Re: Confidentiality Policies in Dr's Off Site Office

[Privacy Times <privacytimes@DGS.dgsys.com>]

  On Thu, 9 May 1996, Dick Mills wrote:
  > 
  > You are coming across as very emotional Mr. Lorton.  I wrote originally about
  > the inadequacy of normal security. You characterized that as my calling for 
  > "perfect security". I said I value my privacy more than treatment in 
  > "certain areas"  You characterized that as "absolute willingness to forgo 
  > treatment and save your privacy."  Yours is the language of hysteria and 
  > extremism Mr. Lorton.
  > 
  > Last night I wondered more about the real purpose of S.1360.  Germany has a
  > wonderful
  > system for handling prescriptions based on encryption technology.  It not only 
  > guards against mistakes and abuse, it even allows anonymity of the patient.  It
  > seems reasonable to assume that encryption and other technologies will allow 
  > anonymity at all levels of heath care in a few years.  I wonder if S.1360
  > isn't a
  > forecheck action designed to establish a health-care IT industry before
  > anonymity 
  > reaches our shores.  Once entrenched, the IT professionals can claim ruinous
  > cost 
  > increases and massive unemployment in the IT industry if anonymity is
  > allowed.  I
  > am merely speculating.  Does anyone out there have better information on the
  > real motivations of S.1360?
  > 
  	Bravo Mr. Mills, for hittin' nail on head.  One can never doubt the 
  motivations of honorable people, but no one should miss the point that 
  the IT industry has much to gain from the authorizations in the 
  legislation, while the privacy movement is very wary of what's being 
  given away.  
  
  Evan Hendricks
  Privacy Times> >