"Secure in one's papers" is becoming meaningless

[Tim May <tcmay@got.net>]

At 8:37 AM -0700 9/10/97, Attila T. Hun wrote:

>    NYT lead article today indicates Clinton bowing to LEOs to:
>
>        ...gain broad access to patients' medical records, with hardly
>        any restrictions on use or redisclosure of the data.
>
>        "We recommend that providers and payers be permitted to rely on
>        the statement of law-enforcement officials that an inquiry meets
>        these standards," the administration says....

Just routine developments in the latter stages of the American Imperial New
World Order. Government can tie in to the networks of medical data as an
aid to tracking citizen-units, as a means of ferreting out pseudonyms, and
as a means of gathering dossier data. J. Edgar Hoover would have loved it.

They won't need "don't ask, don't tell" when they have the complete medical
records of us all. And they'll have the background they need to pressure
recalcitrant senators who don't support their programs. And so on.

(And the citizen-units will be powerles to protest...hospitals are forced
to participate in various statist programs, and are essentially powerless
to turn away patients with HMO and insurance programs, thus pulling all
hospitals into The Program. And in the War on Drugs Age, any doctor who
takes only cash is almost certain to have his license yanked by the
government-approved and -mandated Official Guild.)

>        The administration proposal would not require law-enforcement
>        agencies to get court orders or to notify patients when they
>        seek medical records. Patients would not be assured of an
>        opportunity to challenge the disclosure of their files, though
>        the records could later be used against them in investigations
>        or prosecutions.
>
>    fourth amendment mean _anything_ to these petty dictators? has the
>    US become just another bananna republic at the interest of the
>    power brokers?  are we stretching the idea of a republic a bit
>    thin?

The Fourth is being shredded every day in every way. Probably the
justification here is that the records are not in the possession of the
target. (Recall the usual discussions that if Alice knows something about
Bob, and Big Brother wants it, Alice cannot assert a Fourth Amendment
protection on behalf of the information about Bob. Same applies, and will
eventually apply, to forcing all merchants to maintain databases of who
buys what, and then transferring those records nightly, or hourly to the
Feds' computers. The Fourth will not be usable.)

This is a very important issue. The "secure in one's papers and
possessions" language of the 4th is practically meaningless in today's
world: most of one's important papers and records are not stored locally in
one's home.

Rather, hospital records, phone records, credit records, travel
arrangements, gun purchase records, and so on, are stored with various
hospitals, phone companies, merchants, credit reporting entities, airlines,
car rental companies, hotels, landlords, mortgage companies, etc. They
cannot argue the Fourth on one's behalf (nor do they care to, usually).

Can a contract help? If I contract with Hertz Car Rental that my True Name
not be given out, will this help? It may help in stopping Hertz from
selling my name to mailing list sellers, or from having them notify the
local newspaper that I will be in town (were I to be famous), but it won't
stop a subpoena.

The trend is moving swiftly toward having these service providers provide
data automatically, routinely, as with the airlines linking their
reservations system to various government data bases, even absent a
specific crime or terrorist event.

Expect within 10 years to see hotel and other such services required to
have proof of True Names, and with such records linked to government
computers on a nightly (or even realtime) basis.

The main protection for this is _cash_. But an increasing number of places
will not take cash. (Let's not get off on a tangent about what "legal
tender" is; if Alice says she will only take credit cards or checks, then
Bob is bound by this.)

>        "Our recommendations accommodate the interests of law
>        enforcement rather well," said an administration official who
>        helped draft the proposal. "The Justice Department got almost
>        everything it wanted."
>
>    THIS is what is wrong with the US! the courts have become
>    adversarial playgrounds for the prosecutors for the benefit of the
>    "state"  the old rule used to be if you were _charged_ by the Feds,
>    start plea bargaining --if you go to court, the sentence will
>    triple. just "fuck" the concept of innocent until proven guilty, or
>    'hey, man, you were arrested, weren't you?'

Yes, this is what "plea bargaining" is used for. Sentencing guidelines have
been puffed out, and those entering the legal system are strongly
incentivized to cop a plea.

(One need only look to the case of Jim Bell. Recall that he took a plea,
but his sentencing was held off for 5 or 6 months, instead of being given
right on the spot, as it should have been, to enable him to sing like a
canary. I know some folks who may have grounds for worry that indictments
are being prepared against them.)

>    TIME FOR THE INTERMOUNTAIN EMPIRE TO SECEDE FROM THE
>    UNCONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT IN WASHINGTON.
>

Yep, the so-called militia movement, or patriot group, is gaining a big
bounce out of this.

(It's not for me, though. The Militia of Monterey is big into saying the
Pledge of Allegiance, and that sticks in my craw. )

--Tim May

There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws.
Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."