Pubdate: Thu, 19 Apr 2001
Source: New York Times (NY)
Copyright: 2001 The New York Times Company
Contact:  http://www.nytimes.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/298
Author: William Safire

PRIVACY PRESIDENT?

WASHINGTON -- In an action that left medical data-swappers sputtering with 
rage and the well-heeled intrusion lobby moaning about its "operational 
nightmare," President Bush struck a blow last week for the privacy of 
medical patients' records.

Few expected Bush to make good on the belated rule changes his departing 
predecessor made that so offended health-care bureaucrats. But now doctors, 
hospitals and insurers are obliged to get patients' consent before passing 
around intimate personal information.

This is only the beginning. During his campaign, Bush promised not only to 
uphold the principle of advance consent from users of the Internet and from 
depositors in banks, but to go after identity thieves and "make it a 
criminal offense to sell a person's Social Security number without his or 
her express consent."

His spokesman made clear to Wall Street Journal reporters that despite 
pressures from marketers, bankers, H.M.O.'s and credit snoops, Bush had 
told his domestic policy advisers he would "tend to side with the privacy 
point of view." He doesn't go overboard -- he thinks parents, for example, 
should be able to see their children's records -- but he seems to grasp the 
essential principle.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Court of Appeals here smacked one of the largest 
commercial snoops upside its headers. Trans Union Corporation, which has 
electronic dossiers on three out of four Americans, claimed a First 
Amendment right to sell credit information in mortgage applications to 
"target marketers" without the targeted consumers' permission. The intruder 
was willing to provide only an "opt-out," placing the burden of defending 
privacy on the unsuspecting victim.

The court disagreed. It held that the government, through the Federal Trade 
Commission, could require companies to get an individual's permission 
before selling credit data on that person to salesmen looking for prospects 
with delicious vulnerabilities. The far-reaching court decision affirms the 
role of government in protecting the privacy of individuals. But what about 
government itself poking unnecessarily into people's private lives? Sure 
enough, with the executive and judicial branches awakening to the public's 
growing resentment of data rape, sleepy solons of the legislative branch 
are rubbing their eyes and noticing the issue.

Senator Fred Thompson discovered that 64 government Web sites place 
"cookies" in the computers of site visitors, enabling the feds to track the 
viewing habits of citizens long after they have left the government site. 
The irate Tennessean promised hearings because "the federal government 
should be setting the standard for privacy protection in the Information Age."

Rather than setting up talkathon commissions, Congress should be setting 
down laws, because banks, hospitals, colleges and dot-com enterprises have 
for years been paying lip service to privacy standards -- posting soothing 
"privacy policies" that are warrants for sustained snooping -- while making 
an open book of every person's health, personal habits and bank account.

One oughta-be-a-law applies to a problem that touches a nerve in tens of 
millions of Americans: the abuse of Social Security numbers as identifiers, 
contrary to the specific intent of the system. Ostensibly used for identity 
protection, Social Security number abuse has led to increased stalking and 
even murder.

And identity theft. Next on President Bush's privacy list is this spreading 
crime that ruins lives, not just credit ratings. In the Senate, Richard 
Shelby has been taking the lead on this, the D'Artagnan working with "the 
three privateers," Dianne Feinstein, Jon Kyl and Judd Gregg.

Bush's signals have given heart to Clay Shaw in the House. He says, "We'll 
be dropping a new bill to protect Social Security numbers in the next 
couple of weeks, hold hearings before Memorial Day and look for Senate 
partners."

Pitfall ahead: We'll see if Bush's appointee to head the Federal Trade 
Commission is as privacy-conscious as the departing chairman, Robert Pitofsky.

But the tide she is a-turning. We have a Congress that is getting the word 
from constituents; a judiciary that remembers Justice Brandeis and his 
"right to be let alone"; a press beginning to assign privacy as a beat; and 
a man in the White House who may not be averse to being thought of as the 
privacy president.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth