Medical Health Disclosure vs. Steve Jobs' Privacy 362
An anonymous reader writes "The New York Times is saying that Steve Jobs doesn't have cancer, but that he needs to disclose all the information about his medical condition so investors can decide. Gizmodo's strong rebuttal says that everyone has the right to keep medical records confidential. They argue that, if prominent US presidents legally kept their grave illnesses secret — even while the security of the country was at stake — a simple CEO should be able to do the same: 'Steve Jobs has the right to keep his medical records private for as long as he wants. Like FDR. Like JFK. Like any single person in this country and the world. It's our right, as humans, to do so.'"
Sure, they have that right. (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh huh ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, sounds great. Someone should tell the insurance companies and medical transcription outfits about that, though. They have no problem spreading our health information all over the goddamn planet.
Investors can still decide (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not up to Steve Jobs to make it easy for you!
Re:the difference (Score:3, Insightful)
[per president argument] the difference is that my money is invested in apple, not the usa.
Our money and our life. The Whitehouse's actions affect both our economy and our safety.
Of course he has no right to privacy (Score:1, Insightful)
...When shareholder value is at stake.
It's the Business section. (Score:2, Insightful)
No surprise. It's the Business section of a newspaper. All the writers are brainwashed into the cult of "maximize returns for the shareholders." Nothing else is allowed to matter.
Investors these days. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why they say that investing involves risk. There are lots of things you don't know and pretty much have to bet on.
Let's see these investors disclose all the details about their internal operations first.
Besides, if Apple can't survive without Steve Jobs, then neither he nor the board is doing their job. Oh, wait, long-term investment... nobody does that any more. Right, sorry, my bad.
If you think your investment hinges on the.. (Score:4, Insightful)
... health of a single individual, it's probably a bad investment.
Even if a CEO had cancel or some other health issue, it isn't necessarily going to be debilitating condition. Business and political leaders can be skating at the edge of death, but they can still be good leaders.
Re:Sure, they have that right. (Score:5, Insightful)
And surely the public/investors in view of a lack of a full disclosure have the right to sack/not elect politicians/CEO's who will not disclose potentially pertinent information about their ability to work in their role.
There is a difference between CEOs and presidents. You can dump your stock any time you want and reinvest in other companies with other CEOs. But you can't call up your broker and say: "Sell all my Bush, buy Obama at 40", and expect to have a new president.
Re:Investors can still decide (Score:4, Insightful)
No, no, no a crazed Windows fanboy would almost certainly shoot the other Steve. You know the gremlin that enjoys tossing chairs?
You're thinking of the crazed Mac fanboy when he discovers that he's been gouged by a ruthless corporation which inevitably goes to the dark side the way that MS and Google have.
Steve Jobs' plan for Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
Given the amount of time Jobs has been back at Apple, and proof of his long term planning strategies (Think OSX86 since 2002 or so? someone remind me), shouldn't investors be looking at Apple for more such long term strategies already underway instead of simply basing their decision on Jobs alone?
I know Jobs is a victim of his own success, with everyone wanting to pry into his private life to see if the "second coming" of Apple will end with him or not. But surely anyone paying attention to what Apple has been doing can use that information to make smart investment decisions instead of basing it all on one man?
There are some very talented people at Apple from what I've seen (people I've met who work at corporate on iphone dev, macosx dev, , etc). I would be surprised if Jobs didnt put in place project leads and managers with vision to supplement or augment his own.
Remember this is not like when Jobs got kicked out because Apple needed to "grow up" and Jobs being ousted as the "not grown up enough" element in the company. He's proven himself very capable of getting very good people together to accomplish the projects and goals in mind.
Personally, I feel that if Jobs stepped down Apple could continue to do quite well. Several years ago, I wouldn't be so sure. I'd sure be interested in someone put some time into evaluating possible choices to take over Jobs job :)
Strong rebuttal? WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Gizmodo's strong rebuttal says that everyone has the right to keep medical records confidential.
While this may be true, it does not naturally follow that exercising a right should have no negative consequences, such as a fall in the price of a security. A "right" in this sense pertains to the force of law, not a public relations disaster within the investment community.
I mean, Steve is free to keep his personal secrets, and I'm free not to buy stock in his company. His business is his business, but my business is my business too, and if I'm investing in his company, our businesses overlap. How could this possibly be redressed? What possible legal remedy could compel me to invest in companies without (rather stupidly) taking possibly unhealthy CEOs into account? Tax breaks?
People don't understand what a right is. It doesn't mean nothing bad is legally allowed to happen if you make a choice you are entitled to make. A right circumscribes the limits of legislation. And no law is forcing Steve Jobs to expose his medical history, nor does any corporation or individual have the power to legally force him to release this information. Apple cannot cite stock price losses as damages. They are also not required to present his health information to any outside entity, in accordance with his legal rights to protect that information. But I don't see where they are. He's reacting to negative articles and political developments both inside and outside his company, and his legal rights have nothing to do with these things.
He does have an informal "right" to be sick without people reacting to his secrecy about it. But this is not a right in a legal sense, because violating it is not a criminal act any more than just being a jerk.
Re:Precedents (Score:4, Insightful)
His inability to speak at the same level as intelligent people has nothing to do with his mental defects. His cornball accent and mannerisms are deliberate.
Sure he has a right to withhold (Score:4, Insightful)
But the stock holders also have the right to bail out due to rumors.
Steve has to decide which is more important to him, privacy or stockholders.
If i had his bank account, i think id choose privacy.
Re:So, is Apple just one man? (Score:5, Insightful)
Any charismatic CEO/founder is in effect 'the company' as far as public perception goes.
Its part of the curse.
Re:Sure, they have that right. (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a big difference in believing it is reasonable information to base a decision on and believing that everybody should be able to take the information into account for every vote.
Sure, if enough people feel that way, it suggests that disclosing your medical records is a reasonable step to take if you are running for office, but it is a whole long ways from requiring it.
Re:Public? (Score:1, Insightful)
Hell I would not tell my own wife or employer much less the public.
If you can't talk to your wife about your health I think you ought to reexamine your relationship.
Unless you're talking about a special kind of infection usually treated by antibiotics...
Re:Sure, they have that right. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Public? (Score:2, Insightful)
"Hell I would not tell my own wife or employer much less the public."
You wouldn't tell your own wife about your medical history? Not only is that whack on the face of it, what happens if you're overseas on vacation and require medical assist, the med professionals don't have access to your records, and give you improper meds, or something similar? Seems foolish to risk that kind of thing just to hide the fact that your nuts didn't descend until a year before you met her...
It's a matter of PR, I guess (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I guess PR can occasionally be a two edged sword, and we're kinda seeing the back edge of it now.
Apple's PR machine is telling everyone that only Steve Jobs matters. X got finished only because The Great Man Steve Jobs yelled at the engineers to get it done already. (Apparently the lazy louts weren't getting anywhere without Him personally throwing tantrums;) Y was tested personally by The Great Man, and because He said where the buttons should go or how loud the volume should go. (Obviously, nobody else figured out usability around those parts;) Z happened only because The Great Man _didn't_ yell at the engineers for a change, and just scared them with his iciest stare. (No, seriously, apparently they weren't getting anywhere before that, and suddenly all was on track afterwards.) Etc.
The message the ouside world is fed, repeatedly, is that he's the big genius there and everything only happens because of him.
So, you know, I would worry too if (A) I'd actually believe that, and (B) had any Apple shares.
It's a bit, you know, like betting a bunch of money on the Sixtine Chapel back then, and then hearing half-way through that Michelangelo is terminally ill. Damn right you'd worry.
Or a bit as if the Catholic Church announced that God is fed up and everyone up there is moving to another universe as their next project. I'm sure the question would come, "well, without Him, what's the point of staying with this church any more?" ;)
Re:Sure, they have that right. (Score:2, Insightful)
When everybody on the NYT Board of Directors posts their full medical histories in an NYT op-ed, I will read this article.
Re:Precedents (Score:1, Insightful)
But seriously. a person's health is no-one else's business, ever, period.
WRONG! If I'm going to have a child with someone, you're damn sure I want to know if they have any STDs. And that's just the obvious disclosure. If I'm laying my not-yet-conceived child's entire future on the line, in the hands of someone else, I want to know what they know. Period. It's the least I can do for my child. The least...and that doesn't even consider the risks to my own health.
Re:Singling out Apple is inappropriate... (Score:3, Insightful)
>I'm not sure I know what is or isn't owed to the public in the way of medical disclosure
I'm quite sure I know.
His medical information is private for the same reason yours is. It really is that simple: Either he has a right to this privacy or YOU DON'T.
But you do have that right. End of story. For a slashdot crowd, people sure do seem quick to want to abridge rights.
Re:Sure he has a right to withhold (Score:2, Insightful)
>But the stock holders also have the right to bail out due to rumors.
A stockholder who sells something as solid as Apple Computer on such a rumor, deserves whatever happens as a result. It's not as though any other board member could not take over competently.
Re:Sure, they have that right. (Score:3, Insightful)
False dilemma. Politicians have a right to keep their medical records private _and_ people have the right to not vote for them because of it. You can't force someone to publish their medical records nor can you force someone to vote a particular way despite a candidates decision to keep those records private. Neither right can be curtailed.
Re:Sure, they have that right. (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't see a post from anybody saying they'd give up their right to sell the stock if it turns out the medical record in question shows a clean bill of health.
For a Slashdot crowd, this thread is a disturbing indication that people seem to not understand what *rights* are.
Is any company just one person? (Score:3, Insightful)
If it is, and that person is the CEO, then there are bigger problems for the investor. If the CEO does not delegate and the company does not have a succession plan, there are definitely bigger problems.
What if the CEO dies suddenly in an accident? Do you really want to invest in a company that is so reliant upon one person that an accident would adversely impact its value?
No, Steve Jobs should not have to reveal any medical information about himself. Yes, Steve Jobs should make sure a succession plan is in place and the investor should be able to make informed decisions based upon that.
Re:As long (Score:3, Insightful)
Or anyone else. Named officers in the 10-K are named because legally, they are 'significant' employees. I don't see Apple shipping thousands of jobs overseas while the stock is STILL below what it was 8 years ago and somehow hundreds of millions of dollars have been lavished by them on themselves. Whereas IBM middle managers are hard pressed to even grant merit or COLA increases year after year after year.
Some Companies Are Their CEO (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't personally invest in a company that was that precariously positioned... I'm not entirely sure which it is, but surely a properly priced company isn't in such a precarious position where one individual getting hit by a bus would crush it the way that the NY Times is suggesting.
There are plenty of company's where the CEO's management warrants a premium P/E multiple. If Warren Buffet were to die tomorrow, Berkshire Hathaway's stock would suffer. If Bill Gates had died during the mid 90s, you can bet Microsoft's stock would have cratered. John Chambers (Cisco), Satoru Iwata (Nintendo), Laksmi Mittal (ArcelorMittal), Rupert Murdoch (News Corp.), these are just a few instances where the CEO is basically the franchise. If you want an example of what a bad CEO can do look at Carli Fiorina (HP), Angelo Mozilo (Countrywide), Jimmy Cayne (Bear Stearns), or Hector Ruiz (AMD).
A CEO (and management in general) is an asset to a company just like a manufacturing plant, cash, or inventory. However, unlike the aforementioned, the value of a company's management cannot be accurately reflected on a Balance Sheet. Instead a CEO's or management's (in)effectiveness if often reflected in the stock price, specifically the premium or discount to which the stock trades compared to its competitors.
For example, Apple's Forward P/E is currently 30 while Microsoft and Dell are trading at about 18 and 19 respectively. A good portion of that premium is due to the fact that Steve Balmer and Michael Dell are failing at leading their respective companies, while Steve Jobs has done a bang up job at spearheading Apple's product development.
Now, if you don't want to invest in companies that depend on a key man or group, that's you're prerogative. No risk, no reward. But there are people that do (and from the list above you can see it does pay off), and to them knowing Steve Job's health is an important concern.
Re:Some Companies Are Their CEO (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, human capital and all that.
All those people who invest based on their estimation of that human capital are welcome to ask for medical records, get told to fuck off, and exercise their prerogative to buy or sell stock accordingly.
Re:Sure, they have that right. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's the Business section. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sure, they have that right. (Score:1, Insightful)
And surely I have the right to not hire you if you fail to fully disclose your genetic dispositions to diabetes, alcoholism, crime, etc.
Oh, what? I don't have that right? That would be bad for future employment?
I think a lot of the people here are going to say that Steve would be well advised to disclose every detail of his life to make sure he isn't at risk for anything. After all, his shareholders have the right to jump ship if he doesn't. That's fine, because quite honestly, if I was a CEO, I wouldn't want those types of investors anyway.
What about Microsoft? Ballmer doesn't look like the skinniest dude on the planet, who's to say that he won't keel over tomorrow from a heart attack? He should disclose every little medical detail from the beginning of his life to present. After all, his fiduciary duty is the life of the company, right? Shareholders above all else, right?
Put the shoe on the other foot. You wouldn't want to disclose your information to be hired or keep your employment, so don't say Steve should. He is a human being, just like the rest of this (and yes, I am sure of that). He has rights to privacy too, just like you and I. If some shareholders want to leave, let them.
I would also like to point out that Kenneth Lay was found to have had bypass surgery at some time during his autopsy. AFAIK, this wasn't well known until the autopsy, which suggests that he was attempting to hide it. However, he also worked at the house-of-cards Enron, which is a vastly different company than Apple. I do not expect to see Apple, or Steve, falter any time soon, and certainly not because he doesn't disclose *his* personal information. The case is not compelling.
Disclaimer: I own an iPod, and it runs the iPod firmware, and is updated by iTunes on Windows (the only thing I keep Windows around for). I love the iPod, but I hate iTunes on Windows. I own no other Apple products, and my preferred operating system is Ubuntu Gutsy and Hardy.
I think that he has a right to keep it quiet (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a cancer survivor, two different cancers and a relapse, and I've survived a hemorrhage in my brain *and* a non cancerous tumor in my neck. And I understand Steve Jobs desire to keep things quiet.
I don't think that illnesses in anyone, even public officials, should be public knowledge.
Re:Investors these days. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sure, they have that right. (Score:5, Insightful)
To refuse you would have to be asked. I don't think any one needs to ask Obama for his records but McCain (or even Paul who I would rather see as President), most certainly. But if Obama were to be asked and then refuse, well then that would smell to me.
If Paul or Obama disclosed medical records when asked, that would "smell" to me more than if they did not. In that situation, I expect a President or Presidential candidate (especially a Libertarian like Paul) to stand firm on the issue of privacy.
In terms of the head of a private company, regardless of how much one person is perceived to be responsible for the firm's success, I don't see sufficient shareholder reason to warrant disclosure. Even if his records showed he had cancer, it would still just be speculation about his abilities.
If anything, it seems counter to shareholder interest for him to disclose the records, and as for potential investors, they can invest or not. Jobs works for Apple. If he is a tipping point for someone to invest, well, he might get hit by a truck tomorrow regardless.
Re:Sure, they have that right. (Score:1, Insightful)
As an investor there are so many other things I'd want disclosed more than health records. I wouldn't personally invest in a company that was that precariously positioned.
It's either a completely inaccurate argument about Apple or evidence that Apple is absurdly overpriced as a company. I'm not entirely sure which it is, but surely a properly priced company isn't in such a precarious position where one individual getting hit by a bus would crush it the way that the NY Times is suggesting.
It has nothing to do with the company it has to do with investors. Back in the 90s there was a major shift and a lot smaller investors got into the market. Smaller investors tend to spook easily. It's hard to say what the actual value of Apple is without a lot of research. Based on their growth rate $190+ was overvalued but the current price is probably within $20 to $30 a share which isn't absurdly overpriced and if it just stays in this range for another year the stock price will balance out this real value. The retail sales have been nothing short of explosive in growth. Sales are the company's true value not stock.
The stock value will likely drop if Jobs has health problems but the irony is his health won't affect short term profits because no one buys an iPhone, iPod or Mac computer because it has Steve Jobs name on it. The fears are long range in that the company will loose direction like it did the last time he left. The man is agruably one of the great business minds of the last 50 years. We aren't just talking Apple but Pixar as well. His decisions have created tens of billions of dollars in corporate value. There's only a few people that can make that claim, Warren Buffet being one of the people but Jobs is a kid compared to Buffet and if he lived to Buffet's age he could pass him. That's staggering when you consider he only ran the two companies, Buffet's company owns many companies. I think he is preparing Apple to live without him even if his health is excellent. He's a Walt Disney type and thinks in the long term. Most people don't realize most of what the Disney company did for the 20 years after Disney died was in the planning stages when he died. Even now most projects have a long development curve and some take as much as 15 to 20 years to finally come to light. Five is closer to the average. I'd be surprised if they didn't have a rough plan for the next ten years at Apple right now and a fairly detailed plan for the next 5 years already. Jobs will still have a hand in the company ten years after he dies. Innovation may slow but I don't see it stopping.
Re:Some Companies Are Their CEO (Score:3, Insightful)
Then I would buy it, because Charlie Munger is just as good and their entire business model has been to buy great businesses with great managers. One or several of those managers will do a fine job of running the place when Warren and Charlie finally kick the bucket.
Now, if you don't want to invest in companies that depend on a key man or group, that's you're prerogative. No risk, no reward. But there are people that do (and from the list above you can see it does pay off), and to them knowing Steve Job's health is an important concern.
Sure, I won't deny that - for whatever reason - Steve Jobs has made investors believe that Apple is worth more that it would be without him. It is even plausible (certainly true at some companies, so Apple may be one of them) that his presence or management abilities or other traits have increased Apple's earnings. As an investor, I'm definitely interested in managers coming and going and prefer companies with sound management culture and good succession plans to those with neither. That's just common sense. And if a company, however strong its business, is largely dependent on one senior official for its performance, but there is no culture of managerial development or the manager's ability to improve performance is based largely on a cult of personality, I will be hesitant to buy it no matter that individual's medical history. Those circumstances increase risk, and the function of the market is to price risk: the higher the risk, the lower the multiple. Given that Apple is trading at higher multiples (P/E, P/S, PEG, you name it) than other companies in similar markets, I believe it is safe to say that the market is underpricing the risk associated with Apple's managerial structure. Even if Apple is more profitable and/or growing faster and/or has stronger brands, those attributes should be reflected in its price and its multiples should remain comparable. Clearly, they are not. Whether Mr. Jobs has cancer or not is immaterial, because sooner or later he will retire or die regardless. And what then for Apple?
Let the man exercise his right to privacy. You don't need to know whether he has cancer to price AAPL. If you're a wise investor, you will simply assume that he does, and that a number of other managers at other companies will likewise die or retire unexpectedly at some point. Strong companies with strong businesses and strong managerial talent do not depend on any one individual for their performance and certainly do not rely on that individual's cult of personality to develop a slavish customer base of fanboys. The companies you want to own make products people need, have strong brands based on their products' historical and present qualities, and control costs effectively. They have solid management teams that know the business, can execute, and manage risk properly. They hire good people and develop their talents. They have succession plans. Those are the qualities you should be looking for as an investor (as a trader or speculator, you're looking for something else entirely).
If you find yourself obsessing over a CEO's health, that's not the company you want to own. The truth is, Apple is a financially strong company ($15b in cash, no debt) that sells a luxury consumer product. It has an awesome but fragile brand and a history of good to excellent execution. But cost controls are poor and margins are dependent entirely on brand cachet and the ability of its customers to pay premium prices for luxury goods. Employee morale is mediocre, the management team is shallow, and future growth will be limited by macroeconomic factors. The inevitable loss of Mr. Jobs will devastate this company, and I expect investors will be left with nothing. In some ways, the company looks a lot like MSFT did a few years ago - huge cash position, strong current growth but limited future potential, and strong but fragile brands (in MSFT's case,
Re:Sure, they have that right. (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course Pystar can sell hardware capable of running OSX. What they can't do is create OSX. Part of Apple's hardware price is covering the R&D for creating OSX. In buying Apple hardware the purchaser is also buying the right to run OSX as created by Apple.
Key Man Insurance... (Score:3, Insightful)
In my opinion, Jobs' value to the company is pretty damn hard to measure... But like most risks in corporations, it's up to the management of the company to manage such risks. If there is a risk of Jobs' health removing him from the role, they should have appropriate key man insurance, and a plan, to mitigate that risk as much as possible.
While the value of Apple's corporate executives is seen (rightly or wrongly) as highly centralized around Jobs, many other companies have policies to mitigate risk between their management. When I ran a major photo sharing in the .COM bubble days, two of the top two folks at Kodak came to court us (well, at least pump us for information, it turned out.) They had to take separate Lear Jets to our city; they weren't allowed to fly on the same plane, in case of an incident. Many companies have similar policies that so many board members or senior management can't fly on the same plane.
I can understand investors' concern about Jobs. However, he doesn't seem that bad to me, and I'm sure top dollars are being put into every health concern he may have. I do have mixed feelings about the disclosure issue. In the case of most companies, where the perceived management talent is spread among several folks, the illness or death of one has less of an impact as compared to Apple, where the perceived management direction comes from one man.
And given how the company floundered without him, and regained its direction with his return, there might just be something to that. Perhaps because of this, Apple does owe some more details of Jobs personal status to its investors. As an investor, I would personally have a lot less confidence in Apple without Steve's strong vision at the helm.
Marketing, not PR (Score:3, Insightful)
Steve Jobs is the brand. This is not without good reason. He is in a position to make style and strategy decisions that bean counters wouldn't otherwise let a company make. Not that he's always right, he's just right often enough that many of the resulting products are cool enough to be hits. Let's face it, someone else might be able to yell at and fire engineers, but most of those guys or gals would be doing it because the engineers developed a product that wouldn't sell to other bean counters. Steve Jobs does it because he believes that his style requirements haven't been met.
In this case, it's a bit like Frank Stephenson yelling at one of his engineers for coming to him with a design that's not Ferrari enough. Not having Steve Jobs calling the shots at Apple means another turn with someone like John Sculley. You get textbook MBA-school generic product management. Naturally, one of the first moves would be to sell to "business" and become more like Dell or IBM. This would (and nearly did) ruin Apple. Steve Jobs has helped Apple carve out its own distinctive niche in the market of consumer electronics. Jonathan Ive may have been hired toward the end of Sculley's watch, but Jobs put him where he is today.
As you say, this has been a double-edged sword for Apple. Jobs drives great products out on to the market. Yet, Apple can expect hardship when Jobs retires or is unable to helm the company for whatever reason. Investors are rightly worried, as, in this case, one individual does make a huge difference, marketing or no marketing.
Re:Off the record ??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I suspect he did exactly what Steve Jobs wanted him to do. If you're truly keeping your health situation completely secret, and don't want any non-specific but somewhat calming details flittering out, you don't tell a reporter "oh sure, let's talk about it! Just don't print it!" You simply say "I'm sorry, that's personal and I'm not interested in discussing it." I'm sure he's said that a million times before to other people wondering about his health for whatever reasons.
This is a situation which benefits everybody: The reporter, clearly; Steve Jobs, by not actually having to disclose exactly what IS going on with him; and investors and other parties with a vested interest in his health, who get to find out that whatever's wrong isn't cancer and doesn't appear to be life-threatening.
Politicians do this with reporters all the time (and yeah, the reporters almost certainly know it)--I wouldn't be at all surprised if it's exactly what happened here.
Re:Sure, they have that right. (Score:4, Insightful)
And I would call that a correction in an over valued stock. Any company that is that volatile that their stock would take a significant hit if the CEO were to go tits up is over valued. It means people don't have faith in the company or its products enough to trust the job to anyone else. The high value you are seeing then isn't in the company in that case but instead is in the individual CEO.
Re:As long (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm talking about 10's of thousands of jobs. As the larger companies turn themselves into outsourcers they will provide that service anywhere but here; India, Brazil, China.
Re:absolutely material - Jobs must disclose (Score:3, Insightful)
whereas in the US, you don't have a specific regulation covering this situation, so Steve can get away without coming clean. So in the absence of a specific regulation, most of the chatter is trying to turn this into a moral issue - which it isn't. There's something that could materially affect the share price - and being so should be disclosed.
1) You make Jobs sound like a criminal and is "getting away" with being sick. Seriously?
2) This is not a "material contract" or "material obligation", it's someone's medical records. So basically, if the company decides that I'm a material asset, should my medical records be publicly disclosed in the 10k? What about that time I got caught smoking pot in '75? That could indicate that I have a serious drug problem and should probably be disclosed as well. This is stupid.
Seriously. I think you misrepresented the intention of your country's laws. If not, maybe the US isn't as screwed up as everyone claims it is.