Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!uw-beaver!cornell!wayner From: wayner@cello.cs.cornell.edu (Peter Wayner) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Privacy of personal data (was Re: Personal Privacy Violations) Message-ID: <50804@cornell.UUCP> Date: 16 Jan 91 19:25:25 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: nobody@cornell.UUCP Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept. Ithaca NY Lines: 58 abrams@cs.columbia.edu (Steven Abrams) writes: >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. Most of these exceptions are specifically made or implied contracts between individuals to maintain privacy. Some stores offer these by announcing that they "don't sell or give their mailing lists to anyone." The rest will not sell your name if you explicitly request it. It's a contract thing. People have the right to publish what they want as long as they haven't agreed to a contract that specifies that they don't. Many high-level executives who are fired will accept healthy and large severance packages that include clauses that prohibit them from commenting on the company in public. They've censored themselves, but this has nothing to do with the First Amendment. I wonder if anyone out there has any data on companies that have be so successful in targeting a market that they make more from selling the mailing list to others than actual commerce with the people on the list. >/************************************************* > * > *Steven Abrams abrams@cs.columbia.edu > * > **************************************************/ >#include >#include -Peter Peter Wayner Department of Computer Science Cornell Univ. Ithaca, NY 14850 EMail:wayner@cs.cornell.edu Office: 607-255-9202 or 255-1008 Home: 116 Oak Ave, Ithaca, NY 14850 Phone: 607-277-6678