PRIVACY PRESIDENT?

WASHINGTON -- In an action that left medical data-swappers sputtering with
rage and the well-heeled intrusion lobby moaning about its "operational
nightmare," President Bush struck a blow last week for the privacy of
medical patients' records.

Few expected Bush to make good on the belated rule changes his departing
predecessor made that so offended health-care bureaucrats. But now doctors,
hospitals and insurers are obliged to get patients' consent before passing
around intimate personal information.

This is only the beginning. During his campaign, Bush promised not only to
uphold the principle of advance consent from users of the Internet and from
depositors in banks, but to go after identity thieves and "make it a
criminal offense to sell a person's Social Security number without his or
her express consent."

His spokesman made clear to Wall Street Journal reporters that despite
pressures from marketers, bankers, H.M.O.'s and credit snoops, Bush had
told his domestic policy advisers he would "tend to side with the privacy
point of view." He doesn't go overboard -- he thinks parents, for example,
should be able to see their children's records -- but he seems to grasp the
essential principle.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Court of Appeals here smacked one of the largest
commercial snoops upside its headers. Trans Union Corporation, which has
electronic dossiers on three out of four Americans, claimed a First
Amendment right to sell credit information in mortgage applications to
"target marketers" without the targeted consumers' permission. The intruder
was willing to provide only an "opt-out," placing the burden of defending
privacy on the unsuspecting victim.

The court disagreed. It held that the government, through the Federal Trade
Commission, could require companies to get an individual's permission
before selling credit data on that person to salesmen looking for prospects
with delicious vulnerabilities. The far-reaching court decision affirms the
role of government in protecting the privacy of individuals. But what about
government itself poking unnecessarily into people's private lives? Sure
enough, with the executive and judicial branches awakening to the public's
growing resentment of data rape, sleepy solons of the legislative branch
are rubbing their eyes and noticing the issue.

Senator Fred Thompson discovered that 64 government Web sites place
"cookies" in the computers of site visitors, enabling the feds to track the
viewing habits of citizens long after they have left the government site.
The irate Tennessean promised hearings because "the federal government
should be setting the standard for privacy protection in the Information Age."

Rather than setting up talkathon commissions, Congress should be setting
down laws, because banks, hospitals, colleges and dot-com enterprises have
for years been paying lip service to privacy standards -- posting soothing
"privacy policies" that are warrants for sustained snooping -- while making
an open book of every person's health, personal habits and bank account.

One oughta-be-a-law applies to a problem that touches a nerve in tens of
millions of Americans: the abuse of Social Security numbers as identifiers,
contrary to the specific intent of the system. Ostensibly used for identity
protection, Social Security number abuse has led to increased stalking and
even murder.

And identity theft. Next on President Bush's privacy list is this spreading
crime that ruins lives, not just credit ratings. In the Senate, Richard
Shelby has been taking the lead on this, the D'Artagnan working with "the
three privateers," Dianne Feinstein, Jon Kyl and Judd Gregg.

Bush's signals have given heart to Clay Shaw in the House. He says, "We'll
be dropping a new bill to protect Social Security numbers in the next
couple of weeks, hold hearings before Memorial Day and look for Senate
partners."

Pitfall ahead: We'll see if Bush's appointee to head the Federal Trade
Commission is as privacy-conscious as the departing chairman, Robert Pitofsky.

But the tide she is a-turning. We have a Congress that is getting the word
from constituents; a judiciary that remembers Justice Brandeis and his
"right to be let alone"; a press beginning to assign privacy as a beat; and
a man in the White House who may not be averse to being thought of as the
privacy president.