-Caveat Lector- Weekly Update for 6/14/01 COALITION FOR CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTIES Volume 5, Number 12 Brought to you by the Center for Technology Policy of the Free Congress Foundation Lisa S. Dean, Vice President for Technology Policy (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) J. Bradley Jansen, Deputy Director for Technology Policy (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) Hannah H. Woody, Coalition Coordinator (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) phone: (202) 546-3000 fax: (202) 544-2819 http://www.FreeCongress.org *********** THIS WEEK: * A DANGER TO SOCIETY by Lisa S. Dean, from the "Endangered Liberties" Television Program * INFORMATION EXCHANGE DANGERS by J. Bradley Jansen * SENATE TRIES TO STOP ADMINISTRATION'S REVIEW OF MONEY LAUNDERING by Mike Godfrey, Tax-news.com, June 11, 2001 http://www.tax-news.com/asp/story/story.asp?storyname=3925 * DIGGING THOSE DIGICASH BLUES by Declan McCullagh, June 14, 2001 http://www.wired.com/news/ebiz/0,1272,44507,00.html * CAN'T SCAN WITHOUT A WARRANT by Declan McCullagh, June 12, 2001 http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,44444,00.html * POSTAL SERVICE HAS ITS EYE ON YOU by John Berlau, InsightMag.com, June 8, 2001 <http://www.insightmag.com/archive/200107033.shtml>> * THE U.N. IS COMING FOR YOUR GUNS by William Jud, 17 May 2001 * MEDICAL PRIVACY PROTECTION RESOLUTION: Letter from Rep. Ron Paul to Hastert June 7, 2001 * ARMEY TO PRESS OPPOSITION TO NET WIRETAPS by John Schwartz, The New York Times, June 14, 2001 http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/14/technology/14CARN.html * LETTER FROM ARMEY TO ASHCROFT RE: CARNIVORE & RECENT PRIVACY DECISION House Majority Leader Dick Armey's letter to Attorney General John Ashcroft, June 14, 2001 A DANGER TO SOCIETY By Lisa S. Dean >From the "Endangered Liberties" Television Program Attorney General John Ashcroft is coming under fire lately because of the strong stance he has taken in favor of the death penalty in the Agent Robert Hanssen spy case. The press reported earlier last week that the reason negotiations between the Justice Department and Hanssen's attorneys broke down was precisely because Attorney General Ashcroft will not eliminate the possibility of seeking the death penalty for Hanssen's accused acts of treason. How politically incorrect of him! But somehow I don't think political correctness governs the thinking of John Ashcroft when it comes to doing his job, nor should it. Under Reno we got used to the office being used for intimidating political enemies and advancing the cause of political correctness that many Americans have forgotten what it's supposed to be - namely, the #1 law enforcement office in the country and under the law, the death penalty is considered a suitable punishment for the crime of treason. The press of course is making Ashcroft out to be some hypocritical ogre. Here is a man who prays every day and seeks guidance from the Lord, is pro-life when it comes to abortion but then turns around and favors the death penalty. The Left has, for decades, attempted to paint a picture that people who are religious, pro-life, and pro-death penalty are hypocrites and quite frankly, it's a tiresome argument but since a whole new generation is now of voting age and engaged in current events, it's necessary to repeat the argument and show that this is not hypocritical or inconsistent. Charles Rice, Professor of Law at Notre Dame, whose concentration is jurisprudence, is a well-established and respected authority on these questions. He has written extensively over the years on abortion and the death penalty. In an article published in the New York Times quite some time ago, Professor Rice argued that the death penalty is not in conflict with Christianity nor with the pro-life viewpoint. He explains that "The state's moral authority to impose the death penalty, as with the moral authority to kill in a just war, ultimately rests on the fact that the state derives its authority from God who is the Lord of Life." If the common good (or life) of a society is being threatened by a murderer, such as Jeffrey Dahmer or Timothy McVeigh, the state has the moral authority to protect and nurture the innocent lives within that community or society by eliminating the threat to that life. In other words, administering the death penalty to the life-taker, i.e., murderer, in order to preserve the lives of innocent citizens. This is consistent with Scripture which states quite clearly "And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death." (Leviticus 24:17-22) and "Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die. Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall be surely put to death." (Numbers 35:30-31) This reasoning explains fully why it is perfectly logical and consistent to take a pro-life position on abortion while maintaining a pro-death penalty position for criminals. If the state has the moral right and responsibility of taking the life of a life-taker, i.e., a murderer, for the protection of the lives of innocent citizens, then the state therefore is morally responsible for protecting innocent life, born or unborn and is therefore, pro-life. Very simple. Rice makes the point that the punishment should fit the crime. By eliminating the death penalty and convicting a hardened criminal such as John Wayne Gacy of the grisly murders he committed and sentencing him to life in prison rather than applying the death penalty is unjust. "Murder should be stigmatized as the crime of crimes. To punish it by imprisonment, a penalty qualitatively no different from that inflicted for embezzlement, is to devalue innocent life." Certainly treason, especially when lives have been lost as a result of treason, as prosecutors claim in the Robert Hanssen case, ranks in the same category as murder and should be judged accordingly. One of the reasons that relativism or political correctness is so dangerous to a society is because fewer and fewer people have the moral foundation to judge what is a fitting punishment for a crime and what isn't. Such judgments are made by how people feel or what society considers acceptable rather than on objective moral Truth given by God. As a result, the politically correct elite has turned our society is upside down. They aren't really anti-death penalty and they are very pro-life. They just believe that innocent unborn life should get the death penalty if society, as jury, decides the infant is guilty of being undesirable while hardened killers should be given another chance at life. Fortunately for us, we have an Attorney General who thinks right-side up. Lisa Dean is Vice President for Technology Policy at the Free Congress Foundation. INFORMATION EXCHANGE DANGERS By J. Bradley Jansen The Internal Revenue Service posted a ruling for comment that could have serious unintended consequences for the United States. Promulgated in the final days of the Clinton Administration, the IRS proposed a rule on the "Guidance on Reporting of Deposit Interest Paid to Nonresident Aliens." The rule should be withdrawn before it causes negative economic dislocations to the US by triggering massive withdrawals of foreign deposits from U.S. banks and, potentially, contributes to a new source of identity theft and other privacy violations. Currently, U.S. financial institutions are only required to report the U.S. deposit interest, so called IRS Form 1042-S reporting, only on Canadian nationals. With the Canadians, we have a close working relationship, share a long, peaceful border, and are long-time friends and allies. To expect the same kind of relationship with less stable countries that do not have a long history of respecting civil rights and civil liberties is a mistake that belies the message of the Statue of Liberty and our identity as a safe haven in the world. As America's Community Bankers explained in their comment period on the rule, "It is one thing to share such information on the wealth of its citizens with the Canadian government; it is quite another to share that information with countries where the rule of law may be less well established - a group that includes some of our treaty partners. Nonresident aliens from unstable or repressive nations that have tax treaties with the United States could have a well-founded fear regarding IRS information sharing. As a result of IRS sharing of information, their wealth could be expropriated, and they - or their families - could be threatened with criminal prosecution, violence, or kidnapping from their home countries." The rule could impose a severe regulatory burden without identifying any greater, offsetting benefit. The IRS rule would also adversely affect some institutions unfairly at the expense of others. The risks of information sharing should be obvious: from a privacy and security perspective, the more information is shared, and the more people that have access to that data, the risk-in fact, the likelihood-of the data being abused rises exponentially. Just last week, a FDIC employee, Theresa A. Hill of Seat Pleasant, MD, was sentenced to five years of probation in connection with an identity fraud scheme. She was also ordered to pay $87,531 in restitution. The scheme's victims included employees of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG). Ms. Hill reportedly conspired with five others to purchase gift certificates, jewelry and electronic equipment among other goods and services in retail stores and order merchandise over the Internet. She and the others reportedly purchased these items on credit by using the names and personal information of unwitting victims. According to the FDIC, Ms. Hill admitted that the conspirators obtained fraudulent identification cards in the victims' names. In furtherance of the conspiracy, Ms. Hill checked the victims' credit status by applying for credit accounts using the victims' names, Social Security numbers and other identifying information. The FDIC release says that the indictment alleges that the conspirators obtained personal information, including names, birth dates, Social Security numbers and home addresses, about victims who were employed by the FDIC and the HHS OIG. Ms. Hill was employed in the FDIC's finance division, where she allegedly had access to personnel records of FDIC employees. On another front, the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development is attempting to institute a type of reporting and data exchange requirement on their list of small, developing jurisdictions that have low taxes. This new reporting and data exchange requirement is similar to the IRS rule that many here oppose in this country. In a related manner, the Financial Action Task Force aims to institute a global Know Your Customer regime that specifically targets the Internet and electronic commerce. The FATF report makes clear that their goal is to effectively deputize accountants, lawyers, notaries and others in the same way that the domestic Bank Secrecy Act regulations effectively deputized bank tellers as law enforcement agents against their customers. Together, the reporting and data exchange requirements of the OECD and FATF are a blueprint for enabling identity theft and curtailing the benefits of the nascent electronic commerce. The next logical step for the FATF according to their February report would be to deputize Internet Service Providers and others involved in electronic commerce as government snitches. Recognizing the importance of public confidence in financial and electronic commerce must not be lost pursuing policies that are not cost effective - if they work at all. These proposals for surveillance of bank accounts and information exchange need further consideration regarding privacy and security issues. What safeguards would be in place to protect sensitive personal information from being misused, abused, or compromised from technological security breaches? The recent sentencing of a former FDIC employee in an identity fraud scheme illustrates the dangers of identity theft and other potential problems with government data exchange. The privacy and security of our personal, private information is only as good as the worst safeguards of the others with whom it is shared. Brad Jansen is the Deputy Director for the Free Congress Foundation's Center for Center for Technology Policy. SENATE TRIES TO STOP ADMINISTRATION'S REVIEW OF MONEY LAUNDERING By Mike Godfrey, Tax-news.com, 11 June 2001 As part of a top-to-bottom survey of all government department functions, designed to find out whether taxpayers are getting value for money, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill has ordered a major review of the US anti-money laundering regulations, it was revealed recently. In his congressional testimony last month, O'Neill questioned the way in which the $700 million spent annually on initiatives to crack down on money laundering was being used, suggesting that the current law, which requires US banks to report all transactions over $10,000 imposed 'a significant cost on society,' and questioning whether that much information was actually necessary. Unsurprisingly, the Democrats are pulling the other way on this one. They too believe that the money laundering legislation needs to be reviewed, but are in favor of strengthening it. Senator Carl Levin, the newly appointed chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee's investigative panel said he would use his new power to scrutinize the actions of the treasury, explaining: 'It would be a real setback to the progress that has been made in anti-money laundering efforts in our country and internationally if the Treasury Department attempts to weaken the programs we now have in place.' Democrat Senators John Kerry and John La Falce recently proposed new legislation which would give the Treasury Secretary new powers if he were to identify an area of 'primary money laundering concern' offshore. The proposed new tools would include the requirement that US banks that operate outside the country maintain records or report on transactions of foreign operations. Combating illicit money laundering first became a major priority for the US under the Clinton administration, when it was revealed in 1999 that over $7 billion in Russian money had been laundered through one of the country's largest banks. However, under the stewardship of George Bush, the US government has recently taken a fairly sizeable step back from the OECD campaign to impose punitive sanctions on offshore financial centers, signaling a change in pace and focus. Advocates of offshore havens have welcomed the Treasury's new attitude. 'The OECD has to realize that it can print all the blacklists it wants to,' said Bob Bauman, legal advisor to the Sovereign Society, 'But without any enforcement mechanism, they're lost.' http://www.tax-news.com/asp/story/story.asp?storyname=3925 BUSH REVIEWS MONEY LAUNDERING RULES By Marcy Gordon, AP Business Writer, June 7, 2001 WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration is reviewing rules designed to fight money laundering, saying they may be burdensome for U.S. banks without achieving their goal. Democratic lawmakers are pushing legislation to give the government new authority over U.S. banks that do business with foreign banks and customers. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill has ordered the major review of anti-money-laundering regulations as part of a study of all department functions aimed at finding out whether taxpayers get value for the money being spent. For full article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010607/aponline194426_000.ht m DIGGING THOSE DIGICASH BLUES By Declan McCullagh <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=Digging Those Digicash Blues>, June 14, 2001 BALTIMORE -- For the last six years, Robert Hettinga has been agitating, begging and pleading for the world to listen to his ambitious plans for digital money. Like any savvy techno-evangelist, Hettinga coined a name for his idea -- digital bearer certificates -- and envisions a day when Internet users can withdraw electronic cash by simply typing in an ATM card number and their PIN. To bolster his campaign, Hettinga launched the Digital Commerce Society <http://www.shipwright.com/dcsb.html> of Boston, co-founded the Financial Cryptography conference, and has become a fixture on mailing lists devoted to cryptography and security. DCSB has even birthed offspring: On Tuesday, Hettinga came to Baltimore to speak at the inaugural meeting of a new sister chapter. But not one of those systems offers all three advantages that true digital cash provides: lower transaction costs, immediate transaction processing and far better privacy. Hettinga says he can complete transactions for a minuscule amount. "What we can do is put money on the Net for 80/100ths of 1 percent. Transactions after that are pretty much free," he says. "You pull a dollar bill out of an ATM and that costs money. You don't pay for transactions after that." But do consumers even care? Pat Farrell <http://www.pfarrell.com/>, former director of protocols at CyberCash and now a consultant, says that his former employer unadvisedly relied on focus groups in 1995 that indicated customers were willing to pay small sums for news and other content online. "At the time the Web hadn't come out yet," says Farrell. "They released their product, CyberCoin, and it hit the market with a resounding thud." Farrell says he's doubtful that the ambitious plan outlined by IBUC and Hettinga will find backers. "Federal regulators say that they are not trying to stifle their development of these technologies," says Brad Jansen, an analyst at the conservative Free Congress Foundation <http://www.freecongress.org/>, who previously handled financial policy for a member of the House banking committee. Jansen says that "overriding concerns of law enforcement and micromanaging of regulation threaten to eviscerate some of the benefits that electronic money might have, such as anonymity and privacy." http://www.wired.com/news/ebiz/0,1272,44507,00.html CAN'T SCAN WITHOUT A WARRANT by Declan McCullagh, June 12, 2001 WASHINGTON -- If the feds want to spy on your home using whizzy tech gadgets, they'd better get a warrant first, the Supreme Court said on Monday. In an important 5-4 ruling that extends privacy's shield to radiation not visible to the human eye, the court said federal agents should have obtained a warrant before using an infrared imaging device to snoop on Danny Lee Kyllo, an Oregon man they later arrested for growing marijuana. The decision, written by conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, said even though the law has long allowed police to peer at homes through their naked eyes, enhanced cameras and similar devices in law enforcement hands "would leave the homeowner at the mercy of advancing technology -- including imaging technology that could discern all human activity in the home." This ruling seems likely to affect how federal and state police may use their rapidly growing arsenal of advanced surveillance tools. In the Kyllo case, agents used an Agema 210 unit to detect unusual heat emissions from the halide lamps used to grow marijuana. Since the Interior Department's unlawful surveillance of Kyllo in January 1992, infrared and other forms of electronic monitoring devices have become far more invasive, and the Justice Department has spent millions of dollars in research on X-ray devices that can see through even brick and concrete walls. "Certainly optical performance has improved. And over the years thermal sensitivity has grown a lot greater," said Doug Little, spokesman for FLIR Systems of Portland, Oregon, which bought Agema in 1998. "Cameras are a lot more accurate now." http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,44444,00.html POSTAL SERVICE HAS ITS EYE ON YOU By John Berlau, InsightMag.com, June 8, 2001 Since 1997, the U.S. Postal Service has been conducting a customer-surveillance program, 'Under the Eagle's Eye,' and reporting innocent activity to federal law enforcement. Remember, "Know Your Customer"? Two years ago the federal government tried to require banks to profile every customer's "normal and expected transactions" and report the slightest deviation to the feds as a "suspicious activity." The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. withdrew the requirement in March 1999 after receiving 300,000 opposing comments and massive bipartisan opposition. But while your bank teller may not have been snooping and snitching on your every financial move, your local post office has been (and is) watching you closely, Insight has learned. Critics of this snooping both inside and outside the postal service are howling mad that the agency's reputation for protecting the privacy of its customers is being compromised. "It sounds to me that they're going past the Treasury guidelines," says Rick Merritt, executive director of PostalWatch, a private watchdog group. He says that lawmakers and the new postmaster general, Jack Potter, need to examine any undermining of customer trust by programs such as "Under the Eagle's Eye" before the postal service is allowed to go into new businesses such as providing e-mail addresses. "Let's hope that this is not a trend for the postal service, because I don't think the American people are quite ready to be fully under the eagle's eye," he says. Full Text: <<http://www.insightmag.com/archive/200107033.shtml>> PRIVACY NOTICES FROM BANKS: SAMPLE OPT-OUT LETTERS NOW AVAILABLE >From Privacy Rights Clearinghouse <http://www.privacyrights.org/> A new federal rule taking effect July 1st requires financial institutions to tell their customers how their personal financial information is used, and to give them the opportunity to say no to certain kinds of sale and sharing of personal information. Many consumers have mistaken the notices for junk mail or have not responded because they are too hard to understand. The Privacy Rights Clearinghouse and Junkbusters have joined to develop sample letters that consumers can use to opt out of the sale of their personal data, along with a database of the addresses of dozens of financial institutions. A sample letter can be found at <http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs24a-letter.htm>://www.privacyrights.org/f s/fs24a-letter. <http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs24a-letter.htm> on the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse web site. At <http://www.junkbusters.com/optout.html> html <http://www.junkbusters.com/optout.html> surfers can click on the names of their financial institution and download a draft letter already addressed, ready to print, sign and mail. THE U.N. IS COMING FOR YOUR GUNS By William Jud, 17 May 2001 There's a lot in common between the United Nations and soil erosion. Both operate incrementally. A couple of tons of soil washed away here, another assault on America's Constitution there. Over time, both lead to disaster. If you've been paying attention, you remember that on September 6, 2000, the U.N. gathered world leaders together in New York City for its Millennium Assembly to give the U.N. oversight of international conflicts. They gave the U.N. power to be judge and jury over violators of international law. They gave the U.N. oversight of financial institutions, commerce, trade relations, education and private property. Existing national, state and local governments are to remain as conduits to locally carry out U.N. policy. Officials in our American government approved and aided this U.N. attempt to replace our Constitution with the United Nations Charter. In the final analysis, what's stopping the U.N. from taking over the United States right now? It's our armed citizenry, the citizens known as "militia" by the Founding Fathers. As long as millions of Americans remain armed with personal firearms and abundant ammunition, conquest of America by military means is a dangerous and expensive option, and would-be U.N. World Government people know this. So this July, in New York City, the U.N. will hold a global summit meeting on the "Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons." The stated objective is to stop rebels, criminals and insurrectionists who commit crime and revolution around the world. One of the claims is that those folks carry weapons that originally were legitimately sold to private individuals as legal firearms. Thus, they reason, firearms and ammunition must be confiscated from private citizens. Under the U.N. plan, only governments, including a U.N. standing army, would possess the world's remaining firearms. Citizens would be disarmed, including even hunting rifles. This is a workable plan. Hitler proved it. Hitler had his own versions of the Million Moms March and Handgun Control, Inc., who noisily demanded that firearms be licensed, then restricted, and finally taken away from private citizens. When Hitler came to power in Germany he confiscated all personal firearms for "public safety" reasons. When private citizens were no longer armed, Hitler started rounding up the Jews, Gypsies, handicapped, mentally retarded and other "useless eaters" and "undesirables" and shipped them off to slave labor or extermination camps according to their ability to produce materials for the war effort. Do you honestly believe that the U.N. and our own federal government are so benevolent that they would never resort to tyranny after citizens are disarmed? If so, review your history. Governments are responsible for killing more of their own citizens for political reasons than have been killed in wars between competing governments. The facts and trend lines are very clear. The U.N. is working toward World Dictatorship, little by little and with the help of left-wing Socialist organizations, anti-Capitalist foundations and members of our own government, and if we don't get out of the U.N. now, and shut that outfit down, our future will be Communism. Only three days left to kill Federal anti-privacy regulation June 12, 2001 Dear Friends: We have an urgent request: Please pick up the phone and call Congress today, or the fight for medical privacy could be lost. That is because the Health and Human Services regulation that turns your medical data over to the government will go into effect permanently -- unless Congress passes HJR 38 by Friday, June 15. Please read this short memo, immediately take the action at the bottom, then forward it to others who might be interested. BACKGROUND: On April 14, President Bush quietly directed Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson to impose the so-called "medical privacy regulations" that were originally developed by the Clinton administration. Bush's maneuver came despite the fact that the HHS had been inundated with nearly 100,000 angry letters and e-mails from Americans around the country. The most dangerous aspect of this regulation -- and the one most overlooked in news reports -- is that for the first time the government, rather than patients and doctors, would be in complete control of your private medical records. That's because the regulation forces doctors and hospitals to share all electronic medical records with the government for a variety of vague purposes, such as to "streamline medical billing procedures" or for "public health surveillance." Then the government, rather than individual patients, will decide who gets to see them. No wonder Americans are so worried. This regulation, which was published in the Federal Register on December 28, 2000, would: * Give dozens of government agencies and thousands of bureaucrats access to your medical records -- including the private notes of a psychotherapist -- without your consent. * Let government agencies share your records with marketing companies. The rules specifically allow pharmacies to share prescription records "for the purpose of marketing health-related products and services" without your consent. * Do nothing to prevent the government from accessing your DNA information and transferring it to "third parties." * Permit police agencies to access medical records without a search warrant. * Allow private insurance companies to compile the medical information into a database. * Prevent patients involved in health research projects from accessing their own medical records in some cases. How would you like a prospective employer to know that you have a "genetic predisposition" to contract a serious, and expensive, illness? What if an acquaintance who worked for an insurance company or government agency could read the private notes of your psychotherapist, or find out if you have ever undergone drug or alcohol treatment? Would you want others to know whether you've had an abortion or been treated for an embarrassing disease? All of those things could happen if this Clinton-Bush regulation is allowed to stand. That's why it's so important to pick up the phone and call your U.S. representative today. If we can't get Congress to vote on HJR 38 by Friday, you can kiss your medical privacy goodbye! WHAT TO DO: Call your U.S. House representative immediately at 202-225-3121 or 202-224-3121 to request an immediate vote on House Joint Resolution 38 (HJR 38). This measure, sponsored by U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, declares that the HHS regulation "shall have no force or effect." WHAT TO SAY: (1) identify yourself and let them know you are a voter in their district. Leave your name, address, complete with ZIP code, and phone number. Please be brief, especially if you are leaving a message. (2) Ask them to tell House Speaker Dennis Hastert to schedule an immediate vote on HJR 38. Let them know that this measure must pass Congress by Friday -- or the HHS rules will remain in effect. (3) Ask them to vote *YES* on HJR 38. Then ask for a letter confirming their position. Is there anything else you can do? Yes! Please forward this E-mail to a friend, and ask them to call their representative as well. Thank you for your help! Sincerely, Steve Dasbach, National Director, Libertarian Party MEDICAL PRIVACY PROTECTION RESOLUTION LETTER FROM CONGRESSMAN RON PAUL TO SPEAKER DENNIS HASTERT June 7, 2001 Dear Speaker Hastert and Chairman Johnson: I respectfully request that you move H.J.Res. 38, my Medical Privacy Protection Resolution, to the House floor before June 15, 2001. As you may know, H.J.Res. 38 uses the procedures established in the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to repeal the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)' so-called "medical privacy" resolution, however, Congress has only until June 15th to use the CRA to repeal the medical privacy rule. If we do not act by June 15 then any legislation passed by the House dealing with this subject will have to go through the Senate Health, Education, Pensions, and Labor (HELP) Committee, which is now dominated by supporters of the HHS "privacy" rule. Thus, if Congress does not act by the 15th, it will become more difficult to repeal this misnamed "privacy" rule. According to a Gallop survey commissioned by the Institute for Health Freedom, 92% of Americans oppose allowing government agencies to have access to medical records without patient consent. The American people are more opposed to government agencies having unfettered access to medical records than they are to any private party, with the exception of financial institutions, having access to their medical history. Yet HHS's rule increases the power of government agencies to seize medical records without consent! For example, these regulations allow law enforcement and other government officials access to a citizen's private medical record without having to obtain a search warrant. Allowing government officials to access a private person's medical records without a warrant is a violation of the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects American citizens from warrantless searches by government officials. The requirement that law enforcement officials obtain a warrant from a judge before searching private documents is one of the fundamental protections against abuse of the government's power to seize an individual's private documents. While the fourth amendment has been interpreted to allow warrantless searches in emergency situations, it is hard to conceive of a situation where law enforcement officials would be unable to obtain a warrant before electronic medical records would be destroyed. In addition to law enforcement, these so-called "privacy protection" regulations create a privileged class of people with a federally-guaranteed right to see an individual's medical records without the individual's consent. For example, medical researchers may access a person's private medical records even if an individual does not want their private records used for medical research. Although individuals will be told that their identity will be protected, the fact is that no system is fail-safe. I am aware of at least one incident where a man had his medical records used without his consent and the records inadvertently revealed his identity. As a result, many people in his community discovered details of his medical history that he wished to keep private! As an OB-GYN with more than 30 years experience in private practice, I am very concerned by the threat to medical practice posed by these regulations. The confidential physician-patient relationship is the basis of good health care. Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on the patient's ability to place absolute trust in his or her doctor. The legal system has acknowledged the importance of maintaining physician-patient confidentiality by granting physicians a privilege not to divulge confidential patient information. What will happen to that trust between patients and physicians when patients know that any and all information given their doctor may be placed in a government database or seen by medical researchers or handed over to government agents without so much as a simple warrant? These regulations violate the fundamental principles of a free society by placing the perceived "societal" need to advance medical research over the individual's right to privacy. They also violate the fourth and fifth amendments by allowing law enforcement officials and government favored special interests to seize medical records without an individual's consent or a warrant and could facilitate the creation of a federal database containing the health care data of every American citizen. These developments could undermine the doctor-patient relationship and thus worsen the health care of millions of Americans. If Congress fails to repeal this rule, we will have failed to protect the majority of Americans who oppose giving government sweeping powers to violate medical privacy. Therefore, I once again respectfully request that you place H.J.Res. 38, the Medical Privacy Protection Resolution, on the House calendar before June 15. Thank you for your consideration of my views. Sincerely, Ron Paul cc: Hon. Richard Armey & Hon. Tom Delay ARMEY TO PRESS OPPOSITION TO NET WIRETAPS By John Schwartz, The New York Times, June 14, 2001 http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/14/technology/14CARN.html Whatever happened to Carnivore? That's the question that Representative Dick Armey of Texas, the House majority leader, has posed in a letter to Attorney General John Ashcroft. The letter, which Mr. Armey's office will make public today, asks the Justice Department and the F.B.I to reconsider the use of the Internet wiretapping technology formerly known as Carnivore. It cited a decision on Monday by the United States Supreme Court restricting the use of thermal-imaging technology to peer inside a suspect's house, and suggested that Carnivore "similarly undermines the minimum expectation" of privacy that the court said was violated in the recent case, Kyllo v. United States. "I respectfully ask that you consider the serious constitutional questions Carnivore has raised and respond with how you intend to address them," Mr. Armey wrote. The Internet wiretap technology is a modified version of a common piece of software known as a packet sniffer that is used by Internet service providers to maintain their networks. It has raised fears among privacy advocates because the system initially taps substantial portions of traffic coming through an Internet service provider's networks in search of data from the target of the investigation. Opponents of the system say law enforcement officials should be required to get the same kind of court order to use Carnivore as is required for full telephone wiretaps; the FBI argues that it should be able to use the system under the relatively loose rules governing technologies that gather phone numbers dialed by suspects and the numbers of people calling them. The FBI officially renamed the system DCS-1000 in February, but news reports and politicians continue to refer to it as Carnivore. "My first reaction when I saw the decision was it was about time somebody put a limit on this bag of magic tricks," Mr. Armey said in an interview. He added that if he was not satisfied with Mr. Ashcroft's response, he would seek a change in the Justice Department budget that would limit funds for the system. An executive of EarthLink, an Internet service provider that resisted FBI efforts last year to use Carnivore on its network, applauded the Armey letter. "Much as I don't necessarily align myself with Dick Armey, I agree with him," said Claudia B. Caplan, vice president for brand marketing. Another critic of Carnivore, Marc Rotenberg of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington, said the technology went beyond what the law allowed. "The use of Carnivore should be suspended until the federal wiretap statutes can be amended to protect the privacy rights of Americans," he said. But Clifford S. Fishman of the Columbus School of Law at the Catholic University of America, a wiretap expert, said the Kyllo case might not be an apt comparison with Carnivore, because the Kyllo case hinged on whether any court oversight was required. "I don't see the decision as totally trashing what the government is seeking" with Carnivore, he said. A Justice Department spokeswoman, Chris J. Watney, said, "The attorney general is looking at the Carnivore matter, is very concerned about it and will respond to Dick Armey directly" about his letter. ARMEY'S LETTER TO ASHCROFT RE: CARNIVORE June 14, 2001 Dear Attorney General Ashcroft, On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling regarding law enforcement's use of technology. The Court ruled that thermal imaging devices allowed "police technology to erode the privacy guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment." In particular, the Court held in Kyllo v. United States that use of electronic devices to gather information that would not otherwise be available constitutes a search: Where... the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of a private home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a Fourth Amendment "search," and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant. It is reasonable, then, to ask whether the Internet surveillance system formerly known as "Carnivore" similarly undermines the minimum expectation that individuals have that their personal electronic communications will not be examined by law enforcement devices unless a specific court warrant has been issued. Your predecessor, Attorney General Janet Reno, reluctantly undertook a review of Carnivore last year in an attempt to address these concerns. That review, however, seemed to raise more questions about the system than it answered. The review team ultimately selected was found to have clear political ties to the Clinton Administration. According to media accounts, most major universities declined even to participate in the review proposal process due to questions about its objectivity. And, not surprisingly, they delivered a report restating the previous Administration's position on the system. Because I am confident that you will take a much more constructive approach to this issue, I wanted to share my privacy concern with you directly. I believe the FBI is making a good-faith effort to fight crime in the most efficient way possible. But I also believe the Founders quite clearly decided to sacrifice that kind of efficiency for the sake of protecting citizens from the danger of an overly intrusive government. I respectfully ask that you consider the serious constitutional questions Carnivore has raised and respond with how you intend to address them. This is an issue of great importance to the online public. I look forward to working constructively with you on this and many other issues in the coming years. Sincerely, DICK ARMEY House Majority Leader J. Bradley Jansen, Deputy Director, Center for Technology Policy, Free Congress Foundation "Liberty not only means that the individual has both the opportunity and the burden of choice; it also means that he must bear the consequences of his actions and will receive praise or blame for them." -F. A. Hayek <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
