Re: Administration Sets Forth a Limited View on Privacy

[Samuel Trosow <strosow@uwo.ca>]

Chuck is absolutely right about this concern. It's good you raised it
because like medical records, there is no explicit federal provision
safeguarding the privacy of library patron records. Much attention has
lately been focused on what effect section 215 of the Patriot Act would
have on patron privacy.  But even without this provision (the government
claims it hasn't been used, and there are also efforts underway to
amend/repeal it)the confidentiality of these records is a cause for
concern in light of the over-reaching attitude and practices of the
federal government.

Samuel Trosow
University of Western Ontario


Hamaker, Chuck wrote:

> More privacy concerns. If this is what can happen with medical records,
> library usage records which have less legal protection are surely a
> concern.
>
> Chuck
>
> Administration Sets Forth a Limited View on Privacy
> By ROBERT PEAR and ERIC LICHTBLAU
> http://nytimes.com/2004/03/06/politics/06PRIV.html
> Published: March 6, 2004
>
> WASHINGTON, March 5 - In a sharp departure from its past insistence on the
> sanctity of medical records, the Bush administration has set forth a new,
> more limited view of privacy rights as it tries to force hospitals and
> clinics to turn over records of hundreds and perhaps thousands of
> abortions.
>
> ... Federal law "does not recognize a physician-patient privilege," the
> Justice Department said last month in court papers that sought abortion
> records from Planned Parenthood clinics in California, Kansas, Missouri,
> Pennsylvania, New York City and Washington. Moreover, the department said
> in another abortion case, patients "no longer possess a reasonable
> expectation that their histories will remain completely confidential."
>
> ... What began late last year as a fairly modest government effort to
> obtain records appears to have ballooned into a systematic effort in
> courts around the country to define the limits of medical privacy.
>
> Health care professionals and privacy advocates say the government's
> position has broad implications beyond abortion. If patients have no
> reasonable expectation of privacy, the critics say, the government may be
> more aggressive in seeking records from hospitals, insurance companies and
> other businesses in criminal, civil and administrative cases.
>
> ___