"HeyBub" wrote:

DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

snip

I'll say it again: There is no expectation of privacy in a commercial
transaction. What you SAY to your doctor or lawyer or clergyman may be
privileged, but what you PAY them is not.

Not quite true at least as regards doctors and by extension hospitals.
Those persons and institutions are specifically forbidden from
disclosing even such minor information as who they have treated or in
the case of hospitals whether a specific person has been admitted or
not. This protection doesn't extend to payment but only in so far as
it is necessary to process claims etc and then those (usually)
insurance companies are also have a non-disclosure obligation.
Obviously there is conflict between the MD's duty to report things
such as gunshot wounds but I doubt it's a blanket dispensation.

Security vs. Liberty has always been a balancing test. During times of
stress, security takes precedence. When the threat recedes, liberty returns.
There were the Alien & Sedition Acts enacted under President John Adams.
President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. Roosevelt interred the Japanese.

I presume you mean "interned" although indirectly he probably did
inter quite a few.

In each of these cases, our betters believed the continued existence of the
country took precedence over whether someone's feelings got hurt.

They're not our "betters" except perhaps in their own mind. It's
really just expediency.