Page images
PDF
EPUB

CHAIRMAN KASTENMEIER, CHAIRMAN LEAHY, COMMITTEE MEMBERS:

I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR BEFORE YOU TODAY. IN PARTICULAR, I WANT TO THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN KASTENMEIER, FOR YOUR COMMITMENT TO INDIVIDUAL PRIVACY. INCLUDING LIBRARY SERVICES IN THE LEGISLATION WAS YOUR INITIATIVE ON THE HOUSE SIDE, AND I BELIEVE THIS MAKES FOR A BETTER BILL.

AT THE HEART OF THIS LEGISLATION IS THE NOTION THAT ALL CITIZENS HAVE A RIGHT TO PRIVACY--THE RIGHT TO BE LEFT ALONE--FROM THEIR GOVERNMENT

AND FROM THEIR NEIGHBOR.

A GLANCE AT THE LIST OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS SPONSORING THIS

LEGISLATION INDICATES THAT THIS NOTION TRANSCENDS PARTY LINES AND

POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY.

THERE'S A GUT FEELING THAT PEOPLE OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO READ BOOKS AND
WATCH FILMS WITHOUT THE WHOLE WORLD KNOWING. BOOKS AND FILMS ARE THE

INTELLECTUAL VITAMINS THAT FUEL THE GROWTH OF INDIVIDUAL THOUGHT.
THE WHOLE PROCESS OF INTELLECTUAL GROWTH IS ONE OF PRIVACY--OF QUIET,
AND REFLECTION. THIS INTIMATE PROCESS SHOULD BE PROTECTED FROM THE

DISRUPTIVE INTRUSION OF A ROVING PUBLIC EYE.

WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO PROTECT WITH THIS LEGISLATION ARE USAGE RECORDS

OF CONTENT-BASED MATERIALS--BOOKS, RECORDS, VIDEOS, AND THE LIKE.

UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION, CONTENT-BASED MATERIALS RECEIVE SPECIAL PROTECTION. ONLY IN THE MOST EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES CAN THE GOVERNMENT PROHIBIT THEIR DISTRIBUTION. YET TO THE EXTENT THAT RECEIVERS OF THE INFORMATION ARE THREATENED WITH A LOSS OF ANONYMITY, THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DISTRIBUTE MATERIALS IS LESSENED. THE LEGISLATION YOU ARE CONSIDERING, THEREFORE, COMPLIMENTS THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

FINALLY, THERE IS AN ELEMENT OF COMMON DECENCY IN THIS LEGISLATION. IT'S REALLY NOBODY ELSE'S BUSINESS WHAT PEOPLE READ, WATCH, OR LISTEN TO.

WE ALL FELT A SENSE OF OUTRAGE WHEN JUDGE BORK'S VIDEO LIST WAS REVEALED IN PRINT. HIS PRIVACY WAS INVADED. BUT WHAT THE INCIDENT ALSO DEMONSTRATED WAS THE TREMENDOUS STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL

CAPABILITIES OF EVEN THE SMALLEST OF TODAY'S BUSINESSES.

CURRENTLY, ONLY A CHAIN-LINK FENCE PROTECTS THE PRIVACY OF CONSUMERS OF CONTENT-BASED MATERIALS. THAT CHAIN-LINK FENCE IS THE POLICY AND DISCRETION OF AN INDIVIDUAL MERCHANT OR LIBRARIAN. I ASK THE COMMITTEES TO BUILD A BRICK WALL--A FEDERAL PRIVACY RIGHT--AROUND THE INDIVIDUAL: PASS H.R. 4947 AND S. 2361.

THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE MY THOUGHTS ON THE SUBJECT, AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you, Congressman McCandless.

I would like to yield to the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. LEAHY. Thank you.

Al, you mentioned the bipartisan support for this, and I agree with you. Democrats and Republicans may differ on a lot of issues, but we tend to agree when it comes to protecting privacy.

You mentioned what happened to Judge Bork. We all agree that that went beyond the pale.

I well remember when Senator Al Simpson came before the committee during the Bork hearings and announced what happened. That committee, as you know, was split between those supporting Judge Bork and those opposed to him. But it was unanimous-the feeling across the committee of outrage-when we learned of the disclosure.

Everybody said this just went beyond anything that should be done. I assume you share my view that that was kind of a low point in the protection of privacy for public officials.

Mr. MCCANDLESS. Yes, Senator, I certainly do.

Mr. LEAHY. Do you also share my view, though, that this law goes beyond just a protection for the privacy of public officials, that it affects us all?

Mr. MCCANDLESS. Beg your pardon?

Mr. LEAHY. Do you feel this bill is not just for public officials? Mr. MCCANDLESS. No, sir. It is a cross section of the total population. Obviously, in my comments, I pointed out that privacy is the right of every individual irrespective of their occupation or status in life.

Mr. LEAHY. Well, I compliment you for your support and work in this. You certainly have a well-deserved reputation for your own strong feelings. I compliment you for it.

Mr. Chairman, I have no other questions.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. The gentleman from California.

Mr. MOORHEAD. I want to congratulate you for your work on this legislation. This is one question that has come to me from the direct marketing people. Did you mean this bill to go beyond retail establishments and cover their direct marketing activities?

Mr. MCCANDLESS. Yes. The bill would involve any distribution, be that retail, store-front, mail order. I realize there is some objection in that area of mail order or indirect distribution.

Mr. MOORHEAD. I don't know this to be true because I haven't talked to them in detail about it, but obviously from the stack of the solicitations we get, catalogs and so forth, I think the lists of people that buy from one mail order house are sold to every other one, and it is a general part of the business.

I just wondered whether the transmittal of those names would now be against the law if this is passed?

Mr. MCCANDLESS. Yes, it would be. Only the names, if the individual were not to check what we call the negative aspect of the record, then the name of the individual and the address only could be made available.

Mr. MOORHEAD. Do you know if there has been any showing of any violation of privacy by the mail order houses?

Mr. MCCANDLESS. Well, we are

Mr. MOORHEAD. In telling what kind of materials people are buying?

Mr. MCCANDLESS. Mr. Moorhead, I am not privileged to that information relative to existing mail houses. As they merchandise the various commodities, there is no, in my experience, however, is that there is no restriction as to the selling of mailing lists or names on mailing lists according to subject matter, which I think is the basic root of what it was you were referring to earlier about receiving a lot of mail.

Because of your name and your position and what you may or may not have done in the field of merchandising and purchases, becomes an important thing to somebody else and when they consider you a customer. Therefore your name has a value to it.

Mr. MOORHEAD. It works similar if you give $10 to some organization, it seems like every other one solicits you for their consideration. I think the male order business runs a whole lot the same way. If you buy-

Mr. MCCANDLESS. I would hasten to add that we have to distinguish here between content material and what it is that we are talking about here in the way of a purchase.

Mr. MOORHEAD. I certainly agree with you totally. This is an outrageous kind of thing to have materials that we are buying and subscribing to, such as books and videos made public.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Would my colleague yield?

Mr. MOORHEAD. Yes.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. The bill, as we fashioned it, really has a negative checkoff; that is to say, it assumes you can disclose the name and address of all persons, unless that person elects to say no. Now, that would probably not be very many people. So, therefore, for the most part names and addresses would be available, would presumably become part of these lists, and what we are talking about is something beyond that.

Mr. MCCANDLESS. Right.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. That is to say, a person would have to consent to the to a release of such information as the precise titles of movies taken out of a video store. So there is a, I think, a protection, which contemplates generally a wide release of names and addresses through the negative checkoff.

Mr. MCCANDLESS. I might compliment the chairman because at one point in the history of this bill, we had that available without the negative checkoff, and it was the chairman who in his infinite wisdom looked at that through his judicial eye and modified it, which I think made the bill better.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. I'm sorry.

Mr. MOORHEAD. Thank you.
That is all the questioning I had.

Thank you for coming.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. The gentleman from California, Mr. Berman. Mr. BERMAN. No questions.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. DeWine.

Mr. DEWINE. No questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. CARDIN. No questions.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Slaughter.

Mr. SLAUGHTER. No questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. You get off easy, my colleague. If there are no further questions, we thank you, not only for your appearance here today, but for your leadership and we will try to work together to see if we can't bring this legislation to fruition.

I appreciate your appearance this morning.
Mr. MCCANDLESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Next the Chair would like to call as a panel Ms. Judith Krug, Director of the Office of Intellectual Freedom of the American Library Association; Janlori Goldman, Staff Attorney for Project of Privacy and Technology, American Civil Liberties Union; Vans Stevenson, Director of Public Relations for Erol's; and Richard Barton, Senior Vice President, Direct Marketing Association.

Ladies and gentlemen, you are most welcome. We have a vote on the House Floor. Ironically what happened is the Senate also has a vote at this very moment. So I think with the witnesses' agreement, before we go into the testimony of the four witnesses and they have differing testimony, but nonetheless touching on different aspects, but nonetheless I think it would be good to hear them in tandem as a group.

Before we do that, we will recess for 10 minutes, pending answering the vote on the House Floor and perhaps by then, also Senator Leahy might be able to return from his vote in the Senate.

Accordingly, the committee stands in recess for 10 minutes. [Recess.]

Mr. KASTENMEIER. The committee will come to order.

As the committee reconvenes after its recess for a vote, actually a vote of both the House and the Senate, and before we get to our four witnesses who have been introduced, our panel, I would like to greet, it is a great honor to greet our former colleague, the distinguished Senator from Illinois, Mr. Paul Simon, and I would like to call on Senator Simon, if he would for an opening statement.

Mr. SIMON. I thank you very, very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me commend you for having this hearing.

I think one of the things that we, in the House and Senate have constantly been reminding ourselves is that one of the most fundamental things we ought to be doing is protecting basic freedoms, and protecting basic freedoms means the freedom that people have to have access to information without fear of what may happen to them as a result of requiring or requesting information.

I am old enough and if you will forgive me, Mr. Chairman, you are old enough along with me and these young people like Howard Berman around here don't remember this, but we lived through the McCarthy period.

Mr. BERMAN. I can remember that.

Mr. SIMON. You can remember that? You are older than I thought, Howard, but I remember being stationed at Fort Holobird in the old Counter Intelligence Corps and we went through these classes where people said Frederick March contributed to Yugoslavians' children's relief, and therefore he is suspect and all of this.

I wrote a letter to the St. Lewis Post Dispatch suggesting that an investigation of this whole thing ought to be taking place, that

« PreviousContinue »