Brock N. Meeks of CDT writes:
A case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court has serious implications for how privacy protections are interpreted. But understanding the various risks posed in this case requires some careful unpacking of the ways in which “privacy” is—and is not—at issue here. CDT’s Health Privacy Project team has taken a look those risks and published an in-depth memo about its findings.
In this memo CDT focuses on two aspects of the case: First, an explanation of why it is important to recognize the valid distinctions between personally identifiable data and “de-identified” data. The paper explains that privacy could actually be harmed if the Court were to accept the claims, made in some briefs in the case, that there is no difference between identified and de-identified data.
The second aspect of the case the paper examines is the claim that doctors have a “privacy” right in their drug prescribing practices. CDT disagrees and explains here that, while the patient-doctor relationship is based on confidentiality and the trust it generates, it is not useful – and would undermine other health care goals – to speak of doctors as having a “privacy” right in their drug prescribing practices.
Note that I’m posting this without comment as I have not read through it yet and posting does not indicate any endorsement. Indeed, I suspect I will have more to say once I’ve read through it.