Where I Stand — Mike O’Callaghan: Legal theft of privacy

Sunday, March 21, 1999 | 10:08 a.m.

WATCHING THE Legislature is always entertaining if not always enlightening. As bills appear to eat away at what little privacy Nevadans still enjoy, some sensitive legislators are beginning to feel uncomfortable.

Last week, Sen. Mark James, R-Las Vegas, raised concern about the proposal to put cameras at traffic lights to catch violators. This followed the submission of SB381 which would prohibit the use of these publicly intrusive machines.

James was quoted as saying, "When you get to a point where you're having surveillance equipment to watch your citizens to make sure they are complying with the law, you're making an unnecessary step towards an Orwellian Society."

Now let's see how the 1999 Legislature protects other less public but even more important privacy issues. Will that body vote to broaden the wiretap powers of law enforcement? How about opening up the personnel files of public employees for publication as provided for in AB213? Are they still considering legislation that will allow private investigators special rights to photograph people without their knowledge?

When all is said and done and the 1999 Legislature adjourns sine die it will be most interesting to compare the votes of legislators with the legislation that allows and/or promotes the further invasion of our privacy.

These aren't new issues nor are they new threats to what Americans feel is a most precious heritage. It was 20 years ago that this columnist revealed the contents of a Lou Harris study titled Dimensions of Privacy. At that time, Harris told Congress, "The results are a literal warning shot across our national bow. The message is clear: the right to privacy in this country, the land of the free, is in jeopardy some 203 years since our forefathers started a successful revolution against perceived tyranny." Were our lawmakers listening or did they really care about the feelings and beliefs of the American people?

The study showed open fear of privacy invasion by government and business at all levels. More than 28 million Americans believed that they had been victims of an improper invasion of their privacy. Some 9 percent of all Americans felt their phones had been tapped.

The column went on to tell our readers that "The Dimensions of Privacy study shows the public, by 4-1, believes the news media are invading privacy when they report the details of an extramarital affair a public official is having with another person; and by almost 3-1, the public feels the media are invading privacy when they print the names of people on welfare; by 70-26 percent, the public believes it is an invasion of privacy to print a picture of a well-known politician entering a porno book shop. ..."

Several recent polls, during the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, showed that Americans still have strong reservations about privacy invasion by the press. This week USA Today reported the results of a Pew Research Center for the People & the Press poll. From this the newspaper wrote, "In 1985, 48 percent of those polled said the media displayed a disregard for people they covered. Today, it's 67 percent."

Recently Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., when presenting a bill to protect the medical records of Americans, told his colleagues that he was joining on the side of the American people "who want some privacy." He sees it as a battle between these Americans "and big business buying access to their personal medical records."

Leahy also told fellow senators: "At a time when some states are selling driving license photos and information, when our leading computer chip and software companies have built secret identifiers into their products to trace our every move in cyberspace without our consent, it is time for Congress to wake up to the privacy rights and expectations of all Americans before it is too late.

"With each new encroachment, more and more citizens are learning that our privacy practices have more openings than those flimsy hospital gowns. The trouble is this: If you have a medical record, you have a medical privacy problem.

"Medical privacy invasions can reach into the most sensitive area of our lives. Take the real case of a man who was being treated for depression. The medicine had some side effects.

"Within weeks, he began receiving mail from drug companies suggesting remedies for impotence. It was clear from the mailings that his name, address and diagnosis had been disclosed without his knowledge or consent."

Frightening, but true are the charges that legislators at all levels have participated in selling out the rights of personal privacy Americans cherish. Yes, and some of the corporations that demand the power to further invade privacy are among the first to hide the results of their own shortcomings and even mistreatment of personnel for which they have been forced by the courts to pay damages.