Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "4520867",
    "label": "Privacy - Commerce Department Advisory Committee",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4520867"
}

{
    "id": "4520867",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4520867",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Privacy - Commerce Department Advisory Committee",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4520867",
    "collections": [
        "Philip W. Buchen Files",
        "Philip Buchen's General Subject Files"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "Department of Commerce. (1913 - )",
        "Privacy, Right of"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0019/574067/Batch0002/38-0019-f-4520867.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0019/574067/Batch0002/38-0019-f-4520867.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0019/574067/Batch0002/38-0019-f-4520867.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4520867",
    "naId": 4520867,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1974-09-01",
        "month": 9,
        "year": 1974
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1974-08-01",
        "month": 8,
        "year": 1974
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0019/574067/Batch0002/38-0019-f-4520867.pdf",
    "mediaId": "dac8888b4762492c",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box 56, folder \"Privacy - Commerce Department\nAdvisory Committee\" of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential\nLibrary.\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to\nremain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid\ncopyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nDigitized from Box 56 of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nC.F.\nMEMORANDUM OF INFORMATION FOR THE FILE\nFG6-15-1\nDATE 10/8/76\nLETTER, MEMO, ETC.\nTO:\nFROM:\nSUBJECT: Carrespondence from Barry Rath's office\ndated aug. 1974. aug. 1976 re\nthe Domestic Council Committee on the\nRight of Privacy\nFiled CF Oversine attachment #257.\n2\nFUKU\ns LIBRARY\nCORRESPONDENCE FILED CENTRAL FILES - CONFIDENTIAL FILE\nDEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA\nSeptember 5, 1974\nTo :\nPhilip Buchen\nH.\nFrom: G.\nCommittee Guidance & Control Officer\nEnclosed are background materials\nfor the September 16 meeting of the\nAdvisory Committee on Privacy and\nConfidentiality, and other items\nof interest. Also enclosed is the\nagenda.\nWe look forward to seeing you on the\n16th.\nEnclosures\nTRANSMITTAL FORM CO-82A (10-67)\nPRESCRIBED BY DAO 214-2\nUSCOMM-DC 1232-P57\nFORD of STUD LIBAR 1\nSeptember 1974\nSTATUS REPORT ON ARCHIVAL USES OF 1900 CENSUS RECORDS\nIn December 1973 the 1900 Population Census records were opened to\ninspection at the National Archives Building in Washington, D.C., in\naccordance with procedures and restrictions established by the\nArchivist of the United States.\nAt the end of 1974 a detailed report is expected on archival uses\nof these records. Meanwhile, the staff of the National Archives\nand Records Service has made available, informally, the following\ninformation.\nAccess is limited to genealogical, historical, biographical, and\nlegal researchers. In each category, the searcher must sign the\n1900 Population Census Data Use Agreement, and provide evidence of\nqualifications, credentials, or authority.\nThe dominant type of inquiry has been for genealogical research,\naveraging approximately 50 searches per week. All but a few of\nthese requests relate to individuals seeking information about their\nown family ancestry. The remainder are searchers who have permission\nfrom a family member to seek information.\nHistorical research accounts for about two dozen searches weekly,\nwhich are usually related to studies of the economic and social\nmobility of immigrants or other identifiable population groups.\nBiographical searches account for approximately two searches per\nweek, mostly related to historical personages.\nLegal searches are relatively infrequent, accounting for only about\none-half dozen inquiries during the first eight months of operation.\nLegal researchers must show evidence of the court or tribunal of\nwhich they are an agent seeking data to determine inheritance or\notherwise adjudicate a controversy.\nNo unusual problems have arisen thus far, though searchers\noccasionally complain because the records are available only in\nWashington, D.C., and no photocopying is permitted.\nGERALD FORD LIBRABLE\nINFORMATION REQUESTED FOR CONFIDENTIALITY STUDY\nThe Russell Sage Foundation is funding a study of events and\nproblems concerning the confidentiality of social science research\nsources and data. The study will analyze such issues as the\nconfidentiality of survey research data, and the obligation of a\nscholar to reveal his or her research sources to other scholars.\nThe study is sponsored by the American Sociological Association,\nthe. American Political Science Association, the American Anthropological\nAssociation, the American Psychological Association, and the American\nHistorical Association. (The Association of American Law Schools,\nthe Association of American Geographers, the American Economic\nAssociation, and the American Statistical Association are\nconsidering sponsorship.)\nThe study will begin in February 1974 and end in December 1975.\nIndividuals and organizations are invited to send to the director\nof the study a statement of (1) any events of which they have\nknowledge that have raised questions concerning the confidentiality\nof social science research sources and data, and (2) any problems\nthey have encountered that have involved questions concerning the\nconfidentiality of social science research sources and data. The\nstatement should specify the time and the place and the individuals\nand the organizations and the circumstances involved in the events\nand problems. Information provided in response to this request\nwill be treated as confidential unless the individual providing the\ninformation consents to its release.\nThe statements will be used by the director and project board\nto select events and problems for further analysis.\nStatements should be sent to the principal investigator,\nJames D. Carroll, Director, Public Administration Programs, 200\nMaxwell Hall, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York, 13210,\nTel: (315) 423-2687.\nFORD\nSEAL or\nUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE\nSocial and Economic Statistics Administration\nBUREAU OF THE CENSUS\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA\nWashington, D.C. 20233\nOFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR\nTHE RIGHT OF PRIVACY AND THE\nNEED TO KNOW\nVINCENT P. BARABBA\nDIRECTOR, BUREAU OF THE CENSUS\nSOCIAL AND ECONOMIC STATISTICS ADMINISTRATION\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE\nDISTINGUISHED VISITING PROFESSORS' LECTURE SERIES\nUNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA\nSCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION\nAUGUST 8, 1974\nRECENTLY I WAS REVIEWING A CENSUS BUREAU PROJECT TO DESIGN\nAN IDEAL CENSUS FOR THE YEAR 2000, A PROJECT WHICH WE UNDERTOOK\nTO STIMULATE SOME INNOVATIVE THINKING, IT OCCURRED TO ME THAT\nWE ARE NOW IN AUGUST, 1974 CLOSER TO THE YEAR 2000 THAN WE\nARE TO THE END OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR. THAT'S HARD TO GRASP,\nBECAUSE THE YEAR 2000 SOUNDS so FAR IN THE FUTURE. IT ALSO\nOCCURRED TO ME THAT IN JUST TEN YEARS IT WILL BE 1984.\nNINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR, I'M SURE AS WE GET CLOSER TO THE\nYEAR ITSELF THERE WILL BE ANOTHER PRINTING OF GEORGE ORWELL'S\nPOWERFUL WORK ABOUT WHAT TOTALITARIANISM CAN DO TO THE HUMAN\nSPIRIT, RECENTLY I TOOK MY COPY DOWN FROM THE BOOKSHELF AND\nREVIEWED IT. EVEN THOUGH THE NOVEL WAS PUBLISHED IN 1949 AND IT\nHAD BEEN A LONG TIME SINCE I HAD PICKED IT UP, SEVERAL THINGS\nREMAINED CLEAR IN MY MEMORY, FOR INSTANCE, THE SLOGANS OF THE\nRULING PARTY: \"WAR IS PEACE,\" \"FREEDOM IS SLAVERY,\" AND \"IGNORANCE\nIS STRENGTH.\" MOST OF ALL, I REMEMBERED THE THOUGHT POLICE\nREVOLUTION INCENTENNITY\nMONITORING A PERSON'S EVERY MOVEMENT ON TWO-WAY TELEVISION BERAM SCREENS,\nSTARY\n-2-\nAND THE SAYING \"BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING You.\"\nTHE VERY TITLE 1984 HAS COME TO STAND FOR ANYTHING WHICH\nINFRINGES OR CONFLICTS WITH THE NATURAL DESIRES AND RIGHTS OF\nTHE INDIVIDUAL. To PUT IT ANOTHER WAY, 1984 STANDS FOR\nDEHUMANIZATION, REGIMENTATION, AND THE LACK OF FREE CHOICE.\nTHE NOTED SOVIET AUTHOR, ALEXANDER SOLZHENITSYN HAS WRITTEN,\n\"As EVERY MAN GOES THROUGH LIFE HE FILLS IN A NUMBER OF FORMS\nFOR THE RECORD, EACH CONTAINING A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS.\nTHERE\nARE THUS HUNDREDS OF LITTLE THREADS RADIATING FROM EVERY MAN,\nMILLIONS OF THREADS IN ALL. IF THESE THREADS WERE SUDDENLY TO\nBECOME VISIBLE, THE WHOLE SKY WOULD LOOK LIKE A SPIDER'S WEB,\nAND IF THEY MATERIALIZED AS RUBBER BANDS, BUSES, TRAMS AND EVEN\nPEOPLE WOULD ALL- LOSE THE ABILITY TO MOVE, AND THE WIND WOULD\nBE UNABLE TO CARRY TORN-UP NEWSPAPERS OR AUTUMN LEAVES ALONG\nTHE STREETS OF THE CITY. THEY ARE NOT VISIBLE, THEY ARE NOT\nMATERIAL, BUT EVERY MAN IS CONSTANTLY AWARE OF THEIR EXISTENCE\nEACH MAN, PERMANENTLY AWARE OF HIS OWN INVISIBLE THREADS,\nNATURALLY DEVELOPS A RESPECT FOR THE PEOPLE WHO MANIPULATE THE\nTHREADS.\nAND THAT'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT TODAY--THE\nRELATIONSHIP OF THE NATURAL DESIRES AND RIGHTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL\nLIVING IN OUR SOCIETY, AND SPECIFICALLY THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY,\nWITH THE LEGITIMATE NEED OF SOCIETY TO COLLECT INFORMATION ABOUT\nTHE INDIVIDUAL, IN ORDER FOR SOCIETY TO UNDERSTAND ITSELF.\n-2-\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\n-3-\nTHE SPECTOR OF GOVERNMENT INTRUSION INTO THE AFFAIRS OF\nINDIVIDUAL CITIZENS HAS ALWAYS BEEN A HIGHLY EMOTIONAL SUBJECT,\nAND UNFORTUNATELY, ONE WHICH IS OFTEN DISCUSSED IN THE FRAMEWORK\nOF EMOTIONAL NEWSPAPER HEADLINES. EVENTS OF RECENT YEARS HAVE\nBROUGHT THE ISSUE INTO THE FOREFRONT OF PUBLIC DEBATE; BUT AT\nTHE SAME TIME THE HIGHLY EMOTIONAL CHARACTER OF SUCH EVENTS AS\nTHE MILITARY SURVEILLANCE OF CIVILIANS, WIRETAPPING, AND POLITICAL\nESPIONAGE HAVE TENDED TO OBSCURE THE NATURE OF A WHOLE SERIES OF\nPRIVACY RELATED QUESTIONS, AND HAVE REDUCED THIS VERY COMPLEX\nPROBLEM TO A SIMPLISTIC ASSERTION THAT EACH MAN HAS AN INALIENABLE\nRIGHT TO PRIVACY AND THAT NO MORE INVASIONS OF THAT PRIVACY SHOULD\nBE ALLOWED. YET, THIS SORT OF DOGMATIC APPROACH OBSCURES AND\nHAMPERS OBJECTIVE DEBATE, AS WELL AS DECISION MAKING, CONCERNING\nASPECTS OF INDIVIDUAL PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY THAT COLLIDE\nWITH OUR SOCIETY'S NEED TO KNOW.\nFOR EXAMPLE, IN VARIOUS SPEECHES AND CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY\nSENATOR SAM ERVIN, A MOST DISTINGUISHED CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYER\nAND ADVOCATE OF AN INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT TO BE LET ALONE, HAS USED\nAS EXAMPLES OF UNLAWFUL OR QUESTIONABLE GOVERNMENT INTRUSION THE\nCOLLECTION BY MILITARY INTELLIGENCE OF DOSSIERS ON CIVILIANS,\nAND ALSO THE QUESTIONS ASKED IN THE DECENNIAL CENSUS AND OTHER\nSURVEYS OF THE CENSUS BUREAU.\nWHILE I KNOW THAT THE SENATOR UNDERSTANDS THE DISTINCTIONS\nBETWEEN THESE ACTIVITIES, THE CONTEXT OF HIS SPEECH DOES NOT\nREVEAL THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE COLLECTION OF INFORMATION\nFOR ADMINISTRATIVE PURPOSES, AND THE COLLECTION OF INFORMATION\nFOR THE PUBLICATION OF ANONYMOUS STATISTICS. THE OVERSIGHT OF\n-3-\n-4-\nFAILING TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN TYPES OF DATA COLLECTED AND\nTHE PURPOSES FOR WHICH THEY ARE USED DOES MUCH TO CONTRIBUTE\nTO THE SORT OF HEADLINES ON THE CLIPPINGS THAT CRAM MY FILES,\nSUCH AS \"REVERSING THE RUSH TO 1984,\" \"WHO KNOWS? THE COMPUTER\nKNOWS!,\" \"BIG BROTHER SOCIETY FEARED,\" AND \"FEDERAL DATA\nGATHERING LIKE OCTOPUS.\"\nMANY OF THESE HEADLINES ARE FOLLOWED BY ARTICLES WHICH\nMENTION THE CENSUS BUREAU IN THEIR CATALOGUE OF \"SINISTER OR\nPOTENTIALLY SINISTER\" DATA-GATHERING AGENCIES, So FAR, THE\nBUREAU HAS NOT BEEN DIRECTLY IDENTIFIED AS A CULPRIT, BUT SOME\nOF THE ARTICLES AND MANY PUBLIC STATEMENTS LEAVE THE DISTINCT\nIMPRESSION THAT IT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BECOME ONE. THIS\nIMPLICATION ALL TOO OFTEN OCCURS BECAUSE THE POTENTIAL DANGER\nIS VIEWED IN ISOLATION, CURRENT BUREAU PROCEDURES FOR\nCONFIDENTIALITY ARE NEVER MENTIONED. BUREAU HISTORY AS TO\nCONFIDENTIALITY OF DATA IS NOT CONSIDERED. THE \"WATCH-DOG\"\nNATURE OF THE CONGRESS IS NOT RAISED. I COULD NAME MANY MORE\nASPECTS OF THE PROBLEM THAT MUST BE CONSIDERED BEFORE ONE CAN\nDRAW CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING THE ABUSIVE OR POTENTIAL ABUSIVE\nNATURE OF A DATA COLLECTION SYSTEM. -- AND I WILL ATTEMPT TO\nDEAL WITH THESE LATER IN THIS TALK.\nBUT, WHEN ONE HEARS SUCH STATEMENTS BEING MADE BY RELIABLE\nELECTED OFFICIALS, AND WHEN WE ALL READ HEADLINES, IN ALMOST ANY\nJOURNAL OR NEWSPAPER, LIKE THOSE I HAVE ALREADY MENTIONED TO YOU;\nIT BECOMES APPARENT THAT REGARDLESS OF THE ACTUAL SITUATION THERE\nIS A CLEAR CONCERN ON THE PART OF THE PUBLIC THAT ALL IS NOT AS\nIT SHOULD BE. THE PUBLIC READS OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS ABUSING\n-4-\n-5-\nDATA COLLECTED ABOUT INDIVIDUALS. THE CENSUS BUREAU IS A\nCOLLECTOR OF INFORMATION ABOUT INDIVIDUALS. THE PUBLIC IS\nCONCERNED THAT THE BUREAU SHOULD NOT ABUSE SUCH INFORMATION.\nPARTS OF THE PUBLIC MAY ALREADY BELIEVE THAT SUCH, INFORMATION\nIS ABUSED. REGARDLESS OF HOW ONE WANTS TO CATEGORIZE PUBLIC\nFEELINGS CONCERNING DATA COLLECTION NO ONE WOULD DENY THAT\nTHERE IS A GREAT AND GROWING ANXIETY THAT THERE IS ABUSE OF DATA\n--THAT PEOPLE EITHER AS INDIVIDUALS OR IN THE MASS ARE BEING\nMANIPULATED.\nI SEE TWO TYPES OF ANXIETY REFLECTED IN THESE HEADLINES.\nONE IS ON THE PART OF THE INDIVIDUAL, THE OTHER BY SOCIETY AS\nA WHOLE.\nFIRST, LET'S LOOK BRIEFLY AT SOCIETY IN GENERAL. IF ONE\nWERE GOING TO GENERALIZE ABOUT THE \"DATA COLLECTION\" CONCERNS\nOF SOCIETY OR OF LARGE GROUPS OF INDIVIDUALS--THIS CONCERN\nMIGHT BE BROKEN INTO TWO PARTS.\nFIRST, THERE IS THE CONCERN FLOWING FROM THE MYRIAD OF\nADVERTISING AND MASS MEDIA CAMPAIGNS. THIS IS A FEAR THAT\nUNCONSCIOUSLY THE PUBLIC IS BEING COERCED INTO ACTING AND\nRESPONDING IN WAYS THAT ARE ACTUALLY THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT- IS\nBEST FOR THE INDIVIDUAL. THAT IS, THAT STIMULANTS ARE BEING\nAPPLIED IN A SCIENTIFIC AND ORDERED FASHION TO CAUSE INDIVIDUALS\nTO REACT AS THE ANONYMOUS \"THEY\" OF CORPORATE AMERICA AND\nMADISON AVENUE WOULD HAVE THEM BEHAVE.\nMUCH OF THIS CONCERN HAS ARISEN SINCE, AND IS NO DOUBT\nLINKED TO, THE BIRTH AND GROWTH OF TELEVISION AND COMPUTERS, AND\nTHE FACT THAT THEY HAVE BECOME PART OF THE EVERYDAY SCENE GENALE IN AMERICA.\n-5-\n-6-\nIT HAS EVEN BEEN ALLEGED THAT POLITICAL CANDIDATES ARE\nBEING DISGUISED IN ORDER TO \"SELL\" THEM TO THE PUBLIC--A\nPUBLIC THAT WOULD HAVE REJECTED THEM OUT OF HAND HAD IT NOT\nBEEN FOR THE SO-CALLED MAGIC OF THE COMPUTER.\nBy THE LATE 1950's, COMPUTERS AND TELEVISION HAD BECOME\nPART OF THE EVERYDAY SCENE IN AMERICA. VANCE PACKARD'S BOOK\nTHE HIDDEN PERSUADERS CRYSTALIZED A FEAR THAT HAD BEEN FORMING\nFOR SOME YEARS--THE FEAR THAT INCREASED KNOWLEDGE ABOUT SOCIETY\nIN GENERAL WOULD LEAD TO THE ABILITY TO MANIPULATE THE PUBLIC\nMIND. WORDS SUCH AS \"BRAINWASHING\" AND \"SUBLIMINAL ADVERTISING\"\nWERE CURRENT ON THE COCKTAIL PARTY CIRCUIT.\nRAYMOND BAUER, WRITING IN THE HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW A\nFEW YEARS LATER, PUT THIS FEAR INTO PERSPECTIVE. HE SAID THAT\nTHE FEAR OF MANIPULATION IS AN OLD ONE ON THE PART OF SOCIETY,\nAND POINTED OUT THAT SUPERSTITIONS SUCH AS POSSESSION BY DEMONS\nAND BELIEF IN WITCHCRAFT HAVE BEEN REPLACED BY FEARS OF THE\nUNKNOWN POTENTIAL OF NEW TECHNOLOGICAL INVENTIONS.\nBUT, BAUER WENT ON TO STATE THAT THOSE WHO WOULD DESIRE TO\nMANIPULATE THE PUBLIC MIND ARE ALWAYS ONE JUMP BEHIND THE PUBLIC\nMIND--THAT AS WE ARE BOMBARDED BY TELEVISION, \"EDUCATION\", AND\nTHE EXPERIENCE OF LIVING IN A TECHNOLOGICAL SOCIETY--YOU AND I\nBECOME MORE SOPHISTICATED, AND THAT OUR RESISTANCE LEVEL TO\nPERSUASION INCREASES ALONG WITH OUR SOPHISTICATION. A CASE IN\nPOINT IS THE CONSUMER MOVEMENT WHO COULD HAVE FORETOLD SUCH A\nPOWERFUL GRASSROOTS PHENOMENON JUST A FEW YEARS AGO?\n-6-\nFORD\nGERALD\n-7-\nTHE SECOND CONCERN IS SOMEWHAT MORE SUBTLE AND IS PROBABLY\nEVEN FURTHER FROM REALITY THAN ADVERTISING'S EFFORTS TO CONTROL\nA SOPHISTICATED PUBLIC,\nIN IMPERIAL ROME THE POLITICIANS DISCOVERED THAT GAMES AND\nCIRCUSES PLUS FREE GRAIN WERE ALL THAT WAS REQUIRED TO PLACATE\nTHE MASSES so THAT NO REAL PUBLIC OPINION EVER FORMED CONCERNING\nA VARIETY OF EXTREMELY IMPORTANT BUT MORE REMOTE ISSUES SUCH AS\nLAND REFORM, OR THE DECLINE OF THE SENATORIAL SYSTEM.\nSo TODAY FEARS HAVE ARISEN THAT THE DATA COLLECTED ABOUT\nINDIVIDUALS IS AGGREGATED AND COMPILED TO SHOW BOTH NEEDS,\nDESIRES, AND MINIMUM LEVELS OF FULFILLMENT, WHICH THE PUBLIC\nWILL ACCEPT AND THAT THE POLITICIANS HAVING DISCOVERED\nTHE \"GAMES AND CIRCUSES\" OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL\nWHEREVER POSSIBLE PROMISE WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT TO\nHEAR WHILE PROVIDING THE MINIMUM DESIRED. IN OTHER WORDS, BY\nUSING STATISTICAL DATA THE POLITICIAN IS ABLE TO GIVE THE VOTER\nJUST ENOUGH TO KEEP HIM SATISFIED, AND THEN DOING HIS OWN THING\nFOR HIS \"SPECIAL INTERESTS.\"\nTHIS SORT OF ARGUMENT IGNORES A VERY FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH ABOUT\nTHE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT'S STATISTICAL PROGRAMS. THAT IS, SIMPLY,\nTHAT EVERY EFFORT POSSIBLE IS BEING MADE TO PRODUCE LOW COST\nSTATISTICS, TO MAKE DATA AVAILABLE TO ALL GROUPS WITHIN OUR\nSOCIETY, AT REASONABLE COST, AND TO ALLOW GROUPS WITH SPECIAL\nINTERESTS WHETHER THEY REPRESENT BLACK AMERICANS, OR THE HOUSING\nINDUSTRY, TO HAVE ACCESS TO STATISTICS, SO THAT THEY MAY ANALYZE\nTHEM AND PREPARE THEIR ARGUMENTS AND EFFORTS BASED ON THIS\nINVALUABLE INFORMATION. EVERYONE ADMITS THAT STATISTICAL INFORMATION\nUSED PROPERLY, IS ONE OF THE BEST TOOLS AVAILABLE FOR DECISION MAKING\n-7-\n-8-\nAT A RECENT CONFERENCE OF GERMAN AND SWEDISH SCHOLARS,\nHELD IN STOCKHOLM, IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT ONE OF THE FINEST\nDEVICES EXISTING FOR COMBATING THE POSSIBLE MANIPULATION OF\nSOCIETY WAS FOR INTERESTED GROUPS TO USE THE SAME STATISTICS TO\nMANIPULATE THE MANIPULATORS.\" SOME OF THE MORE SUCCESSFUL\nACTIONS OF CONSUMER ADVOCATE, RALPH NADER, CERTAINLY SERVE AS\nAN EXAMPLE OF PUTTING THIS ADVICE TO GOOD USE, So LONG AS NO\nONE GROUP HOLDS A MONOPOLY ON THE STATISTICAL INFORMATION\nPRODUCED BY THE BUREAU AND OTHER AGENCIES I CANNOT IMAGINE THE\nPEOPLE OF OUR COUNTRY BECOMING MERE \"PUSHOVERS\".\nNow LET'S LOOK AT THE INDIVIDUAL'S PERSONAL CONCERNS, AT\nTHE TOP OF THE LIST IS THE QUESTION OF THE INDIVIDUAL DOSSIER.\nTHAT IS, THERE EXISTS A. POTENTIAL FOR ABUSE OF INFORMATION\nCOLLECTED FOR VARIOUS ADMINISTRATIVE PURPOSES, AT DIFFERENT\nTIMES AND PLACES, UNDER EXTREMELY DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES; BY\nCOMBINING IT WITHOUT THE DATA SUBJECT'S KNOWLEDGE INTO A HIDDEN\nAND UNALTERABLE RECORD OF PAST PERFORMANCE, TO BE USED POSSIBLY\nFOR QUESTIONS OF JOB TENURE, PROMOTION, OR FINANCIAL LOAN\nSUITABILITY.\nIF THERE IS AN AREA WHICH REQUIRES OUR ATTENTION THIS IS\nIT! INFORMATION COLLECTED FROM THE AVERAGE PERSON FOR ONE PURPOSE,\nPOSSIBLY BEING USED LATER IN A WAY WHICH WILL INJURE EITHER HIM\nOR HIS FAMILY. IN 1973 THE DEPARTMENT OF H.E.W. RELEASED A\nWIDELY ACCLAIMED REPORT DEALING SQUARELY WITH THE ABOVE PROBLEM\n---AND RECOMMENDED THAT THERE BE NO ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD KEPT\nOF WHICH THE DATA SUBJECT WAS NOT AWARE, AND THAT DATA COLLECTED\n-8-\n-9-\nFOR ONE PURPOSE NOT BE USED FOR ANOTHER WITHOUT THE PERMISSION\nOF THE DATA SUBJECT, AT THE MOMENT THERE ARE SEVERAL BILLS\nBEFORE THE CONGRESS THAT WOULD MAKE SOME OF THE HEW RECOMMENDATIONS\nLAW.\nAND THIS IS A PROBLEM THAT WE ALL FACE THAT THERE IS\nENOUGH TRUTH IN THE AVERAGE MAN'S FEAR OF INDIRECT OR DIRECT\nMANIPULATION FOR THEM TO BE HARD TO PUT TO REST. BUT, ALMOST\nWITHOUT EXCEPTION THE TYPES OF ABUSE THAT ARE DISCUSSED ARE\nTHOSE THAT CONCERN THE USE OF INDIVIDUAL DATA COLLECTED FOR\nADMINISTRATIVE PURPOSES AND HELD FOR INDIVIDUALLY IDENTIFIABLE\nACTION.\nALSO ON THE LIST OF THE INDIVIDUALS PERSONAL CONCERNS IS\nTHE \"MAILING LIST, MANY PERSONS ARE ANNOYED BY THE USE OF THEIR\nNAME ON MAILING LISTS, AND CONSIDER THIS TYPE OF MARKETING AN\nINVASION OF THEIR PRIVACY,\nI SOMETIMES PLAY A GAME WHEN I ORDER SOMETHING BY MAIL.\nMy MIDDLE INITIAL IS \"P,\" BUT I OFTEN PUT DOWN ANOTHER INITIAL\nAND KEEP TRACK OF WHETHER THE COMPANY I BUY SOMETHING FROM\nSELLS OR USES MY NAME FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE, ACTUALLY, I DON'T\nMIND BEING ADVISED BY MAIL OF SERVICES AND PRODUCTS WHICH I\nMIGHT BE ABLE TO USE. I JUST WANT TO KNOW HOW SOMEBODY GOT\nMY NAME.\n-9-\nSERALD\n-10-\nTHE FEAR OF THE MISUSE OF PERSONAL INFORMATION IS FURTHER\nEXAGGERATED BY THE POPULAR IMAGE OF THE COMPUTER. SPY MOVIES\nAND TELEVISION HAVE FOSTERED A PUBLIC OVER-ESTIMATION OF THE\nABILITIES AND APPLICATIONS OF THE COMPUTER. TOGETHER WITH\nRECENT HEADLINES, THIS HAS LED TO FEARS OF AN OMINOUS NATIONAL\nDATA BANK WHICH WOULD STORE EVERY FACET OF OUR PERSONAL LIVES\nFOR INSTANT RETRIEVAL BY ANY GOVERNMENT AGENCY WHICH REQUESTED\nINFORMATION.\nLET ME STATE THAT THIS FEAR TO BE REALIZED--FOR US TO\nMOVE THAT CLOSE TO GEORGE ORWELL'S NIGHTMARE SOCIETY OF 1984--\nTHE UNITED STATES WOULD HAVE TO ABROGATE NOT ONLY CURRENT LAW\nBUT ITS ENTIRE DEMOCRATIC TRADITION.\nLET ME ADD EMPHASIS TO THIS THOUGHT BY QUOTING TO YOU A\nKEY PORTION OF A PAPER WRITTEN BY OTIS DUDLEY DUNCAN WHICH\nCONCERNED PLANS FOR THE 1970 CENSUS.\n\"\nIN THIS COUNTRY WE HAVE PROVED THAT A STATISTICAL\nSYSTEM CAN INCORPORATE RIGID SAFEGUARDS OF CONFIDENTIALITY.\nTHE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF THESE SAFEGUARDS HAS PROCEEDED\nTO THE POINT WHERE IT IS INCONCEIVABLE THAT THEY WOULD BREAK\nDOWN, EXCEPT IN THE CATASTROPHIC EVENT OF A BREAKDOWN IN OUR\nWHOLE SYSTEM OF INSTITUTIONS PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF THE\nINDIVIDUAL. IN THE CASE OF SUCH A CATASTROPHE, MY GUESS IS\nTHAT MUCH MORE DIRECT WAYS OF INFRINGING THESE RIGHTS WOULD\nBE FOUND THAN THAT OF MAKING INAPPROPRIATE USE OF STATISTICAL\nRECORDS SECURED OSTENSIBLY IN CONFIDENCE.\"\n-10-\nSERALD\n-11-\nNEVERTHELESS, THE IMAGE OF THE COMPUTER, IN THE PUBLIC\nMIND, IS OFTEN THAT OF A VILLIAN---EITHER BECAUSE OF ITS\nPOTENTIAL FOR ABUSE OF PERSONAL INFORMATION, OR IRRITATING\nARGUMENTS WITH DEPARTMENT STORE COMPUTERS ABOUT INCORRECT BILLING,\nYET, I THINK THE COMPUTER HAS MADE A PROFOUND CONTRIBUTION\nTO THE PUBLIC GOOD---AND DONE IT so WELL WE TAKE IT FOR GRANTED.\nJUST ONE EXAMPLE WHICH COMES TO MIND IS THE MILLIONS OF CHECKS\nSOCIAL SECURITY RECIPIENTS GET EACH MONTH. THOSE CHECKS SIMPLY\nWOULDN'T ARRIVE AS FAST OR AS ACCURATELY WITH MANUAL PROCESSING,\nFURTHERMORE, AS REGARDS OUR TOPIC OF PRIVACY, THE ADVENT OF THE\nCOMPUTER HAS DONE A GREAT DEAL TO PROTECT AN INDIVIDUAL'S PRIVACY\n--AS I HOPE TO DEMONSTRATE A LITTLE LATER IN THIS TALK.\nWHILE I HAVE NO OBJECTION WITH THE PRESS OR ELECTED OFFICIALS\nINVESTIGATING THE POTENTIAL FOR MISUSE OF ANY SYSTEM CONTAINING\nINFORMATION ON OUR CITIZENS, I AM VERY CONCERNED THAT AS REAL\nCULPRITS ARE IDENTIFIED THE CENSUS BUREAU WILL BE TARRED WITH\nTHE SAME BRUSH. YET, NO REAL INVESTIGATION OF BUREAU PROCEDURES\nAND ITS STANDARDS OF PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY, AS WELL AS AN\nASSESSMENT OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SOCIETAL NEED THAT THE BUREAU'S\nPRODUCTS FILL, APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE VERY\nINDIVIDUAL'S WHO ARE MOST CONCERNED WITH THESE MATTERS. A LOT\nOF PEOPLE ARE JUST UNAWARE THAT THE CENSUS BUREAU IS THE ONLY\nGOVERNMENT OR PRIVATE AGENCY THAT COLLECTS DATA ON EVERY HOUSEHOLD\nIN AMERICA. NOR, DOES THE PUBLIC AT LARGE HAVE ANY GOOD IDEA OF\nEXACTLY WHAT THE BUREAU DOES TO INSURE EACH CITIZEN'S PRIVACY\nAND THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF THE INFORMATION WHICH EACH PERSON\nPROVIDES.\nFORD\n-11-\nSCHALD\nLIDERRY\n-12-\nBECAUSE OF THE CONCERNS I'VE EXPRESSED, I WOULD LIKE\nTO REVIEW FOR YOU HOW THE BUREAU LOOKS ON THE PRIVACY OF THE\nCITIZENS FROM WHOM IT COLLECTS DATA, AND ITS POSITION AS REGARDS\nTHE CONFIDENTIALITY OF THE INFORMATION IT COLLECTS.\nWE AT THE CENSUS BUREAU BELIEVE OUR MISSION IS TO GATHER\nACCURATE, TIMELY AND COMPLETE DATA FROM INDIVIDUALS, BUSINESSES,\nAND GOVERNMENTS, WHILE MAKING THE MINIMUM INTRUSION INTO THEIR\nPRIVACY, AND TO MAKE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC AT LARGE GENERAL\nANONYMOUS STATISTICAL SUMMARIES OF THAT DATA, SPECIFICALLY\nDESIGNED TO RESPECT THE CONFIDENTIALITY PROMISED EACH RESPONDENT,\nFIRST OFF, WE SHOULD ADDRESS THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT\nWE NEED A CENSUS BUREAU AT ALL, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THE BUREAU\nCLOSED DOWN OR GREATLY RESTRICTED ITS COLLECTION OF DATA? WITHOUT\nCENSUS STATISTICS MUCH OF THE PLANNING IN THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE\nSECTORS WOULD HAVE TO BE BASED ON GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS WHICH COULD\nNOT BE VERIFIED.\nYou MAY BE ASKING YOURSELF WHAT SORT OF USES ARE CENSUS\nSTATISTICS PUT To? SOME OF THE FIGURES WHICH THE BUREAU GENERATES\nINCLUDE THOSE USED TO DETERMINE THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE, THE\nALLOCATION OF FUNDS FOR FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING, THE GROSS NATIONAL\nPRODUCT, CHARACTERISTICS CONCERNING THE LOW INCOME POPULATION,\nCHARACTERISTICS OF MINORITIES WITHIN OUR COUNTRY -- INCLUDING\nON-GOING FIGURES ON BIRTH, EDUCATION AND UNEMPLOYMENT AMONG\nTHESE SUB GROUPS -- PROJECTIONS OF POPULATION, BIRTH EXPECTATIONS,\nCHANGING AGE PATTERNS OF THE POPULATION, THE BALANCE OF U.S.\nIMPORTS AND EXPORTS, AND CRIME VICTIMIZATION CHARACTERISTICS\nR.\nCLUB\nFORD\n-12-\nLIBRANY\n-13-\nBY SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS -- TO NAME BUT A FEW. I SHOULD ADD\nTHAT ALL THESE EXAMPLES DO NOT INCLUDE THE MANY USES TO WHICH\nTHE DECENNIAL CENSUS IS PUT.\nMy EXAMPLES ARE INTENDED TO ADD EMPHASIS TO THE STATEMENT\nTHAT WITHOUT ACCURATE AND TIMELY CENSUS STATISTICS DECISION-\nMAKING BOTH INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE GOVERNMENT WOULD BE\nHANDICAPPED AT ALL LEVELS.\nIT IS PROBABLY OBVIOUS TO YOU, AND I WOULD BE LESS THAN\nCANDID, IF I DID NOT SAY, THAT THERE IS AN INHERENT CONFLICT\nIN GATHERING DATA FROM INDIVIDUALS. THAT CONFLICT IS BETWEEN\nTHE AMOUNT OF PRIVILEGE SOCIETY IS WILLING TO ACCORD THE\nINDIVIDUAL IN ALLOWING HIM TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT TO DISCLOSE\nINFORMATION ABOUT HIMSELF, AND THE SOCIETY S USE OF MANDATORY\nPROCESSES TO OBTAIN THE INFORMATION IT NEEDS FOR VALID PURPOSES.\nI HAVE NOT TALKED ABOUT THE INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT TO BE LEFT\nALONE, BECAUSE I AM NOT SURE THAT IN ISOLATION SUCH A RIGHT\nEXISTS. WHEN MEN CHOOSE TO LIVE IN A GROUP, CLAN, OR SOCIETY,\nTHEIR VERY PRESENCE IMPLIES A CERTAIN OBLIGATION TO THAT GROUP,\nIF AN INDIVIDUAL OBTAINS BENEFITS FROM A GROUP LIVING SITUATION\nTHERE IS LITTLE DOUBT THAT HE WILL BE EXPECTED TO MAKE A\nCONTRIBUTION TO THE ADVANCEMENT OR CONTINUATION OF THAT GROUP.\nFEW GROUPS EXCEPT THE MOST PRIMITIVE TRIBES CAN BE IDENTIFIED\nWHERE AN INDIVIDUAL IS ALLOWED TO REAP THE BENEFITS OF SOCIETY\nAND YET DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE, IN SOME WAY--EVEN IF THE CONTRIBUTION\nIS NOT MEASUREABLE. A CASE IN POINT IS THE SERVICE AND RESPECT\nACCORDED AN AGING TRIBAL MEMBER WHICH IN RETURN RESULTS IN\nACRD\n-13-\nLIBRARI\n-14-\nTRIBAL UNITY, AND A FEELING THAT WHEN ONE IS IN THAT PERSON'S\nSHOES THE TIME HONORED PROTECTIONS WILL CONTINUE.\nTHE OBLIGATIONS OF DWELLING IN A HIGHLY COMPLEX INDUSTRIAL\nCIVILIZATION ARE PERHAPS EVEN GREATER THAN ANY THAT HAVE BEEN\nLAID UPON THE INDIVIDUAL IN RECORDED HISTORY, EACH MAN, WOMAN\nAND CHILD IN OUR SOCIETY REAPS BENEFITS AS WIDE RANGING AS\nSECURITY OF THEIR DWELLINGS, TO PRODUCT CHOICE, OR A HIGH\nQUALITY OF MEDICAL CARE, EACH OF THESE EXAMPLES IS RELATIVE,\nVARYING FROM PLACE TO PLACE AND WITHIN THE SUB-GROUPS OF OUR\nSOCIETY. YET, THERE IS LITTLE DOUBT THAT THE INDIVIDUAL AS A\nSINGLE HUMAN UNIT DERIVES BENEFITS FROM DWELLING AMONG HIS FELLOW\nMEN,\nFOR INSTANCE, NO ONE FORCES A PERSON TO APPLY FOR A DRIVER'S\nLICENSE, TO REGISTER TO VOTE, TO OBTAIN A PASSPORT, OR TO PRACTICE\nA LICENSED PROFESSION. BUT IF A PERSON WANTS TO DO ANY OF THESE\nTHINGS HE OR SHE MUST PROVIDE CERTAIN INFORMATION THAT SOCIETY\nHAS DEEMED NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH QUALIFICATIONS. THESE ARE\nBASIC STEPS OF ORDER THAT SOCIETY TAKES TO PROTECT ITSELF.\nWHAT THEN, SHOULD BE THE PRICE CHARGED AN INDIVIDUAL FOR\nTHE SERVICES AND BENEFITS, BOTH REALIZED, AND POTENTIAL, THAT HE-\nRECEIVES? I WOULD SUGGEST THAT A BROAD DEFINITION WOULD REQUIRE\nTHAT EACH PERSON COOPERATE AS MUCH WITH THOSE PERSONS WHO\nREPRESENT THE INSTITUTIONS OF A SOCIETY AS IS NECESSARY FOR THE\nSMOOTH FUNCTIONING OF THE SOCIETY, THAT SOCIETY IN RETURN\nMEET MOST OF ITS RESPONSIBILITIES TO THE INDIVIDUAL'S NEEDS,\nMOST OF THE TIME. To DO THIS, THOSE OFFICIALS AND DECISION\nMAKERS WHO ARE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ORDERED RUNNING OF THE\n-14-\n-15-\nSOCIO-ECONOMIC CONGLOMERATION WE CALL THE \"STATE\" MUST HAVE\nACCURATE INFORMATION. THEY MUST GET THIS INFORMATION FROM\nTHE INDIVIDUALS THAT CONSTITUTE THE SOCIETY IN ORDER TO\nDETERMINE AND EVALUATE BOTH NEEDS, DEMANDS, TRENDS, AND A\nVARIETY OF INFORMATION THAT IS INDISPENSIBLE TO THE INTELLIGENT\nRUNNING OF SUCH A SYSTEM.\nBASIC TO THIS DISCUSSION THEN, IS THE QUESTION -- WHAT\nIS THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY? Is THAT RIGHT SOMETHING THAT CAN\nBE BRUSHED ASIDE ANYTIME THAT A GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION\nBELIEVES IT NEEDS A NEW BRAND OF INFORMATION TO ASSIST IN A\nPLAN TO HELP INDIVIDUALS? THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY IS INDEED A\nVERY EASY TERM TO EVOKE, BUT A VERY DIFFICULT ONE TO DEFINE.\nAMERICAN LEGAL AND ACADEMIC SCHOLARS HAVE WRESTLED WITH\nTHE PROBLEM OF PRIVACY EVER SINCE 1890 WHEN SAMUEL WARREN AND,\nTHE LATER TO BE, MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS, PUBLISHED IN THE \"HARVARD\nLAW REVIEW\" THEIR FAMOUS ARTICLE ENTITLED \"THE RIGHT To PRIVACY\",\nWHICH THEY DEFINED AS A RIGHT TO BE LET ALONE,\nTODAY, SEVERAL WEST EUROPEAN NATIONS HAVE COMMISSIONS AT\nWORK THAT ARE REVIEWING THE PRIVACY SAFEGUARDS THAT PRESENTLY\nEXIST, AND THAT SHOULD BE BROUGHT INTO EXISTENCE, IN ORDER TO\nSAFEGUARD THE INDIVIDUAL'S DESIRE, AND NEED, TO BE LEFT ALONE.\nI HAVE ALREADY MENTIONED PROPOSED AMERICAN LEGISLATION INTENDED\nTO DEAL WITH THIS MATTER -- THE SWEDISH LEGISLATURE HAS RECENTLY\nBROUGHT INTO BEING A \"DATA AcT\" DESIGNED TO COPE WITH PROBLEMS\nOF INDIVIDUAL PRIVACY, AND SOME GERMAN STATES HAVE FOR SEVERAL\nYEARS HAD A DATA PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY OMBUDSMAN WHOSE\nFORD\n-15-\n-16-\nTASK HAS BEEN TO ACT AS AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATORY ARM,\nREPORTING TO THE ELECTED OFFICIALS ON PROBLEMS OF INDIVIDUAL\nDATA PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY.\nWARREN AND BRANDEIS DEVELOPED THEIR QUASI-LEGAL DEFINITION\nOF PRIVACY BY VIEWING IT AS A \"RIGHT\" BASICALLY TO BE SECURE\nFROM UNDUE INTERFERENCE WITH ONE'S PERSON, PAPERS, PROPERTY,\nOR THOUGHTS, AND TRACED THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS RIGHT THROUGH\nTHE HISTORY OF THE COMMON LAW.\nMORE RECENTLY, GERMAN PSYCHOLOGISTS HAVE ATTEMPTED TO\nDEFINE PRIVACY AS THOSE AREAS OF INDIVIDUAL'S LIVES IN WHICH\nTHEY CAN ACT WITHOUT HAVING TO FEAR THAT INFORMATION MAY BE\nPASSED ON IN A WAY DISFUNCTIONAL TO THEMSELVES, THUS, MULLER\nAND KUHLMANN HAVE ADDED TO THE CONCEPT OF THE RIGHT TO BE LET\nALONE, THE IDEA OF SELECTIVE TRANSMISSION OF INFORMATION, BE IT\nTO FAMILY, FRIENDS, ONE'S DOCTOR, OR A GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION.\nTHEY VIEW PRIVACY IN THE MODERN SENSE, AS INCLUDING THE SELECTIVE\nTRANSMISSION OF INFORMATION ABOUT ONÉ'S SELF.\nFOR THE PURPOSES OF OUR DISCUSSION THIS AFTERNOON LET'S ACCEPT\nTHE NOTION THAT THE WORD PRIVACY REFERS TO A SPHERE IN WHICH THE\nINDIVIDUAL IS ABLE TO DECIDE WHAT WILL AND WHAT WILL NOT BE\nTRANSMITTED TO OTHERS, AND THAT IN ADDITION THIS SPHERE ALSO\nINCLUDES CERTAIN CONFIDENTIAL RELATIONSHIPS WHERE THE INDIVIDUAL\nBELIEVES THAT INFORMATION TRANSMITTED EITHER BY CHOICE OR\nCOMPULSION WILL GO NO FURTHER THAN THE PARTIES TO THAT RELATION,\nAND WILL ONLY BE USED FOR THE PURPOSES THAT WERE IDENTIFIED AT\nTHE TIME THE INFORMATION WAS IMPARTED, GIVEN THIS NOTION WE CAN SEE THAT TH\n-16-\nCENALD\n-17-\nTERM \"PRIVACY\" DOES NOT MEAN A SACROSANCT AREA WHERE NO\nQUESTIONS CAN BE ASKED; AS THAT IS ONLY PART OF THE DEFINITION.\nON TOP OF THAT WE HAVE A LARGER AREA WHERE QUESTIONS MAY BE\nASKED ON A VOLUNTARY OR MANDATORY BASIS, BUT THE INDIVIDUAL\nUNDERSTANDS AND IS ABLE TO BELIEVE THAT THE ANSWERS HE GIVES\nWILL NOT BE USED FOR OTHER THAN WHAT HE HAS BEEN TOLD OR\nPERCEIVES.\nTHIS \"SECURITY\" OF BELIEF, ON THE PART OF EACH INDIVIDUAL,\nWHEN COUPLED WITH THE PROMISE OF THE RECEIVER, STATED OR IMPLIED,\nTHAT INFORMATION WILL ONLY BE USED IN SPECIFIED WAYS, CREATES\nA BOND BETWEEN THE GIVER AND RECEIVER WHICH I WOULD CALL A\n\"CONFIDENTIAL RELATIONSHIP\". To ME, CONFIDENTIALITY MUST BE\nCONSIDERED WHEN ANYONE ATTEMPTS TO ASSESS OR BALANCE INDIVIDUAL\nPRIVACY AND SOCIETY'S NEED TO KNOW. BUT, WHAT EXACTLY ARE\nCONFIDENTIAL RELATIONSHIPS?\nTHE MOST REVERAND MARK J. HURLEY, WRITING FOR THE KNIGHTS\nOF COLUMBUS, DEFINED CONFIDENTIALITY AS SECRETS--TWO TYPES OF\nWHICH ARE THE \"PROMISED SECRET\" AND THE \"COMMITTED SECRET.\"\nTHE COMMITTED SECRET IS ONE KEPT BY REASON OF A TACIT\nAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT THE INFORMATION WILL NOT BE\nDIVULGED. EXAMPLES WOULD BE SECRETS BETWEEN LAWYER AND CLIENT,\nDOCTOR AND PATIENT, COUNSELOR AND COUNSEL.\nTHE PROMISED SECRET IS ONE KEPT BY VIRTURE OF A PROMISE\nMADE PRIOR TO LEARNING THE SECRET. SUCH A PROMISE MIGHT BE OUR\nBUREAU'S PLEDGE THAT RESPONSES TO CENSUS QUESTIONNAIRES WILL BE\nSEEN ONLY BY SWORN EMPLOYEES OF THE BUREAU. OR THE PRESIDENTIAL\n-17-\nGRAAIS\nLIBRETY\n-18-\nPROCLAMATIONS DEFINING THE NATURE OF THE CENSUS REQUEST AND\nSTATING THE SORT OF ACTIVITIES THAT INFORMATION GAINED FROM\nINDIVIDUALS WILL NOT BE USED FOR,\nTHE SORT OF CONFIDENTIALITY WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WHEN WE\nSAY CENSUS CONFIDENTIALITY RELATES TO INDIVIDUAL INFORMATION\nIN THE HANDS OF INSTITUTIONS. AND HERE, IT IS IMPORTANT TO\nREINFORCE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN PERSONAL INFORMATION GATHERED\nFOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS OPPOSED TO THAT COLLECTED FOR\nADMINISTRATIVE TASKS, THE INFORMATION COULD BE THE SAME IN\nBOTH CASES, BUT ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS ARE INTENDED TO AFFECT\nTHE INDIVIDUAL DIRECTLY, FOR INSTANCE THOSE USED BY THE INTERNAL\nREVENUE SERVICE OR THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM. STATISTICAL\nRECORDS--SUCH AS THOSE MAINTAINED BY THE CENSUS BUREAU DO NOT\nDIRECTLY AFFECT INDIVIDUAL LIVES ON A ONE TO ONE BASIS.\nALL THAT I'VE REALLY BEEN TRYING TO POINT OUT IS THAT\n\"PRIVACY\" DOESN'T EXIST IN AN ABSOLUTE SENSE ANYMORE THAN\nFREEDOM DOES, THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT OUR CONSTITUTION IS LESS\nTHAN SPECIFIC ABOUT ALL THE ASPECTS OF INDIVIDUAL PRIVACY AND\nYET OUR JUSTICES HAVE BEEN ABLE TO FIND IN THE FIRST TEN\nAMENDMENTS SEVERAL REFERENCES TO THE SUBJECT THAT SERVE AS\nGUIDEPOSTS FOR DEALING WITH SPECIFIC CASES THAT COULD NOT HAVE\nBEEN CONTEMPLATED BY THE ORIGINAL DRAFTERS,\nAs OUR SUPREME COURT IS CALLED UPON TO ADJUDICATE\nCONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY --\nTHAT RIGHT MAY BE FURTHER EXPANDED AND BETTER DEFINED -- BUT WE\nMUST REMEMBER THAT PRIVACY, AS FREEDOM, HAS MEANING ONLY IN THE\n-18-\nCERALD\n-19-\nCONTEXT OF HUMAN SOCIETY, AND OUR SOCIETY IS RAPIDLY CHANGING,\nWHILE AT THE SAME TIME OTHER INDUSTRIAL SOCIETIES MAY HAVE VERY DIFFERENT\nIDEAS ABOUT WHAT SHOULD BE THE LIMITS OF INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM\nAND PRIVACY. As AMERICAN SOCIETY BECOMES MORE COMPLEX, WE\nNEED TO KNOW MORE ABOUT OURSELVES IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH\nPRIORITIES AND PROPERLY ALLOCATE OUR HUMAN, FINANCIAL AND\nNATURAL RESOURCES,\nALL OF THIS MERELY REPRESENTS OUR PHILOSOPHICAL APPROACH\nTO MATTERS OF INDIVIDUAL PRIVACY AND RESPONDENT-BUREAU\nCONFIDENTIALITY. BUT, NONE OF THIS GOES VERY FAR TO SHOWING\nYOU HOW THE BUREAU FACES THE TOUGH \"REAL WORLD\" DECISIONS\nTHAT ARE CONSTANTLY CONFRONTING IT.\nFOR EXAMPLE, IN THE RURAL STYLE OF LIFE THAT EXISTED IN\n1790, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HARD TO JUSTIFY THE GOVERNMENT'S\nINTEREST IN WHETHER OR NOT A HOUSEHOLD HAD ITS OWN BATHROOM\nFACILITIES.\nBUT, TODAY WITH SOCIETY'S COMMITMENT TO ELIMINATE SLUMS\nAND SUB-STANDARD HOUSING, INFORMATION AS TO SANITARY FACILITIES\nIS NEEDED TO ACCURATELY PINPOINT THE NUMBER AND GENERAL LOCATION\nOF SUCH HOUSING SQ THAT THE TAXPAYERS' DOLLAR IS SPENT WISELY\nAND NOT TOSSED AWAY ON GUESSWORK.\nI'VE CITED TO YOU THE QUESTION ABOUT PLUMBING BECAUSE IT\nIS ONE OF THE MANY WELL PUBLICIZED EXAMPLES THAT CRITICS OF THE\nBUREAU USE TO SHOW, HOW MEANINGLESS OR SILLY, AND, HOW VERY\nPERSONAL AND UNNECESSARY OUR QUESTIONS ARE.\n-19-\nCERALD\n-20-\nTo CLAIM THAT THIS CENSUS QUESTION NOW CONSTITUTES A\nVIOLATION OF AN INDIVIDUAL'S PRIVACY STRIKES ME AS A REBIRTH\nOF THE KNOW - NOTHING PHILOSOPHY OF THE 19TH CENTURY. PUT\nANOTHER WAY IT IS AN ARGUMENT THAT THE INTERESTS OF THE\nINDIVIDUAL IN BEING ABLE TO REFUSE TO ANSWER SUCH A QUESTION\nTRANSCENDS THE INTEREST OF THE SOCIETY, AND HAVE PRIORITY\nOVER PUBLIC EFFORTS TO ELIMINATE SLUMS AND ACCURATE RESOURCE\nALLOCATION.\nBUT THE QUESTION OF A HOUSEHOLD'S PLUMBING IS NOT THE\nONLY EXAMPLE.\nI DON'T NEED TO TELL THIS AUDIENCE THAT THE SALARIES AND\nPENSIONS OF MILLIONS OF AMERICANS ARE TIED TO VARIATIONS IN\nTHE COST OF LIVING, WHICH IS GAUGED BY THE CONSUMER PRICE\nINDEX. HOWEVER, RECENTLY, APPEARING BEFORE A COMMITTEE OF\nTHE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, I WAS QUESTIONED INTENSELY ABOUT\nTHE CENSUS QUESTIONNAIRE WHICH FORMS PART OF THE CONSUMER\nEXPENDITURE SURVEY, WHICH IS THE BASIS FOR THE CONSUMER PRICE\nINDEX.\nTHE FORM WHICH DREW THE COMMITTEE'S QUESTIONS IS A LONG\nONE, IT WAS USED TO RECORD OVER A PERIOD OF FIVE QUARTERS THE\nDETAILS OF A HOUSEHOLD'S SPENDING.\nONE COMMITTEE MEMBER WANTED TO KNOW WHY THE ENTRY \"HAIR\nAND SCALP CARE FOR MEN AND BOYS\" WAS IMPORTANT. OUT OF CONTEXT,\nI ADMIT IT SOUNDS LUDICROUS, BUT AS ONE COMPONENT OF A FAMILY'S\nTOTAL SPENDING RECORD, IT IS IMPORTANT. AND REMEMBER, THOSE\nINDIVIDUALS WHOSE INCOME IS TIED TO THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX ALSO\nSPEND MONEY ON \"HAIR AND SCALP CARE FOR MEN AND BOYS.\"\n-20-\nCERALD\n-21-\nTHE CONSUMER EXPENDITURE SURVEY WAS TAKEN OF A\nSCIENTIFICALLY SELECTED SAMPLE YIELDING 17,000 HOUSEHOLD\nINTERVIEWS. As WITH ALL THE BUREAU'S CURRENT HOUSEHOLD SURVEYS,\nPARTICIPATION WAS VOLUNTARY, I SHOULD ADD THAT DESPITE THE\nFACT THAT THE SURVEY WAS VERY LENGTHY AND REQUIRED THAT THE\nINTERVIEWER VISIT THE RESPONDENT SEVERAL TIMES OVER A TWO\nYEAR PERIOD THE BUREAU OBTAINED APPROXIMATELY A 90% RESPONSE\nRATE -- THIS VERY HIGH RATE INDICATES AN EXCELLENT DEGREE OF\nCOOPERATION ON THE PART OF THE PUBLIC AT LARGE, AND, THE\nANSWERS OF EACH FAMILY ARE VERY IMPORTANT, SINCE THE 17,000\nHOUSEHOLDS REPRESENT THE ENTIRE CIVILIAN NON-INSTITUTIONAL\nPOPULATION OF THE UNITED STATES.\nAs LONG AS RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT LEADERS DETERMINE THAT\nA DETAILED PICTURE OF HOW FAMILIES SPEND THEIR MONEY IS\nESSENTIAL, THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO OBTAIN IT THAN TO ASK\nSUCH DETAILED QUESTIONS.\nANOTHER EXAMPLE IS THE CENSUS QUESTION ABOUT HOW A PERSON\nGETS TO WORK. IN 1970, SOME PEOPLE FELT THIS WAS NONE OF THE\nGOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS, BUT WHEN THE ENERGY CRISIS HIT WITH\nFULL FORCE, THE ONLY COMPLETE STATISTICS ABOUT THE NATION'S\nCOMMUTING HABITS CAME FROM SUMMARIES OF EACH PERSON'S ANSWER\nTO THAT QUESTION.\nTHE BUREAU WAS ABLE TO RESPOND WITH STATISTICS ABOUT THE\nNUMBER OF DRIVERS AND PASSENGERS FOR EACH METROPOLITAN AREA---\nFIGURES WHICH SHOWED THAT A TOTAL OF 26 MILLION PERSONS DROVE\nTO WORK ALONE EACH DAY,\n-21-\nFend\n-22-\nTAKING A QUESTION OUT OF CONTEXT TO IMPLY INVASION OF\nPERSONAL PRIVACY IS THE MOST PERSISTENT TECHNIQUE USED TO\nCRITICIZE THE BUREAU, AND IS THE MOST INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST.\nSo, I'VE GIVEN YOU A FEW EXAMPLES OF QUESTIONS THAT SOME\nPEOPLE FEEL SHOULD NOT BE ASKED BECAUSE THEY ARE BELIEVED TO\nBE AN UNNECESSARY INVASION OF AN INDIVIDUAL'S PRIVATE SPHERE\nAND I'VE TRIED -- BRIEFLY -- TO EXPLAIN WHY THEY ARE RELEVANT\nAND NECESSARY QUESTIONS.\nI THINK THAT SENATOR SAM ERVIN IN HIS ROLE AS CHAIRMAN OF\nTHE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS SUMMED THE PROBLEM\nUP WELL WHEN HE SAID:\n\"SOMEWHERE A BALANCE MUST BE STRUCK BETWEEN THE INDIVIDUAL'S\nDESIRE TO KEEP SILENT AND THE GOVERNMENT'S NEEDS FOR INFORMATION.\nIF IT IS PROVED NECESSARY TO INVADE CERTAIN RIGHTS, CLEARLY IT\nIS THE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY OF CONGRESS TO ESTABLISH PRECISELY\nHOW AND UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES THIS MAY BE DONE.\"\nCONGRESS HAS BEEN DOING EXACTLY THAT FOR ALMOST A CENTURY.\nSINCE THE ACT WHICH PROVIDED FOR THE 1880 CENSUS, THE LAWS\nPROTECTING THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF THE INFORMATION GIVEN IN\nRESPONSE TO CENSUS QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN PROGRESSIVELY TIGHTENED.\nWHILE AT THE SAME TIME WHAT THE BUREAU CAN COLLECT HAS BEEN\nDEFINED AS WELL.\nTHIS WAS NOT ALWAYS THE CASE, To BEGIN WITH, UNTIL THIS\nCENTURY THERE WAS NO PERMANENT CENSUS ORGANIZATION. FEDERAL\nMARSHALS SUPERVISED THE ENUMERATION FROM THE FIRST CENSUS IN\n1790 THROUGH THE COUNT OF 1870. IN FACT, THE RULES FOR THE FIRST\nFIVE CENSUSES REQUIRED THAT THE MARSHALS POST COPIES OF THE LIST\nLIBRARY\nOF NAMES GATHERED IN TWO PUBLIC PLACES IN THEIR DISTRICTS.\n-22-\n-23-\nBETWEEN 1840 AND 1870 THERE WERE NO LEGAL RESTRICTIONS,\nBUT CENSUS TAKERS IN THE FIELD WERE INSTRUCTED TO TREAT ALL\nINFORMATION THEY GATHERED AS STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL.\nI DON'T KNOW IF THE URGE TO GOSSIP WAS STRONGER THAN\nTHOSE INSTRUCTIONS, BUT BEGINNING IN 1880 THE LAW REQUIRED\nALL ENUMERATORS TO TAKE AN OATH NOT TO DISCLOSE ANY PERSONAL\nINFORMATION. ODDLY, THIS REQUIREMENT DID NOT EXTEND TO THEIR\nSUPERVISORS,\nTHAT LOOPHOLE WAS CLOSED FOR 1900 WHEN ALL CENSUS\nEMPLOYEES WERE MADE SUBJECT TO A 500 DOLLAR FINE FOR VIOLATION\nOF THEIR OATH.\nIN 1902, THE PERMANENT CENSUS BUREAU WAS ESTABLISHED. IT\nHAD BECOME APPARENT THAT THE NEED FOR STATISTICS WAS A CONTINUING\nONE AND THAT THE SIZE OF THE JOB WAS SUCH THAT A FULL TIME\nTRAINED STAFF WAS MUCH MORE EFFICIENT THAN SETTING UP AND\nDISBANDING A NEW ORGANIZATION EVERY DECADE.\nUp UNTIL 1910, CENSUS LAW REQUIRED THE DIRECTOR TO FURNISH\nON DEMAND TO GOVERNORS OR HEADS OF MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS CERTAIN\nPARTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL'S RETURN THE NAME, AGE, SEX, BIRTH PLACE,\nAND RACE,\nTHE ACT FOR THE 1910 CENSUS CHANGED THAT WORDING TO READ\nTHAT THE DIRECTOR COULD AT HIS DISCRETION FURNISH INFORMATION\nFOR GENEALOGICAL AND OTHER PROPER PURPOSES.\nFOR THE BUREAU, 1910 ALSO MARKED THE START OF ANOTHER\nTRADITION THE PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION. THE ONE ISSUED BY\nPRESIDENT TAFT TOLD THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THEIR REPLIES TO CENSUS\nQUESTIONS WERE TO BE USED ONLY TO COMPILE GENERAL STATISTICAL\n-23-\n-24-\nINFORMATION, AND THAT THEIR ANSWERS WERE PROTECTED BY LAW.\nIN PART, IT READ: \"THE CENSUS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TAXATION,\nWITH ARMY OR JURY SERVICE\nOR WITH THE ENFORCEMENT OF ANY\nNATIONAL, STATE, OR LOCAL LAW OR ORDINANCE, NOR CAN ANY PERSON\nBE HARMED IN ANY WAY BY FURNISHING THE INFORMATION REQUIRED.\"\nTHE CURRENT LAW UNDER WHICH THE CENSUS BUREAU OPERATES IS\nTITLE 13 OF THE U.S. CODE, MOST OF WHICH DATES FROM 1929. THIS\nLAW IS VERY SPECIFIC WHEN IT COMES TO PERSONAL INFORMATION. IT\nREQUIRES THAT INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM AN INDIVIDUAL BE USED\nONLY FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. IT ALSO REQUIRES THAT PUBLISHED\nDATA BE IN SUCH A FORM THAT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO IDENTIFY AN\nINDIVIDUAL OR A SINGLE BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENT. THE LAW STIPULATES\nTHAT NO ONE OTHER THAN SWORN OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES MAY HAVE\nACCESS TO INDIVIDUAL INFORMATION, AND EACH CENSUS EMPLOYEE HAS\nSIGNED AN AFFIDAVIT OF NONDISCLOSURE TO UPHOLD THE LAW.\nTHE CURRENT LAW STILL HAS WORDING MUCH LIKE THAT OF 1910,\nWHICH ALLOWS THE DIRECTOR AT HIS DISCRETION TO PROVIDE COPIES\nOF INDIVIDUAL INFORMATION FOR GENEALOGICAL AND OTHER PROPER\nPURPOSES. THE KEY WORD HERE IS \"DISCRETION.\" OVER THE YEARS,\nTHE APPLICATION OF THIS RULE HAS BECOME RESTRICTIVE RATHER\nTHAN PERMISSIVE.\nIN CURRENT BUREAU PRACTICE, THE TERM \"CONFIDENTIALITY\"\nREPRESENTS NOTHING LESS THAN A CLEAR EXTENSION OF AN INDIVIDUAL'S\nRIGHT TO PRIVACY. I THINK THE BEST WAY OF SHOWING THIS IS TO\nREVIEW THE BUREAU'S TRACK RECORD REGARDING THE CONFIDENTIALITY\nOF INDIVIDUAL DATA.\n-24-\n-25-\nUNTIL RECENTLY, MOST OF THE BUREAU STAFF ASSUMED THAT\nINDIVIDUAL INFORMATION COLLECTED HAD ALWAYS BEEN HELD IN\nSTRICTEST CONFIDENCE. I MUST REPORT THAT THIS HAS NOT ALWAYS\nBEEN THE CASE, BUT LOOKING AT THE WAY WE DID THINGS IN THE\nPAST, AND COMPARING THEM WITH TODAY'S PRACTICES, MAKES ME EVEN\nMORE CERTAIN THAT OUR CURRENT POSITION IS A VERY STRONG ONE.\nBETWEEN 1900 AND THE MID-1920's, THERE WERE AUTHORIZED\nRELEASES OF INDIVIDUAL DATA WHICH WERE AT THE TIME CONSIDERED\nPROPER, THAT TODAY WOULD CAUSE A STORM OF PROTEST IN THE PRESS,\nIN THE COURTS, AND IN CONGRESS. As FAR AS WE KNOW THIS PRACTICE\nCAUSED NO SUCH OUTCRY THEN. I SAY AS FAR AS WE KNOW BECAUSE\nCOMPLETE RECORDS DO NOT EXIST.\nWE DO HAVE SOME INFORMATION ON ONE CASE WHICH DEMONSTRATES\nTHE TYPE OF SITUATION IN WHICH IT WAS CONSIDERED PROPER IN THE\nPAST TO RELEASE DATA ABOUT INDIVIDUALS. THIS RELEASE OCCURRED\nIN 1918, DURING WORLD WAR ONE. CONGRESS HAD PASSED A WAR POWERS\nAcT, AND PRESUMABLY THIS WAS THE BASIS FOR SUCH AN EXTREME USE\nOF CENSUS DATA. INFORMATION ABOUT INDIVIDUALS WAS GIVEN TO THE\nDEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR USE AS EVIDENCE IN PROSECUTING YOUNG\nMEN WHO CLAIMED THEY WERE TOO YOUNG TO REGISTER FOR THE DRAFT,\nWHILE WE DO NOT KNOW THE EXACT CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE\nRELEASE, WE DO KNOW THAT PERSONAL INFORMATION FOR AT LEAST\nSEVERAL HUNDRED YOUNG MEN WAS RELEASED TO COURTS, DRAFT BOARDS,\nAND THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT.\nTHE BUREAU STOPPED SUCH RELEASES DURING THE 1920's, A\nPOSITION WHICH WAS MADE OFFICIAL IN 1930 BY AN OPINION FROM\nTHE ATTORNEY GENERAL, HIS OPINION SAID THAT EVEN THE NAME AND\nADDRESS OF AN INDIVIDUAL WAS CONFIDENTIAL.\nLIBRARY\n-25-\n-26-\nAT ABOUT THIS SAME TIME, THE SECRETARY OF STATE ASKED\nFOR DATA ABOUT INDIVIDUAL FARMS IN STEVENS COUNTY, WASHINGTON.\nCLOUDS OF SULPHUR DIOXIDE FROM A SMELTER LOCATED ACROSS THE\nBORDER IN CANADA HAD CAUSED EXTENSIVE DAMAGE TO CROPS IN THE\nUNITED STATES, AND THE MATTER HAD BEEN HANDED OVER TO AN\nINTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL. THE CENSUS BUREAU REFUSED TO RELEASE\nTHE INFORMATION, AND THE TRIBUNAL DECIDED NOT TO PRESS THE\nPOINT, EVEN THOUGH IT FELT IT HAD THE NECESSARY POWER, THE\nREASON? BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE CAUSED THE UNITED STATES\nGOVERNMENT TO BREACH A PROMISE IT HAD MADE TO ITS CITIZENS AS\nWELL AS TO VIOLATE THE U.S. LAW OF CENSUS CONFIDENTIALITY.\nALTHOUGH THE CENSUS BUREAU DID PROVIDE AGGREGATED COUNTY DATA\nWHICH ALLOWED THE COURT TO AWARD DAMAGES TO THE WASHINGTON\nFARMERS.\nNow WE JUMP TO 1941. IT'S HARD TO IMAGINE NOW, BUT WITH\nWORLD WAR II UNDERWAY, THERE WAS NEAR HYSTERIA ABOUT THE\nJAPANESE-AMERICANS LIVING ON THE WEST COAST EMOTION WHICH\nLED TO ONE OF THE MOST EMBARRASSING MOMENTS IN U.S. HISTORY,\nTHE INTERNMENT OF LARGE NUMBERS OF THESE LOYAL AMERICANS. AT\nTHE HEIGHT OF THIS FEELING, THE SECRETARY. OF WAR REQUESTED\nTHAT THE CENSUS BUREAU SUPPLY THE NAMES, ADDRESSES, AND AGES\nOF ALL PERSONS OF JAPANESE EXTRACTION LIVING ON THE WEST COAST.\nTHIS TIME--IN SPITE OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY-- THE BUREAU\nHELD TO ITS POSITION ON CONFIDENTIALITY OF INDIVIDUAL RECORDS\nAND REFUSED. HOWEVER, THE BUREAU DID SUPPLY SUMMARY DATA AT\nTRACT LEVEL BUT NOT INDIVIDUAL DATA. I SHOULD ADD THAT TODAY\nTRACT LEVEL DATA IS PART OF THE REGULAR PUBLICATION PROGRAM\n-26-\nLIBRARY\n-27-\nOF THE BUREAU--BUT, AS IN 1941, NO INDIVIDUAL DISCLOSURES, EVEN BY\nINFERENCE, ARE ALLOWED.\nIN 1947, DURING THE RISING CONCERN ABOUT POSSIBLE\nCOMMUNIST INFILTRATION AND SABOTAGE, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL\nREQUESTED INFORMATION FROM CENSUS RECORDS ABOUT CERTAIN\nINDIVIDUALS FOR USE BY THE FBI. AGAIN, THE REQUEST WAS DENIED.\nA LOOPHOLE IN THE LAW TURNED UP IN A CASE IN THE EARLY\n1960's WHEN THE COURTS RULED THAT FILE COPIES OF CENSUS FORMS\nNOT KEPT BY THE BUREAU COULD BE SUBPOENAED. THIS RESULTED IN\nCONGRESS AMENDING THE LAW TO EXTEND CENSUS CONFIDENTIALITY TO\nINCLUDE EVEN COPIES OF CENSUS QUESTIONNAIRES WHICH ARE KEPT\nBY BUSINESSES FOR THEIR OWN FILES.\nTHERE'S A TECHNOLOGICAL ASPECT OF THE BUREAU'S HISTORY\nTHAT I'D LIKE TO MENTION AS WELL. HERMAN HOLLERITH, AN\nENGINEER WHO HAD WORKED AS A SPECIAL AGENT IN THE 1880 CENSUS,\nBECAME INTERESTED IN THE PROBLEM OF HOW THE VOLUMINOUS QUANTITY\nOF MATERIAL GATHERED IN THE CENSUS WAS TO BE PROCESSED. AFTER\nSOME EXPERIMENTATION HE INVENTED THE PUNCHED CARD SYSTEM FOR\nRECORDING AND TABULATING THE CENSUS RETURNS. EVEN IN ITS\nEARLIEST STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT, THE HOLLERITH SYSTEM SPEEDED\nTABULATIONS TO SUCH AN EXTENT THAT ITS MERITS WERE DEMONSTRABLE\nBEFORE THE 1890 ENUMERATION BEGAN.\nTHE ADVENT OF THIS NEW SYSTEM HAD DUAL IMPLICATIONS FOR\nTHE QUESTION OF CONFIDENTIALITY, ON THE ONE HAND, IT REMOVED\nTHE ACTUAL CENSUS RETURN ONE STEP FARTHER FROM THE FINAL\nSTATISTICAL PROCESS, ON THE OTHER HAND, IT MADE POSSIBLE THE\nLORD\nCOLLECTION OF EVEN MORE INFORMATION ON INDIVIDUALS. IT IS\nAMERICA\n-27-\n-28-\nPROBABLE THAT THE HOLLERITH SYSTEM ENHANCED THE ANONYMITY,\nAND THUS THE CONFIDENTIALITY, OF CENSUS DATA. TECHNOLOGICALLY\nIT WAS THE FORERUNNER OF MODERN COMPUTER BASED RECORD KEEPING,\nWHICH, IF USED AS AT THE BUREAU, PROVIDES CONSIDERABLE\nCONFIDENTIALITY FOR RESPONDENTS. BUT--MORE OF THIS IN A MOMENT.\nBRIEFLY, THAT IS A SUMMARY OF HOW CONFIDENTIALITY GREW\nTO BE AN INTEGRAL PART OF CENSUS TAKING. KEEPING THAT INFORMATION\nIN MIND, AND MY EARLIER REMARKS ABOUT THE GENERALIZED FEAR OF\nTHE COMPUTER LET'S LOOK AT HOW A MODERN CENSUS IS TAKEN AND\nPROCESSED.\nAs YOU KNOW, WE HAVE INCREASINGLY UTILIZED THE U.S. POSTAL\nSYSTEM. IN 1960, FORMS WERE MAILED TO EACH HOUSEHOLD, AND\nWERE PICKED UP BY ENUMERATORS, FOR 1970, THE FORMS WERE AGAIN\nMAILED TO ALL HOUSEHOLDS. BUT THOSE PEOPLE LIVING IN LARGER\nMETROPOLITAN AREAS ALSO RETURNED THEIR FORMS BY MAIL. THIS\nMEANT THAT IN ABOUT THREE-QUARTERS OF THE NATION'S HOMES,\nPERSONAL INFORMATION DID NOT HAVE TO BE GIVEN FACE-TO-FACE TO\nA NEIGHBOR OR A STRANGER, IN GREAT BRITAIN, A 1973 PARLIAMENTARY\nPAPER DEALING WITH THE SECURITY OF THE CENSUS OF POPULATION\nINDICATED THAT THE COUNCIL OF THE ROYAL STATISTICAL SOCIETY\nVIEWED THE IDEA OF HAVING TO GIVE PERSONAL INFORMTION TO SOMEONE\nWHO KNEW THE RESPONDENT, AS A PROBLEM THAT SHOULD BE DEALT WITH.\nAFTER ALL THE FORMS ARE COLLECTED THE DATA ON THEM MUST\nBE TRANSFERRED TO THE COMPUTER FOR TABULATION. IT USED TO BE\nTHAT THE DATA ON EACH FORM WAS MANUALLY TRANSFERRED TO PUNCHCARDS,\nAND THE PUNCHCARDS FED TO COMPUTER TAPE, Now, WE BYPASS THIS\n-28-\nApproin\n-29-\nLABORIOUS PROCESS. THE FORMS ARE MICROFILMED ON HIGH-SPEED\nPAGE-TURNING MACHINES AND RETURNED TO STORAGE, THIS IS THE\nLAST TIME EACH ORIGINAL FORM IS HANDLED UNTIL IT IS DESTROYED.\nTHE FIRST PAGE OF THE CENSUS FORM IS NOT MICROFILMED.\nTHIS PAGE HAS THE ADDRESS OF THE HOUSEHOLD. So THE ROLLS OF\nMICROFILM, WHICH HAVE NAMES AND PERSONAL INFORMATION, CONTAIN\nONLY A GEOGRAPHIC CODE RELATING THAT INFORMATION TO THE BLOCK\nON WHICH THE HOUSEHOLD IS LOCATED, AND THE ADDRESS REGISTER IS\nMAINTAINED IN A SEPARATE FILE.\nANOTHER SOPHISTICATED PIECE OF MACHINERY READS THE MICROFILM\nAND TRANSFERS THE DOTS, THAT ORIGINATED WITH THE CITIZEN'S\nPENCILLED-IN CIRCLES, DIRECTLY ONTO COMPUTER TAPE.\nEVEN THIS IS NOT ENOUGH TO GUARANTEE THAT A PERSON COULD\nNOT BE IDENTIFIED IN THE STATISTICAL SUMMARIES. SOME AREAS\nHAVE SUCH A SMALL POPULATION THAT IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE, BY\nDEDUCTION, TO KNOW WHOSE CHARACTERISTICS ARE IN THE TABLES.\nOUR COMPUTER PROGRAM IS SET UP TO SUPPRESS ANY CHARACTERISTICS\nTHAT WOULD ENABLE AN ANALYST TO IDENTIFY INDIVIDUALS, So, AS\nI'VE SAID A COUPLE OF TIMES ALREADY, HERE YOU CAN SEE HOW THE\nCOMPUTER IS A DIRECT ASSET TO CONTRIBUT-ING TO THE CONFIDENTIALITY\nOF THE INFORMATION COLLECTED. THE BUREAU IS ABLE TO ACCURATELY\nAND RAPIDLY PRODUCE DÉTAILED STATISTICS--THAT WOULD NOT BE\nPOSSIBLE IF THE EDITING OF POTENTIAL DISCLOSURES HAD TO BE DONE\nBY HAND.\n-29-\nFORD\nLIBRARY\n-30-\nWE ARE EXAMINING OTHER TECHNIQUES FOR PROTECTING\nCONFIDENTIALITY. THESE INCLUDE ROUNDING NUMBERS TO THE\nNEAREST 5, AND A \"RANDOM NOISE\" SYSTEM, IN WHICH VALUES OF\nONE AND NEGATIVE ONE ARE SCATTERED THROUGHOUT THE TABULATIONS,\nBALANCING TO ZERO AT CERTAIN GEOGRAPHIC LEVELS, SUCH A SYSTEM\nWOULD HAVE NO SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT ON STATISTICAL ANALYSIS.\nWHEN IT COMES TO SUPPRESSION OF DATA FROM THE ECONOMIC\nCENSUSES EVEN THE CUTOFF POINTS ARE CONFIDENTIAL--BECAUSE THAT\nINFORMATION BY ITSELF COULD BE USED FOR DEDUCATION, SINCE\nTHE NUMBERS INVOLVED ARE SO MUCH SMALLER THAN POPULATION FIGURES,\nI ALSO SHOULD MENTION HERE THE PUBLIC USE SAMPLE, WHICH\nWE ESTABLISHED IN 1960. THESE ARE NOT SUMMARIES, BUT INDIVIDUAL\nCENSUS RECORDS MINUS CERTAIN DATA WHICH ENSURE THAT THE\nINDIVIDUAL CANNOT BE IDENTIFIED. THE SMALLEST AREA IDENTIFIER\nFOR WHICH THESE RECORDS ARE AVAILABLE IS 250,000, AND EVEN\nTHEN CERTAIN DATA HAS BEEN TRUNCATED TO AVOID IDENTIFICATION,\nAN EXAMPLE WOULD BE EXTREMELY HIGH SALARY FIGURES, FOR INSTANCE\n---EVERYTHING OVER $50,000 IS SIMPLY MARKED \"$50,000 AND OVER.\"\nTHESE SAMPLES HAVE PROVEN OF GREAT. VALUE TO THE ACADEMIC\nAND BUSINESS COMMUNITIES FOR RESEARCH, AND FOR DETERMINING IF\nSPECIAL TABULATIONS WOULD PROVIDE THE SUMMARY DATA DESIRED.\nWHEN THE TABULATION OF A CENSUS IS FINISHED, THE ORIGINAL\nPAPER FORMS WHICH HAVE BEEN STORED IN GUARDED BUILDINGS ON A\nGOVERNMENT FACILITY ARE DESTROYED. THEY ARE SHIPPED IN SEALED\nBOXCARS AND RECYCLED, WITH BUREAU OFFICIALS WATCHING UNTIL THEY\nDROP INTO THE PULPING VATS.\n1080\n-30-\nGERALD\nLIBRARY\n-31-\nTHAT LEAVES THE MICROFILM. WHERE DOES IT GO AFTER WE\nARE FINISHED PROCESSING THE DATA? THE ROLLS ARE SENT TO THE\nPERSONAL CENSUS SERVICE BRANCH IN PITTSBURG, KANSAS, WHICH WE\nCOMMONLY REFER TO AS THE AGE SEARCH SERVICE. THIS IS A UNIQUE\nSELF-SUPPORTING OPERATION WHICH HAS HELPED MILLIONS OF PEOPLE.\nEVERY DAY THE BUREAU RECEIVES ABOUT 1,300 REQUESTS FROM PEOPLE\nWHO NEED TO VERIFY SOME ITEM OF INFORMATION ABOUT THEMSELVES.\nMOST ARE FOR SUBSTITUTES FOR BIRTH CERTIFICATES WHICH EITHER\nNEVER EXISTED, OR HAVE BEEN LOST OR DESTROYED. PEOPLE NEED\nTHEM TO QUALIFY FOR RETIREMENT, FOR SOCIAL SECURITY, FOR\nMEDICARE, TO GET A PASSPORT, AND MANY OTHER USES, FOR A VERY\nSMALL FEE THE AGE SEARCH SERVICE WILL SEARCH OLD CENSUS RECORDS\nAND ISSUE A CERTIFICATE WHICH HAS LEGAL STANDING,\nTHIS SERVICE IS PROVIDED ONLY AT THE REQUEST OF THE PERSON\nHIMSELF. FOR EXAMPLE, A SON CANNOT ASK ABOUT HIS FATHER UNLESS\nHE HAS A POWER OF ATTORNEY OR A DEATH CERTIFICATE. THIS\nOPERATION IS THE ONLY USE MADE-TODAY OF THE DIRECTOR'S AUTHORITY\nTO RELEASE PERSONAL INFORMATION AT HIS DISCRETION.\nFINDING INFORMATION FOR THOSE WHO REQUEST IT IS NOT AN\nEASY JOB, IT TAKES AN EXPERT TO UTILIZE THE MICROFILM. SINCE\nTHE CENSUS IS BASED ON ADDRESSES, NOT NAMES, THERE IS NO SUCH\nTHING AS A MASTER LIST OF RECORDS ARRANGED ALPHABETICALLY BY\nNAME. FOR THE CORRECT REEL OF FILM TO BE LOCATED, THE PERSON\nMAKING THE REQUEST MUST SUPPLY INFORMATION ABOUT WHERE HE LIVED.\nREMEMBER, I SAID THE MICROFILM FOR 1970 DOES NOT CONTAIN\nBOTH NAME AND ADDRESS, IN ORDER TO WORK BACKWARDS AND RELATE\nNAME WITH ADDRESS, IT IS NECESSARY TO HAVE ACCESS TO THE GEOGRAPHIC\nCODING INFORMATION ON THE FILM, AND THE MASTER LIST OF ADDRESSES,\n-31-\n-32-\nTHE VERY SIZE OF THE U.S. POPULATION HELPS TO GUARANTEE\nCONFIDENTIALITY. IT TOOK SOME 5,000 MILES OF MICROFILM TO\nPROCESS THE 1970 CENSUS. FOR US TO MAKE THIS PROCESS OF WORKING\nBACKWARD ANY EASIER WOULD BE EXTREMELY COSTLY, AND WOULD IN\nTHEORY, WEAKEN THE PROTECTION OF CONFIDENTIALITY.\nNow WHERE DOES THE MICROFILM OF PAST CENSUSES EXIST?\nTHE RECORDS OF THE COUNTS FROM 1790 THROUGH 1880 ARE ACCESSIBLE\nTO THE PUBLIC IN THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES. DATA IN THESE ENUMERATIONS\nWERE NOT GATHERED UNDER LAWS OF CONFIDENTIALITY. THE CENSUS OF\n1890 IS ALMOST NON-EXISTENT, HAVING BEEN MOSTLY DESTROYED BY FIRE.\nTHE PITTSBURG, KANSAS UNIT HAS MICROFILM FOR 1900 THROUGH\n1960, AND LATE THIS YEAR WILL HAVE THE 1970 RECORDS SET UP TO\nBE ABLE TO ANSWER THE QUERIES WHICH HAVE BEEN COMING IN. A\nCOPY OF THE 1960 AND 1970 RECORDS WILL BE HELD UNDER SECURITY\nCONDITIONS AT JEFFERSONVILLE, so THAT IF ONE COPY WERE DESTROYED\nTHE WHOLE CENSUS WOULD NOT BE LOST, HERE I MIGHT SAY THAT A\nTORNADO LIFTED ONE CORNER OF THE ROOF OF THE PITTSBURG BUILDING\nA FEW YEARS AGO,\nCOPIES OF THE 1900 THROUGH 1950 RECORDS ARE ALSO HELD BY\nTHE NATIONAL ARCHIVES. THESE WERE SENT TO THE ARCHIVES FOR\nSTORAGE. IN DECEMBER OF LAST YEAR, THE ARCHIVES OPENED THE\n1900 CENSUS TO LIMITED ACCESS BY QUALIFIED RESEARCHERS, A MOVE\nOPPOSED BY THE CENSUS BUREAU. WHILE THIS ACCESS IS UNDER\nCONTROLLED CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FEEL AT THE VERY LEAST IT VIOLATES\nIN PRINCIPLE THE RIGHTS OF THE ESTIMATED SEVEN MILLION PERSONS\nSTILL ALIVE WHO WERE COUNTED IN THE 1900 CENSUS,\nFORD\n-32-\nGERALD\n-33-\nTHE LAW UNDER WHICH THE ARCHIVES OPERATES SAYS GOVERNMENT\nRECORDS SHALL BE MADE PUBLIC AFTER 50 YEARS, UNLESS AN\nINTERAGENCY AGREEMENT STIPULATES A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME. IN\n1952, THE DIRECTOR OF THE CENSUS BUREAU AND THE ARCHIVIST\nAGREED THAT CENSUS RECORDS SHOULD REMAIN CLOSED FOR 72 YEARS\n---AN AVERAGE PERSON'S LIFETIME. THE BUREAU'S POSITION IS THAT\nTHE 1952 AGREEMENT WAS IN EXCESS OF THE DIRECTOR'S AUTHORITY,\nAND THEREFORE IS INVALID. HOWEVER, AN OPINION FROM THE JUSTICE\nDEPARTMENT DID NOT SUPPORT OUR VIEW.\nREMEMBER THAT THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE IN THE STATUS OF\nPROTECTION BETWEEN THE CENSUS OF 1900 AND THAT OF 1910. THE\n1910 COUNT WAS PRECEDED BY A PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION--A\nPROMISE FROM PRESIDENT TAFT WHICH STATED: \"THERE NEED BE NO\nFEAR THAT ANY DISCLOSURE WILL BE MADE REGARDING ANY INDIVIDUAL\nPERSON OR HIS AFFAIRS.\"\nTHE OBVIOUS QUESTION IS---HOW LONG DOES THAT PROMISE AND\nTHE LAW'S GUARANTEE OF CONFIDENTIALITY APPLY? A LIFETIME?\nONE HUNDRED YEARS? OR FOREVER? THE BUREAU HOPES CONGRESS WILL\nCLOSE THIS FINAL LOOPHOLE IN THE LAWS RELATING TO CENSUS OF\nCONFIDENTIALITY.\nCONGRESS AT THE MOMENT HAS A LOT TO CONSIDER IN THE AREA\nOF PRIVACY. SOME 100 BILLS ARE PENDING IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE.\nTHE BASIC QUESTION SEEMS TO BE NOT WHETHER SOMETHING MUST BE\nDONE TO INSURE PRIVACY AND PROTECT IT, BUT WHAT, AND BY WHOM.\nFOUR OF THOSE BILLS DEAL WITH CENSUS INFORMTION. EIGHT OF\nTHEM WOULD ESTABLISH A FEDERAL PRIVACY BOARD OR SOME COMMITTEE FORD\n-33-\nGERRLD\n-34-\nOR COMMISSION AS AN OVERALL AUTHORITY, MANY OF THE BILLS\nWOULD ALLOW THE CITIZEN THE RIGHT TO INSPECT HIS OWN RECORDS,\nCORRECT THEM, AND BRING SUIT FOR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM\nINCORRECT OR MISUSED RECORDS.\nMUCH OF THE DATA BANK FEAR CENTERS ON THE USE OF A PERSON'S\nSOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER AS A UNIVERSAL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER.\nONE BILL WOULD EXPRESSLY BAN USE OF SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS\nFOR ANY IDENTIFICATION OTHER THAN THE RETIREMENT SYSTEM. THE\nARMED FORCES SCRAPPED THE OLD ID SERIAL NUMBER SEVERAL YEARS\nAGO IN FAVOR OF SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS, AND SEVERAL STATES\nARE USING THESE NUMBERS ON THEIR DRIVERS' LICENSES, I WOULD\nLIKE TO NOTE THAT SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS HAVE NOT BEEN ASKED\nFOR IN THE DECENNIAL CENSUS, WHERE ANSWERS ARE MANDATORY,\nWE HAVE ASKED FOR THESE NUMBERS IN SOME VOLUNTARY SURVEYS.\nTHIS ALLOWS US TO MATCH CURRENT ANSWERS WITH INFORMATION THE\nGOVERNMENT HAS ALREADY GATHERED, TO EVALUATE THE ACCURACY AND\nCONSISTENCY OF THE STATISTICS WE PRODUCE.\nONE OF THE MOST COMMON COMPLAINTS FROM THE PUBLIC IS THAT\nSEVERAL AGENCIES OF THE GOVERNMENT ASK THEM THE SAME QUESTIONS.\nSo\nWHERE IT -IS FEASIBLE, AND-WHEN AUTHORIZED BY LAW, THE\nCENSUS BUREAU UTILIZES THE RECORDS OF OTHER AGENCIES. IT DOES\nTHIS EVEN THOUGH IT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO GO OUT AND COLLECT THE\nDATA ITSELF, FOR TWO REASONS- TO SAVE MONEY, AND TO LESSEN THE\nBURDEN ON THE PUBLIC OF ANSWERING QUESTIONNAIRES. WHEN WE DO\nUSE SUCH ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS, THE INFORMATION COMES UNDER\nTHE SAME RULES OF CONFIDENTIALITY AS IF WE GATHERED IT OURSELVES.\n-34-\nGERALD\nLISEARY\n-35-\nWHILE WE'RE ON THE SUBJECT OF THE BURDEN TO THE PUBLIC,\nLET ME TELL YOU THAT THE BUREAU SPENDS A LOT OF TIME AND EFFORT\nIN THE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF QUESTIONNAIRES, AND TECHNIQUES\nOF TAKING SURVEYS AND CENSUSES,\nFOR A QUESTION TO BE USED, ITS PROPRIETY HAS TO BE WEIGHED\nAGAINST THE SOCIAL NEED FOR THE INFORMATION. THE WORDING IS\nALSO VERY IMPORTANT. A QUESTION MUST RESULT IN THE MAXIMUM OF\nINFORMATION FOR SOCIETY, WHILE CAUSING A MINIMUM OF INCONVENIENCE\nFOR THE INDIVIDUAL.\nHERE AGAIN, THE KINDS OF QUESTIONS CHANGE AS SOCIETY\nCHANGES, WHEN THE NATION WAS NOT CROWDED WHEN BIG FAMILIES\nWERE NEEDED TO RUN FARMS A QUESTION ASKING HOW MANY CHILDREN\nA COUPLE EXPECTED TO HAVE WOULD HAVE BEEN OUT OF LINE. WITH\nTODAY'S CONCERN ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE POPULATION, SUCH INFORMATION\nBECOMES VERY IMPORTANT.\nTHE CONCERN FOR THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY WAS UNDERLINED WHEN\nTHE PRESIDENT ESTABLISHED A BLUE-RIBBON PANEL TO REVIEW BOTH\nGOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRY PRACTICES RELATED TO THE COLLECTION\nAND USE OF PERSONAL INFORMATION.\nAT THE SAME TIME, COMMERCE SECRETARY FREDERICK DENT HAS\nDIRECTED THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS TO FIND OUT HOW\nCOMPUTER INFORMATION MAY BE MADE MORE SECURE.\nAND AT THE BUREAU, WE HAVE ESTABLISHED AN ADVISORY\nCOMMITTEE ON PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY, STAFFED WITH EXPERTS\nFROM THE ENTIRE SPECTRUM OF DATA GATHERERS AND USERS, TO ADVISE\nUS ON PROCEDURES TO MAINTAIN AND STRENGTHEN OUR RECORD OF\nCONFIDENTIALITY.\n-35-\n-36-\nYou MIGHT WELL ASK WHY WE AT THE CENSUS BUREAU ARE SO\nCONCERNED, IF OUR RECORD IS GOOD AND OUR INTENTIONS ARE CLEAR.\nASIDE FROM THE MORAL IMPLICATIONS, I'LL GIVE YOU A VERY PRACTICAL\nANSWER, A CENSUS OR A SURVEY IS ONLY AS GOOD AS THE CONTRACT\nOR TRUST WITH THE PEOPLE WHO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS. IF THE\nPUBLIC FEELS WE ARE NOT KEEPING OUR WORD THAT THEIR ANSWERS\nWILL BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL- OR EVEN THAT THE POTENTIAL FOR\nSUCH VIOLATION OR THEIR TRUST EXISTS---THEIR ANSWERS WILL NOT\nBE AS ACCURATE, OR GIVEN AS WILLINGLY. IF THIS OCCURS ON A\nLARGE SCALE, THE QUALITY OF THE SUMMARY STATISTICS WILL\nDETERIORATE. AND IF THIS OCCURS, THE NATION HAS LOST A\nPRIME DECISION-MAKING TOOL, AND SOCIETY WILL BE THE LOSER.\nTHIS WOULD BE A TRÁGEDY! IT WOULD COME JUST AS MORE AND\nMORE DECISION MAKERS IN THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTORS ARE\nBECOMING AWARE OF HOW VALUABLE CENSUS DATA IS TO THEM--AND\nIT WOULD COME AS THE BUREAU'S MAIN THRUST IS TO INCREASE THE\nUTILITY OF THE DATA IT GATHERS,\nTo THE CENSUS BUREAU, A PROMISE IS A PROMISE. THE\nCALENDAR MAY READ 1984 IN TEN YEARS, BUT I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR\nTHAT AS FAR AS THE BUREAU IS CONCERNED, -1984 WILL NEVER COME.\nIN HIS REMARKS TO THE MOST RECENT MEETING OF THE ADVISORY\nCOMMITTEE ON PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY, SECRETARY DENT SAID:\n\"I THINK PERHAPS THE STRONGEST BRAND NAME IN AMERICA MIGHT BE\nTHAT OF THE CENSUS BUREAU.\"\nWE PLAN TO KEEP IT THAT WAY.\n--36--\nFORD\nStatement of\nMr. Vincent P. Barabba,\nDirector, Bureau of the Census,\nbefore the\nSubcommittee on Foreign Operations and\nGovernment Information\nof the\nHouse Committee on Government Operations\nApril 30, 1974\nI am very pleased to have this opportunity to discuss the views of the\nDepartment of Commerce on H.R. 12206, its successor, H.R. 13303, and\nrelated bills which would provide that persons be apprised of and have\naccess to records concerning them maintained by Federal agencies.\nIt is our purpose to be wholly constructive in our comments, both\nbecause the issues are fundamental to the operations of government, and\nbecause we have long accepted and supported the principle of fair informa-\ntion practice. We think the Department has an excellent record on this\nscore.\nH. R. 13303 has an attractive simplicity, but we believe its terms are\ntoo general and sweeping, given the complex problems and issues involved--\nsome distinctions are needed among different types of records, different\nuses, and different impacts on individuals, which the bill does not recognize.\nConsidering specific provisions of the legislation, we shall be speaking\nprimarily of H.R. 13303, which differs from H.R. 12206 primarily in that\ninformation provided by the data subject is covered. H.R. 13872 and\nH.R. 14163 will be mentioned as the issues are discussed.\nR.\nFORD\nGERALD\nLIBRARY\n2\nInitially, a necessary classification which affects completely the\nscope of the bill has to be made. We agree with the interpretation by\nMr. Thomas Mc Fee in his testimony for the Department of Health,\nEducation, and Welfare, that the word \"person, 11 unless otherwise defined,\nwould apply to individuals and the public and private organizations and\nassociations defined in section 551 of title 5. As presumably it was\nintended solely to protect individual privacy, the term \"person\" should\nbe defined specifically in that respect for the new section 552a being\nproposed.\nIn fact, the bill could use several definitions to clarify its intent.\nThe term \"disclosure, 11 for example, is defined in H. R. 13872 as\nincluding oral, written or wire transmission, but not in the other bills.\nIt is also desirable to define \"notification, 11 and to spell out the situations\nin which notification must take any particular form. Of course, the whole\nquestion of definitions depends upon the scope of the bill.\nA fundamental provision of the bill is that without notification of the\ndata subject, an agency shall \"refrain from disclosing the record or\nany information contained therein to any other agency\". \"Disclose to\nany other agency\" covers many different processes of information ex-\nchange. We will note only a few. Does this include disclosure between\ntwo bureaus within a single Administration? Agencies within a Department?\n&\nGERALD\nFORD\n3\nIt appears to include a telephone conversation between two supervisors\nof two agencies concerning the qualification of a job applicant, the trans-\nfer of information from millions of Social Security Administration\nrecords to State agencies as referred to by Mr. Mc Fee, the exchange\nof information between agencies for statistical purposes which are not\nat all concerned with the identity and characteristics of a single person,\nand the transfer of active records to inactive storage or archival storage\nand use.\nWe cannot believe that each such event is equally and sufficiently\ncritical to each data subject's welfare or privacy as to require the\nmajor burden of such notice contained in (a)(1)(A) of H.R. 13303.\nWe think that before a data subject notification requirement is\nagreed on, very thorough examination should be made of the circum-\nstances in which it would be very burdensome and costly with little or\nno benefit or advantage to a data subject. Under section (a)(1)(B) of\nH. R. 13303, every record made publicly available under the Freedom\nof Information Act or similar law requires notification to any person\nidentified in such record.\nIt may also be desirable from a practical standpoint, after consider-\ning under what conditions notification is most vital to a data subject, to\nimpose more rigorous requirements on newly-created records than upon\nexisting records, which must number in the hundreds of millions. I\nmight\nadd here that an effective date 90 days after enactment is certainly\nnot adequate time to prepare to implement the bill's provisions.\n4\nA most important distinction we find missing in H. R. 13303 - -but\npresent in H.R. 14163 -is that between administrative records systems\nand statistical records systems. Though both may contain identical or\nsimilar information, the former is intended to affect the individual\ndirectly, whereas the statistical record will not affect the individual\nand his privacy when used solely for the compilation and analysis of\naggregate data. I assume, of course, here that release of data is in\na form that does not disclose any individual's identity or characteristics.\nWe strongly endorse Mr. McFee's testimony on this point.\nWith regard to individual records used solely for statistical purposes,\nor used administratively only in the sense of returning the data to the data\nsubject on his own request, we urge that a third exemption be added under\nsubsection (b) which would then state: \"This section shall not apply to\nrecords\n-\n-\nauthorized by law to be collected and used solely for\nstatistical purposes or as authorized by section 8, title 13 U.S.C.\"\nThe Census Bureau under section 8 is able to perform the valuable\nservice to individuals of furnishing extracts of otherwise strictly confi-\ndential information contained in population census reports about themselves\nand their immediate family for birth, inheritance, and other such proper\npurposes. Thousands of such requests are handled yearly, without any\ndetriment to the individuals concerned. Notification to each person ORD named\nin these extracts will be a costly and uncalled for administrative burden.\n5\nWe do not suggest this exemption lightly. There are millions of\nstatistical records in existence. There are also very specific pro-\ncedures and rigorous safeguards as to how such records may be used.\nThere is no reason to believe the statistical uses would ever adversely\naffect an individual. The exemption will remove an incalculable\nadministrative burden which would serve no privacy purpose. Further-\nmore, if individuals were permitted to alter information about themselves\nas reported on census and survey questionnaires, the production and\ndissemination of statistics would be endlessly interrupted and hopelessly\nfrustrated, with very serious results as to the timeliness of data.\nSubsection (a)(2) of H.R. 13303 would restrict disclosures within\nan agency to persons with job-related needs to know. This provision is\na salutory one, but superfluous from our viewpoint, in that there are no\nrecords systems in the Department which are accessible to the casual or\ncurious employee without a job-related purpose for inspecting records.\nWe would be surprised if this were not true of all agencies.\nSubsection (a)(3) requires that records be kept of the names and\naddresses of all persons to whom information on data subjects is dis- -\nclosed. For personnel records and statistical records this would be\na horrendous administrative burden at considerable cost and with little\nbenefit.\nFORD\n6\nWith respect to access to personnel records, the practices of this\nand most agencies are derived from statutory or administrative re-\nquirements, and regulations of the Civil Service Commission. With\nregard to statistical records, all Department employees are subject\nto criminal penalty under section 1905 of title 18 for unauthorized\ndisclosures of data held to be confidential, and access is limited\nto those authorized by law to see it. In the unique case of the Bureau\nof the Census, all employees may have either processing or analysis\naccess to the data which are confidential by law. Almost all employees\nneed access, and all are subject to heavy penalties for disclosure. At\nthe Census Bureau, a log of entrants to the data files would serve no\npurpose not already being carried out under title 13, U.S.C. Since\nmillions of records are handled in a year, the costs of the recordkeeping\nproposed in the bill could be very substantial.\nSubection (a)(4) of H.R. 13303 would permit any person to inspect\nhis own record and have copies made at his expense. This is no\nproblem when \"inspection\" is as simple as looking through a file cabinet\nfor the folder with an identifying name.\nIt should be recognized, however, that large-scale record systems\nare not usually arranged for easy retrieval by name, and that in some\ncases they are not maintained in a single location. Census records\n7\nwould often need to be recalled from storage, even for inspection,\nand this entails substantial cost. We suggest that the reference to\nexpense should read, \"in no event shall be greater than the cost of\nmaking such copies and making such record available for inspection. \"\nSubsection (3) of H.R. 13303 would require agencies to publish\nrules regarding their records in sufficient detail so that data subjects\nknow what categories of information are maintained, and when, how,\nwhere, and at what cost they can have access to their record. We\nagree it is desirable to develop such rules, at least for personal\nrecords systems that have a significant impact on individual rights.\nAlso desirable is subsection (b)(8) of H.R. 13872, which would\nrequire agencies to inform people whether or not the supplying of\ninformation is legally required, and the consequences of providing or\nnot providing the data requested.\nA final comment on H. R. 13303 concerns the type of data transfer\ninvolved in an archival records system. The bill makes no mention of\nrecords which are disclosed to the National Archives in accordance\nwith the Records Disposal Act of 1945 and the Archives Act of 1950.\nWe are especially concerned with the problem of notification in this\ninstance because, if it applies to data transfers undertaken in the past,\nit would appear that the Census Bureau would have to notify hundreds of\n8\nmillions of Americans as to the transfer of their personal census\nrecords to Archives, not only for permanent preservation, but to\nbe used for historical and genealogical research. The prospect of\nnotifying all living persons reported in each census since the turn\nof the century that their records have been transferred to another\nagency for archival purposes leads us to contemplate costs to the\nCensus Bureau of tens of millions of dollars annually, as well as\nvery poor results because so many persons have, over the interven-\ning years, moved from the address of their birthplace or residence at\ncensus time. Further, what desirable purpose would it serve to make\nsuch notification?\nH. R. 14163, the new bill recently introduced by Mr. Goldwater for\nhimself and Mr. Koch, entitled the \"Right to Privacy Act\", has a much\nwider sweep than H. R. 13303. It is not limited to governmental record-\nkeeping, and it applies to all information which in any way \"describes,\nlocates or indexes\" anything about anybody.\nThere has not been sufficient time to focus on the wide ramifica-\ntions of H. R. 14163, particularly as they would affect recordkeeping\nof the entire business community. Certainly the business burden and\ncosts which would result, as well as impairment of business operations\nwhich now convenience the consumer, will need the closest scrutiny.\nFOND\nLIBRARY\n9\nThe Domestic Council Committee on the Right to Privacy headed\nby Vice President Ford is considering the role and responsibilities\nof the private as well as the public sector--and we look to its findings\nfor guidance.\nWhat is affordable must be in the balance as the citizenry will foot\nthe bill for H.R. 14163 through both taxes and pass-through of costs\nto prices. The broad sweep is expensive. There is, we believe, need\nfor focus on the specific information practices which are subject to\nthe most consequential abuse - as Congress did in the case of the Fair\nCredit Reporting Act. With the right balance, the individual will con-\ntinue to enjoy at reasonable cost both services wanted and protection\nagainst abuses of information systems.\nIn conclusion, we are pleased that some of the ideas contained in\nthe most recent bills have been refined from earlier versions, such\nas H.R. 667, but we think further work is needed on these concepts\nas they would apply even to Federal agencies. We urge that statistical\nrecords, properly defined, be exempted altogether, and that there be\nfocus on those kinds of administrative records which are most vulnerable\nto frequent or unintended secondary uses that significantly and adversely\naffect individuals.\nin\nFORD\nI will be glad to attempt to answer any questions.\nGERALD\nLIBRARY\nSTATEMENT OF PHILIP W. BUCHEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,\nDOMESTIC COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY,\nINCORPORATING A COMMUNICATION OF THE VICE PRESIDENT\nTO THE SENATE GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE\nAND THE JUDICIARY SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS\nCONCERNING THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY, JUNE 19, 1974.\nMr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to present a\ncommunication by the Vice President to you and members of the two\nSubcommittees in joint session, to testify on the importance of\nprotecting the right to privacy, and to review briefly the progress of\nthe Domestic Council Committee on the Right of Privacy. Accompanying\nme is Douglas W. Metz, Deputy Executive Director of the Committee.\nI would like first to read a letter from the Vice President to\nthe Chairman:\nHonorable Sam J. Ervin, Jr., Chairman\nGovernment Operations Committee\nJudiciary Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights\nUnited States Senate\nWashington, D. C. 20510\nDear Mr. Chairman:\nIt is a distinct pleasure and honor for me to respond\nto your invitation to communicate with the Senate's\nGovernment Operations Ad Hoc Subcommittee and the\nJudiciary Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights as you\nundertake joint hearings on legislation to protect the right\nof privacy.\nGERALE FORD\n-2-\nAs each member of the Committees is aware, my concern\nfor the protection of personal privacy was heightened by the\nintense investigation directed at me in connection with my\nnomination to be Vice President. Subsequently, the President\nafforded me an opportunity to continue my interest by naming\nme Chairman of the Domestic Council Committee on the Right\nof Privacy.\nThe Committee was given the challenging mandate to review\na broad spectrum of privacy concerns and to make recommendations\nas soon as possible for new initiatives to advance the right of\npersonal privacy.\nThere have been previous commitments, hearings, studies\nand recommendations to deal with privacy problems. Many\nfindings have been ignored and too little actually done. The time\nhas come for action. I will do all in my power to get results.\nCurrently the Congress has pending before it over 140 bills\ndealing with privacy issues. Legislation has already passed\nthe Senate to control the maintenance and use of sensitive records\nabout pupils in our schools and to protect the privacy of Federal\nemployees. This session may consider bills to regulate the\ninformation practices of the Federal government and the\ncollection and dissemination of criminal history records\nStates and the Federal government. Proposals have been\nby BERALD FORD LIBRARY\n-3-\nintroduced in other problem areas including military surveillance\nof civilian politics, wiretapping and electronic surveillance,\nand amendments to strengthen the Fair Credit Reporting Act.\nThere is extensive activity at the State level. Since the\nbeginning of this year, over 65 measures governing privacy have\nbeen introduced in State legislatures, some of which have already\nbeen enacted into law.\nMy first act as Chairman involved complaints about an\nExecutive Order of the President that permitted the Department\nof Agriculture to review the income tax returns of farmers to\nobtain data for statistical purposes. The President asked me to\nlook into the matter. I immediately discussed the Executive Order\nwith Secretary Butz and recommended that it be withdrawn. The\nPresident accepted my recommendation.\nOnly a few weeks ago plans for the largest nonmilitary\ngovernment data processing and communications procurement in\nAmerican history were shelved, partly at my urging, so that the\nproper privacy safeguards could be developed. The contemplated\nsystem, known as FEDNET, without proper safeguards, could have\nescalated the fears of the people over the collection and dissemination\nof personal information.\nFORD\nGENALD\n-4-\nIn addition to these initiatives, I can report that the\nAdministration is planning to submit to the Congress draft\nlegislation that would prohibit \"snooping\" and monitoring of\ncommunications entering and leaving a citizen's home via cable\ntelevision. It would forbid disclosure of identifiable information\nabout the viewing habits of subscribers of cable television\nsystems without their consent. Safeguards are essential to\nprevent the abuses of a \"wired society\" and to assure that\nadvanced technology remains the servant of our society's most\ncherished freedoms.\nIn these hearings the Senate commences formal consideration\nof legislation with a scope which will impact the lives of every\nAmerican in terms of his right to informational privacy. In our\nzeal to protect this right more adequately, we should not attempt\nto remedy all abuses within the four corners of one bill. Potential\nintrusions on personal privacy have too many facets and the public\ninterests involved are too complex to permit all-inclusive remedies.\nThe burden of legislating in this field requires a delicate balancing\nof the interests of each individual to control the gathering and use\nof information about him and the interests of government in\nobtaining the information needed to administer its services and\nenforce its laws.\nCERAL FORD LIBRARY\n- -5-\nI would hope that the legislation you act upon will embody\nseveral basic principles which provide the individual with\nfundamental safeguards to protect his privacy:\n(1) The Federal government should not maintain any\nrecord-keeping system whose very existence is secret\nfrom either the elected representatives of the people\nor the public-at-large.\n(2) The Federal government should collect from individuals\nonly the amount and types of information that are\nreasonably necessary for public protection and for the\nprovision of governmental services.\n(3) The Federal government should provide a means for the\nindividual to inspect his records and challenge the accuracy,\ntimeliness, and relevance of their content in relation to\nthe purpose for which the records are kept.\n(4) The Federal government should use information collected\nfrom individuals only for purposes reasonably understood\nand intended at the time it is collected unless the government\ngives notice to or obtains the informed consent of the\nindividual.\nFORD\nGERALD\n-6-\n(5) The Federal government should act as a trustee for\nsensitive personal information it collects and in so\ndoing provide reasonable safeguards to protect the\nsecurity and confidentiality of such information in\nexisting and future record-keeping systems.\nThese principles are not new. In one form or another they have\nbeen articulated by informed observers, researchers, concerned\ncitizens and in studies such as the recent report of the HE W\nSecretary's Advisory Committee on Automated Personal Data\nSystems.\nI have asked the Executive Director of the Domestic Council\nCommittee on the Right of Privacy, my friend and colleague of\nlong standing, Mr. Philip W. Buchen, to report to you and the\nSubcommittees in joint session about the plans and progress of\nthe Committee which I chair and to provide his own thoughts\nconcerning needs and opportunities for new legislative initiatives.\nPrivacy is a bipartisan cause. We can and should close ranks\non this vital issue of growing and legitimate concern to the\nAmerican people. Our zeal for this cause, however, should not\ntempt us to overlook the complexity of the problems involved or\nto resist study and debate on questions of the scope, timing, and\nsuitability of different possible remedies for advancing the\ncause FORD CISHAEL\n-7-\nof personal privacy without inhibiting government or business\nin its proper functions.\nI want to express appreciation for your prompt and cordial\nresponse to my request that the staff of the Privacy Committee\nhave access to the results of the questionnaire of the Subcommittee\non Constitutional Rights sent to executive agencies to obtain\ninformation about the nature and content of their data banks.\nThis survey, as well as the hearings you have held over the years,\nhas yielded an enduring legacy of leadership and essential information\nvital to those formulating public policy so that Americans forever\nremain the masters rather than the servants of the record-keepers.\nYou and the Subcommittees can be assured of my continued\ncooperation and that of the Privacy Committee staff as you consider\nnew legislation. Such a relationship now exists with Chairman\nMoorhead and the staff of the House Government Operations\nSubcommittee on Foreign Operations and Government Information,\nwhich is currently marking up legislation similar to that which you\nare taking up.\nLet us begin now to work together so that we can celebrate\nour Nation's Bicentennial confident that we have vindicated the best\nhopes of the architects of our Constitutional liberties and have\nGREATO FORD LIBRAGE\n--8-\nadded sound legislative and administrative structures to secure\nthe right of privacy for future generations.\nSincerely yours,\nGerald R. Ford\nMr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to bring the\nmembers of the Subcommittees up to date on the work of the Domestic\nCouncil Committee on the Right of Privacy.\nThe Committee was established by the President on February 23,\n1974. The Committee was charged with formulating by midyear an\naction plan for decision-making and implementation in the ensuing months.\nBecause of the Congressionally created National Commission on Wiretapping\nand Electronic Surveillance, the President asked the Committee to defer\nrecommendations in this area pending receipt of the Commission's report.\nI was appointed Executive Director by the Vice President on\nMarch 15, 1974. The initial task was to form a small staff capable of\nrapid development of a comprehensive work program, mobilization of\nthe executive agency resources, liaison with the Congress, and com-\nmunications with informed and interested individuals and groups outside\nthe Federal government.\nAs preparation for addressing the complexities and subtleties of\nprivacy, the Privacy Committee staff sought, and continues to seek,FORD\nGERALD\n-9-\nideas and recommendations from the Congress, State governments,\nindustry, citizens' groups, private individuals, academic experts,\nand Federal agencies not represented on our Committee.\nIn developing our work program we gave primary emphasis to\naction-oriented activities rather than additional research. We sought\nprojects that met two criteria: first, the relative urgency of the need\nfor immediate steps to protect personal privacy and second, the likelihood\nthat substantial action could be obtained this year.\nWe identified over sixteen major projects meeting these criteria.\nIn April, we selected eight for immediate consideration. These projects\nwere assigned, in most instances, to interagency task forces composed\nof representatives of Federal agencies, and, where appropriate,\nindividuals outside the Federal government.\nThe first project is reviewing Federal policy to cope with the\nproblem of the growing use of the Social Security Number for purposes\nnever envisioned by the founders of the Social Security system.\nThe second project seeks to define the needs for further protection\nof the consumer's right to privacy in the marketplace -- examining not\nonly proposals to strengthen the Fair Credit Reporting Act but other\ninitiatives affecting consumer privacy interests.\nFORD is GRAND LIBRA\n-10-\nAnother project is examining further executive and legislative\nsafeguards to protect the confidentiality of personal information\ncontained in the millions of records collected and used for statistical\nand research purposes.\nThe fourth project aims at greater restraints in government data\ncollection by developing practical means of assuring that individuals\nare aware of their rights and obligations with respect to the information\nthey are asked to provide to Federal agencies.\nA further project is reviewing policy governing the dissemination\nand use of Federal mailing lists and the impact of these practices on\nthe individual's right of privacy.\nThe sixth project is concerned with new initiatives for safeguarding\nthe confidentiality of taxpayer data.\nAn additional project is developing policies to assure that personal\nprivacy rights are given prominence in the planning, coordination and\nprocurement of Federal data processing and data communications systems.\nThe eighth project seeks to accelerate the development of guidelines\nand standards. for data security in computer systems and networks.\nBesides these efforts, the Privacy Committee staff is devoting\na significant portion of its time to analyzing legislative proposals on\nprivacy introduced in the Congress. These efforts have been supplemented\nby close collaboration with OMB in its preparation of a newly proposed\nLIBRARY\n-11-\nbill dealing with certain information systems of the Federal\ngovernment, the text of which will shortly be made available to the\nHouse Government Operations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations\nand Government Information and to your Subcommittees.\nNotwithstanding our orientation toward action, we have not\noverlooked the need for further research on the right to privacy and\nare seeking support for worthy longer-range studies from agencies such\nas the National Science Foundation.\nThe Privacy Committee staff is now reviewing the initial reports\nof some of the project task forces in preparation for a meeting of the\nCommittee early next month. I, of course, cannot predict the outcome\nof our work and the extent of its acceptance. I am confident, however,\nthat a new beginning has been made in the Executive Branch. The work\nof the Committee has developed a new awareness that the protection of\nprivacy is an obligation of government more serious than ever before.\nThe work of the Committee has been aided immeasurably by the\ninterest of many members of Congress and, in particular, the cooperation\nand assistance of many Congressional staff members. The staff of the\nPrivacy Committee is aware that in length of Federal service we are\njunior to the individuals in the Congress and the Executive Branch who\ncan properly be called pioneers in the cause of privacy. We wish to\nconsider ourselves, however, their equals in dedication and zeal for\nis\nFORD\nGENALD\nLIBRARY\n-12-\nseeking sound and effective remedies against violations of what\nMr. Justice Brandeis has called \"the right most valued by civilized\nmen\" -- the right of privacy.\nNevertheless, we should not minimize the immensity of our\ncommon task and the difficulties in devising remedies for problems so\ncomplex and with so many facets and ramifications as those of intrusions\non privacy interests. Deciding on the proper balance between privacy\ninterests and the public need to collect information involves varying\nconsiderations for different kinds and uses of information. Controls\nof information practices ought to accommodate for situations where the\nproblems are not alike and where the same remedies are not equally\nworkable or useful.\nGenerally, it has been assumed that criminal justice or law\nenforcement information (whether used by government or in the private\nsector) gives rise to problems requiring treatment different from that\nof information used to carry out social, health, or money benefit\nprograms, to administer revenue and regulatory laws, to select and\nmanage employees and outside contractors, and to conduct the multiplicity\nof other operations by government or business. However, even within\nthe broad range of separate informational relationships between individuals\nand government or between individuals and business, where criminal\ndetection and apprehension or enforcement of regulatory laws is not the\nLIBRA FORD\n-13-\nobject, wide differences occur. Material differences occur in the\nkinds and volume of information used, in the manner of collecting\nand disseminating information, in the degrees of data sensitivity,\nin the uses made of the information, and in the risks of possible\nabuse.\nOur Committee staff and one of our task forces is in the process\nnow of using the valuable survey of Federal data banks by the\nSubcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary\nof the United States Senate to propose a classification system for the\nva rieties of information held by Federal departments and agencies.\nThis survey has identified about 850 separate data banks in the Federal\ngovernment which contain data on individuals, and many more informa-\ntion systems, including manual ones, are actually in existence. It was\nestimated in 1967 that the Federal government possessed about\n3, 111, 500, 000 individual person-records. We can be sure that by now\nthis incredible number of records has grown even larger.\nIt is unnecessary to think of making all of the systems containing\nthese records, or even the great bulk of them, subject to the same\npublic notice requireme nts, to similar procedures for keeping each\nrecord item current, accurate, and relevant, and for allowing access,\ninspection, and correction by every information subject, and to uniform\nstandards for safeguarding confidentiality and controlling use. I fear\nFORD i 07WN3D LIBRARY\n-14-\nthat with remedies so comprehensive as these, preservation of\nthe right of privacy may become bogged down in an administrative\nmorass.\nTherefore, I would urge that any legislation affecting files in\nthe Federal government should not treat all record systems alike.\nSurely dormant or archival files should be distinguished from active\nfiles. Data used for statistical or research purposes should be\ndistinguished from records dedicated to specific ongoing relationships\nbetween Federal agencies and individuals. The latte r records which are\nsubject to checking and correction on a transactional basis where only\nhard data is relied on and no administrative discretion is involved in\ngranting or withholding benefits may be treated differently from more\ncomplex records which could be the basis for exercise of administrative\ndiscretion.\nPossibly information supplied entirely by or at the request and\nwith the knowledge of the data subject should be distinguished, at least\nfor some purposes, from third-party information, the existence of which\nis unknown to the data subject. Also, distinctions may be appropriate\nfor some purposes on the basis of relative sensitivity of different\ncategories of data. Information derived from public records would\nnot generally deserve such protection of confidentiality or such restrictions\nFORD\nBENALD\nLIBRARY\n-15-\non use as would information containing intimate details of personal\nbehavior or health. Vaccination records are surely not so sensitive\nas records of mental illness.\nOther appropriate distinctions for control of information\npractices may concern the relationship of the data subject to the users\nof particular data. The collection and management of information about\nindividuals for personnel or contractual purposes involves different\nproblems of awareness and access than occur in cases of persons at\nlarge about whom information is needed to administer programs for their\nbenefit. If the relationship is one that in the public interest calls for\nregular testing or audits of information supplied or representations\nmade, then another factor is injected that may expand the need to know\nso as to include otherwise confidential information.\nThe purpose of suggesting such distinctions is to urge legislation\nwhich varies the controls or procedures to fit the varying privacy risks\nand public needs involved and which more accurately balances private\ninterests with the public interest according to the character and purposes\nof the information system involved and according to the relationship\nbetween the data subject and the users of the information.\nThere are practical limits to the niceties of distinctions and the\nrefinements in controls or remedies that can be provided for in legislation.\nFORD\nHowever, legislation that overlooks the complex realities of problems\nLIBRAR\nmay prove unworkable and cause disservice to either private or public\ninterests or to both such interests.\n-16-\nFor the reasons stated, it would seem desirable to confine initial\nlegislation to information practices of the Federal government rather\nthan reaching at once into state government operations or into private\nbusiness. Before claiming confidence in the workability and the\neffectiveness of particular controls to solve problems so complex as\nthose posed by information systems everywhere in our society, it would\nseem prudent to gain experience from their application solely within the\nFederal government. The problems are certainly large enough in scope\nright here, and the groundwork done to arrive at solutions, however\nthoughtful, hardly promises assured success in all respects.\nEven legislation affecting only Federal information practices\nshould not go beyond what a single bill can reasonably accomplish to\ndeal discretely with distinct features and problems of different\ninformation systems and of different informational relationships as\ndiscussed above. Yet there is certainly need now to make a strong\nstart in laying down basic principles of fair information practices.\nAlso procedures should be prescribed which adapt those principles\nin a flexible but effective manner to the different information systems\ncovered. Then, after experience is gained, further legislation can\nbe passed to expand effective application of those principles to\nadditional Federal information systems, and, if necessary, to ones\na\nFORD\noutside the Federal government.\nGERRED\n-17-\nIn conclusion, I would stress again the importance of action\nthis year by the Congress on legislation to implement the basic\nobligations of the Federal government to the individual with respect\nto fair information practice safeguards to protect personal privacy.\nI thank you very much for your kind attention to this account of\nhow the work of the Privacy Committee has gotten underway; also for\nyour kindly allowing me to express my views of the demanding challenges\nposed by the privacy problems which arise in different ways from various\nkinds of information needs and uses.\nFORD\nLIBRAR\n5/15\nJam C\nThis was an\nattempt to try\nwhat the A/S\nand find out\nknew about ADP\nat HUD and their\noffice, their and\nerstanding of 70Pms,\netc. I usage it\nonly for my"
}