Oct. 22, 2004 - 21:21 MDT

THE WONDERING JEW

The Confessional

Never ending "bean counting" seems to be the name of the nutsy game in the good old U.S.A. An article in today's Rocky Mountain News brings more poop to scoop. By Sarah Huntley of the Rocky Mountain News, in part:

Shelters fear breaking word

Data collection may compromise privacy, victim advocates say

"Domestic violence shelters nationwide are worried that they will have to choose between funding or the privacy of women who fear for their lives, as a result of a dispute with the federal government, advocates in Colorado say."

"The conflict stems from a new requirement that shelters turn over information about victims who use their services to centralized computer systems."

"The federal Departmeent of Housing and Urban Development wants to use the information to analyze the nation's homeless problem and develop more effective programs. Victims who seek shelter to flee violence in their homes are included among the country's homeless."

"Previous data-collection efforts depended solely on occasional head counts at locations where the homeless tend to congregate, said Brian Sullivan, a HUD spokesman."

"This kind of data isn't very telling about the true nature of homelessness" Sullivan said. "You tend to undercount some people and overrepresent others." "What we really need is an unduplicated count of homeless people in Denver, and in America, and we need to understand who they are."

"But advocates argue that the research undermines critical promises that they make to women in need: confidentiality and safety. Shelter workers fear that victims will stay in abusive situations or lie about their identities to find refuge."

"Victims are coming here to hide, not to go public on some federal database," said Vicki Lutz, executive director of Crossroads Safehouse in Fort Collins. "The chilling impact of this will sadly be impossible to know because you can't prove a negative. But if one battered woman dies in the in the name of data collection, that's one too many."

"Lutz's agency, which relies on $26,000 a year in HUD-related dollars, has refused to participate in the data collection. "No one has been able to prove to me that any system is hacker-proof. Batterers cannot be underestimated in their albility to locate their victims," Lutz said. " I'm a shelter director. That's my first obligation."

"Drafts of the federal rules didn't specifically address domestic violence shelters when they were first circulated. But the final version, which took effect Oct. 1, does."

"On Friday, HUD officials clarified that domestic violence programs won't be required to forward Social Security Numbers if they can establish another form of identification that works."

"But advocates say there is only one safeguard that would eliminate all risks -- an exemption from the data collection program. "There is no firewall or encryption that will prevent an abuser from gaining access to these human tracking systems," said Cindy Southworth, director of technology witht he National Network to End Domestic Violence. "Abusers work in all fields -- as system aministrators, in housing authorities or non-profit organizations. Victims must be exempt from these databases to ensure their safety."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Opinions ? Of course I have them, just listen a minute. First thought that came to my mind was that an abuser, working for Homeland Security or some other "in the dark" investigative agency could force the data from a so called safe data bank -- and forbid anyone or organization to let it be known that it ever happened.

Quote, "won't be requied to forward Social Security numbers if they can establish another form of identification that works." That works by whose rules ? I would almost guess the bean counters will accept nohing but a brand on the forehead of every citizen"

In the article were these words, and I quote the article, "The programs serve more than 40,000 women each year." I don't think those safehouses support an abused woman in the lap of luxury. A bed to sleep in, a place to hang their clothes and possibly a dresser, use of the facilties. All of them in simple useable things. Food at the table and heat or air-conditioning. The main thing and the most important thing that safe houses for battered women offer is SAFETY.

Government has always tried to breach the right of lawyers to keep their counsel, privacy of psychiatric doctors and patients, treatment facilities, the ability of a doctor of medicine to keep patients affairs private.

But it seems that Big Brother wants to count and tag all the beans in safehouses in the NAME OF ACCURATE DATA.

As the years go on, every now and then a fact is pretty well demonstrated, if you or your organization accept money from the federal government, then the federal government can then step in and tell you how to run your circus or whatever. One thing that comes to mind is The Citadel which used to be for males only, which made the mistake of accepting federal funds. The Boys Clubs are not now, they are the Boys and Girls Clubs.

Maybe one should be glad they don't always get what they pray for, often the results come with attached, thorny strings.

Once upon a time there were certain professions and organizations that were sacrosanctly private with no data about the people therein published in any form, report or whatever.

A word and the meaning thereof that seems to be lost in the administrations - past and present - is sanctuary. Now, I wonder, have any of the Catholic Churches accepted money from the Federal Government ? If so, possibly there goes the secrecy of The Confessional . . . . . . . . . . .

Blog