In message <002b01c42209$46f8d860$2b3468d5@ntlworld>, ianwelton
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>> The people whose views count here are "middle-class Americans".
>I suppose no other views should be taken into account then.
"Should" does not equal "are".
>> However, having to show your driving licence to buy beer is
>> not regarded by the American people as "information
>> gathering". It's a necessary and laudable precaution to stop
>> teenagers drink-driving.
>That argument is sterile red tape if other forms of ID are available.
But they aren't.
> The only thing a standard ID does is relax the retailer, providing a
>defence if they get it wrong
The law says they must inspect ID. The only ID 99% of the population has
is a driving licence.
>The need for any sort of personal judgement by the seller can also be
Because that's the law.
>Where does the greater need for a central medical record reside? With the
>medical practitioners for treatment or with others who would use the data
>for wider purposes?
Perhaps with the patient who presents himself for treatment at other
than his local GP.
All archives of messages are stored permanently and are
available to the world wide web community at large at
If you wish to leave this list please send the command
leave data-protection to [log in to unmask]
All user commands can be found at : -
(all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)