From: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 01:42:19 +0800
To: Declan McCullagh <cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Search warrants and Senate hearing on medical privacy
In-Reply-To: <v03007807b07bb9a5aaea@[204.254.21.201]>
Message-ID: <v0310280eb07bbe4d4839@[207.167.93.63]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



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."