US to Canadians: Don’t Seek Medical Assistance

by Wendy McElroy]

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is sending Canadians a message: calling 911 or seeking help for a mental health or substance problem may result in being targeted. In short, Canadians may be denied entry into the US due to their medical records. A recent incident makes it clear that Canada is sharing private medical information with the DHS. Once entered into a DHS computer, of course, the information can spread to every other US government database.

The prescreening performed by DHS on American fliers includes intimate details. That's not surprising. The screening involves access to American police files, tax information including property taxes, employment records, travel history, car registration and a raft of other data. But, until now, it has been unclear how much intimate information was being shared with the DHS by foreign nations.

Now Canada has landed in an embarrassing spotlight.

RAMPING UP FORTRESS AMERICA

In early 2011, the US and Canada signed an agreement entitled "Beyond the Border: A Shared Vision for Perimeter Security and Competitiveness" which expanded their cooperation on border security. Canada pledged to share more relevant information with the US. For example, if a Canadian had an arrest record, then US customs and immigration were able to access it. Since then, however, law-abiding people who used to travel freely into the States have been turned back at the border.

Indeed, denial of entry seems to have started in the months preceding the agreement, with the final document acting more as an official stamp on already active policies. In September 2010, for example, Lois Kamenitz was turned away from the border because of a 911 medical emergency call made on her behalf. In 2006, Kamenitz overdosed on pills in a suicide attempt and her partner called for assistance. The police responded and wrote up a report on the non-violent medical emergency. Many police records deal with or include non-criminal matters such as missing people, people “of interest,” outstanding warrants, and victim reports. (Suicide is not a criminal offense in either Canada or the US) Police records can also contain mental health information.

Kamenitz had flown into the States three times since 2006. But in 2010, the Transportation Security Agency (TSA) was able to access the police records based on her 911 call. The 64 year-old woman was fingerprinted and photographed because she had done “violence to herself.” She was told to get medical clearance from a “State Department physician” in Toronto; a report from her own doctor was inadequate. She filled out several Homeland Security forms that further inquired after her medical history including substance abuse and diseases.

After paying a $250 fee to a designated doctor and $400 for additional airline tickets, she was finally cleared to fly. Kamenitz has no idea if the same scenario will play out again if she travels. In fact, since the doctor's evaluation is good for one year only, a repetition is probable.

According to lawyer Ryan Fritsch of the Psychiatric Patient Advocate Office, other people have been turned away because of contact with the police due to mental health issues. Fritsch commented, “I don’t know what the chain of information being passed was here. But I can’t imagine that it happened in such a way that it didn’t involve a Canadian government agency, so it’s very troubling.”

KAFKA, MEET ORWELL. BUREAUCRACY, MEET DYSTOPIA

The case of paraplegic Ellen Richardson is even more troubling because she had no contact with the police; a 911 call in 2012 summoned an ambulance only. Richardson was hospitalized for clinical depression in the wake of a relationship breakup and a threatened suicide. When Richardson went to the airport to catch a flight to NYC, the US agent claimed that a “systems check” revealed her June 2012 hospital stay for “a mental illness.” She was denied entry.

Richardson was told she needed a $500 medical clearance from a State Department approved doctor; a call to her psychiatrist was not adequate. She forfeited a pre-paid $6,000 Caribbean cruise that had been arranged in collaboration with a March of Dimes group. Like Kaminetz, Richardson had previously traveled into the States several times. This was the first time there was a problem.

The question arises: if there was no police involvement and so no police file, how did DHS and TSA know the specifics of Richardson's hospitalization? The Canadian government denies sharing medical data. But Member of Parliament Frances Gélinas is pursuing the question, especially since she has learned of other people who were turned away at the border for health reasons unrelated to mental problems. In one case, the border agent also cited a recent hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

The DHS believes it has a 'right' to the personal information of every person in the world. The only barrier to the DHS is the extent to which foreign governments refuse to provide data. Are other nations saying “no” to the DHS? The secrecy with which data is transferred makes a definite answer difficult. An educated guess must substitute.

Canada is one of the Five Eyes. That is, it is one of the five English-speaking nations that have signed an agreement to share intelligence operations. The other signatories are the UK, US, Australia, and New Zealand. Of the Five Eyes, Canada arguably has the best reputation for privacy with the Privacy Act of 1983 establishing the office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. And, yet, Ellen Richardson was confronted by American agents about her hospital stay. It is highly unlikely that Canada is alone in granting the DHS carte blanche on data.

Why is the data sharing so important an issue? Glenn Greenwald, the journalist who facilitated the information leaked by Edward Snowden, explained, “[T]he reason privacy is so critical is because it’s only when we know we’re not being watched that we can engage in creativity, or dissent, or pushing the boundaries of what’s deemed acceptable. A society in which people feel like they’re always being watched is one that breeds conformity....This is a crucial part of why a surveillance state is so damaging— it’s why all tyrannies know that watching people is the key to keeping them in line. Because only when you’re not being watched can you really be a free individual.”