Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cunixf.cc.columbia.edu!cs.columbia.edu!abrams From: abrams@cs.columbia.edu (Steven Abrams) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Privacy of personal data (was Re: Personal Privacy Violations) Message-ID: Date: 16 Jan 91 16:09:45 GMT References: <1991Jan06.230231.21840@hoss.unl.edu> <1991Jan10.204101.29296@hoss.unl.edu> <5776@rsiatl.Dixie.Com> <1991Jan12.180934.1314@looking.on.ca> <5825@rsiatl.Dixie.Com> Sender: news@cs.columbia.edu (The Daily News) Organization: Columbia University Department of Computer Science Lines: 68 In-Reply-To: jgd@Dixie.Com's message of 16 Jan 91 05:27:33 GMT In article <5825@rsiatl.Dixie.Com> jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) writes: >brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >>If a doctor publishes your personal medical records, he has broken a >>confidence. In the case of the doctor, I think it's even a confidence that >>is explicitly defined by the law or the medical association. [Brad's stuff deleted] >But Brad, you've made my argument. If the absolute freedom of the press >supersedes the right of personal privacy, then your doctor has the >absolute right to publish your medical record wherever he wants and >any laws to the contrary are unconstitutional. First, let me point out a flaw in the analogy -- I think that, a doctor does have the right to publish medical records in, say, a journal, but can't use your name without permission. That's where the doctor/patient relationship comes into play. As always, this is not to be taken as a legal position since I'm not a lawyer, just a layman's interpretation. Mike Godwin or other net.lawyers can correct me if needed. But I don't think that this means that the right of personal privacy supersedes the absolute freedom of the press. I think this means that we have found an exception. The related exceptions are clergy/confessor and lawyer/client relationships. However, there is protection of privacy under the law -- harassment, invasion of privacy, are examples of violations. But to say that the Bill of Rights *implies* the "right to be left alone" is something I haven't heard. If my history is correct, when the Constitution was written, the only way the Framers were able to get it passed was to promise that there would be a Bill of Rights added to it to guarantee personal freedoms. Nothing was to be left implied. If the right of privacy was just expected to be there, I don't think that protection against unauthorized search would have had to be included. On a more EFF-like note, there was no way for the Framers to anticipate the ease with which information could be accessed in this day and age, and privacy issues have become more important. Perhaps it is time to discuss rules which would extend the responsibilities given to doctor/patient type of relationship. This goes back to that list of "confidentiality levels" that Brad posted a while back. In other words, Safeway supermarkets can't release information that says Person X shops here Mondays and Wednesdays and buys extra condoms on the 3rd Wednesday of the month. However, they can can compile and release information of the form: 62% of all people who buy brand X beer on a regular basis also purchase either condoms or whipped cream on Wednesdays. If they choose to compile and sell info like this to marketing people, the onus should be on them to guarantee the confidentiality of their customers. So while I don't think that "privacy" is an implied guaranteed right of the Bill of Rights, I think there is sufficient precedent to expand existing laws. And yes, personal privacy should be able, *in certain cases*, to supersede freedom of the press. There is also sufficient precedent differentiating the government from a person to prevent this right from being abused by the government. Although "national security" is sufficient cause for prior restraint in America, isn't it? This could be considered to be a similar issue. ~~~Steve -- /************************************************* * *Steven Abrams abrams@cs.columbia.edu * **************************************************/ #include #include