<p>Both of the following stories are on today's cover of the New York Post online edition.....</p>
<p>"A cunning co-ed con artist was able to dupe some of the nation's top universities - including Harvard and Columbia - into granting her admission by stealing other people's identities, including that of a woman who has been missing for more than seven years, investigators have discovered.
Esther Elizabeth Reed, 28, managed to attend Columbia University as a graduate student for two years under the name Brooke Henson before investigators caught wind of the scam last summer."</p>
<p>"A University of Pennsylvania professor was charged Monday in the bludgeoning death of his estranged wife, who told friends she was preparing to divorce him."</p>
<p>Yeah, that's a little ridiculous that they would accept someone who isn't even the real person. Anyway, did you notice how the NY Post was trying to get across the point that privacy laws are no good, and claiming that Columbia had no right to withhold that person's information. I mean, I do understand where they are coming from with that idea, but I really do hate seeing this idiotic pro-conservative slander against privacy laws and "liberal" universities. Or maybe I'm just reading into this way too much.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Anyway, did you notice how the NY Post was trying to get across the point that privacy laws are no good, and claiming that Columbia had no right to withhold that person's information.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Without invoking the Patriot Act, which it sounds like the NYPD did eventually, federal law holds above any inquiry city or state policy have. The student privacy law, in this case, could then be used to sue Columbia if broken.</p>
<p>I didn't get any pro-conservative slander against privacy laws from the article..it was really only mentioned on the last of page 1 and start of page 2 and everything was quoted or "the officer said..." kind of thing and any policeman who has an investigation blocked by "privacy laws" when they believe they are close to finding a missing person would be understandably miffed.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I really do hate seeing this idiotic pro-conservative slander against privacy laws and "liberal" universities. Or maybe I'm just reading into this way too much.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, you've just demonstrated nothing more than simple-minded hackery. I really do hate seeing people make "idiotic" connections between politics and things that have nothing to do with politics. Whether it's "a bird crapped on my head, it's Dick Cheney's fault" or "I got rear ended by a Mexican, it's the liberals' fault," you appear juvenile and simple-minded when you make such statements.</p>
<p>And, can you tell me how an newspaper/internet article can possibly be <em>slander</em>?</p>
<p>That's true, it would be libel, although that is a little harsher than I mean. I just hate the NY Post, in general, and their sensationalism, even though there wasn't much at all in this article. But yeah, I thought the part that was weird was: </p>
<p>After Reed disappeared, Campbell immediately pressed Columbia to release her records, but the school stonewalled him, claiming that a flag had been placed on her file because she had once been the victim of domestic abuse.</p>
<p>"I tried to explain that I was a police officer, but that didn't seem to help. We sent a state subpoena that they just ignored. We are still fighting with them. I had to go to the Secret Service [which investigates identity theft] before [Columbia] would budge," he said."</p>
<p>...especially that word 'stonewalled', I don't know, it just makes it seem like Columbia was being difficult for difficult's sake. <--did that make sense grammatically?</p>
<p>I agree with C2002. Just out of curiosity how do you figure this case falls under the category of "idiotic pro-conservative slander"?
As stated by Skraylor the university has an obligation to its students, according to the student privacy law to not release the information under any circumstances. If it was released you are the same type of person who would be walking around claiming "umm its the liberals fault - yea blame them, yea".
LIVE AND LET LIVE MAN</p>