ens to curtail the forces of society which have operated throughout our history to cool political passions and to make our form of government viable by allowing a free exchange in the market place of ideas.

The new technology has made it literally impossible for a man to start again in our society. It has removed the quality of mercy from our institutions by making it impossible to forget, to forgive, to understand, to tolerate. When it is used to intimidate and to inhibit the individual in his freedom of movement, associations, or expression of ideas within the law, the new technology provides the means for the worst sort of tyranny. Those who so misuse it to augment their own power break faith with those founders of our Constitution who, like Thomas Jefferson, swore upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.

Mr. President, it has become dangerously clear in recent times that unless new controls are enacted, new legal remedies are provided, and unless Federal officials can be persuaded to exercise more political self-control, this country will not reap the blessings of man's creative spirit which is reflected in computed technology. Rather, if the surveillance it encourages is allowed to continue without strict controls and safeguards, we stand to lose the spiritual and intellectual liberty of the individual which have been so carefully nourished and so valiantly defended, and which our Founding Fathers so meticulously enshrined in the Constitution.

I say this out of my conviction that the undisputed and unlimited possession of the resources to build and operate data banks on individuals, and to make decisions about people with the aid of computers and electronic data systems, is fast securing to executive branch officials a political power which the authors of the Constitution never meant any one group of men to have over all others. It threatens to unsettle forever the balance of power established by our Federal Constitution.

Our form of government is the fruition of an ideal of political, economic, and spiritual freedom which is firmly rooted in our historical experience. Basic to its fulfillment has always been the monumental truth that such freedom is truly secure only when power is divided, limited, and called to account by the people. For this reason the central Government was divided into three separate and equal branches.

For this reason, the bill of rights was added to secure certain areas of liberty against incursion by Government and the exercise of Federal power was limited to certain purposes.

For this reason, we cherish and protect the legal freedom of each citizen to develop his mind and personality and to express them free of unwarranted governmental control.

I differ with those who say that there are no existing checks on this developing power of computer technology, for I believe they already exist in our form of Government. The guarantees are established in our Constitution.

The forthcoming hearings will help Congress determine how these guarantees may best be implemented to meet the demands of the computer age.

In the interest of responding to the many inquiries from scholars, reporters and members of the public who are working on this subject, I should like to refer to other sources of materials which provide useful background information. The subject of how Government manages its information systems, and its paper work, how and when it uses computers and automation to assist in this effort, has been a continuing subject of concern by a number of congressional committees and their efforts should interest those working on this subject.

The Senate Administrative Practice and Procedures Subcommittee has contributed valuable hearings, reports and studies on the subject of computers, privacy, and Government dossiers. Particularly informative in their 1967 report "Government Dossier: Survey of Information on Individuals Contained in Government Files."

The Senate Government Operations Committee has, in other years, conducted comprehensive hearings and issued reports on Government information systems and management uses of computers.

In the House of Representatives, the Committee on Science and Astronautics has held a provocative and stimulating series of hearings and panel discussions on the impact of technology, especially on the management of Government information.

The House Government Activities Subcommittee of the Government Operations Committee, chaired by Representative Jack Brooks, has produced valuable

hearings, reports and legislation on "Data Processing Management in the Federal Government."

More than anyone else, Representative Cornelius Gallagher has continually pointed out the dangers to individual rights and privacy of the establishment of a national data center, and his Special Subcommittee on Invasion of Privacy, after stimulating hearings, produced a classic and concise report entitled, "The Data Bank Concept." The record of his hearings contains testimony from many expert witnesses on the philosophy of privacy and computer technology.

The Census and Statistics Subcommittee of the House Post Office and Civil Service Committee produced a thought-provoking and influential report in the 89th Congress entitled "The Federal Paperwork Jungle." Scholars will find most informative that subcommittee's hearings and reports dealing with the paperwork requirements placed upon business, industry, and the public by the Federal departments.

I commend the publications of all of these committees and the thoughtful speeches of the chairmen and the members of these committees to persons interested in this subject.

It is my hope that the hearings and study by the Constitutional Rights Subcommittee will add a unique and valuable dimension ot the public and congressional dialog on the role of data banks, information systems, and computers in our constitutional form of government.

[From the Congressional Record, Nov. 10, 1969]

COMPUTERS AND INDIVIDUAL PRIVACY

Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, last week I attended a conference of management executives at the Wharton School of Finance and Commerce, University of Pennsylvania. These executives were discussing the science and management of information systems. The Constitutional Rights Subcommittee, in the course of its investigation of Government invasion of privacy, has uncovered many violations of the personal privacy of Federal employees and applicants. Many of these were made possible by the creation of vast computerized data banks. It was for this reason that I introduced S. 782, the right-to-privacy bill, which 54 Members of the Senate have cosponsored. As the complaint from Federal employees and every major employee union and organization demonstrate, there is an urgent need for enactment of this legislation.

Millions of private citizens face similar surveillance by computers in private industry as well as in Government. Their problems are equally deserving of attention.

Due to the national dimensions of this problem and its complicated nature, it is well-nigh impossible for Congress, by any one law, to control the danger posed to our society by computer technology.

For this reason, in addition to bills prohibiting the collection and use of Federal data on individuals, there is an immediate need for establishment of an independent regulatory agency to control this new communication-surveillance system.

I also discussed at the conference a striking example of the dangers which Federal data banks present to individual privacy. This is a guideline published by the Secret Service and distributed to Federal employees to encourage them to report on private citizens. I have asked the Secretary of the Treasury to report to the subcommittee about the methods of compiling and using this data, for preserving its confidentiality, and for notifying citizens that a report has been made and affording a chance for rebuttal.

I ask unanimous consent that there be printed at the conclusion of my remarks my letter on behalf of the subcommittee to Treasury Secretary David M. Kennedy together with a letter to the Commission of Internal Revenue from the American Civil Liberties Union which was supplied to the subcommittee with the Commissioner's response.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

(See exhibit 1.)

Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, the conflict between the needs of our computer age and individual privacy in our national life is a problem which we used to think was uniquely American but technological know-how has made this a worldwide, and possibly, after Appollo 11, a universal concern.

From my investigation, I am convinced that computers represent a magnificent contribution to the progress of mankind. In fact, they are so wonderful that I considered introducing an amendment to allow a computer to be elected President. But I found that while it can make logical conclusions from information fed into it, it cannot draw illogical deductions from logical facts. For this reason, a computer could never be President and I didn't introduce my proposed amendment.

There is a common bond which unites most of the population today. All of us have been, or will be, victimized or harassed by a computer. Last year I received a check from the social security agency for $754.25 for lumpsum death benefits. I returned the check with a letter saying I was happy to report that contrary to the computer's deduction, any indications that I had passed away were slightly exaggerated.

Another time, when my income tax was not being withheld from my salary, I received a computerized notice from the Internal Revenue Service that I had failed to pay my June installment. I replied that this had been paid and eventually I learned that someone had failed to enter my payment in the computer. So if the computer has, through folklore, acquired an image of infallibility, this is not the image it has in my mind.

Nor is the image in the minds of those countless millions of Americans whose reputations, jobs, credit and insurance ratings, health records, security clearances, driver's licenses, and Government benefits of many different kinds may be destroyed or threatened by a computer. These are the people who stand to suffer at some time in their lives from erroneous information in their computer files which they cannot confront or explain.

These are the people who are being denied, or will be denied, due process by medium-size businesses and large corporations, by organizations and by government at all levels. These are the people in every type of work and every walk of life who must fear the mechanical or human quirks or complete breakdowns in computerized information systems.

They are also the millions of citizens who will be harassed by overzealous computerized data-collecting programs of overcurious administrators; the people who will wonder what the form they filled out was all about, and what will be done with their replies.

The number of citizens whose privacy is affected is vast. A survey by the Senate Administration Practices Subcommittee 2 years ago revealed that—

Our names alone are in government files 2,800 million times. Our social security numbers are listed 1,500 million times. Police records number 264,500 million; medical histories, 342 million; and psychiatric histories, 279 million.

The social security number once was treated as a private matter, sacred to the individual. That was in the 1930's before the computer age. Now, with this number on almost every Government form, and every private questionnaire, no man can be lost. And this is reassuring. But, similarly, no man can ever again be alone. And this is despairing.

The new plan of the Health, Education, and Welfare Department to tie in a national welfare program to the social security system raises specters of surveil lance and privacy invasion on a scale never before experienced. Only time will tell what the bureaucrats will do with this. Sadly enough, it will be the poor, the unsophisticated, the inexperienced, who will have to fight the computers in this program.

It is not just the chance of wrong or one-sided information being fed into vast Government and private computer systems that should give us cause to worry. The increased use of computers makes it cheaper and vastly more simple for Government as well as private businesses to collect and store information about people for reasons that would give us serious pause.

There is, for instance, the Secret Service's well-meaning program to keep track of people who might harm the President or other public officials. But consider this Secret Service memorandum telling employees of Federal agencies to supplyInformation about individuals who "make oral or written statements about high Government officials in the following caegories"; Threatening statements; irrational statements; and abusive statements.

Information on professional gate crashers.

Information on persons who insist upon personally contacting high Government officials for the purpose of redress of imaginary grievances, and so forth. Information pertaining to a threat, plan, or attempt by an individual, a group, or an organization to physically harm or embarrass the persons protected by the U.S. Secret Service, or any other high U.S. Government official at home or abroad.

Many people, with complete faith in their Government, believe that the place to start with a complaint is with the President or Vice President. Yet some of these people who write a strong letter will never know they have been fed into yet another Government data system. Are these records now to be part of standard employment checks for suitability and security clearances?

Another change made possible by the computer is that statistical questionnaires can now be distributed by private agencies and by Government in a scale beyond the researcher's wildest dreams. It has been estimated that by 1970 the total statistical budget of the Federal Government will probably exceed $200 million. If complaints to Congress are any indication, the impact on individual rights of these programs is proving devastating.

The decennial census questionnaire, with civil and criminal penalties, is one example of this, with such questions as:

How much rent do you pay?

Do you live in a one-family house?

Do you use gas?

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?

Do you own a second home?

Does your TV set have UHF?

Do you have a flush toilet?

Do you have a bathtub or shower?

Another example of this computer prying occurred last spring when the Consti tutional Rights Subcommittee began receiving complaints from elderly, disabled, or retired people in all walks of life about a 15-page form sent by the Census Bureau. It asked questions such as:

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?

What were you doing most of last week?

When the recipient did not respond he received a second form by certified mail, then a phone call, and then a visit from a Census Bureau employee.

We found that because of its great computer systems, the Census Bureau was sending out this form for the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. We also found that it was making similar surveys of many other groups such as the mentally ill and the handicapped. It took the subcommittee several months, several letters, and a number of phone calls to get an answer from the HEW Secretary to the simple question, whether or not this form was voluntary or required. We also found that several sets of tapes were made of the responses and stored in several different places: in one location, apparently forever.

As a result of those and thousands of other complaints about burdensome or privacy invading statistical forms, I had the Senate Constitutional Rights Subcommittee conduct a survey of every Federal agency to find out what kind of statistical questionnaires they are sending to the public, whether the replies were voluntary or required, and finally, whether the person who received the form was told this. We learned that over the past 3 years Census Bureau alone had conducted 87 voluntary surveys for 24 other agencies which covered over 6 million people. There were other independent surveys by the agencies themselves. Everything from bomb shelters to smoking habits, to birth control methods was included in these "people studies." And usually with spaces for social security number, address, and phone numbers on the form. All responses were fed into computers.

The Census Bureau and Health, Education, and Welfare questionnaires illustrate another serious problem basic to the computer age. The right to privacy and the right to keep silent about one's personal life and attitudes is being violated by the coercive methods used by government and business to obtain responses. The information fed into these machines is easliy coerced by citing a general statute or by using subtle psychology to pressure a response. The Assis

tant Secretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs, William H. Chartner, for instance, told the subcommittee that he could not advise people that their responses to a form were voluntary because that would be "bad psychology." He felt that the Census Bureau had to give the citizens the impression his replies were required on pain of penalty.

We frequently see such pressure applied to applicants for employment who are forced to subject themselves to wholesale invasion of their personal privacy because they need a job. This is particularly true in private businesses. The data disappears into the labyrinth of computers, and as the person moves from job to job throughout an industry, the computer surveillance continues, facilitated by the network of interfacing computer systems.

Because there are few controls, the applicants and employees of these large corporations which stretch across our national economy are subjected to a startling arsenal of devices for coercing disclosure of personal information.

Do they want to check an applicant's capacity to fit into the organization-his conformity to the prevailing norm? They subject him to personality tests and make a record in the computer dossier of his responses to such questions as:

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 not lived the right kind of life.

I have no difficulty in starting or holding my bowel movements.

I am very strongly attracted by members of my own sex.

I like poetry.

I go to church almost every week.

I believe in the second coming of Christ.

I believe in a life hereafter.

I loved my mother.

Many of my dreams are about sex matters.

Congress has received complaints about such psychological pressure from the practices of larger credit companies. With their gigantic computerized data systems, they induce the most personal revelations out of the individual through subtle threats or inducements of credit clearance. Yet his buying and borrowing ability is governed wherever he moves in this country or abroad by the rapid computer transmission of information about him.

As of now, however, the individual has no recourse, no chance of confronting and rebutting the data.

The forms of human psychology promoted by computer technology today are about on the same moral plane as false pretenses in a horse trade.

Whether practiced by private business or by government, they have no place in our constitutional system, and under American ideas of due process.

REMEDIES

What can be done about these threats to our liberties? How can we insure that corporations as well as Government afford substantial due process to employees and citizens?

Our Founding Fathers, with all their vision, could not have foreseen the "memory banks" and "printouts" that are beginning to dominate our society.

Our present legal system affords no protections against the excesses of computers, and no adequate legal remedies for the injuries they may cause. But under our Constitution, this can be remedied.

To mitigate, much less prevent these threats, there must be controls of several kinds.

First. There must be technical and mechanical security devices built into the machine. According to engineers, this is possible and the computer industry should be encouraged to develop these.

Second. There must be controls for those who operate and who control the machines. In this connection, the ethical conduct guidelines with some of the computer operators themselves have developed and are attempting to apply, suggest that the industry will try to police itself, will develop sanctions, and hopefully, publicize their use, for any personnel who violate its code. In addition, strict administrative personnel rules must be developed by organizations, businesses and industries using computers.