ABSTRACT Computerized Governmental Database Systems Containing Personal Information And The Right to Privacy by Lewis William Oleinick, M.P.Af. The University of Texas at Austin, 1993 SUPERVISORS: Chandler Stolp and Philip Doty This report identifies and examines the potential threats to individual privacy created by the collection, aggregation, and dissemination of personal information by governmental agencies and the role computer systems play in potentiating such threats. Computer matching, computer profiling, the national criminal justice database, and portfolio creation via data aggregation of personal information are the governmental activities stipulated to be potentially threatening to personal privacy. These four activities are forms of "dataveillance." Dataveillance poses dangers to the security of civil liberties in a free society. To carry on an intelligible discussion about privacy and how the collection, aggregation, and dissemination of personal information by governmental agencies may threaten individual privacy it is necessary to first define privacy and personal information. Independence, autonomy, dignity, and respect create a conceptual framework upon which privacy may be defined. Privacy is a culturally defined norm. As such a discussion of the American cultural tradition of privacy is necessary to understand both how Americans have defined privacy over time and the roles privacy has played in American society in 1) "starting over," 2) in interpersonal relationships, and 3) in maintaining the "balance of power" with the State. Privacy is held to be as important as the unalienable rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" by the majority of the American public. Americans have become more and more concerned with their privacy as intrusive technologies have evolved. Many Americans fear that computers allow the U.S. Government too much power over the average citizen. Privacy has been protected in the United States by precedents set in court cases, by legislation and by executive act. The breadth of cases pertaining to privacy precludes the examination of all cases. Supreme Court cases provide a historical overview of the evolution of the right to privacy as the questions presented to the Court have become more complex with the introduction of new technologies into the law enforcement process. Congress has attempted to address the public's concerns of the government's collection, aggregation, and dissemination of personal information by passing legislation designed to protect individual privacy. The four major pieces of legislation passed by Congress for the protection of the citizen's right to privacy are the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act, the Computer Security Act of 1987, and the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988. The Office of Management and Budget has produced regulations designed to enforce the intent of the legislation promulgated by Congress. These regulations are contained in OMB Circular A-130 which details federal information policy. This report concludes by suggesting the need for the implementation of a Privacy Protection Board at the national level. Such a board would be based on the model suggested by David Flaherty. The primary conclusion that should be drawn from this report is that society as a whole must re-evaluate the existing paradigm of who should be in control of personal information; i.e., should it be the agency who collects it or should the power of control remain with the individual about whom the information was collected. This report suggests that a certain modicum of control over the disclosure of personal information should revert to the individual about whom the information was collected. ================================================================== TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Description of Problem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Governmental Activities of Interest . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Reasons for Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Bringing the Concerns to a Personal Level . . . . . . . . .3 Justification for Focusing on Governmental Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Recapitulation of Topic and Statement of Position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Explanation for the Ordering of the Presentation of Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Ordering of Presentation of Materials . . . . . . . . . . .6 Chapter 2. Governmental Dataveillance. . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 Defining Surveillance and Dataveillance . . . . . . . . . .7 Forms of Governmental Dataveillance . . . . . . . . . . . .8 Transition from Personal Surveillance to Mass Dataveillance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Dangers of Personal and Mass Dataveillance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Chapter 3. Privacy and Personal Information: The Relationship Explored . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Terms necessary for the definition of privacy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Definition of Personal Information. . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Definition of Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Difficulties with Defining Privacy. . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Chapter 4. The Cultural Tradition of Privacy in American Society27 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Public Opinions on Privacy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Privacy's Role in "Starting Over" -- A Cultural Basis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 The Role of Privacy of Personal Information in Interpersonal Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 The State and the "Balance of Power". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Chapter 5. A Brief Legal History of the Right to Privacy: A Survey of Selected Supreme Court Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Reasons for Choosing the Ten Cases. . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Analysis of Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Mapp v. Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Griswold v. State of Connecticut. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Katz v. United States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Stanley v. State of Georgia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Eisenstadt v. Baird. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Roe v. Wade. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 United States v. Miller. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Whalen v. Roe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Bowers v. Hardwick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 United States Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Summation of Cases and Problems with Judicial Activism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Chapter 6. Legislative and Executive Action to Protect the Privacy of Personal Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 The Freedom of Information Act. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 The Privacy Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Criminal Justice Information Control and Protection of Privacy Act of 1974 . . . . . . . . . . 82 The Computer Security Act of 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 The Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 OMB Circular A-130. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Chapter Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Chapter 7. Conclusion and Suggestions for Additional Legislation93 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Recapitulation of Major Themes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Policy and Advancing Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Government Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Suggestions for Additional Legislation. . . . . . . . . .101 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .102 ========================================================================= Received: (from NIUCS for <tk0jut1@mp.cs.niu.edu> via BSMTP) Received: (from A01MLRV@NIUCS for MAILER@NIU via NJE) (UCLA/Mail V1.410 M-RSCS8672-8672-846); Tue, 21 Sep 93 16:14:40 CDT Received: from NIUCS by NIUCS (Mailer R2.10 ptf000) with BSMTP id 6874; Tue, 21 Sep 93 16:14:19 CST Received: from mp.cs.niu.edu by vm.cso.niu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with TCP; Tue, 21 Sep 93 16:14:15 CST Received: by mp.cs.niu.edu id AA16156 (5.67a/IDA-1.5 for tk0jut1@niu.bitnet); Tue, 21 Sep 1993 16:14:03 -0500 Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1993 16:14:03 -0500 From: jim thomas <tk0jut1@MP.CS.NIU.EDU> Message-Id: <199309212114.AA16156@mp.cs.niu.edu> To: tk0jut1 Last updated: 16-Sep-93 by John Labovitz <johnl@netcom.com> This is a summary of electronically-accessible zines. The format should be fairly self-explanatory. In most cases, descriptions are excerpted from the masthead of the zine listed. RECENT CHANGES TO THIS LIST * Expanded this intro * The Amateur Computerist: new zine (still need description) * Arm The Spirit: added gopher s...
kopia23