I'm sitting in a Senate hearing room right now; the topic is medical privacy. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), an occasional friend of civil liberties, is speaking: "How is our right of privacy, one of our most cherised freedoms, going to be protected?" Well, senator, perhaps the best way of protecting our privacy is to ensure that law enforcement officials need a search warrant before browsing through your medical files. Right now police do not need to go before a judge to get your records from your hospital or doctor's office; often "informal arrangements" exist. If a doctor or hospital wants to promise to "protect your privacy," they can't. Yesterday a senior Justice Department official told journalists (in a background briefing at Main Justice) that requiring police to obtain a search warrant could derail counter-terrorism efforts. "Imposing a probable cause standard is something we would vehemently object to," he said. Which explains why he doesn't vehemently object to the legislation this committee is considering. The versions of the "medical privacy" bills I'm familiar with don't include such strict safeguards. We require the FBI to obtain a search warrant to enter your house or office: why shouldn't we require the same for medical files? At yesterday's briefing some of us asked what safeguards are in place to prevent dragnet fishing by police. For instance, what if agents access a 1,000,000-person database during a medical fraud case and stumble across someone who's being treated for illegal drugs? Can they prosecute that person for drug crimes? Yes, they're allowed to but they probably won't. "I don't see that as being a realistic issue," the Justice Department official said. -Declan