Tuesday, March 23, 2004
“OP-ED COLUMNIST
Privacy in Retreat
By WILLIAM SAFIRE
Published: March 10, 2004
ARTICLE TOOLS
E-Mail This Article
Printer-Friendly Format
Most E-Mailed Articles
Columnist Page: William Safire
Forum: Discuss This Column
E-mail: safire@nytimes.com
TIMES NEWS TRACKER
Topics
Alerts
Privacy
Hospitals
Medicine and Health
WASHINGTON — 'I believe privacy is a fundamental right," said the candidate George W. Bush one month before his election, "and that every American should have absolute control over his or her personal information.'
Those of us agitating against snoopery — facilitated by databanks and newly invasive surveillance — were further assured when we elicited Bush's on-the-record promise to "guarantee the privacy of medical and sensitive financial records."
But after 9/11, the passion went out of advocacy of privacy. The right to be let alone had to be balanced against the right to stay alive.
Accordingly, we readily submit to preboarding searches, right down to our shoes. We tolerate foreigner-fingerprinting at our borders. We live with hidden security cameras near national monuments or bridges.
Benumbed by the fear of appearing insufficiently vigilant, we accept "cookies" on our computers that track our habits and electronic location devices in our cars that guide our way but never let us wander about unobserved. We don't know whether our nosy neighbor is taking his cellphone call or taking our picture. We let our most confidential e-mail be shared among our spies, our cops and our military. To keep our national defense up, we have let our personal defenses down.
Terror's threat is real. But as we grudgingly grant government more leeway to guard our lives, we must demand that our protectors be especially careful to safeguard our rights. Officials all too often fail to see both sides of their jobs.
As reported last week by Robert Pear and Eric Lichtblau in The Times, the Justice Department said that medical patients "no longer possess a reasonable expectation that their histories will remain completely confidential."
This abhorrent philosophy underlies a counterattack launched by Justice at doctors who went to court to challenge the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. Most Americans, including many who are pro-choice, favor that legislation. I think the doctors are mistaken in their constitutional objection. But in defending the law, Attorney General John Ashcroft went overboard.
Justice issued subpoenas to hospitals in several cities across the nation for the medical records of hundreds of women who had undergone abortions. After hospitals protested that the order flew in the face of federal and state privacy laws, Justice offered to allow the individual names to be blotted out. In Chicago, Northwestern Memorial argued in court that patients would not trust such redaction of their records — copies of which would pass through hundreds of hands — to keep private such an intimate procedure.
The judge quashed the subpoena, but Justice is appealing. "Congress created a zone of privacy relating to medical information," says Chicago Congressman Rahm Emanuel. "Who would have thought the first one to violate it would be the federal government?" Medical records contain dates of treatment, doctors' names, prescriptions — all clues to identity. Who would not be deterred from going to a hospital that meekly passed along those records?
This intrusion cannot be justified by a claim to protect the nation from a terror attack. In Pittsburgh, however, the F.B.I. has set up a pilot Strategic Medical Intelligence unit under that very rubric. Doctors in Pennsylvania and West Virginia are expected to notify S.M.I. bioterror experts of any "suspicious event," from an unusual rash to a finger lost in an explosion, identifying but not informing the patient.
It's proper for a doctor to report a case of spousal or child abuse to the police, or to query the Centers for Disease Control about a mysterious infection. But how do patients feel about their doctors first secretly calling the F.B.I.? Where is the oversight to protect the innocent injured or ill? Where is the patient's informed consent?
A balance must be struck between protecting all of us and protecting each one of us. I don't trust Justice or the C.I.A. to strike that balance. I have more faith in the courts and Congress, and — if he would remember his stand on personal freedom — in George W. Bush. ”
WHEN I READ THIS COLUMN, I thought it was so good and thought-provoking that I would e-mail a copy to my dad. After all, there it was, right at the top--an invitation to “E-mail this Article.” But when I attempted to do so, the NYT wanted all kinds of personal information about me, none of which would have facilitated an e-mail. What it WOULD have facilitated was an invasion of my privacy. It would have meant intrusive calls and messages to get me to subscribe. It would likely have meant selling my name, address, phone number, and e-mail address to other prospectors with the intent of mining my wallet. Perhaps it would be used to inflate their circulation numbers because I read--once--an article or op-ed that intrigued me.
So, no thanks, NYT. Dad will get to read Mr Safire’s article, if he hasn’t already. But not at the expense of my privacy.
Privacy in Retreat
By WILLIAM SAFIRE
Published: March 10, 2004
ARTICLE TOOLS
E-Mail This Article
Printer-Friendly Format
Most E-Mailed Articles
Columnist Page: William Safire
Forum: Discuss This Column
E-mail: safire@nytimes.com
TIMES NEWS TRACKER
Topics
Alerts
Privacy
Hospitals
Medicine and Health
WASHINGTON — 'I believe privacy is a fundamental right," said the candidate George W. Bush one month before his election, "and that every American should have absolute control over his or her personal information.'
Those of us agitating against snoopery — facilitated by databanks and newly invasive surveillance — were further assured when we elicited Bush's on-the-record promise to "guarantee the privacy of medical and sensitive financial records."
But after 9/11, the passion went out of advocacy of privacy. The right to be let alone had to be balanced against the right to stay alive.
Accordingly, we readily submit to preboarding searches, right down to our shoes. We tolerate foreigner-fingerprinting at our borders. We live with hidden security cameras near national monuments or bridges.
Benumbed by the fear of appearing insufficiently vigilant, we accept "cookies" on our computers that track our habits and electronic location devices in our cars that guide our way but never let us wander about unobserved. We don't know whether our nosy neighbor is taking his cellphone call or taking our picture. We let our most confidential e-mail be shared among our spies, our cops and our military. To keep our national defense up, we have let our personal defenses down.
Terror's threat is real. But as we grudgingly grant government more leeway to guard our lives, we must demand that our protectors be especially careful to safeguard our rights. Officials all too often fail to see both sides of their jobs.
As reported last week by Robert Pear and Eric Lichtblau in The Times, the Justice Department said that medical patients "no longer possess a reasonable expectation that their histories will remain completely confidential."
This abhorrent philosophy underlies a counterattack launched by Justice at doctors who went to court to challenge the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. Most Americans, including many who are pro-choice, favor that legislation. I think the doctors are mistaken in their constitutional objection. But in defending the law, Attorney General John Ashcroft went overboard.
Justice issued subpoenas to hospitals in several cities across the nation for the medical records of hundreds of women who had undergone abortions. After hospitals protested that the order flew in the face of federal and state privacy laws, Justice offered to allow the individual names to be blotted out. In Chicago, Northwestern Memorial argued in court that patients would not trust such redaction of their records — copies of which would pass through hundreds of hands — to keep private such an intimate procedure.
The judge quashed the subpoena, but Justice is appealing. "Congress created a zone of privacy relating to medical information," says Chicago Congressman Rahm Emanuel. "Who would have thought the first one to violate it would be the federal government?" Medical records contain dates of treatment, doctors' names, prescriptions — all clues to identity. Who would not be deterred from going to a hospital that meekly passed along those records?
This intrusion cannot be justified by a claim to protect the nation from a terror attack. In Pittsburgh, however, the F.B.I. has set up a pilot Strategic Medical Intelligence unit under that very rubric. Doctors in Pennsylvania and West Virginia are expected to notify S.M.I. bioterror experts of any "suspicious event," from an unusual rash to a finger lost in an explosion, identifying but not informing the patient.
It's proper for a doctor to report a case of spousal or child abuse to the police, or to query the Centers for Disease Control about a mysterious infection. But how do patients feel about their doctors first secretly calling the F.B.I.? Where is the oversight to protect the innocent injured or ill? Where is the patient's informed consent?
A balance must be struck between protecting all of us and protecting each one of us. I don't trust Justice or the C.I.A. to strike that balance. I have more faith in the courts and Congress, and — if he would remember his stand on personal freedom — in George W. Bush. ”
WHEN I READ THIS COLUMN, I thought it was so good and thought-provoking that I would e-mail a copy to my dad. After all, there it was, right at the top--an invitation to “E-mail this Article.” But when I attempted to do so, the NYT wanted all kinds of personal information about me, none of which would have facilitated an e-mail. What it WOULD have facilitated was an invasion of my privacy. It would have meant intrusive calls and messages to get me to subscribe. It would likely have meant selling my name, address, phone number, and e-mail address to other prospectors with the intent of mining my wallet. Perhaps it would be used to inflate their circulation numbers because I read--once--an article or op-ed that intrigued me.
So, no thanks, NYT. Dad will get to read Mr Safire’s article, if he hasn’t already. But not at the expense of my privacy.
I really don’t mean to pick on Martin Sheen, but he’s given to making public statements that are just laughable. Mr Sheen was, of course, too smart to go to college, and apparently holds in disdain those who did. So while he’s talented at studying those subjects that he’s pretending to be, he doesn’t have the academic training and rigor to research the serious subjects upon which he opines whenever given the forum. Instead, he parrots the leftist agenda of those with whom he associates, and comes across as a fool in the process.
When he was in Iowa helping to torpedo the Howard Dean campaign, he and “Meathead” Rob Reiner were interviewed by a member of the TV media. During the course of the interview, Sheen commented on how he felt uncomfortable in rural Iowa with “all those guns,” and how he felt so much safer when he visited Canada with its strict gun control.
Well, Martin, I’ve got news for you.
Dr. Gary A. Mauser of Canada’s Simon Fraser University published a recent paper “The Failed Experiment: Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England, and Wales,” countries which have all enacted strict gun regulation, licensing, and bans in the last decade. Professor Mauser’s research showed that after Britain and the Commonwealth countries enacted laws banning guns, their violent crime rates skyrocketed to historic highs. Conversely, when individual states in the “gun culture” United States were passing concealed carry laws (such as Vermont, signed into law by Governor Howard Dean) in the same time frame, the USA’s crime rates were dropping!
For the year 2000, the violent crime rate in England and Wales rose to become well more than double the rate in the USA. In Canada, the decade of gun bans and stringent licensing and registration requirements did nothing to reduce violent crime. Canada’s violent crime rate remained unchanged. But in the same decade, the US rate dropped by about 25 per cent.
Dr. Mauser concluded that “disarming the public has not reduced criminal violence in any country examined [in his paper],” and also concluded that “In all cases, disarming the public has been ineffective, expensive, and often counter productive.” Dr. Mauser also concluded that “disarming the public greatly increases cynicism about government among much of the population, and it diminishes their willingness to comply with other, future regulations that might even be more sensible.”
Martin, please don’t be dissuaded by pesky things like facts and academic research. Just ignore the fact that it’s a Canadian professor at a Canadian university who concludes that Canadian gun control is a failure at making Canada safer.
In fact, I’d like to encourage you to move to Canada so you can feel “safer.” The fewer “morons” in this country trying to deprive me of my freedom so they can convince themselves that they’re “safer,” the safer I’ll feel.
When he was in Iowa helping to torpedo the Howard Dean campaign, he and “Meathead” Rob Reiner were interviewed by a member of the TV media. During the course of the interview, Sheen commented on how he felt uncomfortable in rural Iowa with “all those guns,” and how he felt so much safer when he visited Canada with its strict gun control.
Well, Martin, I’ve got news for you.
Dr. Gary A. Mauser of Canada’s Simon Fraser University published a recent paper “The Failed Experiment: Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England, and Wales,” countries which have all enacted strict gun regulation, licensing, and bans in the last decade. Professor Mauser’s research showed that after Britain and the Commonwealth countries enacted laws banning guns, their violent crime rates skyrocketed to historic highs. Conversely, when individual states in the “gun culture” United States were passing concealed carry laws (such as Vermont, signed into law by Governor Howard Dean) in the same time frame, the USA’s crime rates were dropping!
For the year 2000, the violent crime rate in England and Wales rose to become well more than double the rate in the USA. In Canada, the decade of gun bans and stringent licensing and registration requirements did nothing to reduce violent crime. Canada’s violent crime rate remained unchanged. But in the same decade, the US rate dropped by about 25 per cent.
Dr. Mauser concluded that “disarming the public has not reduced criminal violence in any country examined [in his paper],” and also concluded that “In all cases, disarming the public has been ineffective, expensive, and often counter productive.” Dr. Mauser also concluded that “disarming the public greatly increases cynicism about government among much of the population, and it diminishes their willingness to comply with other, future regulations that might even be more sensible.”
Martin, please don’t be dissuaded by pesky things like facts and academic research. Just ignore the fact that it’s a Canadian professor at a Canadian university who concludes that Canadian gun control is a failure at making Canada safer.
In fact, I’d like to encourage you to move to Canada so you can feel “safer.” The fewer “morons” in this country trying to deprive me of my freedom so they can convince themselves that they’re “safer,” the safer I’ll feel.
Monday, March 22, 2004
PALESTINIAN ATTITUDE TOWARD ISRAEL
I am retaliating against you because you retaliated against me because I retaliated against you because you retaliated against me because I retaliated against you because you retaliated against me because I retaliated against you because you retaliated against me because I retaliated against you because you retaliated against me because I retaliated against you because you retaliated against me because I retaliated against you because you retaliated against me because I retaliated against you because you retaliated against me because I retaliated against you because you retaliated against me because I retaliated against you because you retaliated against me because I retaliated against you because I hate you because you hate me because I hate you.
ISRAELI ATTITUDE TOWARD PALESTINE
I am retaliating against you because you retaliated against me because I retaliated against you because you retaliated against me because I retaliated against you because you retaliated against me because I retaliated against you because you retaliated against me because I retaliated against you because you retaliated against me because I retaliated against you because you retaliated against me because I retaliated against you because you retaliated against me because I retaliated against you because you retaliated against me because I retaliated against you because you retaliated against me because I retaliated against you because you retalitated against me because I retaliated against you because I hate you because you hate me because I hate you.
THE ONLY PRACTICAL SOLUTION
BUILD A VERY HIGH WALL AROUND ALL OF THEM. SEAL OFF THE COUNTRY. NOBODY GOES IN, NOBODY GOES OUT. KEEP IT THAT WAY FOR 20 YEARS. NO FOOD, NO OIL, NO TRADE, NO COMMUNICATIONS. AT THE END OF TWENTY YEARS, SEE IF THEY’RE STILL FIGHTING. IF THEY ARE, SEAL IT OFF FOR ANOTHER TWENTY YEARS. REPEAT UNTIL THERE ARE NO SURVIVORS, OR ONE SURVIVOR, OR THE REMAINING SURVIVORS HAVE FIGURED OUT HOW TO GET ALONG.
THE REST OF THE WORLD IS SICK OF IT.
I am retaliating against you because you retaliated against me because I retaliated against you because you retaliated against me because I retaliated against you because you retaliated against me because I retaliated against you because you retaliated against me because I retaliated against you because you retaliated against me because I retaliated against you because you retaliated against me because I retaliated against you because you retaliated against me because I retaliated against you because you retaliated against me because I retaliated against you because you retaliated against me because I retaliated against you because you retaliated against me because I retaliated against you because I hate you because you hate me because I hate you.
ISRAELI ATTITUDE TOWARD PALESTINE
I am retaliating against you because you retaliated against me because I retaliated against you because you retaliated against me because I retaliated against you because you retaliated against me because I retaliated against you because you retaliated against me because I retaliated against you because you retaliated against me because I retaliated against you because you retaliated against me because I retaliated against you because you retaliated against me because I retaliated against you because you retaliated against me because I retaliated against you because you retaliated against me because I retaliated against you because you retalitated against me because I retaliated against you because I hate you because you hate me because I hate you.
THE ONLY PRACTICAL SOLUTION
BUILD A VERY HIGH WALL AROUND ALL OF THEM. SEAL OFF THE COUNTRY. NOBODY GOES IN, NOBODY GOES OUT. KEEP IT THAT WAY FOR 20 YEARS. NO FOOD, NO OIL, NO TRADE, NO COMMUNICATIONS. AT THE END OF TWENTY YEARS, SEE IF THEY’RE STILL FIGHTING. IF THEY ARE, SEAL IT OFF FOR ANOTHER TWENTY YEARS. REPEAT UNTIL THERE ARE NO SURVIVORS, OR ONE SURVIVOR, OR THE REMAINING SURVIVORS HAVE FIGURED OUT HOW TO GET ALONG.
THE REST OF THE WORLD IS SICK OF IT.
