Re: Notes on Industry Support for S. 1360

[Robert Gellman <rgellman@cais.cais.com>]

On Mon, 20 Nov 1995, Stanton McCandlish wrote:

> Is there any particular reason that voices are getting more shrill, 
> tempers hotter here?  I'd like to remind everyone that if the online 
> civ-lib community does not stick together, we look like a bunch of 
> bumbling amateurs and will get run over.  Fractiousness and 
> fingerpointing is not going to help anything.  By all means ask and 
> investigate, state and support, suggest and act.  But if we begin down 
> the slippery slope of accuse, assert and demand, we have nothing and are 
> nothing but a mess.

I think this is a fair comment.  I have tried to contribute to the
substantive discussion here, but it is very frustrating because it is
impossible to reach any agreement on the facts.  The privacy legislation
is constantly and deliberately mischaracterized.  No one claims that it is
perfect.  Or that it can't be stronger.  But it does substantially advance
the cause of patient privacy.  If we can't reach agreement on this, then
there may be little point in talking. 

The response of some is to attack the bona fides of anyone who shows
support for the bill.  This leads nowhere.  When the NYT prints an
unfavorable story, that is reported with some glee.  When the NYT prints a
favorable editorial, then a sinister connection with IBM is suggested
without any evidence.  This is an all too familiar game, and one that I
have not engaged in.  If I am guilty of my share of shrillness, it is out
of frustration over the tone of discussion here. 

For those who think that the legislation is so terribly flawed, I suggest
that they put forward their own legislation.  Drafting legislation in the 
real world means that there are compromises and accomodations to 
different important interests.  Having worked on privacy legislation for 
over 15 years, I can tell you that there is virtually no public support 
to sustain these bills.  The only way to succeed is through compromise 
and agreement.  Half a loaf is more than we have today.  

Those who want stronger bills are welcome to find the political support 
for them.  A few people exchanging messages here does not constitute 
political support.  If you don't think that it was an accomplishment for 
CDT to get the Republican leadership in the Senate to support a bill, 
then you don't understand Washington.  If the leadership does not support 
the bill, then nothing happens at all.  CDT deserves credit for getting 
this issue on the agenda.  The Bennett/Condit bills are the only hope for 
doing anything to improve medical privacy.  If people want to stick to 
the merits of the legislation, then let's keep at it.

Bob

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+   Robert Gellman          rgellman@cais.com   +
+   Privacy and Information Policy Consultant   +
+   431 Fifth Street S.E.                       +    
+   Washington, DC 20003                        + 
+   202-543-7923 (phone)   202-547-8287 (fax)   +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +