-In 1952, because the decennial population censuses are a unique source of detailed demographic data, individual records of the 1880 Census were made available to researchers. -In 1973, the 1900 Census records were made aavilable by the Archivist to persons engaged in "legitimate historical, legal, genealogical or other worthwhile research." There are many current policies to preclude disclosure of individually identifiable data collected for statistical purposes. -Under Title 13 USC no Census employee may use Census information for any purpose other than statistical purposes, published data whereby any establishment or individual can be identified, or permit any other than sworn employees of the Commerce Department to examine the individual reports. Any employee who communicates any information without written authority can be fined up to $1,000 or imprisoned for two years or both. -Labor Department regulations admonish the Commissioner of Labor Statistics to protect the confidentiality of data collected by BLS and assigns him responsibility for ensuring that data collected for BLS by other organizations is obtained under adequate guarantees of confidentiality. -Public Health Service has long collected vital statistics under specialized and stringent guarantees of the confidentiality of individual records. -By law, the Social Security Administration is not permitted to disclose any information about individuals except as provided by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. Exceptions have been generally limited to checking of income (where income is a condition of eligibility for an income maintenance program), release of information to Federal or State employees administering unemployment insurance, and a limited number of research projects. The HEW Secretary's Advisory Committee on Automated Personal Data Systems In July 1973, a committee of prominent individuals from State and local governments, industry and academia submitted its report on Records, Computers and the Right of Citizens* to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. The report has served to define many of the questions involved in protecting personal privacy. The report recommends the enactment of a Federal "Code of Fair Information Practice" for all automated personal data systems. The code would be built around five "principies of fair record keeping practices". -There must be no personal data record keeping system whose very existence is secret. -There must be a way for an individual to find out what information about him is in a record and how it is used. -There must be a way for an individual to prevent information about him that was obtained for one purpose from being used for other purposes without his consent. -There must be a way for an individual to correct or amend a record of identifiable information about him. --Any organization creating, maintaining. using, or disseminating records of identifiable personal data must assure the reliability of the data for their intended use and must take precautions to prevent misuse of the data." The report recommends adoption of added safeguards for administrative personal data systems based on the following five principles. -"When personal data are collected for administrative purposes, individuals should under no circumstances be coerced into providing additional personal data that are to be used exclusively for statistical reporting and research. When application forms or other means of collecting personal data for an administrative data system are designed, the mandatory or voluntary character of an individual's responses should be made clear. -Personal data used for making determinations about an individual's character, qualifications, rights, benefits, or opportunities, and personal data collected and used for statistical reporting and research, should be processed and stored separately. The report is available for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Stock No. 1700-00116. -The amount of supplementary statistical-reporting and research data collected and stored in personally identifiable form should be kept to a minimum. -Proposals to use administrative records for statistical reporting and research should be subjected to careful scrutiny by persons of strong statistical and research competence. -Any published findings or reports that result from secondary statisticalreporting and research uses of administrative personal data systems should meet the highest standards of error measurement and documentation." The report recommends against adoption of any standard identifier for individuals and recommends limitations on the use of the Social Security Number. -"Uses of the SSN should be limited to those necessary for carrying out requirements imposed by the Federal Government. -Federal agencies and departments should not require or promote use of the SSN except to the extent that they have a specific legislative mandate from the Congress to do so. -The Congress should be sparing in mandating use of the SSN, and should do so only after full and careful consideration preceded by well advertised hearings that elicit substantial public participation. Such consideration should weigh carefully the pros and cons of any proposed use, and should pay particular attention to whether effective safeguards have been applied to automated personal data systems that would be affected by the proposed use of the SSN." The Criminal Justice Information Systems Act of 1974 The Attorney General has submitted proposed legislation (introduced as S. 2964/H.R. 12574) to facilitate and regulate the exchange of criminal justice information in order to insure the security of criminal justice information systems and to protect the privacy of individuals to whom the information in such systems pertains. The bill divides criminal justice information into three categories: -Criminal justice intelligence information, including investigative files and other such "subjective information." -Criminal offender processing information, including medical and other reports on individuals in the correctional system, -Criminal offender record information, including mainly information such as arrest and disposition records, probation status, and physical identification data. The bill would restrict direct access to criminal justice information to officers or employees of criminal justice agencies and permit all three categories of information to be used for criminal justice purposes. It also defines the circumstances under which the information may be used for noncriminal justice purposes. -Criminal intelligence information may be made available (a) when determined by the Attorney General to be necessary for reasons of national defense or foreign policy, and (b) when compiled by a criminal justice component of a noncriminal justice agency and used by the same agency for statutory functions. -Criminal offender processing information may be made available (a) to the individual concerned when authorized by court order or Federal or State statute or regulation, (b) for research pursuant to the Attorney General regulations, (c) for research related to criminal justice, and (d) for other use as authorized by court or Federal or State statute. -Criminal offender record information may be made available (a) to the individual to whom information pertains (b) for research related to criminal justice, and (c) for other purposes expressly provided for by Federal statute. In addition, the bill -Affords an individual access to his offender record information for purposes of correcting his record. -Requires the individual about whom offender record information is requested for a non-criminal justice purpose to be notified by the requester that such information about him is being sought. -Requires scaling of an individual's criminal offender record information after a specified period with a clear record, either five or seven years, depending on the nature of the conviction. -Requires arrest data release for a non-criminal justice purpose to include final disposition, if known, and prohibits release of arrest data for such purpose if the charge resulted in acquittal, or was dismissed or not disposed of within a year. -Places responsibility for the accuracy and up-dating or criminal offender record information on the agency initially contributing the information to the system. -Establishes administrative, civil and criminal sanctions against those who use or disseminate information in violation of the Act. CONGRESSIONAL ACTIVITIES The Congress has conducted a number of inquiries into record keeping practices and their effects on personal privacy. These inquiries have helped to define the issues which must be addressed. These include: -The House Committee on Government Operations is conducting hearings into the need for legislation governing Federal Personal record keeping. -The House Judiciary Committee is considering the Criminal Justice Information Systems Act of 1974. -The Senate Judiciary Committee is completing a survey of Federal data banks which contain personal data about individuals. National Commission for Review of Federal and State Wiretapping Laws The Commission was established by Title III of the Omnibus Crime and Safe Streets Act to conduct a comprehensive study and review of the operation of the provisions of Title III, regarding wiretapping and electronic surveillance, in order to determine their effectiveness during the six-year period following June 19, 1968. The Commission is to be composed of 15 members appointed as follows: -Four appointed by the Speaker of the House from members of the House, The Chairman of the Commission, appointed bythe President, is William H. Erickson. The Commission, a designated subcommittee, or member thereof, may hold such hearings as is deemed necessary to carry out the Commission's function. The Commission is granted the power to subpoena witnesses, books, records, documents, etc., to be issued by the Chairman, or designated member of the Commission. The Chairman may enforce such subpoenas through the U.S. District Courts. Each department or agency of the executive branch of government, including independent agencies, is authorized and directed to furnish such data as the Commission requires to fulfill its functions upon the request of the Chairman. The Chairman is also authorized to seek relevant data and information from the appropriate offices of the several States. $332,000 has been appropriated for fiscal year 1974 to carry out the provisions of the authorizing section, and $500,000 has been requested for fiscal year 1975. SURVEY OF GOVERNORS AND STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ON S. 3418, PRIVACY, AND STATE LAWS STATE OF ALABAMA AUGUST 16, 1974. Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., Chairman, Committee on Government Operations, DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: Thank you for your letter of June 25, 1974, in which you invited me to give my opinion concerning S. 3418. I appreciate very much the opportunity to submit my views on this important bill. In answer to the question contained in your letter, I would like to inform you that no action is currently being taken on the State or local level in Alabama on privacy matters or issues. I commend you, Senators Percy and Muskie, and the other members of Congress who are concerned about dangers to privacy and who are acting to protect the citizens of the United States in this vital and urgent area. Your concern is one which I share and it is particularly timely because of Watergate, as you pointed out on the floor of the Senate on May 1, 1974. However, there is at least one aspect of S. 3418 which I do not favor. Many forms of crime represent the ultimate intrusion into privacy. Crime not only chills the exercise of precious rights but also destroys life and property as well as emotional well-being. It is a problem of alarming proportions and one which affects every American. Because of this, any legislative effort to protect privacy which makes it more difficult for law enforcement agencies to solve crimes and apprehend criminals raises difficult public policy questions. The importance of ensuring individual rights of privacy and the need to wage an effective battle against crime pose a serious and complex problem. It is my opinion that this serious and complex problem deserves the individual consideration and treatment of special legislation. General privacy legislation is too blunt a tool for it, and both privacy and effective law enforcement can lose as a result. As merely one example consider the application of S. 3418 on the National Criminal Information Center system. As a result of six years experience as a District Attorney and four years expe rience as an Attorney General, I am convinced that the N.C.I.C is one of the most effective tools law enforcement has. Because the N.C.I.C. helps solve crimes and apprehend criminals it saves countless lives and millions of dollars in property each year. No provision of S. 3418 exempts the N.C.I.C. from the application of it. Section 202 (2) seems to provide no exemption for the N.C.I.C. because of the "except" clause in it. Given the applicability of S. 3418, certain of its provisions at least suggest potentially crippling restraints on the N.C.I.C. For example, what will be the impact of Section 201 (a) (2)? Will Section 201 (d) (3)(B) jeopardize the security of informants? Will Section 201(d) (3) (c) require disclosure of an investigation at a time when it is crucial to keep the fact of the invesigation secret? To consider a more specific and a timely example, note the possible impact of Section 201 (a) (13) on criminal information files about such political terrorist groups as the Weathermen and the Symbionese Liberation Army. Can it be said with certainty that Section 201 (a) (13) would permit a law enforcement agency to identify a criminal in N.C.I.C. or other files as a member of those two or other political terrorist groups? If not, then the bill will unnecessarily hinder the identification and apprehension of persons responsible for kidnappings, robberies, bombings, and other violent crimes. |