA wants to enforce the right to own guns on every living being.
FIFY. The choice to own is still an individual choice.
Yeah, I know what your saying. I was raised within a national health care system (Canada), but am currently living in the US for several years while I've been attending school. It has been a very difficult concept to get my head around how they work their healthcare down in the US. It is also interesting how many of my classmates do not have insurance since they have hit that magic age and are not longer covered under their parents policy.
But as difficult a time I have trying to wrap my head around the US system, they have just a difficult time wrapping their head around that socialistic/communistic (because they are the same thing right? [rolling eyes/sarcasm]) national health care system. That's not to say that a NHS system isn't without its problems - every system will. Prevention is in the best interests of a NHS system (ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure), but in a private system, not as much - any investment by an insurance company into prevention will not likely help their bottom line since that person will likely not be with that same company 10 or 20 years down the road when they will see the benefits of that investment. Yet, if every private insurance did that, it wouldn't be long before they saw the benefit - but that's unlike to happen. The immediate bottom line is more important and why would they want to invest in their competitions future.
It just a very different mindset. Given that I've been exposed to the two, I would take the Canadian National Health Care system anytime. Sure I may pay a bit more in taxes for it, but I feel I do get a valuable return on those taxes spent. No worries if I happen to lose my employment and can't afford private insurance. No worries about needing to be hospitalized and requiring treatment going bankrupt over medical bills in the process. That lack of stress and worry is preventative in itself.