A congressional subcommittee was urged to increase the privacy of individual genetic and medical records as consumer advocates raised cautions regarding improper use of such information for medical purposes.

Although there are at least four separate bills pending in the House and Senate to achieve that, Dr. Debra C. Peel, told the House Judiciary Committee's constitution subcommittee that new legislation was needed because "the use, sale and sharing of highly sensitive indentifiable genetic and information for non-medical purposes is wide spread because our federal, constitutional and common law rights have been increasingly ignored."

The panel, chaired by Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH), is probing the need for federal legislation to protect the privacy of individual genetic data. In recent years 37 states have adopted laws to protect the privacy of individual genetic information, but those protections vary widely.

[ ... ]

Peel, testifying on behalf of the American Psychoanalytic Association, added that "the genetic and medical records of our entire country, which are stored in massive data banks, are being accessed to make business, credit, education, and employment decisions without our knowledge."

According to Peel, and Dr. Joanne Husted, senior counsel for the Health Privacy Project at Washington's Georgetown University, people will not be able to prevent the disclosure of their medical and genetic information when the new information privacy rules adopted by the Health and Human Services Department go into effect on Oct. 15.

Under those rules, permitting insurance companies and others, to share an individual's genetic and medical information, people will lose their right to control who has access to that information and what the use it for.

Noting that the 1999 Financial Services Modernization Act permits financial institutions to share a person's confidential financial and medical data with third parties, whether affiliated or not, for marketing purposes, Peel said that the potential for abuse was "virtually unlimited."

CNET Radio: Is your network safe?

Are company networks properly protected? CNET Radio hits the road to talk with some of the leading security companies about what can be done to keep networks safe.

Requires either RealAudio or Windows Media Player to listen

New York Times - Editorial Op-Ed: free registration required Fighting the Menace of Unwanted E-Mail.

Spam is a global phenomenon, and much of it is generated outside the United States. It requires a global response. Why not fight spam with spam?

If only it was that simple. Considering the amount of SPAM with forged return addresses you will do more harm than good.

"Seattle Post-Intelligencer" - State wins case against deceptive spammer.

Washington, the first state to take a legal stand against sending misleading, unwanted e-mail, won its first case yesterday, against a prolific spammer who flooded the state's computers with advertising several years ago.

A King County Superior Court judge declared a summary judgment against Jason Heckel, a Salem, Ore., businessman, finding that he violated the state's anti-spam law. The judge ruled that a civil trial, which was weeks away, wouldn't be needed because the state had proved its case.

The law, which does not ban all unsolicited commercial e-mail, makes it illegal to send an e-mail to people in Washington that contains deceptive subject lines, uses a bogus return address or uses a third party's domain name without permission.

Slashdot | WA Wins First Case Against Deceptive Spammer.

GPFCharlie writes "The Seattle Post-Intelligencer is running this article about the first victory by a US state against a spammer. Apparently the judge ruled that a civil trial was not even necessary, since the state had already proven their case. The law was upheld by the WA Supreme Court and an appeal was turned down by the US Supreme Court. Next phase: penalties. How about 5 million hand-written apology letters?"