F.D.A. Surveillance of Scientists Spread to Outside Critics

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/us/fda-surveillance-of-scientists-spread-to-outside-critics.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

by jamesbritt • 14 years ago

88 25 14 years ago

delinka• 14 years ago

I'm hoping, with the expectation of ultimate disappointment, that someone will soon reign in this Do What The Frak We Want Because We Can attitude of officials within the U.S. government. At the least it's despicable. I'd venture a guess to say this behavior by the FDA management is illegal. However, I'm sure they'll prove to be untouchable.

tokenadult3• 14 years ago

However, I'm sure they'll prove to be untouchable.

That remains to be seen. The New York Times reporting points out that the FDA administrators spied on correspondence with members of Congress of both parties, who are appalled that that spying happens. That's a dangerous mistake to make in an agency funded by appropriations from Congress.

Alex39172• 14 years ago

How many drugs and/or medical devices that are on the market do you think are going to lose their FDA-approved status? Probably zero. At most the one or two that are mentioned in this article. But the chances of having a systematic review conducted on all of the approved drugs to look for wrongdoing is basically zero, despite the fact that the ethics problems and corruption within the FDA are systematic.

_delirium4• 14 years ago

Did the NYTimes article change its title? The HN article reads "F.D.A. Surveillance of Scientists Spread to Outside Critics", but the NYTimes article's title is "F.D.A. Spied on Its Scientists' E-Mails in Bid to Cut Criticism".

The new title seems more accurate. It's still no good at all (obviously), but it doesn't appear that they monitored any computers except their own employees' computers. Of course, that ends up intercepting both sides of any conversation, which may often include non-employees; but that's generally the case when any employer monitors their employees' email (as many do). The questionable part would be whether this violated whistleblower protections, i.e. it was done in retaliation for a complaint.

(I'm more generally wary of employers reading their employees' email, but afaict it's widespread and legal, if not done in some kind of prohibited retaliatory manner. At least, that's the case in the U.S.; I believe some other countries may have privacy laws that restrict what employers can read.)

stfu2• 14 years ago

They might be running some automated A/B testing to find the most effective headline. Currently the headline is for me "Vast Effort by F.D.A. Spied on E-Mails of Its Own Scientists", while the page title is still the "F.D.A. Surveillance of Scientists Spread to Outside Critics".

_delirium4• 14 years ago

Curious. Disappointing if they really are doing A/B testing! Those headlines all have significantly different connotations, so it would seriously lower my opinion of the NYTimes' journalism if they're choosing them based on linkbait potential, and not taking into account accuracy.

Locke16892• 14 years ago

Storing attorney-client communication seems pretty illegal to me.

_delirium4• 14 years ago

Seems questionable to me also, but my understanding was that it's legal (and common) for employers to routinely read communications that take place on company-owned equipment. Do they have to stop reading it if they realize that the employee is communicating with an attorney? Or is it up to the employee to avoid using employer equipment for such purposes?

edit: Some searching digs up that the ABA model code of conduct suggests to attorneys that, as part of their duty of confidentiality, they should warn clients not to email them from their employer's email address. So it seems that the ABA is at least wary of whether such email would be confidential.

tokenadult3• 14 years ago

Read the source HTML on New York Times articles, and scan the New York Times front page online from time to time to see the variety of ways that headlines can appear on the same article from the New York Times. I sometimes see a headline first as link text that leads me to the article, and then see a different headline as the article itself displays in my browswer. If I like the article and then think about submitting it here on HN, I have to think about which submission headline will be give readers an idea of what the article is about and what aspect of a hacker's intellectual curiosity the article might gratify.

To sum up, there is not always a one-to-one correspondence between articles and headlines as the New York Times is hosted on the Web.

jamesbritt• 14 years ago

It's common for what appears as the NYT article title to differ from what appears in the title element.

I use a bookmarklet to submit articles and it automagically grabs the title element content. I leave it as-is if it's close enough.

stfu2• 14 years ago

It seems to me somewhat naive to expect in these conflict scenarios no recording/spying on devices that are owned by the employer.

But I am wondering based on this case: How does "corporate" America regulate the use of private communication devices in general? Are employees who work on non-secretive areas generally allowed to bring personal communication devices into the office (how about a smartphone? a tablet? or a netbook?).

keithpeter• 14 years ago

or bring kit, leave it in the bag/car pop out to a wifi connected cafe at lunchtime or in the evening after work? I was wondering that as well.

UK: Regulation of Investigative Powers Act and European Privacy Directive might need to be read carefully but I'm pretty sure e-mails of this nature would be private.

kaarlo_n• 14 years ago

Example of Spector360 use in Australia:

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/public-serv...

temphn• 14 years ago

The most frightening part here is that at the end of the day, criticisms of this kind have historically led to increases in FDA budgets, because the more the agency fails, the more people cry that it is underfunded in its crucial mission to protect public health. See for example the "Alliance for a Stronger FDA", in which many drug companies lobby for increased FDA funding, both to curry favor with current officials and to exclude competitors.

http://strengthenfda.org/

http://cherryhill.legalexaminer.com/fda-and-prescription-dru...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/fda-funding-b...

As these links show, more failure means more funding, but sometimes also shakeup which reduces the upward arc of a bureaucrat's career and limits them to "just" lifetime employment with tenure (it's called 'career status' and federal employees get it after three years).

So, if this is how they react to cries that the agency is underfunded, can you imagine how the FDA would react to criticism that might result in decreased funding?

ams6110• 14 years ago

More failure means more funding... could apply to almost any government bureaucracy. Department of Education comes to mind.

DannoHung• 14 years ago

They don't need more funding. They need fewer managers and administrators and more technical subject experts.

drcube• 14 years ago

If the FDA has "confidential agency information", they are doing it wrong.

eli• 14 years ago

I'm not sure I fully agree with that. Drug companies should be able to take as long as is needed to make sure a drug is safe without having to tip their hand early to competitors.

einhverfr• 14 years ago

How does that work with the idea that patents are only for limited times?

F.D.A. Surveillance of Scientists Spread to Outside Critics

Related Stories