If your 18 year old is still in high school, which many of them are their senior year, parents still have to give permission for everything.

Unless you have written permission, your child’s college can’t release grades or behavior info to you, even if you pay the bill.

18 year olds can die for this country, own and fire weapons, but not drink a beer or rent a car.

Until we make up our minds on whether they’re children or not, parents have to make arrangements themselves in case of an emergency.

We get it. You are a totally reprobate radical leftist.

Now STFU and GTFA.
30 posts out of 90. 1/3

You are a f*%(ing ghoul.

People try all ways to gain access to the information we posses but our loyalty is to our customer. And unless our customer personally ask’s us to release information, we have a NO EXCEPTION policy on providing that info. If we release it to the police thru subpoena then it becomes a legal matter and you can take what ever legal recourse you have thru the court system to get the info you request but under no circumstances do we bend/break the rules.

Sadly, people ask us too more times then I could count. I hear tons of sad stories. But its not our job to pick and choose which ones are legit and which ones are not.

Asking for a subpoena helps keep the playing field even and helps protect us from risk of any sort of lawsuit.

I categorically would not want it. My mom would want to know. I have the relationship with Google where my own online activity is concerned. My wishes should control.

I would say, though, that companies can’t spend tons of time verifying relationship closeness. So it should instead be “Next of Kin/Designated Person” and then list the people by name and DOB or some similer identifier.

IF a person has not chosen this, then that’s it then. The family does not get the info, emotions notwithstanding.

What might be helpful, in the future, is if Google included an optional provision in its accounts with individuals; a “check the box” provision that says something along the lines of “If a police investigation into my disappearance is initiated then at any time after one week from the filing of such a report, Google may release any information it has regarding me to my closest relative.”

Random, given the fact that Michelle chose to release her email to Google as a means of bringing public pressure to bear on them, you might consider the fact that it’s more than a little crappy of you to camp out on this thread and repeatedly undermine her efforts.

It isn’t in any way accidental. I am defending Google because I think they are right to protect Marizela’s privacy and comply with the contract they formed with her to do so.

The police have the info they requested; that’s the important thing. In a push between someone’s privacy and a family member’s concern, I unapologetically come down on the side of the person’s privacy. Michelle already disclosed that Marizela was taking antidepressants and I have no reason to believe Marizela wished this disclosed. What else would she disclose if she had access to Marizela’s records? Did Marizela even want her to know?

Google ought to follow the law, including its contract.

If, however, Michelle can go before a neutral third party, a court, and get an order compelling disclosure, after convincing a judge about the benefits of her having the information so she can independently try to find Marizela … after Google and the Seattle PD have both had their say, in camera if necessary, then I’m OK with that.

I’m not OK with pressuring Google to break the law and its contractual privacy commitment to Marizela. I will continue to defend her privacy rights, which enhanced others privacy rights, and Googlr’s freedom to protect its users’ confidentiality while complying with lawful subpoenas.

I think it’s crappy to try to breach her privacy, but I haven’t made a point of ad hominem moral attacks here. There are competing interests and it isn’t the case that any side is necessarily acting unreasonably, nor with a bad motive.

Take it before a court: don’t politically pressure a company to unilaterally betray its contract with its users.

Random on March 5, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Random, given the fact that Michelle chose to release her email to Google as a means of bringing public pressure to bear on them, you might consider the fact that it’s more than a little crappy of you to camp out on this thread and repeatedly undermine her efforts.

On the off chance that anyone from Google actually reads this thread, you guys really need to get this done for this family. There are more important things in life than TOS.

I want to spit in the face of any leftist who lectures about “hate.”

This is nonsense. 85% of diagnosed schizophrenics have no first-order relative with the “disease”. It is a terror disturbance and defense against the terror.

It’s from the peer-reviewed literature. I am not a biologist though. Take it up with them. I’m quite skeptical about clinical trials and medical use of statistics and I am a mathematician.

If you have some expertise in this area beyond reading sh*t on the internet, please enlighten us.

Why haven’t the closest members of Marisela’s desperate family been questioned about content already? It appears without family input to this data . . .the investigation is hampering itself by limiting the interpretation of those details.

This is nonsense. 85% of diagnosed schizophrenics have no first-order relative with the “disease”. It is a terror disturbance and defense against the terror.

In countries without coercive psychiatry and drugging, schizophrenics recover more often.

Why do I have the feeling of pontification as I read this guy’s posts?

Could it be because he knows nothing more than the rest of us, but pretends/believes he knows more?

He doesn’t work for Google. He doesn’t work for Seattle PD.

I think it’s up to Google to figure out what they can do for Michelle, and up to Seattle PD to tell the family in general terms what they think may have happened.

Leaving the family totally without any data at all — unless there really is no data at all — is mean-spirited. Perhaps that’s another feeling I get out of Random’s comments too — which is why I bridle at them.

We have no sound medical model for mental illnesses. They are psychological and social relationship illnesses, usually in response to trauma.

Random on March 5, 2012 at 11:15 AM

There are genetic markers for schizophrenia but they are very complicated (I worked in a small biotech startup a few years ago). Bi-polar disease comes under schizophrenia and this is confirmed by the same genetic markers but there are about 5 different forms of schizophrenia which cannot yet be distinguished genetically. The markers are on 8 different chromosomes.

Mental illnesses also imply a difficult philosophical problem with “consent”.

As for the profession of psychiatry, there are good and bad in every profession. My mother had bad doctors and good. None of them were trying to harm her. The good ones listened to my father’s opinions and took them into account. He was even correct, at least once.

There is still no evidence that this applies in this case. There’s no reason to suspect family members of foul play either. She was living 2000 miles away.

However, we do know she was taking anti-depressant drugs when she disappeared.

Which do indeed increase suicidal thoughts, according to the FDA black box warning label now required on these drugs.

It’s discussed here, among other places:

Dr. Peter Breggin’s Testimony at Veterans Affairs Committee On “Antidepressant-Induced Suicide, Violence and Mania: Implications for the Military”

The entire video is rivetting, but the part about the black box suicidality label warning begins at 7:58 in. I suspect strongly SSRI and newer antidepressant prescriptions have contributed to the high suicide rate of America’s veterans this last decade.

That’s essentially what the Hippocratic oath is about.

The Hippocratic Oath is supposed to start with, “First do no harm,” which psychiatry violates routinely. It shouldn’t even be a medical profession. We have no sound medical model for mental illnesses. They are psychological and social relationship illnesses, usually in response to trauma.

Random on March 5, 2012 at 10:56 AM

Speaking strictly on the experience of my aunt, therapy was only used to support my aunt when the occasional need for medication adjustment led to unfortunate incidents of “embarrassing” behavior.