• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion


    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: swilow | Vagabond696

Legal implications of calling 000 related to drugs in Australia.

^ i suspect that a lot of the rules have to do with obligations to report abuse, especially of minors etc.
perhaps if medical folks suspected a parent or older person was supplying a child with drugs or something?

i was about to write something about how i agree with webbykevin - solely from personal experience of being fucked over by cops, but i don't really feel like elaborating. it would take a pretty serious incident for me to consider contacting the police; life and death serious. police culture is not to be trusted, they're deceptive and have no qualms about bullshitting you.
i will never talk to a cop unless i am legally obliged to.
 
I talked with a health care provider recently about detoxing from opiates and I made it very clear that I didn't want anything to go on my "record". The nice lady went on to say that they must keep records by law and that they can only be accessed by third parties if, like Mr B. said, they believe that I may be at risk of harming myself or others, I give my consent, or if police get a subpeona if they "suspect I may have been involved in a crime".

What really shits me is that police can get my private and very personal medical information just on a "hunch". I may have misinterpreted what I was told, but this was the main reason I decided against getting help.
 
What really shits me is that police can get my private and very personal medical information just on a "hunch". I may have misinterpreted what I was told, but this was the main reason I decided against getting help.

They can't just get it on a hunch that's for sure.
 
Suspicion, or being a suspect shouldn't be grounds for police to get a subpoena for my medical records. Like I said, I may have misinterpreted what I was told, maybe someone with more knowledge on the subject can chime in?
 
I guess the courts would decide if the suspicion is reasonable, you can challenge that though. You'd be more after a specific law that states LE can access medical records without getting a warrant.

What's reasonable? I'm not sure, I wish we had a lawyer on bluelight.

I hope someone who knows what they're talking about chimes in also :)
 
This might be useful -

2.8 Use and disclosure and enforcement bodies NPP 2.1(h)

This provision permits a health service provider to use or disclose personal information, where they have a reasonable belief that this is reasonably necessary for a range of functions or activities carried out by, or on behalf of, an enforcement body. An enforcement body in this context includes the National Crime Authority, the Australian Customs Service and other Commonwealth, State or Territory authorities established under law to conduct criminal investigations or inquiries.

Permitted uses and disclosures could relate to suspected unlawful activity, criminal offences or other breaches of law, suspected improper conduct or preparation for and conduct of Court or Tribunal proceedings. This is not an exhaustive list; refer to NPP2.1 (h) for more information.

The Privacy Act does not intend to interfere with health service providers' legal obligations, which might already affect the use and disclosure of personal information. For example, this provision does not override the duty of confidentiality between a medical practitioner and an individual. A health service provider is entitled not to disclose personal information if there is no law that requires it.

However, the Privacy Act does not intend to deter health service providers from lawfully co-operating with agencies performing law enforcement functions. Police and other enforcement bodies are generally reliant on voluntary co-operation to provide information.

Many health service providers, including mental health or drug and alcohol workers, general practitioners and counsellors, treat people who engage in unlawful activity. These individuals need to have access to health services in confidence, particularly for treatment of health issues intrinsically linked to unlawful behaviour. Usually, this approach sits at the core of the 'harm minimisation' model in dealing with a range of 'at risk' behaviours.

When considering a request for such a disclosure, the importance of maintaining the individual's confidentiality must be balanced with the public interest in the investigation and enforcement of the criminal law.

So maybe they could do it on hunch. I'd refer to NPP2.1 (h) for more information.

If you really want to find out though, I'd contact a lawyer...I think you can do this through some online websites.

For me personally, since I'm fairly law-abiding apart from drug use in personal amounts..I don't worry. Are police going to go after my medical records? I don't think I'm of enough interest to them. I can understand wanting to know though.
 
I don't have any reason suspect that police would go after my medical records either, but the fact that they can bothers me.

I don't subscribe to the "if you've got nothing to hide, why not let the government invade all of your basic human rights?" mentality. In fact I vehemently oppose that point of view.
 
This provision permits a health service provider to use or disclose personal information, where they have a reasonable belief that this is reasonably necessary for a range of functions or activities carried out by, or on behalf of, an enforcement body.

Ah, great.
 
I don't subscribe to the "if you've got nothing to hide, why not let the government invade all of your basic human rights?" mentality. In fact I vehemently oppose that point of view.

I'm with you :) I'm just realistic about the way things are, and how much effort people (including myself) are willing to put in order to raise awareness in the hope that things would change (not very much effort)

Most people don't care. If the police asked for access to view your medical records in regards to investigating a crime, most wouldn't have a problem...and it could even be considered a red flag if you said no. Sucks...
 
Last edited:
Related news report I stumbled accross -

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/te...ne-usage-with-no-warrants-20120217-1tegl.html

LAW enforcement and government departments are accessing vast quantities of phone and internet usage data without warrants, prompting warnings from the Greens of a growing ''surveillance state'' and calls by privacy groups for tighter controls.


Figures released by the federal Attorney-General's Department show that federal and state government agencies accessed telecommunications data and internet logs more than 250,000 times during criminal and revenue investigations in 2010-11.

The Greens senator Scott Ludlam highlighted the statistics while calling for tighter controls on access to mobile device location information.


''There should be a higher standard of proof, or a higher standard of cause needing to be shown, to track down your every location through your life than there is for reading your email,'' he said at a recent conference on internet privacy.
''We've already taken some pretty dangerous steps in this country towards the surveillance state, and not that many of us are either interested or aware that it's going on, including people like me who should know better.''

Data available to police, security and other government agencies under federal law includes phone and internet account information, outward and inward call details, phone and internet access location data, and details of IP addresses visited, though not the content of communications.
Access is authorised by senior police officers or officials rather than by judicial warrant.

Federal agencies making use of telecommunications data include the Australian Federal Police, Australian Crime Commission and Australian Taxation Office, departments including Defence, Immigration and Citizenship, and Health and Ageing, and Medicare and Australia Post.

Data is also accessed by state police and anti-corruption bodies, government departments and revenue offices, and many other official bodies.
The largest user of telecommunications data in 2010-11 was Victoria Police with 65,703 authorisations. It has reported an increase of more than 50 per cent in authorisations over two years ''as investigator knowledge becomes more widely known, technology changes and auto processing have simplified the process''.
NSW Police reported 43,416 authorisations over the same period.

No statistics have been released for telecommunications data access by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation.
The scale of telecommunications data mining by police and security agencies has also been illustrated by the release under freedom-of-information laws of a ''highly protected'' report on a single AFP-Defence Department leak investigation conducted from 1999 to 2001.

In an effort to identify the source of leaks of secret intelligence reports on East Timor, the federal police and Defence security investigators accessed phone call records of nearly 14,000 phone services totalling more than 77,000 phone calls.

In a recent policy statement the Australian Privacy Foundation noted that it was now easy to track smartphones and tablets ''in real time, or retrospectively''.
''Where any form of handling of location data is authorised by law, the authority must be specific, justified, proportionate and controlled,'' it said.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/te...no-warrants-20120217-1tegl.html#ixzz1msaUMHOv
 
"Phone and internet account information, outward and inward call details, phone and internet access location data, and details of IP addresses visited, though not the content of communications."

All call details, every website you visit and wherever you are at any moment that you connect to the internet.
What the fuck.
IP addresses of every website? What. The. Fuck. Can't prove anything though, just that you like to visit certain websites a lot.

Thanks for posting the article.
 
this is the first time ive been on in months and im absolutely disgusted that this is even a question to be worrying about. its just degerate human behavior and absolte selfishness to consider such thing when another persons life is in danger.

sorry if i misunderstood but thats my 2c. its a harm reduction site not a save me from prison site...
 
^ To be fair, I don't think anybody said they wouldn't call an ambulance if they thought the cops would also come. This sort of thing is important/interesting to know about regardless of whether it would affect your decision.
 
this is the first time ive been on in months and im absolutely disgusted that this is even a question to be worrying about. its just degerate human behavior and absolte selfishness to consider such thing when another persons life is in danger.

sorry if i misunderstood but thats my 2c. its a harm reduction site not a save me from prison site...


You think I would hesitate to call an ambulance if a friend needed it?
Of course I wouldn't, I don't even think I would have a choice in the matter because I would go into some intense adrenaline mode.

I just wanted to know what would happen when the medical guys arrive, will police arrive to and arrest me and whatever else.
But I understand how you comprehended it like that, and I agree with what you said.
 
yeah wasnt having a go, ive just known of a simular situation within my family. the end result was a dead person and the other person going to jail anyway for their misconduct. i get your curiosity but through experience i know some people can be completely retarded and think of nothing but themselves.

peace
 
Just because if someone overdoses doesnt mean that the police will arrive. They will come out if the law has been breached and the paramedics have confidentiality and cannot contact the police, same as doctors, they cannot give out information unless the law has been breached.
 
Top