Editorial: Another useless study

Monday, March 20, 2000 | 9:38 a.m.

Despite repeated opinion polls that show Americans are worried about encroachments on their privacy, Congress has failed miserably to ensure that an individual's most personal information is secure and isn't obtained by others who have no business having it. For instance, in 1996 Congress set a deadline of August 1999 to pass legislation that would make sure a patient's medical records are kept private. Congress, though, couldn't reach a compromise after three years, leaving the task to federal regulators to write privacy rules instead. In addition, when Congress passed sweeping legislation last year allowing banks, securities firms and insurance companies to merge, it failed to adopt protections that would prevent these newly combined companies from sharing sensitive customer information, such as medical records and Social Security numbers, without first getting the permission of the consumer.

Meanwhile, Reps. Asa Hutchison, R-Ark., and Jim Moran, D-Va., introduced legislation last week that would create a Privacy Protection Commission. Hutchison said the bill would establish a bipartisan, 17-member commission that would take 18 months to investigate privacy issues and fashion legislation that could offer a comprehensive approach to dealing with questions involving online privacy, identity theft, and the protection of health, medical, financial and government records. Privacy advocates, though, question the effectiveness of a privacy commission, suggesting that this could be a delaying tactic. "It's a little late in the day to have a study commission," Marc Rotenberg, who represents the Electronic Privacy Information Center, told the Associated Press. "The mood in the country right now is in support of some action." Indeed. If a commission is pu t in place, opponents of privacy safeguards simply could throw up their hands and argue that Congress shouldn't pass any privacy protections until the comm ission finishes its work. Besides, there already is plenty of evidence that privacy rights are being threatened. Now is the time for action, not another government study.

With a few exceptions -- Sen. Richard Bryan, D-Nev., is one of a handful of ardent privacy supporters -- most members of Congress from both parties have refused to support privacy protections. The principal reason for this failure is that the clout of these industries, which would be impacted by reforms, is so strong that Congress is afraid to upset them. Congress' inability to pass medical privacy protections -- even after taking three years to intensively study the issue -- shows that more time isn't the answer. What is needed is for more members of Congress to stand up to big business interests, which oppose privacy protections, and advocate instead on behalf of their individual constituents whose privacy is being endangered.