As just one example, to protect the nation from terro rist activity, the domestic-security legislation signed into law by President Bush on Nov. 25 included a provision that protected Eli Lilly & Co. from lawsuits resulting from the company's use of mercury, a toxic metal, in a vaccine that many parents cont ended had poisoned their children and caused autism and other neurological ailments.

The new spirit went beyond just protecting one large corporation from lawsuits. It helped entire industries. Under an administration proposal for the national fore s ts, for example, managers of the national forests were given guidelines for protecting fish and wildlife but were no longer required to follow those guidelines. They could seek guidance from those who knew the forests best: the timber industry.

And to free the power industry from profit-limiting provisions of the Clean Air Act, the administration offered rules to eliminate restrictions on new sources of air pollution and, by coincidence, to generate windfall profits for major campaign contributors.

While these measures showed the administration's eagerness to create a freer, more open environment, there was another that lightened Charlie's heart. For years, health-care providers had been required to obtain written consent from patients before us ing or disclosing personal medical information. But now they needed merely make a "good-faith effort" to obtain written consent. There were still rules, loosely defined, barring the dissemination of patient information for marketing purposes without th e p atient's consent.

These rules didn't crush personal privacy willy-nilly. The Vice President, a former energy company executive, ignored court orders to identify the energy company executives who'd helped him fashion the nation's energy policy. Hi s pr ivacy was protected, as was that of President Bush, who refused to discuss his sale-just before the announcement of a big loss-of stock in Harken Energy, when he was a director.

But Charlie saw a new-business opportunity in the greater freedom t o divulge personal information. He would sell the personal information his customers provided when they applied for credit. He'd originally promised that their privacy would be respected. So he needed their consent to eliminate that restriction. Following the example of one of the nation's largest corporations, Charlie informed his customers that his company was updating its files and had established new procedures for customers who wanted their privacy to remain protected. Customers had three choices: They co uld mail in a form that required a great deal of information that most people did not have at hand. They could telephone, using a toll-free number that nobody answered. Or they could go to a Web site, using a discontinued Web address.

It could be a g reat new business.

http://www.eet.com