From: shamrock@netcom.com (Lucky Green)
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 94 00:22:04 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Lady Di's medical records
Message-ID: <199408010722.AAA01452@netcom7.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


> I understand that in California, shrinks have a duty to protect
> records. I expect encryption is spreading. I also expect that many of
> them are worried about the trend to force disclosure of patient
> records. (Such as with the Tarasoff ruling on patients who make
> threats, the various other loopholes for breaking doctor-patient
> privilege, the various "discovery" procedures in court cases, and so
> on.)

I personally know individuals that are avoiding medical care because of
concerns about confidentiality. It seems the loopholes are extending.
Patient records stay around for years. Who knows what the requirements will
be five years from now? It would not surprise me if individuals who have
been seeking drug treatment within the last, say, five years would have to
be reported to the Klinton Kommunal Kare agency.

> (Watch for software key escrow to fold this in: mandated encryption
> of records, but American Psychiatric Association and California State
> Mental Health Association the designated escrow sites. For example.)

To be examined by the above supervisory agency upon "reasonable suspicion",
no doubt.



-- Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com>  PGP public key by finger