Where I Stand — Brian Greenspun: No interest in principle

Tuesday, July 27, 1999 | 9:59 a.m.

Brian Greenspun is editor of the Las Vegas Sun.

THE FURTHER AWAY from 1984 we go, the closer we seem to get.

When my generation first got its hands on George Orwell's "1984" we knew that should that time ever come -- and it would most certainly be in our lifetimes -- the prospects of a Big Brother looking over our every move was, at best, chilling. At worst it gave many Americans the impetus they needed to react and over-react to just the thought that some day the reality of government -- federal, state and local -- would follow the art that was Orwell's genius.

I can barely remember the year 1984, but I do recall that it passed with some relief that the picture painted by the book had not come to pass, nor had anything remotely close occurred. But it was just a bit less clear in the minds of those who paid attention that, given our then-current course, it would not be too much longer before many of the scarier scenes from the book would be replaying their way into our daily lives.

Enter 1999 and the Internet. Enter the state of Connecticut and its $17 million settlement of past governmental intrusions into the privacy rights of its citizens. And enter the not so great debate in Congress today about what and whether to do with those most private and precious of personal records -- our individual health information. There are many more examples of 1984 coming home to roost, but these will do just fine for now.

Let's start with the Internet. I know I am close to Neanderthalish on the subject, but there is something terrifying about that little message that comes across the computer screen that says you are about to pass sensitive information through cyberspace that cannot and will not be protected from snooping eyes and ears. Then it asks you to waive all that you know you should not waive in order to purchase what you want, talk to whomever it is you want to talk to or look up information you think is worth the giving up of some of your most private thoughts.

It is quite obvious to me that this latest generation didn't read or heed "1984" or else its members would be as skittish as I am about trudging off with my secrets through some virtual world out there. Either that or they have become so inured to the "dangers" of too much information in the wrong hands that their level of concern has not yet been met. In any event waivers are for kids, and the Internet prospers. And so do all those people who seek the information we gladly give away in order to know more and more about each one of us, for mostly commercial purposes. But what about our government learning the same things about us? Where is the concern? Where is the outrage?

That brings me to Connecticut. It seems that the state police and others in authority set about tape recording inmates and their lawyers, police officers and their union representatives and ordinary citizens calling in to report crimes -- all against the laws of the state but, according to spokesmen, with the best of intentions. Sound like "1984"? You bet it does. This time, though, the higher-ups all disclaim knowledge and can't wait to pony up the tax dollars to make the whole thing go away. There was outrage and there was concern. Can't help thinking they both occurred where there were dollars available to make it all feel so much better. But what about the principle?

That brings us to the debate in Congress over patients' rights and health insurers' and providers' wrongs. We all know that information is king and that those who are responsible for making decisions regarding our health must deal with facts, not fiction. Hence, the establishment claims it needs to know all about our most personal lives -- involving the state of our health -- coupled with the ability to share that information with anyone else along the medical food chain. Congress has been trying in vain to figure out how to give the insurance companies what they need while keeping the number of abortions, heart bypasses and herpes outbreaks in our own lives under the lock and key of the individual's determination about with whom to share such vitals. That's where we are today, and it is anybody's guess which way the government will come down on this issue .

Speaking as a child of the "1984" generation, I would prefer an answer that left me in charge of what information to release to complete strangers, not the government. And certainly not some insurance company clerk who couldn't care less about my health and the privacy issues related thereto.

I am not so certain, though, that the next or even future generations would agree. For they are already used to giving up their privacy rights to some computer along the information highway. That means anyone and everyone can get access to that information, no matter how private it may be or might have been. I am not saying such an attitude is wrong. It is for me, but I already admitted to being shaped by Orwell's realistic imagination.

For the young people of today who are more at home on their computers than anyplace else, privacy may no longer be the priority it has been in years past. But if that is true, it will be the first time since this country was founded more than 200 years ago that private matters took a back seat in America.

Maybe it is time for a sequel. Maybe we are writing it as we speak.