Like never before, the compilation of information has increased exponentially with every passing year. In recent years, more personal information has been cataloged than perhaps all of the prior centuries combined. Despite the privacy importance of this data, many policymakers have done very little to protect this data from the eye of Big Brother.
Fundamentally, most consumer electronic data reside under the electronic access of companies (such as in a cloud). While some of the data is under the sole control of individuals, most of the data is stored by companies that utilize the data in various ways. In cases of government surveillance, these companies may be all but forced to turn over their user data, without a warrant in some cases.
This brings up the fundamental question of data innovations and protection from the eye of big government. It is important to consider why data privacy is important for consumers. Rather than just simply being “users” within a broad tech ecosystem, these are individuals with their own personal lives. In light of this increased use of consumer data, there is a need for protection from government itself. There are several reasons for this.
Fundamentally, it is important to note that without the proper safeguards, every technological advancement in data collection and usage is a potential tool in the hands of government. We see this in the surveillance state of communist China. As innovation increases, the different levels of available information increase as well. While technological data collection was more limited in former days, even fingerprints and retinal scan data have become commonly harvested in the wake of new biometric technologies.
In order to grasp how new technology can be improperly used by government without proper safeguards, an example from history demonstrates how the government can “innovate” to get electronic data about citizens. Rather than it being a trend that has started in the last generation or so, using private sector technology holdings as a doorway to surveillance goes back to prior centuries. In the 1800s, government agents developed the ability to tap into privately owned telegraph wires and listen in on conversations. By the Civil War, telegraph tapping was being used for military intelligence.
Such “new” technology for government surveillance that enabled listening in on real-time communication across long distances was a massive breakthrough. The difference is especially demonstrated when compared with the “surveillance” of the Founders’ day that involved British agents manually sifting through the mail bags attached to a saddle.
Despite the massive growth in government surveillance capabilities with the advent of the telegraph, it is important to note that Samuel Morse, the inventor of the telegraph, was not a government agent. Government surveillance innovators simply harnessed his technology. In fact, the vast majority of telegraph companies were owned and operated by private companies. While the technologies being used are different, this concept of using technology and data housed within the private sector as a means of government surveillance has not gone away.
Fast forward to the 21st century, and the telegraph has long fallen out of use. We live in a day when the free market has developed smartphones, facial recognition, fingerprint scanners, drones, location tracking, doorbell cameras, artificial intelligence, and a host of other technologies. Yet, the danger of the government indiscriminately using these new technologies to expand surveillance on its citizens has only increased.
Despite the danger of government being too indiscriminate, many companies that harvest or store user data have a history of providing government with user data, sometimes without even having a search warrant. One report that reviewed the number of law enforcement requests for data from several large technology companies found that 85 percent of the requests were granted.
In order to remedy this, some states are looking to implement proactive safeguards. Utah has passed legislation prohibiting the government from accessing data stored by a technology company unless a search warrant is issued. This provides a key balance, ensuring that new technology provides a platform for technological advancement, not an entry point for government intrusion.
Personal information might be kept on parchment paper written on with quill and ink, or it could be stored in complex data silos hosted in a digital cloud. Regardless of the technology being used, public policy should protect the freedom of Americans by protecting their data. The protection of personal information from undue government intrusion is a timeless part of the American ideal. In order to ensure that no technology becomes a “Trojan horse” to threaten this ideal, policies should be instituted that pro-actively ensure that the government cannot strong-arm technology companies into turning over user data without accountability.
It is fairly common knowledge that many regulatory policies are arbitrarily instituted and enforced. While the existence of burdensome regulations is fairly well recognized, the specifics of just how excessive certain regulations can be is worth noting. This is especially true for new technologies and businesses that threaten entrenched interests.
At face value, the stated purpose of most regulations is to prevent some kind of harm. However, the question itself really hinges upon how regulators define the term harm. Some regulations do have a genuine intent against preventing actual harm, such as the widespread ban against driving while intoxicated. But unfortunately, the history of regulatory policy has a long history of excessive and even laughable rules.
While regulatory excesses have come in all sorts of contexts, there is a historical trend of new technologies often receiving the special ire of regulators. For instance, in the early 1900s, the advent of “horseless carriages” (better known today as cars) led to calls from some that all cars be required to follow rules that would be considered laughable today.
One such rule read: “automobiles traveling on country roads at night must send up a rocket every mile, then wait ten minutes for the road to clear. The driver may then proceed, with caution, blowing his horn and shooting off Roman candles, as before.” In addition, the proposed rules also required that cars change their paint colors every season to blend in with the scenery and not scare horses. While such rules seem comical at best in our modern context, the Pennsylvania state legislature approved the rules. The rules would have become settled law if the governor had not had enough common sense to veto them. If these rules had been enacted, there is little chance that the high speed interstates and highways of today could have become a reality.
Also in the early 1900s, the new technology of electricity had just started to become mainstream. Thomas Edison invented a form of electrical transmission to power his lightbulbs that became known as Direct Current (DC). Meanwhile, his rival, Nicholas Tesla, had developed an alternative type of current. This current was more effective at carrying electricity at long distances that became known as Alternating Current (AC).
Thus began the “War of the Currents.” Outraged at the prospect of AC current threatening the patent royalties he received from the use of DC current, Edison began a campaign to place AC current under the condemnation of regulators. He used the powers of the mainstream newspaper media as a platform to spread a hysteria known as the “Electric Wire Panic.” He put on a series of public electrocutions of animals using AC. Edison even funded the invention of the first electric chair (using AC, of course) as another platform to place AC current in a bad light.
Edison got close to his goal of stoking enough public hysteria for regulators to ban AC current altogether, but he was never fully successful. In fact, AC current eventually won over the electric industry as a safer and more efficient current, causing Edison’s DC current to fall out of widespread use. Yet, the power of government regulation almost eliminated the technological innovation found in AC current that allowed for electricity to travel at high voltage for long distances.
Yet the excessive regulations of yesterday were not restricted to new technology alone. Much like today, businesses were restricted as well. For instance, from the 1860s to the 1920s, several states had restrictions on the ability of banks headquartered within a state to open multiple branches. In this way, expansion was impeded, and existing interests were protected from new competition. On the national level, banks that wanted to operate across multiple states had to go through an onerous process of state-by-state restrictions requiring specific government approval for expansion. In some states, national banks could not open branches at all.
Finally, with the passage of the McFadden Act in the 1920s, banks were able to have more freedom, and today we see banks freely operating across multiple states. Someone from Mississippi vacationing in Georgia can often find a branch of their home bank with little trouble. This might not be the case if regulations had not been repealed.
While it is easy to point fingers at the past, similar regulatory absurdities exist today as well. Modern examples abound, such as excessive regulations on Bitcoin transactions and the absurd Certificate of Need laws that require new health care providers to get permission from competitors. The error of excessive regulation is no less real in 2021 than it was in 1901 or 1921. Instead of protecting old technologies and entrenched business interests, policymakers should learn from the lessons of the past and ensure that illogical regulations are placed in the dust bin of history where they belong.
As America prepares to celebrate a day of Thanksgiving, it is important to look back and consider the lessons of our forefathers. All the way back to its humble beginnings at Plymouth Rock, the American legacy has shined as an example of what freedom and liberty can accomplish.
But in recent years, socialism has been on the rise in America. According to Pew Research, 42 percent of Americans have a positive view of socialism. In addition, the nation has seen increasingly socialistic policies based on the concepts of big government and high taxation. In light of such circumstances, it is important to consider another episode when socialism was in America – and the failure of such socialism.
This story of socialism in America happened with none other than the Pilgrims themselves. When the Pilgrims set sail on the Mayflower, their voyage was financed by a group of investors called the Merchant Adventurers. As a means to pay back the investors, the Pilgrims initially set up a socialistic economy, with a portion of the communal proceeds going back to the investors. However, this system proved to be a failure from the start.
William Bradford, the second governor of Plymouth Colony, described what happened: “The failure of this experiment... [proves] the emptiness of the theory that the taking away of private property, and the possession of it in a community, by a commonwealth, would make a state happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For in this instance, community of property (so far as it went) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment which would have been to the general benefit and comfort.”
To replace this failed approach, the Pilgrims instituted a system of private ownership, with each family having a farm to call their own. This led to the bountiful successes that culminated in long-term prosperity. Such a failure of socialism, when compared to capitalism, comes as little surprise. The basic principles of individual liberty and personal responsibility will always be more successful than the principles of coercion and a lack of private property.
From Plymouth Rock, all the way to the Soviet Union, socialism has an unbroken record of failure. The successful “American experiment” rejected socialism from its very start, and an embrace of socialism would ultimately spell its end. For the legacy of the Pilgrims and the Founding Fathers to continue, the lessons of history must be heeded and followed. As families gather across the nation to thank God for the blessings of the year and look back on America’s legacy, it is important to ensure that future generations will be able to reap the blessings of freedom. As the rise of socialism seeks to undermine the country's future, a return to America’s foundation just might start by looking back to the lessons of Plymouth Rock.
You know you’ve seriously annoyed progressives when you get singled out for a hit piece in the UK’s Guardian newspaper by one of their New York-based columnists. According to Arwa Mahdawi writing in today’s Guardian, I am a “toxic politician” whom the UK was able to "successfully export."
What was it that prompted Miss Mahdawi, whom I don’t believe I have had the pleasure of meeting, to launch such a highly personal attack on a private citizen in a national newspaper? (Besides Brexit, of course).
Her tirade seems to have been prompted by the fact that I had the temerity to point out that the United States is more prosperous and innovative that Europe.
Well let’s consider the facts, for a moment. Here is a table showing how the richest countries in Europe compare the US states in terms of GDP per capita. Germany, Europe’s richest country, ranks below Oklahoma, the 38th richest state in America.
The UK is poorer that Arkansas and West Virginia. Even my own state, Mississippi, ranks above Italy and Spain. If you break the UK down by regions, Mississippi is more prosperous than much of the UK outside of London and the south east.
According to Miss Mahdawi, the US can’t be more successful because she lives in New York, where she “pays way more” for her “mobile phone plan and internet than she would for comparable services in the UK or anywhere in Europe.
Apparently the relative cost of her New York phone bill proves the Europe is better than America. Or something.
Perhaps if Guardian columnists made a little more effort to try to understand what those they write hit pieces on actually thought, they might recognize that free marketers favor more free markets.
But if they did that, then they might be forced to acknowledge that one of the reasons why certain sectors of the US economy have become cartels, without enough consumer choice and competition, is precisely because America is currently led by an administration that seeks to expand the role of government and make America more European. Much easier to make childish insults.
The interesting question to ask is why so many of Europe’s elite feel the need to lash out at anyone that suggests that the American model works better that the European.
In the UK, it is constantly implied the America’s health care system is vastly inferior. Really? Five years after diagnosis, only 56% of English cancer patients survive, compared to 65% of American patients. Poorer Americans in poor states often have healthier outcomes that many in Britain.
But again, these facts are overlooked. Anyone with the temerity to mention them gets vilified (“toxic”). And the many shortcomings in the US system are cited as evidence that nothing good ever happens stateside.
When Europe’s elites talk about America, often what they say – or won’t say – tells us more about them, than anything happening over here. The reality is that by most measures the United States gives ordinary citizens far better life chances than the European Union is able to provide for her people.
Deep down Europe’s elites know this. And they fear that their own citizens know it, too. So they constantly put America down in order to maintain their own status across the pond.
In 2020, the Mississippi legislature passed a bill that included a provision to implement a digital driver’s license program that allows citizens to keep a copy of their license on their smartphones. The program is expected to roll out soon. However, there are still some unanswered questions that could pose a threat to individual liberty if not addressed.
In the first place, there must be an understanding of how most digital license programs work. The text of the bill, HB1371, specifies that the Department of Public Safety “shall develop and implement a driver's license or driving permit in electronic format as an additional option for license or permit holders. Acceptable electronic formats include display of electronic images on a cellular phone or any other type of electronic device.”
For most of the states that have implemented a digital license, the license is stored via encryption on a government-sanctioned smartphone app. Mississippi’s program development has followed this model. When the digital license is requested by law enforcement, store clerks, or others, they can scan the smartphone to verify the license's authenticity. After authenticity has been verified via cryptography, the driver’s license information is shared with the individual requesting it.
At first glance, this concept of a digital driver’s license might seem to be a fairly straightforward advancement for the digital age. To a certain degree, this is true. There is nothing inherently wrong with implementing a digital license option in addition to the traditional plastic driver’s license. However, digital licenses bring a level of complexity that is not quite there for physical licenses, and this complexity must be properly addressed.
In the first place, it is important to consider the potential threats to individual liberty that can occur if a digital license program is poorly designed and does not have the proper protections in place for citizens. There are several essential issues to consider.
For instance, consider the circumstances where a driver’s license might be requested. Such examples might include traffic stops, certain purchases, and entrance into restricted buildings. Under traditional circumstances, the physical card would be presented, and there is no centralized reporting structure that logs when and where the license is used. However, in the context of a digital license, this could change.
If the digital license app was programmed to report to the DMV as it was used, such data could be compiled to track citizens' actions. Depending on how the app is designed, this data could include the date, time, location, and the circumstances of the digital license being presented.
Instead of having such a system, any digital license should have authentication protocols that can operate offline without reporting the license usage details to the DMV. This is essential to prevent a digital license from being a tool of systematic state government surveillance.
In addition, there have been plans made in Mississippi to eventually expand the proposed digital driver’s license app by allowing citizens to also include additional state-issued documents such as hunting licenses, real estate licenses, and concealed carry permits. This brings in the question of how much data centralization could eventually be placed into the digital license app.
While the concept of a voluntary centralized digital wallet for government-issued licenses is one thing, there is a potential slippery slope. Already, some in the state have proposed including non-licensing information, such as Covid vaccination cards. At this time, officials have insisted that the option to include other documents in the digital wallet in addition to a standard driver’s license would be strictly voluntary. However, it is important to maintain in the future that the digital ease of adding additional information to a digital wallet should never lead to even more data being requested or digital wallets becoming mandatory.
These are complicated matters that require careful thought and analysis. Yet, despite all of these complexities, the state has had a relatively low amount of public communications on the eventual parameters for the digital license program. For something as fundamental as license identification protocols, and something as complex as mobile app technology, the state should be entirely transparent on the final procedures for development and implementation.
It is essential so that the personal liberty of Mississippians is never compromised for the sake of digital technology. The concept of license digitization comes as no surprise in an increasingly digital world. But the proper guardrails must be in place to ensure that such digitalization is never a precursor for the erosion of individual liberties.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
(Jackson, MS): The Mississippi Justice Institute and its client, Gulf Coast Restaurant Group, have halted the Biden administration's unconstitutional vaccine mandate for private employers.
The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, on Saturday, temporarily blocked enforcement of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) mandate pending further review by the court, finding that there is "cause to believe that there are grave statutory and constitutional issues with the Mandate."
The Mississippi Justice Institute (MJI) represents Gulf Coast Restaurant Group – the corporate family of restaurants such as Half Shell Oyster House and the Rackhouse – in the litigation challenging the vaccine mandate for private employers. Gulf Coast Restaurant Group, like many other businesses, is already struggling with labor shortages and believes that the vaccine mandate will lead to further staffing reductions and harm to its business and customers.
"We are grateful that the court recognized the serious constitutional concerns raised by this mandate and has stayed its enforcement pending further review,” said MJI Director, Aaron Rice. “We will continue fighting to put a permanent stop to this unprecedented federal overreach."
"We are delighted to hear this news from the court,” said Kevin Fish, Vice President of Gulf Coast Restaurant Group. “We know that hard-working Mississippians who were worried about potentially losing their jobs can take a huge sigh of relief."
Attorney General Lynn Fitch represents the State of Mississippi in the lawsuit. "I encourage everyone to consider vaccination, but the decision is yours and the President should not force anyone to vaccinate for fear of losing their jobs, especially not on the cusp of the holidays," said Fitch. "I appreciate Gulf Coast Restaurant Group and the Mississippi Justice Institute standing with me on behalf of the 84 million American workers who will be impacted by this mandate."
This temporary stay represents a major initial victory in the challenge to the Biden administration’s vaccine mandate for private employers. MJI and Gulf Coast Restaurant Group look forward to continuing the fight in court.
Please direct all media inquiries to Stone Clanton, [email protected].
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
(Jackson, MS): The Mississippi Justice Institute – a non-profit Constitutional litigation center and the legal arm of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy – filed suit today to challenge the Biden administration’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for private employers.
The mandate, issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), requires private companies with more than 100 employees to ensure that all of their workers are either fully vaccinated by January 4th, 2022, or subject to weekly testing and mask-wearing. OSHA says "fully vaccinated" means that the employee has received two doses of Moderna or Pfizer's vaccine, or one dose of the Johnson & Johnson's vaccine. The companies are subject to fines well over $13,000 per day for each employee that does not comply.
The Mississippi Justice Institute (MJI) represents Gulf Coast Restaurant Group, a corporate family of restaurants including Half Shell Oyster House and the Rackhouse. Attorney General Lynn Fitch represents the State of Mississippi in the suit. The lawsuit was filed by a coalition of states, including Mississippi, Texas, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Utah, as well as private employers in several of those states.
“The Mississippi Justice Institute is proud to represent Gulf Coast Restaurant Group, and to partner with Attorney General Lynn Fitch to challenge this extraordinary federal overreach,” said MJI Director, Aaron Rice. “While we and our client are grateful for the development of the COVID vaccines, we cannot stand by while the federal government brazenly exceeds its constitutional authority and infringes on the individual liberties of Mississippi businesses and workers.”
"While I am personally pro-vaccination, I completely disagree with this policy,” said Kevin Fish, Vice President of Gulf Coast Restaurant Group. “It is completely arbitrary. This policy will place an unfair and unreasonable burden upon my staff simply because of the number of employees I have."
In addition to turning employers into federal vaccine enforcers, the regulation will also result in many leaving the workforce entirely. This would accelerate a trend that has devastated the nation’s economic growth in the wake of pandemic.
"The federal government has no business forcing Mississippi workers to get vaccinated or forcing Mississippi businesses to fire their employees,” said Rice. “This is still a free country. In America, we have presidents, not kings."
The lawsuit was filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Please direct all media inquiries to to Stone Clanton, [email protected]
A recent proposal from the Biden administration has called for the Internal Revenue Service to have more direct access to the bank accounts of Americans. Many of the leaders on both sides of the aisle in Washington have advocated for data privacy. Yet, this proposal has a hidden technological danger as it threatens the data privacy and protection of Americans’ bank accounts.
In the backlash against the proposal that certain American bank account information be reported directly to the IRS, much of the opposition to the proposal has centered around the danger of federal agents utilizing bank data to put Americans under financial surveillance. All of these concerns are well-grounded and legitimate. However, it is important to also consider that having sensitive bank account data centralized under one government agency carries an enormous cybersecurity risk.
Despite the claims that the proposed concept would help curb tax fraud, there has been no widely circulated data on how much it would cost the IRS to protect the data adequately. Worse yet, no analysis has been conducted on the enormous financial damage that taxpayers could face in the event of a catastrophic data breach.
The IRS has been a target of hackers for decades. However, a new influx of data in this level provides many more entry points and for hackers and a greater incentive for hacking operations to occur. There are multiple angles to consider this from.
Centralized bank account data would be a high-value target for hackers
In the first place, the IRS possessing a centralized repository of American bank account data would invite hackers' operations. Even though the proposal has not yet fully specified the exact type of bank account data that would be included, there would still be a danger. The advocates for this policy have insisted that the bank account data being gathered would be fairly limited. Yet, even the smallest amount of bank account information can be leveraged by hackers.
For instance, a hacker might get something as basic as a list of bank account numbers, the total amount of annual funds for each account, and the email addresses associated with the accounts. Then, the hacker could use this information to go after specific targets such as high-value bank account owners, retirees and elderly, and other particular victims with spear-phishing campaigns, spoofing, and additional attack methods.
These hackers could come from two primary sectors, foreign government-sponsored attacks, and criminal cybergangs. Although these entities utilize stolen data for different purposes, the danger is the same.
Government-sponsored attacks to get bank account information would carry several incentives for foreign governments. Foreign intelligence agencies can use hacking as a data harvesting method and then use that broad information to hone in on specific individuals. In the context of bank account data, simply having a confirmation of which business, political, and military leaders own specific bank accounts could serve as a precursor to initiate hacking operations against the bank itself in order to get more detailed information on specific individuals. In addition to intelligence, government-sponsored hackers could also potentially use this information in attempts to steal from the bank accounts themselves.
Non-government cybergangs would also have many uses for a centralized repository of IRS bank account data. While foreign government hackers often have a focus on gathering data for intelligence purposes, organized cybercrime primarily focuses on financial incentives. If they got access to this IRS bank account data, hackers could use this to single out potential victims with high-value accounts. Furthermore, by knowing where potential victims have bank accounts, hackers can use additional methods, such as installing fake banking apps made to look like the victim’s home bank.
Government agencies have a history of data breaches
Even if an organization has a perfect track record of cybersecurity with no major incidents, there is still always the possibility that a breach will occur. Yet, the federal government does not even remotely have such a track record. It is also notable that while different agencies have fared differently, the IRS has become especially notorious for a track of record filled with data breaches and compromises.
According to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, in 2016 the IRS encountered $12.2 billion in attempted identity theft tax fraud and paid out at least 1.6 billion in fraudulent refunds. This is a 13 percent fail rate. The report also found that the IRS had not followed best practices for cybersecurity. If the IRS cannot even always determine that they are issuing a refund to the right person, there is little reason to think that bank account data would be protected from fraudsters.
Yet, it is also important to recognize that the IRS is not in a siloed cyber-ecosystem with data sharing that is exempt from the generalized attacks that have targeted multiple agencies across the federal government. Current federal law explicitly permits the IRS to share data with federal, state, and local agencies for a variety of purposes, and it has been doing so for years. In effect, this means that no matter how strict the IRS cybersecurity standards were, there would always be a possibility that another government agency could have a data breach, and jeopardize the shared IRS bank account data.
For instance, in the recent and massive SolarWinds hack, the federal government saw data compromises across numerous agencies and departments. These entities included the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Department of the Treasury, the National Finance Center, and several others. Thus, even though the IRS claims that it was not affected by the SolarWinds hack, this does not mean that taxpayer data in possession of these other agencies remained secure.
The potential for third-party backdoors
The GAO report also determined that one of the primary security flaws in the system was the policies of the IRS that permitted third-party software to submit and extract data with a lack of adequate cyber oversight. Specifically, the report found that much of the third-party tax preparation software had critical flaws that could lead to data compromises.
If the IRS required banks to report their account data, additional third-party software would likely be introduced into the IRS technology ecosystem in order to deal with the sheer volume of bank data. If the IRS had multiple third-party data reporters approved for integration with its system, each reporting software would stand as potential security fail point.
The broader effects of this would be twofold. On the one hand, if the IRS was too lax in its security compliance requirements, there would be a higher likelihood of taxpayer bank account data breaches. On the other hand, if the IRS implements extremely stringent cybersecurity compliance mandates, there could be an increased cost to the banks themselves and the third-party data reporting software developers.
Government financial monitoring of citizens has principle issues and technical dangers
It goes against the most basic American principles of limited government and due process for the IRS to presumptively monitor the bank accounts of citizens. Given that the entire policy proposal is based upon a faulty foundation, it comes as little surprise that the proposal carries extreme technological and security risks as well. Americans should be able to have confidence that their private bank account information will not be centralized in the hands of a government agency with a history of leaking data.
Since the advent of Covid-19, the subject has all but dominated the public discourse and debate. In the wake of such discussions, different opinions abound as individuals respond to new information and interact with old information. There have been true claims, false claims, and everything in between.
In the name of combating misinformation, the Mississippi State Board of Medical Licensure recently issued a new policy that vaguely prohibits medical misinformation from being spread by doctors, particularly on social media. There are several unanswered questions surrounding the policy that are unclear in the wording of the policy.
Under Section 73-25-29 of the Mississippi Code and other sections of the law, the different types of unprofessional misconduct that are grounds for disciplinary action against a physician are specified in fairly clear language. Such grounds could include narcotics violations, falsifying documents, conviction of a felony, and other clearly defined violations. While the Board is given a broad degree of discretion, the state Code is fairly specific.
Contrasting with this specific language is the vague use of misinformation as grounds for discipline, which becomes especially complex when the dynamic of social media is named in the written policy. The new policy states that physicians "must share information that is factual, scientifically grounded and consensus-driven." Furthermore, the policy states that "physicians who generate and spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation or disinformation are risking disciplinary action." This language is unclear, especially in the social media world of "Likes," "Shares," and "Retweets."
For instance, a physician might reshare, or even write, a Facebook or Twitter post containing content that would be deemed as misinformation by the consensus. However, the post might also have some helpful information that would not be deemed misinformation by the consensus. Could the physician be disciplined?
While some would have us believe that social media posts and general public discourse can be separated into nice, neat categories of "Accurate Information" and "Misinformation," it is not even remotely that simple. Rather, in a world of imperfect people, much of the content of social media and elsewhere is partially accurate and partially inaccurate, but free-thinking adults generally have the ability to discern between the two. Furthermore, even a casual review of the public discourse since the advent of Covid, would reveal that even the consensus itself has changed multiple times.
For instance, many will remember when the proposition that Covid leaked from a Chinese lab was officially labeled by many as "misinformation" and a wild conspiracy theory, leading Facebook itself to ban such content. But in a matter of months, investigations and Congressional testimonies suggested that this was a very real possibility. Facebook lifted the ban, follow-up investigations were initiated, and those who had been silenced were no longer labeled as distributors of misinformation.
If the medical Board had an officially written disinformation policy based on consensus, and it had actually disciplined a physician for spreading the lab leak theory, would it have had to walk back on its actions? Worse, would the Board give restitution to the physician for the financial losses incurred by the wrongly imposed discipline?
Covid is a relatively new virus, and the consensus has changed as new information is being discovered. It is not at all far-fetched to suggest that this will happen again, and some who are currently outside the consensus will be shown to be correct as new information is brought to light.
All of these questions and complexities are important factors to consider. Some may claim that defining misinformation could be accomplished on a case-by-case basis during disciplinary hearings. But the vagueness of the language should not mean that physicians have to face a disciplinary hearing before they even have a full clarification on whether or not the Board’s misinformation policy was violated.
Rather than issuing policies that leave so many unanswered questions, policies should be clear on what constitutes misconduct that would lead to discipline. These are challenging times, and no one has all of the answers. Public discourse should be permitted to have the input of multiple viewpoints, especially when no final consensus has even been established. Rather than leaving physicians with little clarity for their social media use by employing vague misinformation rules, public policy should be clear so that all parties have the foundation of a clear rule of law.