COM 0314.036 1996-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

634 81LL OF RIGHTS I li those freedoms are basically a right to live our lives [he way we want to as long as we don`t hurt anybody else. This is the way that 1 hope eventually the courts would interpret such a right to privacy provision and it properly belongs in our Consritution because we're talking about basic rights. I am against this amendment. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Delegate Hale. The Chair will ask first, before recogniz- ing Delegate Hino, if there are any delegates wishing to speak for the first time. I recog- nize Delegate DiBianco. - i DELEGATE DiBIANCO: Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak against this amendment and in favor of the privacy provision as presented by the committee. The subject matter covered by this particular provision is not covered by Article Section 5, of the present Constitution. Section 5 of our present Constitution speaks primarily to state action. What this particular provision is trying to do is not to protect us against y~~ the State of Hawaii--lt seeks to protect us from each other. 1~ The laws which we have had on the books for the past 200 years--[he constitutional ~1 provisions that~our founding fathers gave to us, many of which have been incorporated ~~i into our own State Constitution--are not only excellent but they are timeless. But when they were written, the people who wrote them, who drafted them, did not know about ,1. computers. It's primarily computers that we're concerned about, I think, and the in- formational services they provide to people we do not necessarily want to give our in- formation to, that has spurred this kind of constitutional provision. 9~ I don't know if all of you realize it, but anybody in this room who has ever sent ,.I in a life insurance application or an application of any kind in which his medical records or information regarding his medical treatment were requested--those medical records ~ are now in a medical data bank in New Jersey. Every single one of us has our medical records in that bank, and i[ is available to any other insurance company--automobile, ' or any kind that wishes to check into it. That's true also of many of our credit ratings-- information that we not only don't have access to, but unfortunately we cannot even cor- reef because we don't even know it exists. We don't know it's been compiled, but it's there. And it's that kind of thing that I think our State has to try to protect us from. We're not seeking protection from the State of Hawaii; we're seeking protection from the people with the computers who are gathering information on us without con- sulting us first and without giving us an opportunity to correct errors. As far as criminal law is concerned, i would concur with the previous remarks of Delegate Waihee, that since the provision proposed by the bill of rights committee states that [he "right of the people to privacy...shall not be infringed without the show- ing of a compelling state interest," there's no problem with the criminal law aspect be- cause the search warrant--the right to ferret out crime upon an affidavit and search war- rant issued from a court of competent jurisdiction--has always been a compelling state interest; I don't see any conflict between the two provisions. I urge you to vote this amendment down. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Delegate DiBianco. 7 recognize Delegate Anae. DELEGATE ANAE: Mr. Chairman, I believe that the right to privacy provision in the committee proposal merely addresses itself to the problems [hat we do have today. I don't think that the right to privacy provision in the Constitution has the same stature as the Bill of Rights has today. For [his reason, this amendment in the committee pro- posal merely brings the stature of the right to privacy up to the level of the Bill of Rights. ' And I think this is necessary because of things that are happening in our society today; some of these things have been voiced by the previous delegate--that we are being in- vaded in our homes with mail we don't desire. I for one had my right to privacy invaded when I received a Playboy magazine in my home from an anonymous person who contributed to this. Now if you understand my background, you can understand the trauma that my wife and I felt when this mail . was addressed to me. Our privacy is being invaded; people are sending material into our home that wo have not asked for. We are being programmed, whether we recognize it or not. I feel very strongly with due respect to people who are concerned about crim- inal elements that the rights of a majority of our people are being violated. 'a; i sr. ~I al: