Re: Bob Gellman and me

["Marc Rotenberg" <rotenberg@epic.org>]

        Reply to:   RE>>Bob Gellman and me





> 	Destroying information once payment is authorized will prevent 
> investigations of fraud.  It will also mean that it will be harder or 
> impossible to compile information for health oversight, including 
> identifying substandard doctors and hospitals.

Destroying personal information to protect privacy is hardly a novel
concept.  The Video Privacy Protection Act contains the following
provision:

  DESTRUCTION OF OLD RECORDS - A person subject to this section
  shall destroy personally identifiable information as soon as
  practicable, bu no later than one year from the date the
  information is no longer necessary for the purpose for which
  it was collected and there are no pending requests or orders
  for such information under subsection (b)(2) or (c)(2) or pursuant
  to court order. (18 USC 2711(e))

In fact much of the work being done right now on advanced privacy 
protections focuses on the anonymization or elimination of personally
identifiable data. Unfortunately, the Senate bill hardly considers 
these new (and necessary) safeguards. 

I should also point out the way preemption was treated in the Video
bill:

  PREEMPTION - The provisions of this section preempt only the
  provisions of State or Local law that require disclosure prohibited
  by this section. (18 USC 2711(f))

This is the obvious way to handle preemption in a privacy statute
-- preempt only those state laws that would otherwise require
disclosure.  The proponents of the bill seem to believe that
not preempting a state privacy provision is a victory.  That is
backward and obviously wrong.
  

> What is the matter with having judges rule on warrants and subpoenas?  
> You have another proposal?  Judges make life and death rulings every 
> day.  I can live with this as a control.

This is why I raised the Redmond case.  When you talk about medical 
records you are in an area of "privilege," of absolute privacy where 
even judges may not be able to compel disclosure.


Marc.