Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: IceShark who wrote (19112)	9/29/1998 9:01:00 PM
From: llamaphlegm	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

In America; What Privacy Rights? By BOB HERBERT A recent report out of Washington tells a story about Dr. Louis Hafken, a psychiatrist in Providence, R.I., who received a letter from a company that reviews prescription drug benefits for insurers and employers. The letter contained what should have been confidential information about one of Dr. Hafken's patients, including a printout of her prescription records. It noted that she was taking Ativan, an anti-anxiety drug. The company wanted to know why. Was the patient depressed, or suffering from panic disorder, or experiencing alcohol withdrawal? Did the doctor plan to continue giving her Ativan? The doctor did not provide the requested information. ''Frankly,'' he was quoted as saying, ''it's none of their business.'' The patient was naturally upset to learn that her employer had examined the records of her psychiatric treatment. The implications of such snooping are obvious. Dr. Hafken said many of his patients ''are afraid to be completely honest in therapy'' because they fear that people other than their doctors will learn of matters that were supposed to have remained secret. They have reason to be worried. We are very close to the day when strangers will know, or will be able to know, anything they want about you. Your financial profile and buying habits have long since been catalogued and traded like baseball cards. Your medical records, supposedly secure, are not. Your boss may well be monitoring your telephone conversations and E-mail. Hidden video cameras have been installed -- sometimes legally and sometimes not -- in dressing rooms and public bathrooms. Thieves armed with your Social Security number can actually hijack your identity. ''Nothing Sacred -- the Politics of Privacy'' is a report released last month by the Center for Public Integrity, a highly regarded nonpartisan research organization. The report warned that the privacy of Americans ''is being compromised and invaded from many angles'' and asserted that Congress has not done nearly enough to slow the assault. ''Time and again,'' said Charles Lewis, director of the center, ''Congress has put the economic interests of various privacy invaders ahead of the privacy interests of the American public.'' According to the report, Congress first heard testimony that there were problems keeping medical records confidential in 1971. But it still has not passed legislation designed to curb the abuses. So you still get cases like that of Mark Hudson, a former insurance company employee who told The Times in 1996 that he was shocked to find during his computer training that he could call up the records of any of the company's subscribers, including information about his own psychiatric treatment and the antidepressant medication he was taking. ''I can tell you unequivocally that patient confidentiality is not eroding,'' he said. ''It can't erode because it's simply nonexistent.'' The right to privacy in the workplace is virtually nonexistent as well. ''Most people assume that Federal laws protect Americans from being spied upon in the workplace,'' said the report. ''To the contrary, over the years Congress has rejected legislation spelling out basic privacy protections for employees.'' In addition to the possible monitoring of telephone conversations and E-mail, workers are frequently subjected to the scrutiny of hidden video cameras, can be required to type at computers that monitor the number of errors they make and the number of breaks they take, and often are compelled to provide urine samples and submit to psychological exams. For some jobs, the scrutiny is reasonable. For others, it is not. In all cases it should be properly regulated, and the guidelines should be clear. That is not what is happening. As the center's report noted, Congress has gone out of its way to preserve the right of employers to eavesdrop and otherwise spy upon and collect personal data on their employees. For decades, privacy advocates have called for legislation that would spell out and guarantee a citizen's basic right to privacy. But tremendous amounts of money are being made from the rampant transfer of the most personal types of information. The huge corporate interests and others that benefit from that gold mine do not want it sealed. archives.nytimes.com