As potential users of HDO data files, many people in these groups might consider this scenario to be desirable and beneficial. As potential host subjects, most of them would likely feel uncomfortable with this threat to their privacy. As soon as such a system is put in place, some fear that those who have access in good faith or not will be able to consult a remarkably complete and intrusive file, containing detailed biographical information, information on family history, information on employment, financial and insurance information and, unless otherwise prevented, of course, information on medical records concerning any citizen participating in the system, contains. Doctors and others may also be forced to disclose information to patients if they otherwise choose not to do so. Such requirements – sometimes referred to as “mandatory procedures” – can take the form of subpoenas or requests for investigation and be enforced by court order. In some cases, personal health-related data may be protected from disclosure in judicial and administrative proceedings due to doctor-patient privilege, which may be imposed by law or inferred from customary law. Information that is so privileged cannot be introduced into evidence and is usually not subject to discovery. The sixth case of recommendation 4.3 concerns the treatment of authorized physicians who, in life-threatening situations, need to know who the Committee believes should be able to access a patient`s data. This assumes that the patient cannot give his consent at the time of care. In addition to establishing data protection policies for federal databases, the Data Protection Act was also created by the Data Protection Study Commission (CSDP), whose statutes required the investigation of registration practices in the private sector and in certain federal areas (e.g.