4 ms·

The Obama administration disagrees, and argues that since the records have already been submitted to a third party (Oregon’s PDMP) that patients no longer e

The Obama administration disagrees, and argues that since the records have already been submitted to a third party (Oregon’s PDMP) that patients no longer enjoy an expectation of privacy. This follows the same(so far, legally defensible) reasoning of the phone records -- since you voluntarily gave your phone records to your phone company, you don't have an expectation of privacy regarding them. You could chose not to use a phone, but you didn't. So by that logic, if I want to maintain my expectation of privacy regarding my prescriptions, I can either A) Not have them filled (so that I don't 'voluntarily' give them to a 3rd party) or B) source them illegally. Seems like great options to me.

rayiner 10y ago
Not quite the same: there are strong legal protections on the privacy of medical records that don't exist as to phone records. I'll also quibble about this part: > since you voluntarily gave your phone records to your phone company You didn't "give your phone records to your phone company." You never had any phone records. Your phone company created those records. That's another distinction with the case here: Oregon's PDMP didn't create those records. It received them with strict federal requirements as to how to handle them.
- serge2k 10y ago
  > You never had any phone records. Your phone company created those records Pretty sure that was the entire point of the post.
  - rubyfan 10y ago
    You could always stop using the phone company. Maybe setup two tin cans and a string.
bpchaps 10y ago
UGH. So much nonsense. Here's a response, post law suit, for the Chicago's mayor's office's phone records. Additionally, the Illinois Attorney General's Office Public Access Counselor ("PAC") has established that City-issued cell phone numbers are exempt from disclosure pursuant to 5 ILLS 140/7(1)(c), because the disclosure of these numbers would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. As the PAC reasoned, certain City employees are issued cell phones so they may be on call during non-work hours or while away from their offices. Disclosure of these numbers could subject staff to excessive phone calls from the public at all times of day. Further, if staff were forced to turn off their cell phones to reduce such intrusion, they may not be readily available to attend to the business of the public body, defeating the purpose of issuing them cell phones. (See 2010 PAC 8685, issued September 30, 2010, attached hereto as Ex. B.) Thus, the only phone numbers which are not exempt under FOIA are those that are publically listed and are not home telephone numbers, personal telephone numbers, or work-issued cell phone numbers. In other words, FOIA only compels the production of listed numbers belonging to businesses, governmental agencies and other entities, and only those numbers which are not work-issued cell phones. Yet.. per FOIA: The disclosure of information that bears on the public duties of public employees and officials shall not be considered an invasion of personal privacy. In any case, I still got enough to make this (two tabs): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hgG79eIr8MbkjYrCvcTRN8n876KL8aXYYu5it8Lg0g8/ https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hgG79eIr8MbkjYrCvcTR...
Alex3917 10y ago
> if I want to maintain my expectation of privacy regarding my prescriptions Except for that pharmacies already sell your prescription data to anyone who wants it.
- thatcat 10y ago
  Pharmacies records are regulated by hipaa and can only be sold after they are de-identified. Paragraph 2c https://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fsC4/CA-medical https://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fsC4/CA-medical
  - Alex3917 10y ago
    De-identified mostly just means that the names are removed. You still know each patient's doctor and zip code, so it's not especially difficult to merge this data with credit card transactions and other data to figure out who is taking what medication.

rayiner 10y ago

Not quite the same: there are strong legal protections on the privacy of medical records that don't exist as to phone records. I'll also quibble about this part: > since you voluntarily gave your phone records to your phone company You didn't "give your phone records to your phone company." You never had any phone records. Your phone company created those records. That's another distinction with the case here: Oregon's PDMP didn't create those records. It received them with strict federal requirements as to how to handle them.

serge2k 10y ago
> You never had any phone records. Your phone company created those records Pretty sure that was the entire point of the post.
- rubyfan 10y ago
  You could always stop using the phone company. Maybe setup two tin cans and a string.

bpchaps 10y ago

UGH. So much nonsense. Here's a response, post law suit, for the Chicago's mayor's office's phone records. Additionally, the Illinois Attorney General's Office Public Access Counselor ("PAC") has established that City-issued cell phone numbers are exempt from disclosure pursuant to 5 ILLS 140/7(1)(c), because the disclosure of these numbers would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. As the PAC reasoned, certain City employees are issued cell phones so they may be on call during non-work hours or while away from their offices. Disclosure of these numbers could subject staff to excessive phone calls from the public at all times of day. Further, if staff were forced to turn off their cell phones to reduce such intrusion, they may not be readily available to attend to the business of the public body, defeating the purpose of issuing them cell phones. (See 2010 PAC 8685, issued September 30, 2010, attached hereto as Ex. B.) Thus, the only phone numbers which are not exempt under FOIA are those that are publically listed and are not home telephone numbers, personal telephone numbers, or work-issued cell phone numbers. In other words, FOIA only compels the production of listed numbers belonging to businesses, governmental agencies and other entities, and only those numbers which are not work-issued cell phones. Yet.. per FOIA: The disclosure of information that bears on the public duties of public employees and officials shall not be considered an invasion of personal privacy. In any case, I still got enough to make this (two tabs): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hgG79eIr8MbkjYrCvcTRN8n876KL8aXYYu5it8Lg0g8/ https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hgG79eIr8MbkjYrCvcTR...

Alex3917 10y ago

> if I want to maintain my expectation of privacy regarding my prescriptions Except for that pharmacies already sell your prescription data to anyone who wants it.

thatcat 10y ago
Pharmacies records are regulated by hipaa and can only be sold after they are de-identified. Paragraph 2c https://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fsC4/CA-medical https://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fsC4/CA-medical
- Alex3917 10y ago
  De-identified mostly just means that the names are removed. You still know each patient's doctor and zip code, so it's not especially difficult to merge this data with credit card transactions and other data to figure out who is taking what medication.