(Would-be) Presidents Are Talking

From Privacy Times, January 5, 2000

CAPITAL INSIGHTS: Bill Bradley is "attempting to draw the widest zone of privacy for any Presidential candidate," declining to discuss his religious beliefs or release his pre-1996 medical records. . . . According to the Jan. 2 Washington Post, Bradley also has declined to name his favorite book, or say whether he has ever undergone psychotherapy. His wife Ernestine, when asked the date of their wedding anniversary, snapped, "Please let us have some privacy." In his 1996 book, Time Present, Time Past, Bradley wrote, "Elected officials have to be able to preserve an area in which to regenerate, away from the glare. They have to be able to wall off some things from public view -- to protect a part of their lives while at the same time giving their lives to public service." But he can expect the media to keep prying. Reporters complain that they don't enjoy easy access to Bradley on the campaign trail, and that Bradley won't even reveal the name of his top economic or foreign affairs advisor. . . . Last month, Steve Forbes became the first Presidential candidate to call for a national privacy policy (see Privacy Times, Dec. 22, 1999). . . .

From Privacy Times, December 22, 1999

PRESIDENTIAL: FORBES VOWS PROTECTION FOR PRIVACY

In the first such campaign address of its kind, Presidential candidate Steve Forbes promised that his Administration would protect Americans' right to privacy. He ripped the Clinton-Gore Administration for its failures on the issue.

Speaking before the conservative Free Congress Foundation in Washington, Forbes unveiled a 10-point program which included a requirement that all bills be subjected to a "privacy impact analysis" before they are enacted by Congress. He vowed to "veto any bill that threatens the privacy and personal freedom of the American people." No other candidate has addressed privacy in such a comprehensive manner.

Forbes cited the Health and Human Services Dept.'s proposed rules on patient data, including the move for a universal patient identifier, as well as HCFA's "OASIS" database on home health patients. "The Clinton-Gore Administration is engaged in the greatest assault on the medical privacy of the American people in the history of this country," he said.

In addition to the "privacy impact" requirement, and the "veto threat" of anti-privacy bills, Forbes platform included:

· "Vigorously protect the medical privacy of the American people by blocking national health ID cards and shutting down any federal medical database that contains data Washington does not need and has no constitutional right to have."

· Create a one-page Census form that fulfills "enumeration" without amassing huge amounts of data on Americans' personal lives.

· End the IRS "as we know it." Create a simple "new tax code that can be filled out on a postcard or a single page."

· "Allow strong encryption, and not force encryption makers to hand over their 'keys.' Also, encourage development of new software allowing Internet users to block Web sites operators from reading, tagging and tracking their e-mail address, just as you can now block telephone numbers from Caller ID systems."

· Work with State and local officials to stamp out identity fraud, which victimizes 400,000 Americans each year. · Block creation of a national ID card and a federal "worker" database; fight illegal immigration through other means.

· Appoint an Attorney General and Secretary of HHS who respect privacy, as well as Supreme Court justices and other federal judges.

Forbes called the Clinton-Gore assault on patient privacy a "symptom of a larger disease: a sweeping epidemic of lost privacy." Referring to the booming market in unlisted phone and Social Security numbers, Forbes said, "Technology is making it increasingly easy for government and private companies to track down and monitor every detail of our personal and financial lives: what we buy, what we eat, how often we use an ATM, where we live, the names of our children. Sure, in many ways this technology makes it easier for law enforcement to track down terrorists and criminals, for example, or for us to track down long lost friends and family members. But it also makes it easier for stalkers, scam artists, child abusers and kidnappers to do evil."

"So, as a free people, we must be vigilant. We don't want to live in a society where every innocent American is effectively monitored by a high-tech 'ankle bracelet' like a criminal, watching every move we make. We must think wisely about how to protect our privacy in this high-tech era, how to balance our right to privacy with our passion for free enterprise, as well as with our government's need to protect us and enforce the law. "

"Serious privacy issues have arisen in the private sector, from how marketers accumulate and disseminate information about interests, tastes and hobbies to how far private detective agencies and Internet search companies should be allowed to go towards developing a dossier on fellow citizens. And they deserve serious attention."

"That said, let us be clear: the biggest and most serious threat to our privacy comes from a massive federal government seeking information it does not need, nor a constitutional right to have," Forbes said.

An Administration spokesman termed Forbes' attack on Clinton-Gore policies "campaign hyperbole," Wired News reported.