AIDS Service Organizations protecting the confidentiality of someone who is a habitual infector?

Here's the background:
I was infected with HIV by a man who I dated for more than three years. After receiving a full AIDS diagnosis in Feb. 08 I subsequently found out that this guy had known of his HIV positive status for almost four years and had also infected at least five other women and the local Aids Service Organization and the local Disease Investigators were aware of him and his history and had done nothing to stop him. I filed a complaint with the local Sheriff's office and they investigated. Through their investigation they found other police reports where this guy admitted he was HIV positive. The man was later arrested and the local TV news picked up the story and released his name and photo. Many women went in for testing and at least one other woman filed a complaint with the Sheriff's Office.
Now the local AIDS Service Organization and Health Department Disease Investigators are pursuing a legal action against the local TV news station who released the guys name and photo. They insist that he has a right to his privacy. My question is this: Do these AIDS Service Organizations, a non-profit agency, have a right to take this the side of anyone in this situation when my infector and I are both clients of the organization? Do they have a right to seek legal action?

A little more info: There are laws in this state that state that HIV positive people must inform their sexual partners. He was arrested for intentional exposure to HIV. His information was released because he admitted his status in another police report, they didnt get this info from his medical records. My question is more related to the fact that the Service Organization is persuing the legal action for this man and he and I are both clients of this organization. I dont understand how they can even get involved or search for legal advice in this case. They certaninly didnt get involved in trying to stop this monster after he infected the second or third or fourth or even fifth woman.

I hate people like that guy. You aren't from Washington are you? I remember hearing about a case like this in Washington with a guy named Anthony Whitfield in 2004.

My initial reaction is he's lost all right to privacy when he's going around intentionally infecting people. That is a crime in most states and people should be aware about this, just like sexual predators are made public. I hear stories about this thing on the news all the time and don't think the Health Service Organization will be successful.

Wow. I am really sorry this happened to you, what a scumbag!

Laws vary from state to state, but I'm guessing that, since he was actually able to be arrested for it, your state does have laws in place making it a crime to do what he did. And since he did indeed commit such crimes, all bets should be off where his "right to privacy" is concerned. I can't say with 100% accuracy though. Talk to a lawyer licensed in your state to get correct info.

Unfortunately, in this case, the privacy act comes into play. Understand the privacy act is a good thing in 99% of all cases it is related to. Unfortunately this case is not one of them. The HIV infected man and the AIDS organization have a bonafide case unless there is a law in your state that says a person infected with HIV must inform all potential sex partners he/she may have sex with. This law trumps the privacy act. The privacy act is enforced on any organization that accepts federal funding. Does your AIDS organization accept federal funds?

HIV status is protected under the law, with the stigma attached to being positive would you really want some news channel flashing your name and photo all over the place? What's he's doing is wrong and is equivalent to murder (since you and the others will be killed by his disease). Some states are prosecuting it as such, or assault with a deadly weapon. This guy belongs in jail (see if you can get him civilly committed as a danger to society) but it was wrong to release his info and it is illegal to do so.