OT: Feds want to drop protection of privacy regarding medical data

[edj]

On Fri 22 March 2002 02:07 pm, David A. Bandel wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:49:11 -0500
>
> begin  edj <edjlb at yahoo.com> spewed forth:
> >
> > The US Constitution limits only the government, not private parties.
> > Thus, while the US government would need a warrant to recover my
> > "papers and effects", my doctor could disseminate my records to
> > whomever he wished, absent statutory prohibition.  The Bush
> > administration wishes to amend the statute.  No constitutional
> > prohibition, I'm afraid.
>
> Not true.  The doctor can't do that.  You do, under laws and under
> precedent set by those laws to a "reasonable right to privacy".  The
> doctor does _not_ have the right to disseminate that information to
> third parties without your consent, but this is not a consitutional
> protection. If the doctor gave those records to the newspapers (who say
> they have a right to it) and it was published, you could prosecute the
> doctor if he didn't have your permission.  But just the doctor, not the
> newspaper.  You have the right to own a gun, but not the right to do
> with it as you will. Try shooting someone on the street and see what
> happens.

Uhhh - that's what I said - it's statutory authority that protects privacy 
against disclosure by ordinary citizens.  My point is just that the US 
Constitution doesn't forbid any actions except governmental ones.  Well, 
there is one provision of the Constitution that does, indeed, apply to 
private parties.  Wanna guess which?

> I don't really want to start a "reasonable right to privacy" debate,
> because those are generally settled in court on a case-by-case basis. 
> And what is reasonable to one judge often is not to another (and of
> course that changes based on the circumstances).

There's no debate here = we agree.  

Well, there is one provision of the Constitution that does, indeed, apply 
to private parties.  Wanna guess which?
--