Re: S. 1360 - Medical Privacy - CPT statement for today's hearing

[James Love <love@tap.org>]

On Wed, 15 Nov 1995, Robert Gellman wrote:
> . . . I don't disagree with everything that
> Jamie Love said in his comments, but I find much of what he said
> to be wrong, misleading, or unfairly inflammatory. 

   I'll respond to Bob Gellman comments later, when I have the chance.  
Bob, of course, pretty much wrote the Conduit bill, he referrs to, which 
many called the Gellman bill, and now he works as a consultant in this 
field.  Bob is indeed an expert on these matters, and several "experts," 
have taken the position that this bill should be blessed, cheered, and 
rushed through Congress.  But a number of others believe that the bill is 
too little, in the way of privacy protection.  I would recommend the 
reader to today's front page story in the NYT, when patients records are  
commodies for sale, or Beverly Woodard's "Patients Privacy at Risk," an 
op ed also in today's NYT.  A large number of experts on this topic take 
the same view that I do.  One of my most effective ways to explaining 
this bill to persons is simply to read people the bill itself, it scares 
people, and it should.  The fact that privacy violations ocurr today, and 
I agree with Bob that they do, should be a reason to act, but not 
necessarily in the way that S. 1360 does.  S. 1360 pretty much legalizes 
most types of non-consent access that cause so many problems today, with 
very modest improvements in a few area.  

jamie

----------------------------------------------------------------------
James Love, love@tap.org
P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036; v. 202/387-8030; f. 202/234-5176
Consumer Project on Technology; http://www.essential.org/cpt/cpt.html
Taxpayer Assets Project; http://www.essential.org/tap/tap.html