Calendar Ho. 112793o CONGRESS 1 OS-WATS- REPORTSd Scttion } SENATE

No_

PROTECTING INDIVIDUAL PRIVACY INFEDERAL GATHERING, USE ANDDISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION

R E P O R TOF TIIK

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONSUNITED STATES SENATE

TO ACCOMPANY

S. 3418TO ESTABLISH A PRIVACY PROTECTION COMMISSION, TOPROVIDE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS IN FEDERAL AGENCIESAND CERTAIN OTHER ORGANIZATIONS WITH RESPECT TOTHE GATHERING AND DISCLOSURE OK INFORMATIONCONCERNING INDIVIDUALS. AND FOR OTHER 1'fRl'OSKS

SKITKMHKK 20, 107-1.Ordcrnl to In- prliilfil

U.S. GOVKRNMENT PRINTING OFFICESS-OIO WASHINGTON : 1974

320

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONSSAM J. ERVIN, IB.. North CmUiu, CMrmn

JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkinm CHARLES H. PERCY. IlUnotoHENRY 1L JACKSON. W*Ui#ao JACOB K. JAVIT8, New YorkEDMUND 8.1IOSEIE, HUM EDWARD J. OVRNEY. FloridaABRAHAM RIBICOFF. CannceUcnt WILLIAM.V. ROTH, IE.. DtlawmraLEEMETCALF.Montmna BILL BROCK, T*nnteeJAUE8 B. ALLEN, AtebuntLAWTQN CHILES, FloridaBAM NUNN, OorltWALTER D. HUDDLE8TON, Kmtoeky

Bxmn BLUD Smrm, Jr., CUef OMIM! U Sttf DtnOarELI E. NOBLXMAN, OMMd

W. P. Ooopwn, Jr., CbuiudJ. BOBKBT Vamn. j/fcwrtr Ownwl

BlUH COHBOT, 9pcW OmnMl lo Ur MmarHiW. TBOUU FOZWILL, a/ jsttor

IlAicu J. IheNAVoaioK. Oklt/Omntta(Dr. ALAK F. Wum, Sp*dJ CtoiuuJtaiifDr. CBBmDrHBB II. PTU,

BATIK, Cmnlttnt(n)

321

C O N T E N T SPace

Purpose _ _ . 1Background $General statement 14Coverage 17Right of access and challenge 20Law enforcement files 22Privacy Commission 23Enforcement 27Social Security numbers 28Mailing lists... _ _ 31

SECTION-BT-SECTJON ANALYSISTITLE IPRIVACY PROTECTION COMMISSION:

Section 101Establishment of Commission __. 33Section 102Personnel of the Commission __ 34Section 103Functions of the Commission 34Section 104Confidentiality of information..* 38Section 105Powers of the Commission 38Section 106Commission study of other governmental

and private organizations 39Section 107Reports. _ 44.

TITLE' II -SrA>TDARbs AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS FOR HAX-DLINO INFORMATION RELATING TO INDIVIDUALS:

Section 201- -Safeguard requirements for administrative,intelligence, statistical-reporting, and re-search purposes 45

Section 202Disclosure of information 68Disclosure exceptions 70

Section 203Exemptions _ 74Section 204Archival records _. 76Section 205Exceptions .. 77Section 206Mailing lists _ 78

TITLE IIIMISCELLANEOUS:Section 301Definitions __ 78Section 302Criminal penalty 81

* Section 303Civil remedies. _ _ i .__. 82Section 304Jurisdiction of District Courts. _ 8$

.' Section 305Effective date....0. 84^"Estimated cost of legislation _ _ 84-

Rollcallvotc 85HID

322

Calendar No. 112793o CONGRESS ) SENATE j REPORT

- SdSettion f 1 No. 93-1183

PROTECTING INDIVIDUAL PRIVACY IN FEDERAL GATH-ERING, USE AND DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION

SEPTEMBER 26, 1974.Ordered to be printed

Mr. ERVIX, from the Committee on Government Operations,submitted the following

REPORT[To accompany S. 341S]

The Committee on Government Operations, to which was referredthe bill (S. 3418) to establish a Federal Privacy Board to oversee thegathering and disclosure of information concerning individuals, toprovide management systems in Fcdeial agencies, Stale and localgovernments, and other organizations regarding such infoi mation, andfor other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorablythereon with an amendment in the nature of a substitute and anamended title and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.

PURPOSE

The purpose of S. 3418, as amended, is to promote governmentalrespect for the privacy of citizen* by requiring all departments andagencies of the executive branch and" their employees to ob.-erve cer-tain constitutional niles in the .oiiipulcri/.ation, collection, manage-ment, use, and di>cloMire of personal information about indmdraK.

It is to promote accountability, responsibility, legislative overnight,and open government with respect to the ut.e ofxomputcr technologym the nerrimil1 i"f"",.ntmn >.y

It is to prevent the secret gathering of information on people or thecreation of secret information systems or data banks on Americansby employees of the departments and agencies of the executive branch. _

It is designed to set in motion for long-overdue evaluation of theneeds of the Federal Government to acquire and retain personal -information on Americans, by requiring stricter review within agenciesof criteria for collection and retention.

It K also to promote observance of valued principles of fairness andindividua] privacy by those who develop, operate, and administerother major institutional and organizuiijnu! data banks of govern-ment and society.

S. 341S ACCOMPLISHES THESE P-. n^.-ts ix FIVE MAJOR WAYSFirst, it requires agencies to < j i \ . - ,! :. tiled notice of the nature and

uses of their personal data bank- . * information systems and theircomputer resources. It requires u :irA Privacy Coinmissiciii to main-tain and publish an information Ju-;ory for the public, to examineexecutive branch proposal;- for in \v , i-r>onal data banks and systems,and to report to Congress and tlu- pivnidcnt if they adversely affectprivacy and individual rights. It P those who keep secret sucha personal information system or mandatory or volun-tary, \ \ Imt u.-i1*. aiitl. 'pi 'iialties an* involved, am! what coiilideii-li:d*it\ guaranties Mirruimd the data on\' govcninienl acquiresit ; and

To e-Mble;

Tliat t ln ' \ ivfi i i in fro'ii di^ch^iiig it uiile--^ ncci-siry for em-pluyi-i1 diitic--, or from making it a\iii!;il>lo outMile the agency

324

without the consent of the individual and proper guarantees,unless pursuant to open records laws, or unless it is for certainlaw enforcement or other pin poses;

That they take certain administrative actions to keep accountof the employees and people and organizations who have accessto the system or file, and to keep account of the disclosures anduses made of the information;

That they establish rules of conduct with regard to thcicthicaland legal obligations in developing and operating a computerizedor other data system and in handling personal data, and takeaction to instruct all employees of such duties;

That they not sell or rent the names and addresses of peoplewhose files they* hold ; and

That they issue appropriate administrative orders, .providepersonnel sanctions, and establish appropriate technical andphysical safeguards to insure the security of the information sys-tem and the confidentiality of the data.

Fourth, to aid in the enforcement of these legislative restraints, thebill provides administrative and judicial machinery for oversight andfor civil remedy of violations. To this end, the bill:

Gives the individual the right, with certain exceptions, to betold upon request whether or not there is a government record onhim or her, to have access to it, and -to challenge it with a hearingupon request, and with judicial review in Federal Court ;

Establishes nn independent Privacy Protection Commissionwith subpoena power and authority to receive and investigate

charges of violations of the Act and report them to the proper.officials; to develop model guidelines and assist agencies in imple-menting the Act; and to alert the President and Congress toproposed Federal information programs and data banks whichdeviate from the standards and requirements of the Act ; and

Judicial remedies allow the enforcement of the act through thecourts by individuals and orgtuii/.alioiis in i i\ il actions challengingdci'ial of HCITM. to peisimal information or through suits by theAttorney General or any aggrieved person to enjoin \iolatioiis orthreatened violations of the Act.

Fijlh, the bill requires the Commission to make a study of (homajor dala banks and c>iniputeri/.ed informat ion s\.-,leins of othergo\ crnmental agencies and of pri\ ate orgtini/.atioii* and tn ivi ommciulany ueedei', changes in the Ia%\ governing tlu-ir practice- or t in- ap-plication

Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights whichwas considering the following legislation on related issues;

S. 2S10, introduced by Senator Gold water, to protect the constitu-"tionnl right of privacy of individuals concerning whom identifyingnumber* or identifiable information is recorded b\ enacting principlesof information practice in furtherance of amendments I, III, IV, X,-and XIV of the U.S. Constitution;

S. 2542, introduced by Senator Bayh to protect the constitutionalright of privacy of those individuals concerning whom records arcmaintained; and

S. 3116, introduced by Senator Hat field, to protect the individual'sright Jo privacy by prohibiting the sale 01 distribution of certaininformation.

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHTThese hearings continued the oversight by the Government Opera-

tions Committee of (he development and proper management of auto-mated data processing in the Federal Government and its concern forthe effect on Federal-State relations of national and intergovernmentaldata .systems involving electronic and manual transmission, sharing,and distribution of personal information about citizens.

Senator Ervin announced the joint hearings as Chairman of bothsubcommittees, in a Senate speech on June 11 in which he siimmari/edthe issues and described MJIIIC of the complaint's from citizens whichhave been received by Members of Congress, as follows:

It is a rare person who has escaped the que^t of moderngovernment for information. Complaints which have cometo the Constitutional Rights Subcommittee and to Con-gress over the course of several administrations show thatthis is. a bipartisan issue which effects |>eople ir. all walks oflife. Tiie complaint; nave shown that despite our reverencefor the constitutional principle,-, of limited Government andfreedom of the individual, Government i* in danger of ti l t ingthe scales against those concept* by mean* of it* informalion-gal hcring tactics and its technical capacity to.store and distrib-ute information. When tin* quite natural tendency of Gov-ernment to acquire and keep ai.d .share information aboutcitizen* i* enhamcd b\ computer technology and when it i..subjected to the unrestrained motives of countless politicaladministrator*, the resulting threat to individual privacymake it neco-oary for Congress to reaffirm the principle oflimited, responsive Government on behalf of freedom.

The < oniplaint* show that many Americans are more con-cerned than ever before .ilmut what might be in thuir record*because Government ha-- abused, and may abuse,it* power toinvestigate and store information. ed '.lie Committee. These included theformer Secretary of IlcnUh, Education, and Welfare, Elliot Richard-son, authors of major studies, experts in computer technology, consti-tutional law, and public administration, the American Civil LibertiesUnion. Liberty Lobby, the National Committee for Citizens inEducation, the American Society of Newspaper Editors, and others.

The provisions of the bill a reported, rolled the bill as introduced,with revisions based on testimony of witnesses at hearings, consulta-tions with exports in privacy, computer technology, and law, repre-sentatives of Federal agencies and of many private organisations andbusinesses, as well as the staffs of a number of congressional com-miufr> engaged in inviMigations related to privacy and governmentalinformation systems.

The Committee finds that the need for enauppo.tcd b\ the investigations and recommendation:, of numerouscongressional committee*, reports, of bar association*., and othersorgani/ations, and conclusions of governmental study commission*..

To cite only a few, there are:Earlier studies, of romuulcrs and information technology by the

Senate Committee on Government Operations and the currenthearings and studies relating to S. '.5418;

The hearing*, and similes on computers, data banks ami the billof rights and other investigation.-, of pri\acy violations before theConstitutional Rights Subcommittee-;

The Inuring.- and studies of computer privacy and governmentinformation-gathering before the Judiciary Administrative Prac-tices Subcommittee;

The hearing?- on insurance industries and other data banksbefore the Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee;

TJie hearing*, on abuse*, in the credit reporting industries and onprotection of bank records before the Senate Banking, Housingand Urban Affairs Committee;

Investigation- over* many years by the House GovernmentOperations Committee: and

Finally, (here are maiVk revelations during the hearings beforethe Seh'c-t Committee on Watergate of improper access, transferand disclosure of personal files and of unconstitutional, illegal orimproper investigation of and collection of personal informationon individuals.

S.R. im-

327

6.

Particularly supportive of the principles and purposes of S. 3418 arethe following reports sponsored by Government agencies:

1. *I>jgalAsi>cctsofConil>uterizcdIiiformation Systems" by theCommittee on Scientific and Technical Information, FederalCouncil of Science and Technology, 1972.

2. "Records, Computers and the Rights of Citizens". Report ofthe Secretary's Advisory Committee on Automated PersonalData. Svstenis. Department of Health, Education and Welfare,July 1973.

3. "Databanks in a Free Society, Computers, Record-Keepingand Privacy", of the Computer Science and Engineering Board,National A'cadomv of Sciences, bv Alan F. Westiu and MichaelBaker.

4. Technical Reports by Project Search Law EnforcementAssistance Administration, Department of Justice.

5. A draft study by the Administrative Conference of theUnited States on Interagcary Transfers of Information.

6. Report by the National Governors Conference.7. Reports by international study bodies.

The ail hoc subcommittee has initiated two surveys of the Governorsand of the attorneys general of the States which are producing re-sponse.- supportive of congressional legislation on privacy and Federalcomputers and information technology. They also reveal Mning effortsin State and local government? to enact similar or stronger legislationto protect privacy.

The need for tin- bill is also evident from the sample of legal literatureand public administration articles ami press articles reprinted in theappendix of the subcommittee hearings.

Finally, there arc the co'nplaints of information abuses received bymany Members of Congress and diligently investigated by each ofthorn.

Dr. Alan F. Westin, director of the 1072 National Academy ofScience* Project, reported that the study suggested "six major areasof priority for public action: laws to gi\e individual:, a right of notice,access, and challenge to \ i r tual ly every file held by local, State, aminational government, and most private record systems as well; pro-mulgation of clearer rules for data-sharing and data-restriction thanwe now have in most important personal iLta files; rules to limit thecollection of unneccaty and overbroad personal data b\ any or-ganization; increased work by the computer industry and profcssiomilson security measures to make it possible for organi/.alions to keep theirpromises of confidentiali ty; l imitations on the current, unregulated useof the Social Security rumber; and t l io development of independeiyt,'inforination-lriist' agencies to hold cspeciallv sensitive pirsonaldata, rather than allowing these data to be held automatically byexisting agencies."

Witnesses cited the failure of legislation and judicial decisions tokeep pate with the growing eflic.iency of data usage by promulgatingclear standards for data collection, data exchange, and individualaccess rights. Similarly, many other witnesses before'Congre>* agreed

328

with his judgment that the mid-1970's is precisely the moment when* such standards need to be defined and installed if the managers of large' data systems, and the specialists of the computer industry, arc to have

~ the necessary policy guidelines around which to engineer the new datasystems that are being designed.and implemented.

Dr. Westin cautioned:To delay congressional action in 1974-75, therefore, is to

assure that a large number of major data systems will bebuilt, and other existing computerized systems expanded, inways that will make it extremely costly to alter the software,change the file structures, or reorganize the data flows torespond to national standards. And beyond the money, suchlate changes threaten to jeopardize many operations in vitalpublic services that will be increasingly based on compu-terized systemsnational health insurance, family asMsiam-eplans, national criminal-offender records, and many others,in faci, these systems may become so large, so expensive,and so vital to so many Americans that public opinion willbe put to a terrible choiceserious interruption of services.or installation of citizen-rights measures.

The spread of tlu.1 data bank concept, the increasing computerizationof sensitive subject areas relating to people's personal lives andr.ctivities, and the tendency of government to pul information tech-nology to uses detrimental to individual privacy \vure detailed byProfessor Arthur Miller. He stated:

Americans today are scrutinized, measured, watched,counted, and interrogated by more governmental agent ie=-,law enforcement officials, social scientists and poll takersthan at any other time in our history. Probably in no Xutionon earth is as much individualized information collected,recorded and disseminated as in the United States.

The information gathering and suiveillance artivitie- ofthe Federal Government have expanded to Midi an extmtthat they are becoming a threat to several of every Ameri-can's basic rights, the rights of privacy, speech, n?>em-bly, association, and petition of the Government.

I think if one reads Orwell and Huxley carefully, onerealizes that "19S4" is A state of mind. In the past, dictator-ships always have come with hobnailed boots and tank? andmachinegr.ns but a dictatorship of clox-icrs, a dictatorshipof data banks can be just as repressive, ju.^t as chilling andjust as debilitating on our constitutional protection^. I thinkit is this fear that presents the greatest challenge to Con-gress right now. i

Professor Miller characterized the reported bill as "a itiijnr stopin developing :i rationale regulators scheme for m.liievyjptjH' effectivebalance between a citizen mul the Gu\ i>nmx-i i t in (lie important fieldof information privacy. The creation of a Priv.irx Protvtiion Com-mission with jmind power of investigation, reporting, and MIHMOIIseems to mo to be an effective wa.\ of developing PU}K\ in lhi> rapidly

320

8changing environment. Also worthy of enthusiastic supjwrl i> Tide IIof the proposed legislation. We simply cannot allow more time to pass _without developing standards of care with regard to the gathering _ "and handling of personal information. In that regard, S. :J41S goesa liiig way to establish the much needed information bill of rights."

The four-year Mirvry by the Constitutional Rights Subcommittee, -intended as an aid to Congress in evaluating pending legislation, -demonstrates the need for requiring the following Congressionalaction:

Explicit -latutory authority fur the creation of each d;.ta bank,as well as prior examination and legislative aj:proval of alldecisions to computerize Hies;

Privacy safeguards built into '.he increa.-iiitrry muinuterizcdgovernment files as tliey are developed, rather l!ta merelyjttlempiing to supplement existing systems with privacyprotections;

Notification of subjects thai personal i:;r* tm- "urn jiioiil themis stored in a Federal data bank and pronoun" of realistic op-])ortnnities for individual subjects to rev'.vv. ..rid -ivoit tlicirown records;

Constraint^ on interagcncx exchange of pei.M^iiiil -duta aboutindividuals and the creation of interagency daut bank ?oopera-:ivrs;

The implementation- of strict security precautions to protectthe data banks and lla- information they contain from uiiaulhor-ixed or illegal access; and

Continued legislative control over the purposes, contentsand uses of government data systems.

HEW REPOUTAnother report ruflecting major prtn MOD? t>f S. o-USii- ,' ;.;.rendered

by the Sr'ecretary's Advisory Committee on Au*.n-. ; PersonalI3ata Sy.-ti'ins-. to tbo Department of Uealth, Ediu.iilim !i ' Wi-lfaro.Foriner Secre-tarv Elliot RirhardMin deM-ribcd thei :! ,jh^_, in histestimony.

The report found that "concern about c.oii'.puk.r I-.-: ,1 d recordkeeping usually centers on it& implications for pei-o: i:lf < t i \ - t \ ary, andunder?tand:ibh M> if privacy i-s coiiMdere.d to en'ui! arbitrn 01 abusive njcoid-kee.ping practices,." For llii? rnxaon, itswell a> because of the ncod to establish standard-- of ii'^nul-koo-pingpractice appiopriale to tlu< computer ago, the report re. .ii:i\u-nds theenactment of u Federal "Code of Fair Information l'r;M-:i

0r ciplcs that would be given legal effect as "safeguard requirements"; for automated personal data systems.! |- There must be no personal data record-keeping sj-stems whose* very existence is secret.

There must be a way for an individual to find out what informa-\ lion about him L-- in a record and how it is used.

There must be a way for an individual to prevent informationabout him that was obtained foi one purpose from being usedor made available for other purposes without his consent.There must be a way for an individual to correct or fimond arecord of identifiable information about him.Any organization treating, maintaining, using, or disseminatingrecords of identifiable personal data must assure the reliabilityof the data for their intended use and must take precautions toprevent misuse of the data.*

The Advisory Committee n-coninicndcd "the enactment (if legis-lation establishing a Code of Fair Information Practice for all auto-muted personal data systems as follows:

The Code should define "fair information practice" as ad'ierenccto sj)ccificd safeguard requirements.The Code should prohibit violation of any safeguard requirementas an ''unfair information practice."The Code should provide that an unfair information pi-art ire besubject to both civil and criminal penalties.The Code should provide for injunction- to prevent violation ofany safeguard requirement.The Code should give individuals the right to bring suit?, for unfairinformal ion practice.^ to recover actual, liquidated, and punitivedamages, in individual or da** actions. It should also provide forrcco\cry of reasonable attorneys' fees and other costs of litiga-tion incurred by individual v.lio bring successful suits."

Pendjng the enactment of a code of fair information practice, theAdvisory Committee also recommended tha t all Federal agenciesapply these requirement* to all Federal systems, and assure throughformal rulemaking that they are applied to all other systems wi th inreach of the Federal government's authority. Beyond the FederalGovernment, t!ie\ urged tha t state and local 'governments, the ii isii tu-tions within reach of their authority, and all private orguui/.atiot s-adopt the safcgui.nl requirements by whatever means are appropriate.

Kevolutionary changes in data collection, storage and sharingwere described by Senator Gold water, who was one of many wit-nesses who called for enactment of the recommendations of the HEWAdvisory Committee. He stated:

Computer storage devices now exist which make it entirelypracticable to record thousands of millions of characters ofinformation, and to have the whole of this always available-

'Rtar4t, Ompvlm,

10

for instant retrieval... Distance is no obstacle. Communion-lions circuits, telephone lines, radio waves, even laster beams,can be used to carry information in bulk at speeds which canmatch the computer's own. Time-sharing is normal . . . weare now hearing of a system whereby it is feasible for thereto be several thousands of simultaneous users or terminals.Details of our health, our education, our employment, ourtaxes, our telephone calls, our insurance, pur banking andfinancial transactions, ixcnsion contributions, our booksborrowed, our airline and hotel reservations, our professionalsocieties, our family relationships, all are being nandlcd bycomputers right now. Unless these computers, both govern-mental and private, are specifically programmed to eraseunwanted history, these details from our past can p.t any timebe reassembled to confront us. . . We must program the pro-grammers while there is still sonic personal liberty left.

The Committee has found that the concern for privacy is a bi-partisan issue and knows no political boundaries. President Ford, usVice-President, chaired a Domestic Council Committee- on the Rightof Privsi' y which was established by President Nixon in Febniary1974. In recent address on the subject, he stated:

In dealing with troublesome privacy problems, let us not,however, scapegoat the computer itself as a Frankenstein'smonster. But let us be aware of the implications posod to free-dom and privacy emerging from the ways we use- computersto collect and disseminate personal information. A concernedinvolvement by all who use computers is the only way toproduce standards and policies that will do the job. Itis up to u& to assure that information is not fed into thecomputer unless it is relevant.

Even if il is relevant, (here is still a need for discretion.A determination must be made if the soc isil harm loiu- from-..iiie data outweigh* its usefulness. The decision-makingj-yurt1** i:-. activated by demand* of people on the governmentand business for inMaiil credit and instant service*. Com-puter technology h* made privacy an issue of urgentnational significance. It is not the technology that conce-iuis^me but it* abuse. J inn also confident that technology capableof designing such intricate1 systems can al*o design measuresto assure seeuriu.

FEDNETIn the same addrc.-*, the Vice-President called a t tent ion to FED-

NET i.ud |>iuLIrni* in \ u l \ f i l in a proposed u'litrali/.utioii of cuinputcrfm Sillies. \ \hii !i MUH crm-d M \i n.l (.'ongrexsiukjil mniiniltci1* alul \\hichprovision-, in S. IJ41S would correct, lie stated:

The Govcniini-nt'* General Scrvite* Admiuislration ln>*dMiibi i l r i ! .-|u'il!< aiiou* for bids on center* throughout thecoiiiim fur a ih.t*M\e new coni])Uter network. It would have> ! . < j .Dl t 'Ut in l In Nlore ioni |>icI i ( . iH\e da ta on individual* nu.lii. ! iMit ion>. The c oulcinpliUeil Msl 'Mi i , known tu^ FEDNET,''mid link Kedeu;! ngencir* in 11 network that would allow

332

11GSA to obtain personal information from the files of manyFederal departments. It is portrayed as the largest singlegovernmental purchase of civilian data communicationm. history.

I am concerned that Federal protection of individualprivacy is not ~et developed to the degree necessary to pre-vent FEDNET from being used to probe into the lives ofindividuals. Before building a nuclear reactor, we design thesafeguards for its use. We also require environmental impactstatements specifying the anticipated effect of the reactor'sO|>erai.ion on the environment. Prior to approving a vastcomputer network affecting personal lives, we need a com-parable privacy impact statement. We must also considerthe fallout hazards of FEDNET to traditional freedoms.

ExamplesThe revelations before the Select Committee to Investigate Presi-

dential Campaign Activities concerning .policies and practices ofprompting the illegal gathering, use or disclosure of information onAmericans who disagreed with governmental policies were cited byalmost all witnesses as additional reasons for immediate congressionalaction on S. 3418 and other privacy legislation. The representative ofthe American Civil Liberties Union stated:

Watergate has thus been the symbolic catalyst of a tremen-.dous upsurge of interest in securing the right of privacy"wiretapping and bugging political opponents, breaking andentering, enemies lists, the Huston plan, national securityjustifications for wiretapping and burglary, misuse ofinformation compiled by government agencies for politicalpurposes, access to hotel, telephone and bank records; allof these show what government can do if its actions areshrouded in secrecy and l|s vast information resources areapplied and manipulated in a punitive, selective, or politicalfashion.

Despite such current concern, Congiessionul studies and complaintsto Congress show that the threats "to individual privacy from thecuriosity of administrators and Milacious inquiries of investigatorspredated "Watergate" by many yours. These have been descriSed atlength in the hearing record on S. 3418.

For example, under pain of civil and criminal sanctions, manypeople have been sulccted and told to respond to questions on statis-tical census questionnaires such as the following:

How much rent do you pixy?Do you live in n one-Tamjly house?If a woman, how many babies have you Imd? Xot counting still

births.TIow much did you cam" in 1967?If married more than once, how did your first marriage end?Do you have ft clothes dryer?Do you have a telephone, if so, what is the number?

333

12

Do you have a home food freezer?Do you own a second home?Does your TV set have FHF?Do you have a' flush toilet?Do you have n bathtub or shower?

The studies show that thousands of questionnaires are sent outyearly asking personal questions, but people are not told their re-sponses are voluntary; many think criminal |>onaUies attach to them;it is difficult for them to find out what legal penalties attach to a di'iiialof the inform at ion or what will be done with it. If they do not respond,reports show that they are subjected to telephone calls, certifiedfollow-up letters, and personal visits. Much of this work is done bythe Census Bureau under contract, and many people believe thatwhatever agency receives the responses, their answers are subject tothe same mandatory provisions and confidentiality rules as thedecennial census replies. A Senate survey revealed that in 3 yearsalone the Cer: i:s Bureau had provided their computer service.- at therequest of 24 other agencies and department-, for conducting voluntarysurvey- covering over 6 ir.illion people. Other independent voluntarysurvey were conducted by the agencies themselves on Mihjectsranging from bomb shelters, to smoking habits, to birth controlmethods, to whether people who had died had slept with the windowopen. The form usually asked for social security number, address udphone number.

One such survey technique came to light through complaints toCongress from elderl.\, disabled or retired people in all walks of life whowere pressured to answer a 15-page form sent out by the CensusBureau for the Department of Health, Education and SVelfare whichasked:

What have you been doing in the last 4 weeks to find work?Taking things all together, would you .-ay you arc very happx,

pretty happy, or not too happy these days?Do you have any artificial dentures?Do youor jour spousesee or telephone your parent* as

often as once a week?What is (he total number of gifts that 3011 give to individuals

per year?How many different newspapers do you receive and buy

icgulaily?About how often do you go to a barber shop or beauty salon?What wore you doing most of last wook?

Applicants for Federal jobs in some agencies, and employees incertain cases, have been subjected to programs requiring them toanswer forms of psychological tests which contained questions Michas these:*

Senate Report 'J-724,loMTonipny S. 1688. "To I'rotcci thr Privacy mid Klghltof Frderal Employee."Th report drribe-i other droller pntnuni for wllrUliif, collrcUni

13I am very seldom troubled by constipation.My sex life is satisfactory.At times I feel like swearing.I have never been in trouble because of my sex behavior.I do not always tell the truth.I have no difficulty in starting or holding my bowel movements.I am very strongly attracted by members of my own sex.I like poetiy.I go to church almost t ery week.I; believe in the second coining of Christ.I believe in a life hereafter.My mother was a good woman.I believe my sins are unpardonable.I have used alcohol excessively.I loved my Mother.I believe there is a God.Many of my dreams are about sex matter:.At periods my mind socins to work more slowly than usual.I am considered a liberal "dreamer" of new ways itilhei than

a piactical follower of well-tried ways, (a) true, "(bj uncertain,(c) false.

When telling a .person a deliberate lie, I have to look away,being ashamed to look him iii the eye. (a) true (b) uncertain,(c) false.

First Amvulmnt Programs: (he ArmySuction 201(b)(7) prohibits departments anil agencies from under-

taking programs for gathering information on how people exercisetheir First Amendment right?. Section 201 (a) prevents them fromcollecting an.l maintaining information which is not relevant to astatutory purpose.

The need for tho.ie provision.-, have been made evident in many ways.In addition to federal program:, for asking people question* Mich aswhether they "believe in the second coining of Christ," there havebuon numerous other programs affecting First Amendment rights.

O..e of the most pervasive of the intriMvo information programswhich have concerned the Congress and the public in recent yearsinvoked liio Aiiny uivuilhiiice of civilians, through its own recordsand those of other federal agencies-. The details of those practices havebeen documented in Congressional hearings niul reports and weresummarized by Senator Ervin as follows:*

Ilianim' Morn lli>< Siilvommll ut

IIDespite First Amendment frights of Amenr.ans, and de-

spite the constitutional divide n of power between the federaland state governments, despite laws and decisions definingthe legal role and duties of the Arm\, the Army was giventhe power to create an infp:mation .-\Mein of data banksand computer programs which threatened to erode the>crestrictions on governmental/power.

Allegedly for the purpose of predicting and preventingcivil disturbances which ini'ht develop beyond the controlof state and local officials, A niy agents were sent throughouttlu- country to keep surveillance over the way the civilianpopulation expressed their *entinienu about governmentpolicies. In churches, on campuses, in classrooms, in public,meetings, they took votes taperccorded, and photographedpeople who dissented in thought, word or deed. This includedclergymen, editors, public 'official:., and anyone who sym-pathized with the (liss-entcrs.

With very few, if any,, directive.- to guide their activities,they monitored the im inbership and policies of peacefulorganizations who were'concerned wi'h the war in SoutheastAsia, the draft , racial ind labor problem.-, and communitywelfare. Out of this surveillance the Arim created blacklistsof organizations and personalities which were circulated tomany federal, state and local agem-ic*, who were all requestedto supplement the data provMcd. Not only descriptions ofthe rout cuts of speeches and political comment* were in-

eluded, but irrelevant entries about personal finances,such a^ the fact (hat a mili tant loader's credit card waswithdrawn. In seme ca.se->, a psvdiiasric diagnosis takenfrom Army or other medical records wa.- included.

This infv>nnation on individual.-* wa- programmed into atleast four computer* according to their political beliefs, ortheir membership-, or their geographic residence.

The Army did not ju-l collect and .-hare this information.Anah.-ts wen- assigned the ta-k of evaluating and labelingthe.-e people on the basis of report- on their att i tudesremarks and activities. They were then coded for entryinto computers or microfilm data banks.

GENEH.U. STATEMENTThe prcini.-c tmdi-rU ing this Icgi.-lation i- tha t ^( lu i lgDNiTi imcnt mid

efficient muiuiizcmciit u'C|uiic tha t ba.-ic princijilc.- of p r i \ : u \ , con-f i ( lc i i t ia l i t \ and dm1 pnucss mii-t nppl \ to all pcoon.d infoini ; i t ionprugram.- and prnc t i< o of the Federal ( i i i \ c inuu 'u l , and .-hould n|>|)l\to those of State and local go\ crnmcnt a.- \\ell as to tho.-c of the. organi-zations,.agencies and institutions of the pri\ ate sector.

The nei-d for such a general legislati\e formula is nuuic luu-cssar^ by(lie luiplia/ard puttcrn.- of in fo i ina t ion .-\\apping among go\crnintii tngcncit'A, the di\er.-ity of confident iul i t \ rule- and the unevenne.-- oftlu-ir application wi th in and among agcncic*. The lack of self-restraintin infornuitioii gathering from and about citi/.cn.- on the part of someagencies ha.- demonstrated the potential throughout government for

336

15imp* sing coercive information burdens on citizens or for invading

* areas-of thought, belief or personal life which should be beyond thereach of the Federal data collector.

The myriad rules and regulations reflecting numy years of ad hocpolicy decisions to meet the informationiieeils of administrators facingproblems of the political moment will, under this bill, be replaced by arule of law. The Committee emphasizes that enactment of such generallegislation in no way precludes specific legislation to govern records forspecial programs in such areas as tax, finance, health, welfare, census,and law enforcement. Furthermore, it should not be construed as afinal statement by Congress on the right of privacy and other relatedrights as they maybe developed'or interpreted by the courts.

* * *

The Committee affirms that the present statutory division ofexecutive branch power among the departments and agencies andbureaus promotes accountability and is most conducive to legislativeoversight, Presidential management, and responsiveness to the publicwill. We believe that the creation of formal or de facto national databank- or of centralized Federal information systems without certainstatutory guarantees would tend to defeat these purposes, and threatenthe observance of the values of privacy and confidentiality in theadministrative process. The Committee therefore intends in S. 34ISto require strict reporting by agencies and departments and meaningfulcongressional and executive branch review of any proposed use ofinformation technology which might tend to further such negativedevelopments.

* * *

The Committee recognixes that the computer is an instrumentwhich is absolutely essential to the proper transaction of many gov-ernment programs, ,und that the collection of information from theindividual is absolutely necessary to carry out those programs.

Also necessary to modern government i the science of managementof (he many aspects of information technology and its related pro-fessional personnel which have been incorporated very rapidly inlothe administrate processes of the Federal Government.

At the same time, however, the Committee believes (hat in themanagement of computer .-^stunis and all oilier auprcls of informationtechnology, a&pucialstutu:>m.Ubt l>e utiurdc-d to the Uue of individualprivacy, that is, the right of an individual to have Mich gatheringof personal information us may be collected by the Go\ eminent con-fined to that for which there is a legitimate UM-, and then secondly,after it is gathu'ud, to have access to that information confined iothose \\holiave a governmental end in v ic \ \ fur its use, and th i rdly ,to be assured by go\ eminent that there is a> lit tie leakage us possibleto unauthorized persons.

The present legislation is designed to foster these-goals in the ad-ministrative processes of the executive branch. The Committeebelieves that the bill strikes a balance between governmental needsand the personal freedoms of the individual.

337

16

Tin* complexities mul scale of modern government make it impossi-ble for Congress or the courts to monitor evcr\r decision made whichinvolves personal information. The bill therefore depends partly forits. enforcement on the individual data subject and makes that persona participant in government's decision to exercise its informationpower over an individual.

* * V

The Commitioe in convinced that legislation cannot and sliould notbe neutral toward tl'^mfornialioii technology by meaiib of which theFeder.il Goverunient affects individual rights. Certain kinds of in-formation should not be collected or maintained or disclosed bygovernment agencies because to do.-o iseiiliiT niiconstiiulional, unfair,unwise, or .-imply bad management of the peopb's business. Thismean.-, furthermore-, thai certain computer hardware and softwareu.-ed to operate ihe informatiun system.-of government should providefeature-, which will promote the necessary security of any part of thesy.-tem and she confidentiality of the information processed amihandled bv means of it.

* * *

The bill does not rest solely ou the findings of any one. report orslmly, but on review and con,id'_>nition of all of the studies cited here.

The Committee is convinced that effect!c legislation must providestandards for and limitations on the information-power of government.Providing a light of access and challenge to records, while important,is not MiJiii ient legislative solution to threats to privacy. Contrary tothe view.- of Administration spokesmen it is not enough to tell agenciesto gather and keep only data which is reliable by the>r rights for what-ever they determine is their inlendod u-xe, and tin pit the indi-'. idual again-t ga\ eminent, armed onh with a po-. inspect his(ile, and ;: right to challenge it in court if he has the re; _.~ccs and thewill to-do so.

To lea\e the .-itualion there is to shirk the duly of Congress toprotect freedom from the incursions by tl'c arbitrary exercise of thepouer of government and to provide for the fair and responsible use oftha t powe.r. For thi.-. reason, the Committee deems especially vital theic-triciioi;.- in section 201 which deal with what dat.i are collected andIn wh.t: me.in.-. Foi this reason, the establishment of the Privacy Coin-miion i.- essential .- aii j i i< l to enforcement and oversight.

The -Committee \ie\\- the ^tuiidiirds of statutory relevance fordata gatlii'iini; a- mini i .mni and .1- p;i\ing the \vti\ for more specificguaraiiiee- in each aiea. Tin- Cuiiuuittee reject,- in part and supple-ment- the p.ilion of I he White lloiue representative, the Chairmanof the Dome-lie Council C'o;.unit lee on Right of Privacy, who testifiedtha t "the Federal Government should coiled from individuals onlythe amount and 11\ |)es of ir.forniutioii that are reasonably necessaryfor pulii< prolectioa." Ile stuteii "I do not think it is possible to de-velop a M.itid'ard of rea.-oiiahlene in any more precise way than toiusk people to exercise their \ery he>t judgment and to exercise, theutni"->t restraint in the amount of information they collect."

The Committee found main helpful.definition.- of privacy and con-f i d c n t i a l i t v in ,-eeking (o define the con>.-e.pts and principles developedin the provisions of S. 341JS.

-I:' 338

A useful statement is offered by the report on Data Bunts in a FreeSociety project by the National Academy of Sciences, which dis-tinguishes them in the following terms:

Privacy is inde|>cndcnt of technological safeguards; it in-volves the social jwlicy issues of what information should hecollected at all and how much information should be as-sembled in any one information system. (For purjwses ofthe principles implemented by this bill for the Federal exec-utive branch, the Committee means this ti> include consti-

~ tutional and statutory prohibitions or restraints.)Confidentiality is the central issue for which technological

safeguards arc relevant. Where an organization lias promisedthose from whom it collects information that unauthorizeduses will not be made by persons inside or outside thatagency, making good that promise of confidentiality requiresrecord securitv controls in both manual and computerizedfiles.

* * *

"Privacy", then, is a shorthand term for the restraint on the powerof government to investigate individuals, to collect information abouttheir personal lives and activities in society or in ways which arebanned by the Constitution, or for reasons which have little or nothingto do with the purpose of government or of the agency involved, stheir powers are defined by the Constitution and specific statute*..

Therefore, tli Committee believes that the conclusions of studygroups set up in the executive branch to .study computer technologymust be supplemented by the complaints from citizens and evidencegathered by numerous coiigrc,-oional committee* on the over-reach ofits informntion power by the Federal executive branch. This clisirac-leristic: distinguishes S. :{41S from other proposals on '"privacy,"

STATE LAWSS. 341S is further needed to complement Stale and niiuicipd laws

and regulations which have been adopted to protect indi\idu.t! pr'r,; - vand confidentiality of records, and \\liich, in .some cases, proiiiie m< detailed and mure effective protections than S. :i41S. CmveiHnU -'-iothers havc-exprc.-s.ed concern that despite all the Stalls u..y do inprovide guaranties, they are not dlVi live once tl.e data .ire inu^r.iudin a Federal information system or transferred I" FidciMl i l a t ubrink. S. 3418 wi l l safeguard and supplement the t-11'urts of Stalelegislatures.

COVERAGK: PRIVATE, STATE .\xr/Loe.\i.As reported, the bill applies to Federal personal information sys-

tems, whether automated or iimiHiiu, and to (hose ufSu. tc , loml andpi hale organization* which arc specifically created or siiLstanliullyaltered through L,rant, contract or agreement v.ilh Fi-ilcral agencies,where the agency caiincs pro\isioiis of the act to l>e applied to suchsystems or file,-? or relevant portions.

As introduced, S. 34IS applied tu all governmental ahd privateorgani/.nlions w l i i i l i maintained a personal infoimat ion Mstcin, undersupervision of a strong regulatory body, with provision for delegatingpower to State instruinentalities.

.

339

ISThe Committee lias cut back on the bill's original coverage ami

ordered the Privacy Commission to make u study of State, locsil andprivate data banks and recommend precise application of the Actwhere needed.

The original coverage reflected the recommendations of the I1EVVSecretary's Committee for "enactment of its code of fair information -practice for all automated personal data systems," but which notedthat it would "wisely be app.ied to all personal data systems whetherautomated or manual."

Hearing witnesses and other commentators advocated nationwideapplication of the Act to protect individual privacy and other rightsfrom invasion by Government and the institutions and organizationsof society.

Total coverage was advocated by the representative of the AmericanCivil Liberties Union citing examples of cases and programs to showthat information collected by State, local and private institutions canbe every bit as harmful to the individual. These included the reportedneed for additional controls over the retail credit industry, whose fivelargest companies maintain files on 54 million people; the MedicalInformation Bureau in Greenwich, Connecticut, a major source ofmedical information on 13 million Americans for life insurance com-panies; the use by the banking industry of an Electronic FundsTransfer System to centralize an individual's charges nil over thecommunity and automatically deduct them from, the individual'sbank account; the uncontrolled access to customer records and can-celled checks afforded by financial institutions to law enforcementofficials and other investigators in the absence of subpena and nuticeto the individual.

Professor Miller testified in 1971 on behalf of a regulatory com-mi^sion with power to embrace the activities of 'non-FedfraHnforma-tion gatherers that r.iitjht adversely affect the rights we are tryingto protect. The regulators, should be particularly attentive to theinterlocking relationships that have begun to spring up betweenFederal and local data handlers in the law enforcement field and thefact that many of the Nation's major corporations maintain dossierson millions of Americans. Close scrutiny of the latter category of databanks i> becoming imperative because there is growing reason. to__^believe that these files an- exchanged both within the priyjvitr sectorand with law enforcement ami surveillance jrriiirs -a t"al l levels ofgovernment. Tn short, once standard^. a; 'established for Federalsvstenis T believe that it evc-n.UmJ'.v will become necessary to applytlifin to certain non-Feeler"] systems."

Similar findings i-f Interlinking networks for the governmental andprivate M-c-liii1^ \\cic found by (Tic Academy of Science* project.

Pror-.,or Veni Coimtmnan, in an article submitted for-the hearingrecoid, has detailed case*, congressional hearings, and prac-tice* in-volving privately compiled dossiers by commercial compilois, punitive .compilers, and benevolent compilers.

Reports filed for the hearing record from the Freedom of Informa-tion Center of (lie University of Missouri School of Journalism,describe investigative practices mid intninivc data-gathering techniquein the private sector.

340

19Problems of privacy, standards, confidentiality and security ir.

mt-dical and health records programs were described for thesub-" committee by doctors in private practice and in State government.

Extension of legislative coverage to student records procedures forgathering, disclosure, and dire process jn educational records was

-advocated by Senator James L. Buckley and by witnesses for theCitizens Committee for Education.

Other witnesses advocated coverage of State and local systems, butnot of the private sector.

Despite calls by these and other witnesses for total or partialcoverage, the Committee was persuaded to delay a decision on iotalapplication by considerations of time and investigative resources fordeveloping a full hearing record and for drafting the needed complexlegislative solution for information abuses in the private sector, beyondtlibse presently covered by the Fair Credit Reporting Act and itspending amendments.

Former Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare Elliot Richard-son noted the lack of n precise hearing record and suggested legisla-tion "to establish authority in an exiting Federal agency or in somenew instrumentality established in part for that purpose, to makeinquiry, hold liearings, and report to Congress if it -finds a prhnaJade showing of need for legislation to assure fair information practicein some particular industry or other segment of the nongovernmentalorganizations of America. Congress could then take whatever actiontoward developing additional legishition seen xl necessary."

Mr. Richardson -endorsed coverage of State and local activities"substantially affected by their relationships with Federal agei.cies,n? a consequence of (1) Federal fiscal contributions, (2) Federalrecord-keeping or data-collection and reporting rcquiicmcnts, or ('.',)cooperative arrangements among intergovernmental personal datasystem."

Dr. Westin, while endor-ing coverage of intergovernmental com-puters systems, opposed the t;/tal coverage of the original bill, citing''the impracticality and dangers involved in trying to regulate andregister many tens or hundreds of thousands of file* of every kind."He recommended "n instrumentali ty to lead private organizationsto adopt codes.of fair information practice a.- lliier voluntary policies,and proposi-d creating a national commission on private, interstatepersonal d.ita systems." This commission should, testified Dr. West in,"examine the conduct of those nationwide personal data systems thataffect the rights, opportunities and lienefits of Americans, holdinghearings as necessary and wi th a strong, competent staff to make on-.-itv nsit> and study the real practices of organizations, not just theirformal policies.. -.

"The creation of such n commission should provide an extremelyvaluable force acting on the private sector. It would push privacy,

.confidentiality, and due proiess issues to the top of the organizational.igemln, and into (he dc-u;n, testing, and uperalioi.nl thinking of data-s\si.em managers and their stnffs. Tt would move the computer in-dustry and computer professionals into high gear, as consultants todie user organisations, developers of new techniques and materials,and innovators in cost-effective responses."

341

20

Numerous representatives of private organizations and of business .and industry opposed the total coverage of the bill, citing the lack ofhearing record, the exiting requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting .Act, and prohibitive costs of implement ing S. o41S in the privatesector without passing on the costs in consumer services. Most iiidf- -catcd support Tor or lack of opposition to, a conuui^ioa study of pri- _vacy invasions by the private sector.

RIGHT OF ACCESS AND CHALLENGETne Committee believes that the size of the Federal Government,

the sheer number of personal .records it must handle, and the growingcomplexities of information technology require that the full protectionsagainst abuses of the power of government to; affect the privacy of theindividual and the confidentiality of jwrsonal information must dependin part upon the participation of the individual in monitoring t'nc main-tenance and disclosure of his own file.

To this end, we agree with the members of numerous respei ted.studybodies that an individual should .have the right trt.disiuver if he is thesubject of a government file, to be granted access to it, to be able toassure the accuracy of it, mid to determine whether the file has beenabused by improper disclosure.

The Committee agrees with the conclusion of one government studythat "Jn the majority of cases, the citizen's right of :n cess to informa-tion kept on him by the Federal Government will not interfere with theongoing program of the agency. In addition, giving the individual aright of access often will be a desirable aidjunct to any other systemdesigned to insure file, nccuracy."

Furthermore, the Committee adopt* the timely observation of onescholar from the Count il on Science of TedinuK.gv stud;, tl::t "ghingthe individual maximum ability to examine wha t tl. Gt^ eminentknow- on the person .-li.udd help promote dti/.en

21

certain law enforcement investigative stnd intelligence matter* whereaccess and challenge right- are fouiul to damage the purpose for whirlithe information was collected.

The Commit tee rccugnize that while many agencies aiTonl suchrights, many agencies deny them with res|>ect to certain file-. Allowingonly these narrow areas for exemption may \\vll promote the reasses--inent of e.\i>i!iu; practice.-; wheicby individuals are deprived of fullaccess to record- about themselves, and some agencies, in the yearbefore the Act takes ehVi-t, may well see lit to sock special legisla-tion jHTmitting s|>ecial treatment of certain files they hold. Mean-while, the Committee i- |ierMiadctl by the language of the IIE\V

Many organizations are likely to argue that it i< not in theinterest of their data subjects to have full access. Othersmay oppose full access on the grounds that it would disclosethe content of confidential third-party recommendations orreveal the identity of their sources. Still others may arguethat full access .-houid not be provided because the recordsare the property of the organization maintaining the datasystem. Such objections, however, are inconsistent withthe principle of mutuality necessary for fair informationpractice.

The relevance of the rights of access and challenge to the principleof accountability in government, to efficient achievement of manage-ment goals and to a public sense of social justice is recognized in a1970 fejM>rt made by the Project SEARCH group to the JusticeDepartment. That rejwrt called for a citizen's right to acce-s andchallenge to certain law enforcement record.-, but it stated the follow-ing reasons for its coiu.lu.-ions which the committee finds worthy ofgeneral application:

First, an im]x>rtant cause of fear and distrust of com-puterised data systems ha.- been the feelings of powerKvsne-they provoke in many citizens. The computer has come tosymbolize the unre-poiisivuncss and iiisoiiMtivity of modernlife. Whatever may be thought of these reactions, it is atlea>t clear that genuine right* of access and challenge woulddo much to disarm this hostility.

Second, >uch rights promise to be the moM viable of allthe possible methods to guarantee the accuracy of datasy.-tems. Unlike more complex internal in.echani.-nis, theyare trisrgered by the mo-t powerful and consistent of motives,individual self-interest.

Finally, it >hould now be plain that if any future systemis-to win public acceptance, it mu^t offer prr-n-i-ive evidencethat it is quite seriously concerned with the rights andinterest-, of those who-e lives it will record. The committeecan imagine no more effective evidence than authenticrights of access and challenge.1

F.A RC1I. Commltler on Scnirity nd TrtTcy. Tn-lmiral Rvjmtt N'o. J. July l'."7rt, \>

U.K. 11*3- 343

22

LAW ENFORCEMENT FILESTitle II of ?. 34 JS sots general

23

carefully review these regulations, if this legislation is passed, their* scope and thrust arc essentially what would be required of the

. Department of Justice by tliis legislation.The second class ot information generally maintained by law en-

_ forcemerit agencies are intelligence, or investigative files. These filescontain highly sensitive and usually confidential information collected

~ by law enforcement officers in anticipation of criminal activity, suchas by organized crime figures, or in the course of investigating criminalactivity which has already occurred. It was the Committee's judg-ment, shared by most criminal justice privacy experts and reflected inthe pending criminal justice privacy legislation, that all of the pro-visions of title II of S. 3418 could not be applied to such sensitiveinformation. In particular, it would not be appropriate to allowindividuals to see their own intelligence or investigative files. There-fore, the bill exempts such information from access and challengerequirements of title If. However, most of the other general accuracyand updating provisions would apply, subject, of course, to the rulesand regulations issued by the agency head in the course of implement-ing such provisions.

Obviously, these general provisions on Inw enforcement records arenot entirely adequate. The two criminal justice privacy bills addressthis subject in considerable detail and arc the result of at least twoyears of careful stuiiy and revision by the Subcommittee on Constitu-tional Rights and the Justice Department. However, the Committeefeels that general privacy legislation must assure subjects of law en-forcement files at least these minimal rights until such time us themore-comprehensive criminal justice legislation is passed.

PmvArr. PROTECTION COMMISSIONIt is,.,lcar that many of the information abuses over the last decade

could ha\c been avofded with the help of an independent body ofexperts charged with protecting individual privacy as a value ingovernment and society.

Commentators on privacy for years have also cited the need forsuch an agency to help deal in a systematic fashion with the greatrange of administrative and technological problems throughout themany agencies of the Federal Government.

Title I of S. 34IS, as amended, establishes a Privacy ProtectionCommission composed of five experts in law, -social science, computertechnology, .and civil liberties, business, and State and local govern-ment and supported by a professional staff. The Commission wouldbe empowered to:

Monitor and inspect Federal systems and data banks containingk information about individuals;

Compile and publish an.annual U.S. Information Divertory sothat citizens and Members of Congress will have an accuratesource of up-to-date information about the personal data-handling practices of Federal agencies and the ^hts, if any,of citizens to challenge their contents;

Develop model guidelines for implementation m this act andassist agencies and industries in the voluntary development offair information practices;

v 345

24

Investigate it ml hold hearings on violations of the Act, andrecommend corrective action to the agcncie--, Congress thePresident, the General Accounting Office, ami the Office ofManagement tirid iindgct;

Investigate and hold hearings on propolis by Federal agenciesto create new personal information systems or modify existingsystems for the purpose of assisting the agencies, Congress, and thePresident in their effort to assure that the values of privacy,confidentiality, and due process are adequately safeguarded; ami

Make study of the state of the law governing privacy-invadinsi practices in private data banks and in State and localand Miultislate data systems.

XEED FOK A PRIVACY PROTECTION UNITThere is an urgent need for a permanent staff of experts within the

Federal G^-. eminent to inform Congress and the public of the data-handling practices of major governmental and private personal infor-mation ^y

25

In recent years, controversies over priviu-y unil government databanks have arisen after executive branch decisions have been made.The Commission will serve the important purposes of raising andresolving privacv questions before government plans are put inoperation. Agencies need lulp to incorporate newly-relined conceptsof individual liberty inio their current procedures without unnvcssarydisruption and confusion. Congress and the President nc-cd iielp inidentifying those areas in which privacy safeguards are mo^t urgentlyneeded ami .in drafting legislation specifically tailored to those problemareas. ^

There are now over 100 privacy bills before Congre. Mo.-t arc ofunquestionable merit, but only a Ivw can receive the kiiul of sustainedattention to survive the legislative gauntlet. The proposed Commissionwould Iielp Congress deal with those bills in two ways. First, it wouldobviate the neeeity of enacting many of them into law b\ inducingagencies and h.dusiries to adopt their own fair information practice.-'.Second, the Conuiii.-^ion would help Congress and the President bynarrowing down the range of legislative options and drafting billsdesigned to achieve a good "lit" between privacy values and othervalues in the context of often unique data-keeping activities.

It may well be that regulatory function* will eventually have to beuddcd to the Commission's powers in order to assure that privacy,confidentiality, and due process become an integral part of govern-mental and private data systems. However, the Committee ha:,decided not to address this area in the legislation pending the Com-mission's study.

The original version of S. :>41S would have ( rcated a Federal policyhoard wi th regulatory porters to investigate and i.-ne ce.isr andde>i>t order* for violations of the Act. The Committee be'it'Ve^ that itdoes not have siifficieiit cxidi'iin1 to siippurl a c.i.-;' for u-sMiig broadregtilutory powers in a board charged with administrating the Act.Rather, ix much moie eUcilivc and less cumbersome- pruccditu- wi l lpermit an individii.d to seek enforcement of hi- rijrlil.- under pro-eedures established b\ each Kederal agcm \. U l t ima te c:ifr< i-ment ofthose rights and (hullcnge.i to agency j iul^nici i !^ \\ould re>t w i t hUnited Slate^ District Court-. By taking tl i is ;n lion, the Committeedid not mean to preclude a f t i t m e deci.Mon by the Coiisrrv.-" to \eslregulatory functions in the Commission to J.SMIIV tlmt ]>ri\acy,confidentiality, and due process become :in integral purl of "o\ern-montal and private data systems.

Public administn.tioii and privacy expert-, have ursred a caution-,approach to regulation on t \ \o grouiuls. Fiist, there U much morethat privacy advocates need to know about infoi mation systems beforelhe\, are in a position to make demoiistrabh constructive regulatorypolicy proposals. Second, there is substantial evidence thai agenciesand companies are not inherently hostih- to letting indi\iduafs havemore of a &ay in what the files .-atx about them, providiul th:U thechanges can be made in an older!\, cfTicicnl, and cconomicalh soundmanner. The work of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Wel-fare's Advisory Committee on Automated Data S\stems, Vice Presi-dent Ford's pomestie Council Committue. on the Right of Privacy,and the National Academy of Sciences Prdjert on Computer DJI 'JIBanks, clearly demonstrate tha't the right of privacy has its advocateswithin the executive branch. Testimony before the Committee by

347

26

State officials was nc..rly unanimous in citing a need for higher stand-ards and better regulation of privacy practices in their jurisdictions.Statements by private industry representatives have persuaded theCommittee that a substantial measure of industry cooperation canbe anticipated.

Thus, the Committee believes that it wo.ilil be a mistake for the _Privacy Protection Commission to begin its work in an adversarialposture, either as a regulatory or ombudsman-type agency. Thoseroles may conic in time, but they should be the product of specificlegislation and come only after efforts to achieve voluntary reformshave failed. Meanwhile, awareness that the Commission might bevested by Congress \ \ i th rcg- \toiy po\yers at some future time shouldhave a salutury effect on those agencies which may be tempted toignore its suggestions, or which fail to give il model guidelines thedeference due them.

LOCATING THE PRIVACY UNIT

The Committee has concluded that the best place to vest these newfunctions would be in an independent commission. The decision wasarrived ,at with some reluctance, because members of the Committeeshare the unwillingness of many Members of Congress to create stillmore independent commissions. On balance, however, the commissionroute seemed the best solution for the abuses and potential threatswhich have been documented.

Having concluded that an expert staff and an independent body wasneeded somewhere in the Federal Government to supply informationand advice and conduct investigations, the Committee consideredthree alternatives, as described in testimony before Committee byDr. Christopher II. Pjle. The first was to place the unit in the GeneralAccounting Office, modeled on the Office- of Federal Elections. The

"slTOlHl was to locate it in the Office of Management and Budget,much like the Statistical Policy Division which polices Federal ques-tionnaires. The third alternative was to create an independentcommission.

The Committee chose not to recommend vesting the. investigatoryand advisory functions in I lie riiUVhrrui r it would be unwise todilute the OAO's important auditing function with this kind of siib-Mantive policy alignment. Except in rare instances, responsibilitywithin Congress for policy development should rest with its com-mittees. Also, placing the investigative role in the GAQ_niJ!iht l imitthe unit 's ability to study mult i-s tate and commercial informations\stems not dependent upon the Federal bud/jet, which is the focuof the GAJVi at tent ion.

.SimmirtojisidePitiunn persuaded the (Vunittee that the unit could ".not achieve its ful l potential as part of the Oflice of Management andBudget. Moreover, t h t % Committee was >t the opinion that t in- privacyprotection uni t should be available* to congressional committees as "well as c . \c

The Committee received suggestions that creation of such an in-dependent commission should be delayed in order to develop legislationcharging it with the functions of dealing with classification and freedomof information issues, as well as privacy and civil liberties.

While they pose significant problems, these oUier two subjectareas go to different considerations of government. Creation of aprivacy commission is recognition of the fact that the Congress intendsto -tfford access to tl1 ' - decision-making centers of government to in-terests which promote the privacy of individual Americans .againstoverly-intrusive or arbitrary government information policies. To

-Di lu te I'.ic quality of that access, as institutionalized in the structureby the Privacy Com minion, would defeat the purpose of the legisla-tion. It wuuM reduce the viability of privacy as a matter of concern inthe Federal Government. By thus denying itself the full strength ofthe investigative help needed to protect privacy and due process inthe years alu ,J, Congress would dilute, in turn, the quality of protec-tions which it and the other branches.of Government might otherwiseafford to those amendments in the Bill of RighU> which safeguardprivacy.

The administration haj opposed the creation of a commission partlyfor reasons of cost. It is the ('ommittec's belief, however, that the Com-mission is vitally needed to promote the quality of legislative andadministrative oversight which will provide a privacy bulwark forAmericans in the years ahead. It is expected, furthermore, ihat thesavings it will effect in the Federal Government will far outweigh theimmediate cost.

ENFORCEMENTThe Act is enforceable in the courts with the aid of Congress and

the Privacy Commission.As Elliot Richardsun, former Secretary of three executive branch

Departments, informed the Committee:The requirements of fair information pnu tice arc so much

in the interest of organizations, as \\ell us of the imli\ idualsabout whom records arc maintained, that there should belittle difficulty in agencies adhering to them and little occasionfor court enforcement suits. Enforcement provisions areneeded, however, to create a strong and reliable incentive toovercome the initial bureaucraticV:i>ti>ce to change thatmight otherwise prove to be a cruciiJ obstacle to the promptand full achievement of fair informal!.1:! practice. Frivoloussuits, no doubt a matter of concern to .;ome, would bepromptly subject to motions for summary dismissal.

Except for iho act of keeping secret data hanks and improper dis-closure by Commission employee?., there-air no criminal ^fualties inthe Act. A* introduced, the original bill contained string criminalpenalties fur employees and other* who violated or contributed to theviolation of the Act. These penalties were deleted in Committee foiIsvo main reason-*: the difliculties of effective- enfor^inc-nt through Michcriminal prosecutions and the possibility that the threat of prosecution''ay preclude that "\Vhistleblo\\ing" mul disclosure of wrongdoing lu

349

28

Congress aiul llie press which helps to promote "onci; govcini i icnt ."Instead, the mandates, of S. :M1S are enforceable through the civil

challenges of tlie Attoniey General or of private ciiiy.ens \ \ l i \ \ real orsut-pccted grievances or claims of violations of the Act. Given tlie diffi-culties of time and resources, private enforcement through liiigaiion isnot likely to affect more than glaring violations of tlie Act. Mnc-li willdepend on the zeal and the good faith of the Attorney Gciieial ami the.President in enforcing the Terms of the new law.

As always, the prcso and communication.- media will contribute tothe enforcement of the Act through its. investigation and e\ponre ofwrongdoing, a function ?as>ed hy the rcquiiements MI S. .;-}]S tha tdecisions he made on the open record by re.-poiisibic oiliiial^ and (hatprecise notices- he published containing the detail of gi.ivi.-i iiiueitt policy'.vherc it affects personal privacy.

Administratively, the agencies, may be called to atiuiin: b\ ('oiisirct.saiul the Pix^-idont thiougli the monitoring and inv^iigiimc acti\itiesof the Privacy Commission mid its reporting of violation-.

Despite these guarantees, the Committee acknowledge^ there i.-~no way that the C'ongre, the pre^>, or the public can a.-Mire .-trictadministiativc observance of the exercise of the power of the FederalGovernment pursuant to th*. stiudards of the Act. There wil l no doubtbe some diversity of views, us to what constitute?, compliance withinparticular agencies.

Realistically, therefore, the implementation of the Act rests,finally, with the departments, and agencies of the executive brunch nm.1the good faith, ethical conduct and inloj;iity of-lhe Federal employees-vrho^serve in them.

SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER AND IDENTIFIERSAs introduced, S. "Al>> made il i in lawful fcr any person (o rewiire an

indi\ idual t di.-cl'>.-c or furni.-li hi. Social >ccurii\ accounl nunibcr forany purpose in loniici t iuii w i h any biisinc.-s inuisiu tioiVm ccjumerciu!or other a t lhi ly , or io ii'fu.--e to I'M end credit or make a loan or toenter into any other buMncw (raiisaclion or < u n m u ;i in! ivlalioiiship\\i th an ind's iduai because of refusal to dis( lose ir fmii i .J i tl.o nuiuher,uni-.'ss (he diadoMire or furniJiing of the number wa.- sj)icilicallyivcjnireil by Federal law.

The Coiimiilii-e ;on.-ider.-. thU dsage-of the mi'aber of a gouTiimrntfile one of the most serious. .^anifeJ-talioiis of ur i ia iy-coiK.em* ill theNation. However, il recei\cil coiijlicting e\ idtnte ab'out the effects ofthis. seUion, panicularl \ the inoidinalc co>t> to the 1'nhial Govern-ment and p r iva te businesses, of changing to ni iotKer identifier andreprogramming computers or romdexing files.

in v iew of the lack of leauy independent di i ta about the prohal.lfcosts 'ind efTei'tsof siidi a prohibition and in \ ie\\ of str i< ter limit:itioi>.->on transfer of and acicss to ^uvernment filec, the seriiuii wa-. deletedin Commiltee by an & lo 1 \ote. At the .-nine time, (he issue wasdt'signated as a priority is-ue for s tudy by the I'rixticy C';u:imissionand for report It, (\nign-s-. of s|)ccific l' 'gi.-hi.ti\e recoiiinicndations lomeet the serious public eoncei;is reflected in (he original bill. In sub-section l U l i t l i j i l y . r ; , the Commission is rcouircd (o examine andanaly/.e "(he i.v of license plate numbers, Social Security number.-,

350

29

universal identifiers, and other symbols, to identify individuals in databanks and to access, integrate or centralize information svstem* and

- files.'? *The Committee-realizes that the number is a major element in the

nationrl'debate over privacy since a common numerical identifier or_ symbol to designate and index eacli p.ci-snn is an essential feature of a

national data bank, or indeed, of any information system which allowscreation of an instant dossier or which permits quick retrieval of allpersonal information which Hows through that system about anindividual.

In recent years the Social Security number has been the identifiermost used in common by government agencies and private organiza-tions to improve efficiency of services, aid management function?,prevent fraud and reduce errors in identification of people.

Citizens' complaints to Congress and the findings of several expertstudy groups have illustrated a common belief that a threat to indi-vidual privacy and confidentiality of information is posed by suchpractices. Tim concern goes both to the development of om commonnumber to label a person throughout society and to the fact that thesymbol most in demand is the'Social Security number, the key to onegovernment dossier.

Of major concern is the possibility that the number 11133- becomea means of violating civil liberties by casing the way for intelligenceand surveillance us-.'s of ..the inimbcr fur indexing or locating theperson.

la this connection, a Constitutional Rights Subcommittee reporton the intelligence-gathering by the military from its own agentsand the files of other Government agencies, shows that individualswere often indexed in the Army computers by their Social Securitynumbers. Complaint* to the Constitutional Rights Subcommitteealso showed that government pressures people to disclose llic-irSocial Security number on administrative, statistical, and researchqueslionnuireh of all kinds, including income tax forms, IIEW ques-tionnaires asking whether elderly pcuple buy newspaper-^ and wearfalse teeth, and many others.

Every serviceman is now identified by his Social Security number,a development of intense concern to some groups who were not ableto persuade congressional committees, or the Pentagon to reverse thecourse.

A To>s-sectioii of such complaint? appearing in the subcommitteehearing >ho\\s that people :iiv presMired in ihe private sector to.jirrewler their number* in order to get telephones, to check out booksin university librarus, to get check* cached, to vote, to obtain drivers'licenses, to be considered for bank loans, and man} other benefits,rights or privileges.

In. many CHM-S in the private sector, he i* informed that the numberis m-ce-san for identification purposes, \cl on its face, the SocialSecurity-card*Ui> - tha t it is hoi to be ued' for identification purpose*.This proviso wait-initially included in the Social Security program toprevent reliance on (lie card for identification because a person coiildacquire several of them under several identities and jheie frequentlywa,>> no agency investigation of the information provided in order toobtain n number.

s.n. nvn-

351

30

A list of the Federal Government's uses of the number, authori/.a-tions, and the texts of applicable statute*. Executive order, and regu-lations appears in the appendix of the hearings together with excerptsof Government reports on this subject.

The HEW Secretary's committee found that "the Federal Govern-ment itself has been in the forefront of expanding the use of thenumber, that its- actions have actively promoted the tendency todepend more and more upon the number as an identifierof workers,taxpayers, automobile drivers, students, welfare beneficiaries, civilservants, servicemen, veterans, pensioners, and so on.'1 It concluded:"If use of the SSX as an identifier continues 10 expand, the incentivesto link records and to broaden access to them are likely to increase.Until safeguards such as we have recommended . . - liave beenimplemented, and demonstrated to be effective, there can be no as-surance that the consequences for individuals of such linking andaccessibility Avill be benign. At host, individuals may be frustratedand annoyed by unwarranted exchanges of information about them.At worst, they may be threatened with denial of static and benefitswithout due process, since at the present lime record linking andaccess are, in the main, accomplished without any provision for thedata subject to protest, interfere, correct, comment, and in mostinstances, even to know what linking of which records is taking placefor what purposes."

\Vhi!e specific laws mandate or have been interpreted to permit theuse of the number in a few Federal programs, most agencies have pro-ceeded to Use it by regulation or directive. Executive Order 9397 ofJ043 found it "desirable in the interest of economy and orderly ad-ministration that the Federal GOA eminent move towards the use of asingle unduplieated numerical identification system of accounts",and ordered that "any Federal department, establishment'or agencyshall, whenever the head thereof finds it advis;;Me to establish a newsystem of permanent account numbers pertaining to individual per-sons, utilize exclusively llu' Social Security account numbers."

While some have cited this order a* authority for the Federal usage,the HEW report found otherwise, noting, "It lias been suggested thatExecutive Order 0397 was intended to apply only to instances whenFederal agencies seek to number records, .Mich as employment, at-tendance, perf :-mancc, or medical records. . . . To jntorpret the orderas applying to all kinds of Federal agi'W\ record systems is arguablybeyond the meaning uf its language. In any case, it appears tha t Fed-eral agencies are free to use the SSX in any wax they wish, and noiiNtfitu-f has como to our a t ten t ion in which t in- order has be?u in-voked to compel or limit an .igenc; 's use of the SSX." (p. ]17)

Tin- HEW Secretary'. ct . inniit tec1 came to tin, following conclusionsabout tin- need for legislation on this> mat te r : "If the SSX is to bestopped from becoming a do facto.Standard Uimi-rsjil Identifier, theiivlivHna! must have t in- option not to disclose hi-* number unlessrequired to do so by tl.e Federal Government fur legitimate Federalprogram p'i.rp'^0. and there must be K'al authori ty for his i-ufusal.Since existing law offers no siirli clear a u t h o r i t y , \\e recommendspi-cific, preemptive, FeJi'i-jtl legislatii.n pro\iding ( l i n t the individualhas (ho right (o refuse to dI.-:-Ioso 1'is SSX to any person or organi/.a-

352

31tion that does not have specific authority provided by Fcdend statuteto request i t . . . and the right to redress if his lawful refusal to disclosehis SSN results in the denial of a benefit."

The report contained other recommendations about the need forconstraints on the use of the number and on its dissemination, and itcited the need for congressional review of all present Federal require-ments for use of the number to determine whether they should becontinued, repealed, or modified.

The Committee expects the Privacy Commission study to undertakesuch a study for the public and private sector.

A number of departments and agencies opposed the provision inS. 3418 limiting the use of the Social Security number. These includedthe Commerce Department, Civil Service Commission, DefenseDepartment and the Securities and Exchange Commission. All citedthe need for use of the number as an identifier to achieve administra-tive ends, and the inordinate and prohibitive costs of reprogramm'mgwith an alternative number. Numerous private business, banks andindustries uniformly opposed this section.

Computer and data professionals from State and local governmentalso opposed the provision, testifying that Mich prohibitions on ita use"would impose a tremendous financial burden on the States and analternate identifier would hate to be developed."

MAILING LISTSThe bill now prohibits Federal agencies from selling or renting

mailing lists except as authorixcd by law, but does not require namesand addresses to be kept confidential, thus allowing inspection wherethese are public records. It requires private organizations maintaininga mailing list to remove the individual's name upon request.

A major avenue by which personal privacy and confidentialitymay be invaded is the practice of the Federal Government of sellingand renting names, addresses and personal data in their files for use incommercial and other mailing lists. Such practices may CHUM' a viola-tion of the tacit or formal agreement by which the agency collected oracquired the information for its own authori/.cd purposes. Laws-pro-moting open records in government have resulted or may result inadministrative contracts on agreement.-, to sell the data in bulk, citheras a convenience1 to commercial or other users, or to publici/.e andpromote the purposes of the agency.

AVIiile ;i few, example* might be found in which the sale or rental ofmailing lists by Federal agencies w i t h o u t specific s ta tutory authorityserves a useful purpose, the Committee conclude* for several rensoiis11ml stic.h action is totalh inconsistent w i t h the purposes of the bill :isamended. One of these purposes is to en t i t l e an indiv idual to a largemeasure of control over who, outside of a Federal jigciiry maintaininginformation about him, has access to his personal inform.ilion. Mailinglist.s constitute such pcisonal information when, for example, theyrepresent a group of indiuduals "pu-oosing u certain >et of character-istics. The disclosure of this personal information can be damaging tothe individual. Therefore, section 'JOG(a) of the hill, s amended, pro-hibits the sale or rental of lists of names and addresses by Federalagencies unless the Mile or rental is .specifically authori/.cd by law.

353

32

Senator Uat field stated ''the real thrust of S. 3116 is not what isreceived in one's mailbox but privacy and the question of individuals'right to control what is known about them."

Ho cited the stockpiling of personal information in the businesseswho compile and sell lists j:ml other data for commercial purpose^-.Primarily, this menu.--selling or renting lir>ts to the direct mail industry

The Committee was told that ''lists for this industry arc compi'ydfrom every imaginable sourcetelephone, books, magazine Sub-scription lists, credit card lists, church rosters, ,lub mcmbc'.ships,government agencies, newspaper, announcement of birth, death,graduation and from seemingly, inviolate sources such as doctors,,dentists, and school?. This nourishing business c.xists largely withoutthe knowledge of the people who are providing the profit, the peoplewhose names and personal data keep this wheel turning."

Testimony from the Direct Mail Marketing Association shows thatit is their recommended practice to remove a person's name from theirlist if requested to do so. However, only some people know about thisservice, and the distribution of information through lists is so wide-spread that people who do manage to get off list* through Mich aservice, have no way of controlling what all the other companies do.

The bill now requires no more of the private sector than that anorganization engaged in business in interstate commerce shall, removethe individual's name from a mailing list, upon request. Where lists aremaintained by private companies, tlie Committee l>clicves that thedecision as to \vho should be allowed to rent or buy them is a tleci.-ionbest left up to each individual business. However, where such lists aremaintained by government agencies, OF where names and addressesare sold or rented, the Committee firmly believes that the decisionmust not be left to individual agency administrators.

Subsection 20G(b) requires nil persons or organi/.atious engaged ininterstate commerce to comply w i t h the wr i t t en request of an individ-ual who wishes to have his inline and address reiuo\ed from their liststha t are used for direct mail solicitation.

This ]>ro\isioii represents a sound business prat lice which is followedby many of the largest and most respectable direct mailers in Jiecountry. The Dirc( t Mail Marketing Association, which representsseveral thousand users of direct mail marketing and advertising inAmerica, has stated in wri t ing to the Senate Government OperationsCommittee that its Mail Prefereiu c S.-r\ii c U specifically designed topermit an indiv idual In h a v e his name rcMo\cd from iu members'lists upon request.

The Committee has been advised b\ repiv-.entatives of the DirectMail Marketing AS.MH iatioii and by numerous prominent directmailers that this practicr Hi-ales mure pn/fitahle list.-. b\ allowing forthe reinosal of names of indiv iduals who jife unlikr!,\ to purchase good*or .services from the soliciting organization.

The purpose of this provision is to extend this practice to all organi-zations and to expand the protection to.all individuals . It is consistent\\ith the best practice in AIII.T'K u'.i industry and w i t h the programs midstandards of the Association representing those companies w i t h directinterest in this problem.

354

33

The Committee believes such a requirement is a Dimple and fair onewhich will not necessitate a revision of private business procedures.Mail onlcr businesses may continue to compile mailing lists and solicitthrough the mail. The widespread sentiment on