Outraged by no more privacy

Published

I want to know why do RNs, LPNs, and NAs now need to have their fingerprints in the system in PA. I consider this a huge violation of privacy for employees. Under what circumstance would they need the fingerprints in the first place. And I've tried to find the law that states it be required. Other than having most of my entire history, criminal background, child abuse clearance, and drug test, along with my SS# everywhere, why do I need to subject myself to more validity and no privacy. By the way, I have nothing on my record and have never taken (nor will I ever) taken drugs. So this isn't about covering up indiscrepancies. If you agree or have an opposing view please comment. And if anyone knows the law I'm looking for and could provide a link. Thanks.

Specializes in CCT.
If there is one thing I learned from the military it is this, Freedom is not free and you have to sacrafice some element of privacy to ensure safety. Sure people misuse power but if the threat of people breaking laws (Misusing power) is enough for us to not enforce laws for public safety then we might as well just go ahead and not have any laws at all.

You have a profound, profound misunderstanding of the "freedom is not free" concept. The whole point is that sacrifices of personal security must be made to ensure liberty.

Ben Franklin said it best. "Those who sacrafice liberty for temporary security deserve neither".

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in LTC, wound care.

I used to work in financial services 25 years ago. To get a securities license in those days required a background check and fingerprinting. Hey, I was making transactions with people's personal investments. It was required because it was a position of trust with people's money.

I imagine that people should expect at least that level of security when it comes to their bodies and their medical privacy....

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Peds/outpatient FP,derm,allergy/private duty.

I had to have a set of ink prints taken in California in 1976 when I was licensed. It's to weed out imposters, I believe. Our driver's licenses require a thumb print. My big objection is that California wants to be able to publish our home addresses on the license veriication site!! Very bad idea!

Up Vote Up Vote ×

My fingerprints aren't very private. I leave them all over the place willy nilly daily. I have no shame.

Joking aside, I've resigned myself to having to go the extra step to prove my identity already since I have a very common name, a la Jane Smith (and no, my name isn't Jane Smith.) I've had warrants served to me because of my name being the same as some of other local he**raiser, and it;s not very fun to explain "No, I am NOT that person, this is my birth date and drivers license, see how they don't match?"

Up Vote Up Vote ×
You have a profound, profound misunderstanding of the "freedom is not free" concept. The whole point is that sacrifices of personal security must be made to ensure liberty.

Ben Franklin said it best. "Those who sacrafice liberty for temporary security deserve neither".

You have a profound misunderstanding of textbook definitions, if you are relating your quote to what I said. Liberty is: "freedom of choice", "freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.", "freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice."

So what Ben Franklin was saying that giving up your ability to be free and make your own choices for temporary security is ignorant, not sacrificing elements of privacy to ensure public safety. By being transparent you do not give up your freedoms, no one is interfering in your choices by fingerprinting you. But thank you for your attempt at philosophy :lol2:

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in CCT.
You have a profound misunderstanding of textbook definitions, if you are relating your quote to what I said. Liberty is: "freedom of choice; "liberty of opinion"; "liberty of worship"; "liberty--perfect liberty--to think or feel or do just as one pleases"; "at liberty to choose whatever occupation one wishes"" So what Ben Franklin was saying that giving up your freedom of choice for temporary security is ignorant, not sacrificing elements of privacy. But thank you for your attempt at philosophy :lol2:

The problem is that you see privacy and liberty as seperate concepts. In reality they are very much intertwined. I'll just have to agree to disagree with you.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
The problem is that you see privacy and liberty as seperate concepts. In reality they are very much intertwined. I'll just have to agree to disagree with you.

Liberty is the ability to make free choices and privacy is the ability to not be held accountable by anyone for your choices. If there is no accountability there is no safety, thus making laws irrelevant.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in ICU, Acute Dialysis, Telemetry/Stepdown.

If people don't like the requirements, both government and hospital imposed, then they can exercise their 'Liberty' and choose not be a nurse.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Nurse Leader specializing in Labor & Delivery.
I find it amazing that people cry when things like 9/11 happen and say "The government did not protect us" but then when the government steps in to try to protect us they say "You are violating my freedoms".

Most people I know who have a problem with the latter don't also argue the former. They tend to be libertarian in all things, and fairly consistent in their criticism of the government.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Nurse Leader specializing in Labor & Delivery.
You have a profound, profound misunderstanding of the "freedom is not free" concept. The whole point is that sacrifices of personal security must be made to ensure liberty.

Ben Franklin said it best. "Those who sacrafice liberty for temporary security deserve neither".

Heh. Seems I was late to the party. :)

Up Vote Up Vote ×

For those of you talking about the credit issue I have an FYI: did you know that every time you apply/sign up for health insurance through your employer (and I suppose privately) they do a credit check? This is the one that makes me mad. Every time your credit is checked your score goes down due to the checking. Yes, I know, they say they do a "soft pull" kind of check that doesn't affect your credit, but I'm not so sure I believe it. Anyway, that was just an FYI.

As for fingerprinting, I don't like it, but I will do what I have to in order to work. When they start asking me my religion and documenting that on the fingerprint card, I will have to draw the line. (Has anyone heard of the mark of the beast? Please, no attacks here, I'm trying to add some humor.)

Up Vote Up Vote ×

"I don't have anything to hide": It is probable true that the majority of the populace is law abiding. However history is filled with stories of those people falsely imprisoned or denied basic human dignity and who "didn't have anything to hide". It is the view of the uninformed and naive individual who lacks understanding of the depth of the issue. The issue is not "do you have anything to hide" the issue is "do you want the right of privacy"? It will not be until your rights are violated or those of someone you love that you will realize how much you aided the violation by thinking the issue is "nothing to hide".

If we are guaranteed the right to be innocent until proven guilty then why does society permit behavior that treats everyone as guilty until proven innocent by fingerprinting and other such actions?

A fingerprint ID can be stolen. Just change the name on the plates. Even top secret federal information can be stolen. Just ask wikileaks. How much easier your fingerprint data? Once obtained it can be used for or against you. When the majority of the law abiding populace who doesn't have anything to hide thinks it's therefore allowable to invade just one more level of privacy then just one more level will be invaded and then another. It is the law abiding populace with nothing to hide that permits invasion of privacy because it makes them feel safer. Those who do not law abide, always figure out a way to evade the next level of detection.

The purpose of privacy is to protect personal freedom. Freedom is something you won't know you had, until it is going, going, gone, all gone.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Join the Discussion