3. The detailed language of a legislative proposal to insure that a Federal Statistical Data Center would not make available to the public or governmental agencies any information about individual persons or businesses has not been developed as yet. Please call on me if you have further questions. RAYMOND T. BOWMAN, Assistant Director for Statistical Standards. Time is short. It would be a tragedy to see a data center initiated before proper confidentiality is assured. Let citizen protection precede establishing a data center, not follow it. Congress must develop legislation to secure the rights of privacy for our citizens from potential misuse of a data bank. 3. OMNIBUS RIGHT OF PRIVACY BILL The need for development of an inclusive bill to protect private rights against encroachment or harassment by the Federal Government is at hand. There may be aspects of such legislation which should be considered separately such as the wiretapping issue now under active consideration. Yet no legislation is pending on a number of facets of the privacy issue. Interest and expertise are growing. A well presented challenge to Congress has been advanced by Prof. William A. Beaney: "Whether legislatures can be induced to maintain a systematic review of administrative behavior affecting privacy is doubtful. It would be helpful, for example, if one or more subcommittees maintained a constant surveillance of the information gathering activities of government. There may be plausible reasons for accumulating more and more information about each citizen, in order to improve efficiency of tax collection or to permit planners and administrators in other agencies to carry out their functions more efficiently, since any government agency operates more rationally when provided with adequate information. But clearly there are data that lie outside the pale of government concern and other matters that must be treated as confidential and with stringent safeguards of confidentiality. Mr. Speaker, so often the eerie implications of George Orwell's "1984" come to mind. In January of this year author Vance Packard provided a current interpretation of his own to the impending dangers 17 years hence: "My own hunch is that Big Brother, if he comes to the United States, will turn out to be not a greedy power-seeker but a relentless bureaucrat obsessed with efficiency." [WJBK-TV editorial, Detroit, Mich., June 26, 1968] TELLING ALL-OR ELSE Some powerful people in Washington are getting set to ask you some nosy questions like these: How much money do you make? Please include details on all sources, including alimoney, welfare, investments and pensions. What's your property worth or how much rent do you pay? What do you own in the way of dishwashers, TV and radio sets, automobiles, or perhaps a second home? What are the facts on your marital, employment, educational, and military background? Where was everybody in your family, including your grandparents, born? Unless Congress blows the whistle soon on eager Census Bureaucrats, that's the extent of which you'll have to tell all in 1970-or face a $100 fine or 60 days in jail. And there are more than 100 other intimate questions in the $200 million census project-including with whom do you share your bathroom? Ohio Congressman Jackson Betts is leading a fight to limit mandatory questions to name, address, age, sex, race, marital status, and who's visiting in your home at the time of census. Mr. Betts' bill would make the more obnoxious snooping strictly voluntary. But the Congressman tells TV2 that Census Bureau pressure has his bill in trouble. That's where a short, angry note from you might help. If you agree that the census should be restorted to its original purpose-counting people, not grilling them-let your Senator or Congressman know about it now, while there's still time. [From the Fort Wayne (Ind.) News-Sentinel, June 1, 1968] A CENSUS-NOT AN INQUISITION Provisions for a decennial census of residents were made in the drafting of the Constituion of the United States of America. The purpose of the census, as it was written into the Constitution, was a good one-the apportionment of Congressional representation. As such, it was a tool of democracy. In nearly 200 years, the census has undergone vast changes, and when the next census is taken, in 1970, it will much more closely resemble a marketing survey than a serious effort on the part of the Government to achieve proportional representation. Under penalty of the law, some citizens will be required to answer as many as 120 questions covering such diverse topics as the individual's marital, educational, employment and military histories; his income, to the dollar, from all sources: the value of property owned by him or the rent he pays; the nature of bathroom facilities and with whom they are shared; and his possession or nonpossession of a long list of appliances such as dishwasher, television sets, radios, automobiles; and whether or not he owns a "second" home. Many people, including Congressman Jackson E. Betts, Ohio, feel that the Government intrudes far to deeply into the personal life of the individual in requiring, under the threat of a $100 fine or 60 days in jail, the answers to such questions. They are particularly concerned in light of the proposals to establish a governmental "data bank” containing all information which is given or comes to the government on each and every person in the Nation. Answers to the 120 questions would provide a substantial "backbone" for the dossier of each person. To end the proliferation of questions and the invasion of privacy, Congressman Betts has introduced a bill (H.R. 10952) which would limit to eight the questions which the citizens would be required to answer, under penalty. Those questions cover his name, address, relationship to the head of the household, sex, date of birth, race, marital status, and the number of visitors in the household at the time of the census. It would seem sensible to turn marketing surveys over to marketing professionals in private industry and limit the census to its constitutional intent. Especially, the individual should not be required by law to answer the extraneous questions. Congressman Bett's measure should be passed. [From the Chicago (Ill.) American, May 28, 1968] "BIG BROTHER" AGAIN Someday in 1970, a stranger will knock on your door and ask you 120 questions about your income, down to the last dollar; details of your educational, marital, employment, and military history; with whom, if anyone, you share your bathroom and kitchen facilities; and every item of furniture you have in your home. Those are only a few of the compulsory questions scheduled for the 1970 census, and refusal to answer them carries a penalty of $100 fine or 60 days in jail. The questions and the penalty for silence are sure to raise the hackles of many Americans who cherish the right to privacy. They've already irritated some congressmen, including Rep. Jackson E. Betts [R., O.], who has urged his fellow lawmakers to change the rules. We agree with him. Noting that many of the questions intrude on personal privacy, Betts told the House he sees "no justification for the mandatory requirement that forces all citizens to provide such information." Betts says that in 1960 the census bureau failed to count 5.7 million Americans, and he predicts the undercount in 1970 will be even greater unless the forms are simplified and most questions put on a voluntary basis. We don't know where he got his figures, but the compulsory questions seem hardly calculated to encourage full cooperation. Betts' alternative is a combined mandatory-voluntary census which would allow the citizen to decide if questions are too personal. Compulsory questions under a bill he has introduced would be limited to name and address, relationship to the head of the household, sex, date of birth, race, marital status, and the number of visitors in the home at the time of the census. It makes sense; as Betts says, the purpose of a census is to count people. He sounded an ominous note in referring to a proposed federal data bank, a computer system to combine information from various government agencies to develop a complete file on any individual. That sounds too much like a police state for comfort. We don't want Big Brother or anyone else watching us that closely. [From the Congressional Record, Oct. 16, 1967] THE CENSUS: COHERENT PLAN FOR NATIONAL DATA GATHERING NEEDED Mr. BETTS. Mr. Speaker, a principal argument used to justify the 67 subjects proposed by the Census Bureau for the 1970 decennial census of population and housing is that such data are needed by public and private organizations and would otherwise be unavailable. In the previous statements I have presented to substantiate my position that the decennial census should be vastly changed, three separate issues were analyzed. I sought to show that both a mandatory and a voluntary approach to parts of the decennial census are feasible. In another position statement I reviewed all of the proposed subjects for the 1970 census questionnaires including where items could be omitted, dropped to a smaller sampling or deferred for current surveys which the Census Bureau conducts frequently. Invasion of personal privacy and the census was the subject of my third statement. In order to meet Census Bureau arguments for retention of their 67 subjects in 1970 on the basis of Federal information needs, let me address myself to this proposition. DETERMINE FEDERAL STATISTICAL NEEDS A nation investing billions of dollars in research and hundreds of millions on gathering information from American citizens should conduct these undertakings with some logically consistent plan of attack. I am unconvinced that such a coherent national data accumulation plan exists whether within the Federal Government, State statistical agencies or private and university information collection activities. It seems to me that an inventory of essential statistics on population, employment, education, income, housing, et cetera, should be developed by the Bureau of the Budget which now has authority to approve questionnaires. The scope and validity of these requirements should receive at least oversight review by Congress. This is a minimum assignment, I believe, to untangle the data gathering machinery of departments and agencies which have exhibited octopuslike growth in recent years. Such an inventory of Federal statistical requirements could encompass the needs of colleges and universities, nonprofit enterprises, and private business so long as a public purpose is related to the initial collection of data. If the departments and agencies of the Federal Government-except for security, defense and law enforcement organizations—would identify information demands both required and collateral and these lists were correlated into an aggregate principal statistical research, centers such as the Census Bureau could proceed in a more purposeful manner to collect only that information. In my opinion this would result in a major reduction in census inquiries from those now proposed. DEVELOP NATIONAL PROGRAM Once an inventory of important Federal statistical needs was developed, it would be necessary to identify all existing sources of data collected by Federal, State, and private agencies willing to cooperate in such a consolidated program. We must bring about maximum utilization of all existing bodies of data before plunging further into unrelated interrogation of segments of the American public and business. I do not believe that reaching this assessment would be difficult. A review of the 1970 census questions brings the immediate thought to mind: Do any Federal agencies have current data on some of the subjects now on the census questionnaire thus minimizing the need for the Census Bureau to include them? It seems clear that the Internal Revenue Service, Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Department of Agriculture, Department of Labor, Veterans' Administration, and other Federal installations do possess such statistics, transferable without identifying any individual, if required by the Census Bureau. After all questions properly deemed matters of public need are evaluated and a thorough review of existing sources of information amassed by Federal depart ments and agencies, decisions could be reached as to how all remaining facts should be collected. I am uncertain, as I expect many of my colleagues are, as to what determines whether departments and agencies conduct their own surveys for particular information, the project is contracted to the Census Bureau, or private or university research organizations are allowed to bid on the proposal. Qualitative factors such as the competency for the assignment as well as quantitative factors such as cost, no doubt receive consideration. Yet I am not aware of firm, public policies existing for each department and agency concerning their surveys and polling programs. CONCERNS FOR THE CONGRESS The Congress must become involved in the major propositions concerning information collection by the executive branch for at least three reasons: It is a multimillion-dollar investment by the taxpayers annually, urgent questions as to the maintenance of personal privacy are involved, and determinations are needed as to the adequacy of information collected in terms of national objectives. Various House and Senate committees are charged with parts of this responsibility and in recent years a number of significant hearings have been held. No definite policy directions that I am aware of have been given to the executive branch. I hope before the adjournment of the 90th Congress several bills will become law in this field. There are four facets to this problem I would point to as arenas where Congress can help develop a coherent plan for national data procurement: First. Full utilization of existing statistical services within the executive and greater consolidation of that data for intergovernmental users is the logical first step in the plan. This proposal embodies the creation of a national data bank. The greater efficiency and savings from such a facility plus increased information availability do not, however, overshadow its major weakness. I refer to the invasion of personal liberty which can result when extensive personal data are concentrated in one master information system. Foolproof statutory safeguards must precede the creation of a data center. Once protection against misuse of personal facts is guaranteed, this consolidated statistical unit has great possibilities for assisting every segment of American society. Second. The 50 States are rapidly expanding their collection of all types of data useful to every level of government. Under the auspices of the Council of State Governments an individual or agency in each State has been designated for intra and interstate data processing coordination. Any national data center on the Federal level should be accessible to State governments. Maximum benefits can accrue to the State only if some coordination or standardization of present projects is developed. An interstate compact on statistics and data processing might serve as the forum for State officials to plan greater integration of information systems. There should be greater Federal statistical information available in automated form to the States. Increasing such sharing of data will necessarily initially involve cooperation among the States. This is far more desirable, as I can see it, than for the Census Bureau or officials of a national data center to negotiate information exchange or transfer separately with every State. Early State action could mean expanded access to a center data operation, if Congress is aware of the particular needs and automatic data processing capabilities of the States when a national data center is established. Third. Whether any current surveys on population, housing, education, employment, or business now conducted under Federal auspices could or should be contracted to a private market research firm cannot be overlooked. I asked 200 market research firms if their organizations could successfully conduct some of the projects now handled by the Census Bureau. It was not surprising that the overwhelming response was "Yes." I was impressed, however, with the reasons given for the belief that more Federal survey work should be shared with private enterprise. Let me provide actual quotes from several representative letters: PRINCETON, N.J., Hon. JACKSON E. BETTS, House of Representatives, Congress of the United States, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN BETTS: I am keenly interested in the problem you pose. The government can conduct some types of surveys better than private market ing research firms, such as ours. But, not from the point of view of technology. The decennial census would probably represent too great a project for any or all private firms. Also, there are some studies made by the government, requiring an answer by the respondents, that obviously could not be done by private marketing firms. On the other hand, there are a great many surveys that not only could be done as well by private firms, and at a fraction of the cost. If all expenses were honestly taken into account, I believe that private research firms could conduct most of these surveys for about one-third or one-half of the amount spent by the government. My own fear is that the government will continue to build up its survey machinery and in time will take over more and more of the work that now goes to commercial research firms. From the point of view of quality, the government certainly has no advantage except that it can spend excessive amounts whereas commercial firms must normally work within much smaller budget requirements. As the head of a market research firm, I should add that we have never been very much interested in getting survey assignments from the government because of the time and the money and the difficulties of fighting the Washington bureaucracy. It requires a lot of time of a lawyer, of accountants, etc., even for minor contracts. Moreover, it is always difficult to get money out of the government when the job is completed. In dealing with private industry, a simple contract is enough and we can expect to be paid on the completion of the study and the delivery of the report. In our experience this is not the case in dealing with the government. Often months go by before some minor detail is cleared up. All of this makes for work for the bureaucrats but it is discouraging to those who could do surveys for the government at substantial savings to taxpayers. DEAR CONGRESSMAN BETTS: It is my opinion that private marketing research organizations can compete favorably for the studies undertaken by The Census Bureau for the benefit of government. This has application to studies in other areas of government as well. The Department of Agriculture has demonstrated the success of this approach in a number of studies in which they have utilized private organizations. Most sincerely, A. EDWARD MILLER, President, Alfred Politz Research. RICHMOND, VA., Hon. JACKSON E. BETTS, DEAR MR. BETTS: We cannot admit to an unprejudiced viewpoint, but are convinced that private marketing research organizations could successfully contact some of the census projects. Our organization has, from time to time, attempted to persuade the Department of Commerce that this could be donebut to no avail. Insofar as I am aware, the Commerce Department is one of the few in the federal government which relies almost exclusively on its internal personnel for information gathering and other kinds of research. Sincerely yours, J. ALBERT FABER, President, Southeastern Institute of Research, Inc. |