This just in: ex-staffer at UCLA Med Center indicted in snooping scandal *Updated

Lawanda J. Jackson, the former administrative specialist at the UCLA Medical Center who allegedly pried into private medical records, has been indicted on charges of selling celebrities' info to media outlets, Charles Ornstein reports.

Lawanda Jackson, 49, was indicted April 9 on a charge of obtaining individually identifiable health information for commercial advantage. Representatives for actress Farrah Fawcett allege that Jackson leaked personal information about her battle with cancer to the National Enquirer.

The indictment was unsealed today. More details in Charles' full story here. Pix of celebs who have been snooped on here.

--Veronique de Turenne

Photo: AP

Comments

[Michael]

She obviously made a big mistake through her dishonest and unethical behavior. Never ceases to amaze me how actors are first to sue over anything that remotely threatens their pampered lifestyle but they are always last to help make positive change in society other than PR campaigns pretending to care.

[Budgie]

Based on his comment, I doubt Michael is 13.

[MYLA]

No place is safe any more. One time an orderly looked up my phone number and called me at home.

[BelBiv Devoe]

Have been following information tech closely since the early '80s. And it's my livelihood. If there's one thing I've learned it's this: all -- ALL -- databases will eventually be abused. Just accept it; there's no escape. If it's in a database, it will eventually be seen by those who shouldn't (whether legally or morally) see it.

Includes every purchase made with plastic or using a "savings card," any electronically stored health information, legal data, phone calls you make or receive, driving checkpoints (such as "E-ZPass" toll collectors), and so on.

I'm not being paranoid. The above isn't even a comment on whether the phenomenon is in aggregate good or bad. I'm just trying to inform the masses of what is, nothing more.

Smile for the camera.

[Bob]

Funny how everyone wants to prosecute the person but what about the entity, why no word on what UCLA did to prevent this. Did they train the person, are their policy and procedures in place, are there no safeguards.

To me its like putting a piece of cake on the table and telling a five year old not to eat it. You dont tell them why, you tell them the consequences, but you EXPECT him/her to obey. Of course they dont.

My point is, yes it was wrong but where is the due diligence that UCLA should be showing that it did all it could to prevent this from happening, where is their proof.