At 9:15 AM -0700 10/28/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
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.
Not just this, but doctors and nurses are under strong laws which forbid them from keeping certain kinds of patient information private. For example: * under Tarasoff, counsellors and shrinks must "narc out" their patients who are discussing their fantasies, dreams, past actions, future plans, etc. * gunshot and similar wounds may not be treated in privacy....doctors and nurses face prison time if they don't narc out such patients (One of the books I almost bought at the Gun Show was a controversial and gory book, "Ditch Medicine," intended for treatment of gunshot wounds, emergency amputations, etc., when doctors are not around, as in a battle or in the wilderness, or where a "bootleg doctor" cannot be obtained. No doubt the American Medical Association would like to see this book banned.)
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?
The "medical privacy" bills are guaranteed to be like other "privacy bills": fig leaves for social planners to hold up in front of Joe Sixpack, but with the usual backdoors. (PGP, Inc. could increase market share by offering a special "Hospital Records Recovery" feature. "It's for the children!!!!") All we need to ensure medical privacy is a return to the right of contract. I pay Dr. Jones for his services and for his agreement to not pass my medical file around to his buddies, or to sell it to advertisers, or to let "counter-terrorism" agents snoop around in his files. Sounds fair to me. (And if he violates this trust, kneecap him in the parking lot....it'll send a message to other contract-breakers.)
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.
Right. Sure. Whatever. Until they decide they want to. America is emulating the Soviet "psychiatric prison" system. Look at Roby Ridge, where some possibly eccentric old lady is being beseiged by Waco-type raiders. Look for her to "set her house on fire." (Not to sound like the little dog in Oz, but: "Pay no attention to the SWAT team pushing the nozzle of a flame thrower under her door.") As for Leahy, he's been a typical political criminal, guilty of several capital crimes, for decades. I was never fooled. --Tim May The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^2,976,221 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."