for instant retrieval... Distance is no obstacle. Communica- The Committee has found that the concern for privacy is a bipartisan issue and knows no political boundaries. President Ford, as Vice-President, chaired a Domestic Council Committee on the Right of Privacy which was established by President Nixon in February 1974. 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's monster. But let us be aware of the implications posed to freedom and privacy emerging from the ways we use computers to collect and disseminate personal information. A concerned involvement by all who use computers is the only way to produce standards and policies that will do the job. It is up to us to assure that information is not fed into the computer unless it is relevant. Even if it is relevant, there is still a need for discretion. A determination must be made if the social harm done from some data outweighs its usefullness. The decision-making process is activated by demands of people on the government and business for instant credit and instant services. Computer technology has made privacy an issue of urgent national significance. It is not the technology that concerns me but its abuse. I am also confident that technology capable of designing such intricate systems can also design measures to assure security. FEDNET In the same address, the Vice-President called attention to FEDNET and problems involved in a proposed centralization of computer facilities which concerned several Congressional committees and which provisions in S. 3418 would correct. He stated: The Government's General Services Administration has distributed specifications for bids on centers throughout the country for a massive new.computer network. It would have the potential to store comprehensive data on individuals and institutions. The contemplated system, known as FEDNET, would link Federal agencies in a network that would allow GSA to obtain personal information from the files of many I am concerned that Federal protection of individual EXAMPLES The revelations before the Select Committee to Investigate Presidential Campaign Activities concerning policies and practices of promoting the illegal gathering, use or disclosure of information on Americans who disagreed with governmental policies were cited by almost all witnesses as additional reasons for immediate congressional action on S. 3418 and other privacy legislation. The representative of the American Civil Liberties Union stated: Watergate has thus been the symbolic catalyst of a tremendous upsurge of interest in securing the right of privacy: wiretapping and bugging political opponents, breaking and entering, enemies lists, the Huston plan, national security justifications for wiretapping and burglary, misuse of information compiled by government agencies for political purposes, access to hotel, telephone and bank records; all of these show what government can do if its actions are shrouded in secrecy and its vast information resources are applied and manipulated in a punitive, selective, or political fashion. Despite such current concern, Congressional studies and complaints to Congress show that the threats to individual privacy from the curiosity of administrators and salacious inquiries of investigators predated "Watergate" by many years. These have been described at length in the hearing record on S. 3418. For example, under pain of civil and criminal sanctions, many people have been selected and told to respond to questions on statistical census questionnaires such as the following: How much rent do you pay? Do you live in a one-family house? If a woman, how many babies have you had? Not counting still births. How much did you earn in 1967? If married more than once, how did your first marriage end? Do you have a clothes dryer? Do you have a telephone, if so, what is the number? Do you have a home food freezer? Does your TV set have UHF? Do you have a bathtub or shower? The studies show that thousands of questionnaires are sent out yearly asking personal questions, but people are not told their responses are voluntary; many think criminal penalties attach to them; it is difficult for them to find out what legal penalties attach to a denial of the information or what will be done with it. If they do not respond, reports show that they are subjected to telephone calls, certified follow-up letters, and personal visits. Much of this work is done by the Census Bureau under contract, and many people believe that whatever agency receives the responses, their answers are subject to the same mandatory provisions and confidentiality rules as the decennial census replies. A Senate survey revealed that in 3 years alone the Census Bureau had provided their computer services at the request of 24 other agencies and departments for conducting voluntary surveys covering over 6 million people. Other independent voluntary surveys were conducted by the agencies themselves on subjects ranging from bomb shelters, to smoking habits, to birth control methods, to whether people who had died had slept with the window open. The form usually asked for social security number, address and phone number. One such survey technique came to light through complaints to Congress from elderly, disabled or retired people in all walks of life who were pressured to answer a 15-page form sent out by the Census Bureau for the Department of Health, Education and Welfare which asked: What have you been doing in the last 4 weeks to find work? Taking things all together, would you say you are very happy, pretty happy, or not too happy these days? Do you have any artificial dentures? Do you or your spouse-see or telephone your parents as often as once a week? What is the total number of gifts that you give to individuals per year? How many different newspapers do you receive and buy regularly? About how often do you go to a barber shop or beauty salon? Applicants for Federal jobs in some agencies, and employees in certain cases, have been subjected to programs requiring them to answer forms of psychological tests which contained questions such as these:* *Senate Report 93-724, to accompany S. 1688. "To Protect the Privacy and Rights of Federal Employees." The report describes other similar programs for soliciting, collecting or using personal information from and about applicants and employees. 8. 1688 has been approved by the Senate five times. I 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 like poetry. I go to church almost every week. I believe in the second coming of Christ. I believe in a life hereafter. My mother was a good woman. I believe my sins are unpardonable. I loved my Mother. I believe there is a God. Many of my dreams are about sex matters. At periods my mind seems to werk more slowly than usual. I am considered a liberal "dreamer" of new ways rather than a practical follower of well-tried ways. (a) true, (b) uncertain, (c) faise. When telling a person a deliberate lic, I have to look away, being shamed to look him in the eye. (a) true, (b) uncertain, (c) else. First Amendment Programs: the Army* Section 201(b) (7) prohibits departinents and agencies from undertaking programs for gathering information on how people exercise their First Amendment rights. Section 201(a) prevents them from collecting and maintaining information which is not relevant to a statutory purpose. The need for these provisions have been made evident in many ways. In addition to federal programs for asking people questions such as whether they "believe in the second coming of Christ," there have been numerous other programs affecting First Amendment rights. One of the most pervasive of the intrusive information programs which have concerned the Congress and the public in recent years involved the Army surveillance of civilians, through its own records and those of other federal agencies. The details of these practices have been documented in Congressional hearings and reports and were summarized by Senator Ervin as follows:** *Note. Due to a clerical error, First Amendment Programs: the Army, should read: Section 201(b)(7) prohibits departments and agencies from undertaking programs for gathering information on how people exercise their First Amendment rights unless certain standards are observed. **Hearings before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the Judiciary Committee, 4 Columbia Human Rights Review (1972) Hearings, 92d Cong., 2d sess. February 1971. Despite First Amendment rights of Americans, and despite the constitutional division of power between the federal and state governments, despite laws and decisions defining the legal role and duties of the Army, the Army was given the power to create an information system of data banks and computer programs which threatened to erode these restrictions on governmental power. Allegedly for the purpose of predicting and preventing civil disturbances which might develop beyond the control of state and local officials, Army agents were sent throughout the country to keep surveillance over the way the civilian population expressed their sentiments about government policies. In churches, on campuses, in classrooms, in public meetings, they took notes, taperecorded, and photographed people who dissented in thought, word or deed. This included clergymen, editors, public officials, and anyone who sympathized with the dissenters. With very few, if any, directives to guide their activities, they monitored the membership and policies of peaceful organizations who were concerned with the war in Southeast Asia, the draft, racial and labor problems, and community welfare. Out of this surveillance the Army created blacklists of organizations and personalities which were circulated to many federal, state and local agencies, who were all requested to supplement the data provided. Not only descriptions of the contents of speeches and political comments were included, but irrelevant entries about personal finances, such as the fact that a militant leader's credit card was withdrawn. In some cases, a psychiatric diagnosis taken from Army or other medical records was included. This information on individuals was programmed into at least four computers according to their political beliefs, or their memberships, or their geographic residence. The Army did not just collect and share this information. Analysts were assigned the task of evaluating and labeling these people on the basis of reports on their attitudes, remarks and activities. They were then coded for entry into computers or microfilm data banks. GENERAL STATEMENT The premise underlying this legislation is that good government and efficient management require that basic principles of privacy, confidentiality and due process must apply to all personal information. programs and practices of the Federal Government, and should apply to those of State and local government as well as to those of the organizations, agencies and institutions of the private sector. The need for such a general legislative formula is made necessary by the haphazard patterns of information swapping among government agencies, the diversity of confidentiality rules and the unevenness of their application within and among agencies. The lack of self-restraint in information-gathering from and about citizens on the part of some agencies has demonstrated the potential throughout government for |