If you go to an appropriate government agency, you have whistleblower protection. Yes, there is still a risk. But you are not very likely to be prosecuted, and you have legal recourse for any retaliation.
If, on the other hand, you violate HIPAA by entering an electronic medical record and leaking confidential records to a journalist, you are creating a clear trail of evidence that definitely exposes you to prosecution. Haim and Rufo both knew this, or could have easily known this. Haim could have and should have sought legal advice before proceeding in this manner, and Rufo should have insisted that he do so before publishing illegally obtained medical records.
Instead Rufo is making a false and quite frankly ridiculous claim that the redaction of the names precludes a HIPAA violation. This is willful ignorance. All you have to do is read the statute.
The law does not provide whistleblower protection for what Haim did. In fact, neither Rufo nor Haim´s lawyers are claiming that Haim has legal whistleblower protection. Rufo is only saying that it´s a matter to be litigated, which I take to mean that Haim´s lawyers are devising a novel legal theory that goes beyond the letter of the law. I am no lawyer, but that sounds like a longshot. I would not want to bet my freedom on it.
Haim and Rufo were extremely reckless. Claiming that this is a political prosecution does not change these facts. Haim is the one that is likely to pay the price. Rufo is not.
The choices being made about who and what topics to prosecute vs ignore or refuse to charge is the political prosecution in my view. Obviously, the federal government going after him betrays the fact that he couldn't very well go to the government in good faith. I wasn't being facetious when asking, and I appreciate your response.
I have a question for you. What if going to the appropriate government official to report gets you ignored, fired, or told to shut up?
If you go to an appropriate government agency, you have whistleblower protection. Yes, there is still a risk. But you are not very likely to be prosecuted, and you have legal recourse for any retaliation.
If, on the other hand, you violate HIPAA by entering an electronic medical record and leaking confidential records to a journalist, you are creating a clear trail of evidence that definitely exposes you to prosecution. Haim and Rufo both knew this, or could have easily known this. Haim could have and should have sought legal advice before proceeding in this manner, and Rufo should have insisted that he do so before publishing illegally obtained medical records.
Instead Rufo is making a false and quite frankly ridiculous claim that the redaction of the names precludes a HIPAA violation. This is willful ignorance. All you have to do is read the statute.
The law does not provide whistleblower protection for what Haim did. In fact, neither Rufo nor Haim´s lawyers are claiming that Haim has legal whistleblower protection. Rufo is only saying that it´s a matter to be litigated, which I take to mean that Haim´s lawyers are devising a novel legal theory that goes beyond the letter of the law. I am no lawyer, but that sounds like a longshot. I would not want to bet my freedom on it.
Haim and Rufo were extremely reckless. Claiming that this is a political prosecution does not change these facts. Haim is the one that is likely to pay the price. Rufo is not.
The choices being made about who and what topics to prosecute vs ignore or refuse to charge is the political prosecution in my view. Obviously, the federal government going after him betrays the fact that he couldn't very well go to the government in good faith. I wasn't being facetious when asking, and I appreciate your response.
I didn’t think you were being facetious.
I would be keenly interested in evidence for selective or political prosecution. I have seen only speculation that this is the case, but no evidence.