The Miami Herald ran a story on Saturday which gives another example of why I laugh whenever anyone cites the non-existent "right" to privacy. Apparently insurance companies deny applicants based on the medications they are taking, even if those applying don't reveal that information. If you thought your medical information was private, think again. The Herald found that data-mining operations harvest information from pharmacies and other drug suppliers, and then sell that information to insurance companies, which use it to deny applications. If someone knows what drugs you are on, they know your medical conditions.
As a default position I assume that any information that passes through electronic media of any form, including the telephone, is not private. If someone wants it bad enough they can get it.
Translation: Someone isn't honoring a "right to privacy", so that right must not exist.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly the next time someone is raped we may conclude a "right to say no" must not exist.
I too make the assumption that anything electronic may be eavesdropped without my knowledge -- and some day soon, when enough devices with microphones are around, I'll make the same assumption about spoken communication. Only my thoughts will be safe!
But playing it safe hardly bears on the issue of a legal right to privacy, which most people agree exists. Whether or not it would apply to this particular data-mining operation, I don't know.
Having managed IT in the healthcare industry, I know the HIPAA regulations are pretty complicated. So I just do what the lawyers tell me.
Lawyers, you see, are responsible for providing their clients with sound legal advice. If they do their job wrong, such as by providing faulty legal justifications for torture, they can be sued for malpractice and tried for crimes against humanity. But of course I'm just talking to a wall here....
"Translation: Someone isn't honoring a "right to privacy", so that right must not exist."
ReplyDeleteThat would be a reasonable point if there was actual right to privacy.
"issue of a legal right to privacy, which most people agree exists."
Point one out to me in the constitution. And then explain how a requirement to report every aspect of our private income to the federal government is compatible with a supposed right to privacy. How about the need to have a social security number in order to work?
"Lawyers, you see, are responsible for providing their clients with sound legal advice. If they do their job wrong, such as by providing faulty legal justifications for torture, they can be sued for malpractice and tried for crimes against humanity"
I'm not opposed to members of the Bush administration suing their lawyers for malpractice -- if they think malpractice occured. And I'm not even opposed to the Bar Association disbarring them, if it determines that they somehow violated professional standards. I'm all for professional associations policing their own members.
But since neither of those things have happened, it appears that their clients were satisfied and the bar association doesn't see any evidence of misconduct. I am opposed to other people making ridiculous charges of "crimes against humanity" for political purposes. Especially when no such crimes were committed by the lawyers.