You limited your search to:

 Collection: Congressional Research Service Reports
Internet Privacy: Overview and Pending Legislation
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs6057/
Internet Privacy: Overview and Pending Legislation
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs6056/
Internet Privacy: Overview and Pending Legislation
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs6055/
Internet Privacy: Overview and Pending Legislation
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs6054/
Internet Privacy: Overview and Pending Legislation
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs5502/
Internet Privacy: Overview and Pending Legislation
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs5501/
Internet Privacy: Overview and Pending Legislation
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs5500/
Internet Privacy: Overview and Pending Legislation
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs5499/
Internet Privacy: Overview and Pending Legislation
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs5498/
Internet Privacy: Overview and Pending Legislation
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs5497/
Internet Privacy: Overview and Pending Legislation
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs5496/
Internet Privacy: Overview and Pending Legislation
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs3479/
Internet Privacy: Overview and Pending Legislation
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs3478/
Internet Privacy: Overview and Pending Legislation
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs3477/
Internet Privacy: Overview and Pending Legislation
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs3476/
Internet Privacy: Overview and Pending Legislation
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs3475/
Internet Privacy: Overview and Pending Legislation
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs3474/
Restrictions on Minors' Access to Material on the Internet
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs801/
Russia's Religion Law: Assessments and Implications
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs771/
Compliance with the HIPAA Medical Privacy Rule
As of April 14, 2003, most health care providers (including doctors and hospitals) and health plans are required to comply with the new Privacy Rule mandated by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”), and must comply with national standards to protect individually identifiable health information. The HIPAA Privacy Rule creates a federal floor of privacy protections for individually identifiable health information; establishes a set of basic consumer protections; institutes a series of regulatory permissions for uses and disclosures of protected health information; permits any person to file an administrative complaint for violations; and authorizes the imposition of civil or criminal penalties. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs5175/
A Brief Summary of the Medical Privacy Rule
This report provides a brief overview of the modified medical privacy rule, “Standards for the Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information”(“privacy rule”) published on August 14, 2002 by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The privacy regulation creates a new federal floor of privacy protections while leaving in place more protective state rules or practices. The rule establishes a set of basic consumer protections and a series of regulatory permissions for uses and disclosures of protected health information. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs5166/
A Brief Summary of the Medical Privacy Rule
This report provides a brief overview of the recently modified medical privacy rule, “Standards for the Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information”(“privacy rule”) published on August 14, 2002 by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The privacy rule went into effect April 14, 2001, with compliance required by April 2003 for most entities. The regulation creates a new federal floor of privacy protections while leaving in place more protective state rules or practices. The rule establishes a set of basic consumer protections and a series of regulatory permissions for uses and disclosures of protected health information. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs3267/
A Brief Summary of the Medical Privacy Rule
On March 27, 2002 the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published its proposed changes to the medical privacy regulations issued by the Clinton Administration under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”). HHS is accepting comments on the proposed changes until April 26, 2002. This report provides an overview of the final rule for “Standards for the Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information” ( “privacy rule”) that went into effect on April 14, 2001, and an overview of the Bush Administration’s proposed changes to the privacy regulation. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs3266/
A Brief Summary of the HIPAA Medical Privacy Rule
This report provides a brief overview of the modified HIPAA Privacy rule, “Standards for the Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information” (“privacy rule”) published on August 14, 2002 by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs5165/
The U.N. Convention Against Torture: Overview of U.S. Implementation Policy Concerning the Removal of Aliens
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs5990/
Encryption Technology: Congressional Issues
This report discusses primarily, the controversy over encryption concerns what access the government should have to encrypted stored computer data or electronic communications (voice and data, wired and wireless) for law enforcement purposes. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs728/
Immigration-Related Detention: Current Legislative Issues
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs5951/
Health Information Standards, Privacy, and Security: HIPAA's Administrative Simplification Regulations
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs1812/
Toxics Release Inventory: Do Communities Have a Right to Know More?
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs454/
Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board: 109th Congress Proposed Refinements
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs6230/
Campaign Finance Regulation Under the First Amendment: Buckley v. Valeo and its Supreme Court Progeny
This report first discusses the critical holdings enunciated bythe SupremeCourt in Buckley, including those: upholding reasonable contribution limits, striking down expenditure limits, upholding disclosure reporting requirements, and upholding the system of voluntary presidential election expenditure limitations linked with public financing. It then examines the Court’s extension of Buckley in fifteen subsequent cases, evaluating them in three regulatory contexts: contribution limits (California Medical Association v. FEC; Citizens Against Rent Control v. Berkeley; Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC; FEC v. Beaumont), expenditure limits (First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti; FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life; Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce; FEC v. National Right to Work; Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (Colorado I) v. FEC; FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (Colorado II); FEC v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee; FEC v. National Conservative Political Action Committee), and disclosure requirements (Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation; Brown v. Socialist Workers ‘74 Campaign Committee; FEC v. Akins; McIntrye v. Ohio Elections Commission). digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4392/
Campaign Finance Regulation Under the First Amendment: Buckley v. Valeo and its Supreme Court Progeny
This report first discusses the critical holdings enunciated bythe SupremeCourt in Buckley, including those: upholding reasonable contribution limits, striking down expenditure limits, upholding disclosure reporting requirements, and upholding the system of voluntary presidential election expenditure limitations linked with public financing. It then examines the Court’s extension of Buckley in fifteen subsequent cases, evaluating them in three regulatory contexts: contribution limits (California Medical Association v. FEC; Citizens Against Rent Control v. Berkeley; Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC; FEC v. Beaumont), expenditure limits (First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti; FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life; Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce; FEC v. National Right to Work; Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (Colorado I) v. FEC; FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (Colorado II); FEC v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee; FEC v. National Conservative Political Action Committee), and disclosure requirements (Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation; Brown v. Socialist Workers ‘74 Campaign Committee; FEC v. Akins; McIntrye v. Ohio Elections Commission). digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4391/
Campaign Finance Regulation Under the First Amendment:
This Report first discusses the critical holdings enunciated by the Supreme Court in Buckley, including those: upholding reasonable contribution limits, striking down expenditure limits, upholding disclosure reporting requirements, and upholding the system of voluntary presidential election expenditure limitations linked with public financing. It then examines the Court’s extension of Buckley in fourteen subsequent cases, evaluating them in three regulatory contexts: contribution limits (California Medical Association v. FEC; Citizens Against Rent Control v. Berkeley; Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC), expenditure limits (First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti; FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life; Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce; FEC v. National Right to Work; Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC; FEC v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee; FEC v. National Conservative Political Action Committee), and disclosure requirements (Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation; Brown v. Socialist Workers ‘74 Campaign Committee; FEC v. Akins; McIntrye v. Ohio Elections Commission). digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs1158/
Obscenity, Child Pornography, and Indecency: Recent Developments and Pending Issues
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs5781/
Obscenity, Child Pornography, and Indecency: Recent Developments and Pending Issues
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs5780/
Obscenity, Child Pornography, and Indecency: Recent Developments and Pending Issues
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs5778/
Obscenity, Child Pornography, and Indecency: Recent Developments and Pending Issues
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4084/
Obscenity, Child Pornography, and Indecency: Recent Developments and Pending Issues
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4083/
Obscenity, Child Pornography, and Indecency: Recent Developments and Pending Issues
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4082/
Obscenity, Child Pornography, and Indecency: Recent Developments and Pending Issues
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2344/
Obscenity, Child Pornography, and Indecency: Recent Developments and Pending Issues
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2343/
Detention of U.S. Citizens
In 1971, Congress passed legislation to repeal the Emergency Detention Act of 1950 and to enact the following language: “No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress.” The new language, codified at 18 U.S.C. §4001(a), is called the Non-Detention Act. This statutory provision received attention after the 9/11 terrorist attacks when the Administration designated certain U.S. citizens as “enemy combatants” and claimed the right to detain them indefinitely without charging them, bringing them to trial, or giving them access to counsel. In litigation over Yaser Esam Hamdi and Jose Padilla, both designated enemy combatants, the Administration has argued that the Non-Detention Act restricts only imprisonments and detentions by the Attorney General, not by the President or military authorities. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs6144/
9/11 Commission Recommendations: A Civil Liberties Oversight Board
Among the recommendations made by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission) in its final report is the creation of a board within the executive branch to oversee adherence to guidelines on, and the commitment to defend, civil liberties by the federal government. This report examines this recommendation and its implications, and will be updated as events warrant. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs5755/
Privacy Protection: Mandating New Arrangements to Implement and Assess Federal Privacy Policy and Practice
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs5754/
Medical Records Privacy: Questions and Answers on the HIPAA Final Rule
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs5751/
Medical Records Privacy: Questions and Answers on the HIPAA Final Rule
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs3929/
Medical Records Privacy: Questions and Answers on the HIPAA Final Rule
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs3928/
Medical Records Privacy: Questions and Answers on the HIPAA Final Rule
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2251/
Medical Records Privacy: Questions and Answers on the HIPAA Final Rule
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs1458/
Property Rights: House Judiciary Committee Reports H.R. 2372
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs1109/