I assume you showed the contractors the word addressable:
https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-...

Show them that "addressable" doesn't mean optional and never did (you probably did):
https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-...

I've also explained to consultants from PWC the nuances of HIPAA only to be ignored... I discovered that in 2014 when my firm dealt with them, their healthcare division was hiring people RIGHT out of college, having them read a 2 page HIPAA summary, take a 10 question test, and then billing out at astronomical rates to hospitals. [sighs]

>where big % of community signed out of social media for various valid reasons.

EXACTLY and it amazes most if not all of us that Dice could fundamentally misunderstand the user base so badly.

I can just imagine the discussions -- hey let's buy Slashdot, it's Facebook for tech nerds!

[Throws up hands]

You're right. They obviously would be compelled to take the time necessary to read EVERY SINGLE POST to vet each one.

That makes a LOT of sense.

I am a forum moderator elsewhere, but I never really thought that you have to be one in order to understand how the process works. I'm obviously wrong on that account too.

Allows them? Sure. Has this turned into fucking Reddit?

Did I have to literally specify the percentage they leave standing and the percentage deleted?

I'll repeat my challenge. Next time you see a gender politics thread, give it a whirl. Do a few anon posts, do a few signed in. Try taking a position that agrees. Try taking a position that disagrees. See what stays and what's left. /. deletes posts. The neat thing is that you don't have to take my word for it. You can find out.

>And every single one of them has comments that include the term, "SJW".

Amazing, you figured out that not ALL posts are deleted.

>posts don't make the cut.

It is not /. stated policy to delete posts that don't meet with your approval. That's what moderation is for. There is not "cut" to make.

"I can't help but think that part of the problem is that the scientist is Dr. Phil Mason, aka thunderf00t"

It's an open secret that post-deletion is rampant on /. now. I wish I could, like some imbecile just told me in another thread, call it a "conspiracy." But I've seen people complain and I had it happen to my own posts.

If a submission has anything to do with anything or anyone that portrays certain Favored Topics in a negative light, you bet your ass it's never going to get the green light.

Unless you're just being goofy, I want you to stop and think.

I mean really THINK.

Is it possible to verify this? If you THINK about it, you'll realize the answer is yes -- you can verify it.

Next time you see a gender politics thread, give it a whirl. Do a few anon posts, do a few signed in. Try taking a position that agrees. Try taking a position that disagrees. See what stays and what's left.

All you need to understand is that /. will often NOT remove spam or troll posts like this, but WILL remove posts that use the three-letter acronym for 'ess jay doubleyew' in gender-related topics like women in STEM.

Speaks volumes about the /. leadership.

>While HIPPA has good parts and bad parts, one of the things it is routinely used for is to provide "privacy"
>as an excuse for anything a healthcare organization doesn't feel like talking about, in the same way that
>"privileged" or "classified" is used by governments.

Nooooooo no no no no no no no.

You can complain to HHS if a covered entity denies you information about your own records or billing.
With literal million dollar fines being handed out for violations, this is no longer a "thing." It was in the year 2000 when a lot of uncertainty existed. The hospital where the woman worked would get their ass kicked over this, including fines for not having an adequate training program, fines for failing to provide information to the patient, fines for not having an adequate compliance program... HIPAA authorizes disclosures for Treatment, Payment, or health care Operations.

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy...

Source: am a HIPAA auditor

Your statement may be confusing to some people.

http://collectionagencydebt.bl...

The answer is most certainly not "zero."

Correct for any crop. Remember, that's a SCOTUS decision and this is an agency decision. The most recent commerce decision relating to a crop was Gonzalez. You might like reading it, BTW, it's a marijuana decision. Anything that "could" move in interstate commerce IS interstate commerce.

But in that case, too, it MATTERS WHO DOES OR COULD MAKE THE MONEY. Just like in our 'youtube gets the ad revenue, not the drone pilot' debate here.

Your move.

It's low hanging fruit to get a new source of (penalty/fine) revenue, going after Youtube uploaders. Meanwhile, people like my friend operate a nice $$$ weekend business doing drone-based aerial photography (he tells me it's not all surveying; maybe it's voyeurism, who knows, but one thing's for sure -- the FAA has not and will never hear of him).

So you're engaging in commercial activity right now, and I am too? We're both posting on Slashdot, after all.

>Once you start arguing that it's not the operator making money, you open a slippery slope

The whole "standard" you've invented out of whole cloth here? Yeah. Not part of the commerce clause. This IS the exact argument: who makes the money. If it could be anyone in the world tangentially related to the person providing the content, then your viewing a billboard while driving would be interstate commerce. (After all, you said in your "standard" that it's not who makes the money).

Sorry man, the thing is, he wants /. to be like it was and not how it is now, which is like reddit, with movie quotes and in-jokes. Don't be too hard on the old timers. I get that we need to evolve and talk about Pokeyman and make references to '10 era teen comedies or whatever but we have a hard time with that :-/