Just another example of how gun owners are seen as second class citizens by the government. Presumption of innocence? Doesn't apply to you. No ex post facto laws? Doesn't apply to you. Privacy? Doesn't apply to you.
HIPPA aside, can you imagine the outcry if the government released the personal data of women who had had abortions?
Well, to be really precise here, CA made it law that you had to give all sorts of personal info to the State
first.
To my knowledge they made no assertions about the privacy of that information.
And, they did require public publishing of statements of statistical analysis of the data collected.
So, the "legal" presumption here is that the State volunteered information in its possession to (presumably) responsible researchers, for research purposes only.
And, in our modern and justifiably cynical world, we can be irked about the amount of presumption that preceding sentence requires.
This also applied to HIPPA. HIPPA is only a restriction upon
your doctor. I can't (your employer, neighbor, a person in Ulang Bator) call your doctor and get your medical details. That's why you have to sign a release in your doctor's office to release information. Now, the Health Department
can insist.
It's all ugly. You want to be law-abiding, you have to follow the rules. Now, there is a legitimate question of why make laws so onerous that violating them is easier than obeying them. But, that's not a question for THR.
