118 Mark Washofsky

the privacy of the individual,” which would justify the rabbi’s decision to withhold that information from his employers. The Committee concluded that, as a rule of thumb,“respect for privacy takes precedence over the sharing of personal information in most cases. Those who seek to acquire and to make use of information concerning other persons must meet a fairly rigorous burden of proof in order to be permitted to do so.” That burden of proof can be met, most obviously, in situations of real and present danger, since the protection of human life(pikuach nefesh) outweighs most other ethical and legal obligations." In the present case, the Committee ruled that the possibility that the rabbi might one day develop Huntington’s disease does not meet that burden of proof. So long as the rabbi can provide assurances to a congregation or other employer that he can perform the duties of his position during the term of his contract, he is under no obligation to reveal confidential medical information. The implication, clearly, is that the employer is not entitled to that information and that it would be wrong to demand such a disclosure, let alone to seek out that information without the rabbi’s knowledge. To do so would be an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

This stance by our halakhists is paralleled by that of our progressive Jewish institutions, which have for decades adopted this approach in their public advocacy on behalf of privacy legislation. They have repeatedly called upon government, business and society to take steps to safeguard personal privacy against unwarranted intrusion of all sorts, including the electronic and Web-based variety."”” Their record has been a distinguished one, although the rapid development of new and advanced digital technology, with the attending examples of hacking, data fraud, and identity theft, means that they should certainly maintain their vigilance.

I would argue, however, that this accepted rhetoric of privacy; which emphasizes the defense of the individual against unwanted surveillance of his or her personal affairs, whether the intruders be governments, businesses, or hackers, is by itself an inadequat¢