PRIVACY AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS SUBCOMMITTEE As a part of its concern with the guarantees of personal liberty found in the Bill of Rights, the Constitutional Rights Subcommittee has been interested in individual privacy since the subcommittee's inception almost twenty years ago. Freedom of speech and thought, due process, fourth amendment rights and other liberties guaranteed by the Constitution are all part of the subcommittee's interest in privacy. Among the first activities of the Constitutional Rights Subcommittee after its creation at the beginning of the Eighty-fourth Congress, were extensive hearings on "Security and Constitutional Rights." These 1955 hearings which focused on government securityloyalty programs were followed in the Eighty-fifth Congress by subcommittee hearings on "Wiretapping, Eavesdropping and the Bill of Rights" and "Freedom of Information and Secrecy in Government." During the Eighty-sixth Congress the subcommittee renewed hearings on all three of these privacy-related subjects. Soon after Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., became chairman in 1961, the Constitutional Rights Subcommittee began to concentrate on governmental infringements of individual privacy. The subcommittee's work on questions of employee procedural rights led directly to a consideration of the kinds of information that the Federal government as an employer finds pertinent in actions involving its employees. The subcommittee found ever-increasing demands by the Federal government to learn about its employees, applicants for Federal employment, and their families, activities and associations. The subcommittee soon discovered that these efforts were not limited to government employees. There was widespread use of psychological testing and intrusive questionnaires seeking to learn all about citizens who were not employees or prospective employees of government. These investigations resulted in a series of bills and hearings in the mid-1960's. Chief among these were hearings on "Psychological Tests and Constitutional Rights" in 1965; "Privacy and the Rights of Federal Employees" in 1966; and "Privacy, the Census, and Federal Questionnaires" in 1969. These hearings served to increase general interest in privacy. The subcommittee's initial privacy proposal, the Government Employees Privacy bill, passed the Senate numerous times in the years since the 1966 hearings and met little Senate opposition. However, it died in the House each time. Other privacy bills did not advance as far. As these privacy-related studies were conducted, it became evident that each was merely part of a more general problem of individual privacy versus government accumulation of data. It also became. apparent with the debate on the proposed National Data Center that the advent of computers introduced a new and ultimately a very (XXXIII) 20-550-74—vol. 1 threatening element into the privacy problem. More and more citizens brought to the subcommittee's attention the fact that the programs intruding on privacy and other individual rights were utilizing computers to assist the government in its activities. Thousands of complaints about the use of computers in these programs urged further subcommittee investigation of the impact of computers on individual privacy. The subcommittee by its chairman, Senator Ervin was particularly interested in this issue. In a speech before the American Management Association in March 1967, he pointed to the computer as a means of expanding government's ability to collect and use information, thus increasing the possibility of harm to individual rights. The subcommittee's interest in individual rights, privacy and data banks has from the beginning resulted in a considerable amount of activity directed toward assisting individuals, changing administrative policies, and influencing the course of executive and legislative decision-making in these areas. The cancellation of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare's scientific "blacklist", and the Army surveillance computer programs are two more familiar examples of the fruits of the subcommittee's involvement. Others include the end of funding for the SACB and the elimination of certain intrusive and unnecessary questions from the government employee applicant's form. The controversy over the National Data Center introduced Congress to the computer, but it was the increasing concern on the part of individual citizens that sparked the subcommittee's particular interest. From that point the subcommittee became more and more concerned not only about data collection in itself, but also about the consequences that would follow as the computer was employed to store and interrelate government data. This focus eventually resulted in the 1971 hearings on "Federal Data Banks, Computers and the Bill of Rights." These hearings explored for the first time the use of computers in data collection about citizens. Origin of the Survey In early 1970, as preparation for hearings on "Federal Data Banks, Computers and the Bill of Rights" began, the subcommittee initiated the survey which is the subject of this report. On January 12, 1970 the first letter of inquiry went out to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Eventually, the following 54 agencies were surveyed: ACTION Administrative Conference of the United States Appalachian Regional Commission Civil Aeronautics Board Civil Service Commission Department of Agriculture Department of Commerce Department of Defense Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Department of Justice Department of Labor Department of Transportation Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Federal Communications Commission Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Federal Home Loan Bank Board Federal Maritime Commission Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service Federal Power Commission Federal Reserve Board Federal Trade Commission General Services Administration Indian Claims Commission Interstate Commerce Commission National Aeronautics and Space Administration National Credit Union Administration National Labor Relations Board. National Mediation Board National Science Foundation Securities and Exchange Commission Selective Service System Small Business Administration Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention Subversive Activities Control Board Tennessee Valley Authority U.S. Atomic Energy Commission U.S. Commission on Civil Rights U.S. Information Agency U.S. Postal Service U.S. Tariff Commission Each of the above agencies was asked to respond to the Introductory Questions and Questionnaire which are printed on the fold-out inside the back cover of this and each of the succeeding volumes. The subcommittee's letter varied slightly from agency to agency, but followed the same general format: DEAR In connection with our study of computers, privacy and constitutional rights, the Constitutional Rights Subcommittee is conducting a government-wide survey of federallyadministered or federally-sponsored data banks containing personal information about individuals for statistical, administrative or intelligence purposes. Clearly, the Federal Government's ability to respond to the needs of state and local governments and its capacity to meet its responsibilities to all of the people quickly and efficiently may well depend on the case and ingenuity with which it applies the best of the new technology to federal programs. Therefore, this Subcommittee inquiry should not be deemed criticism of agency policies in the field of data collection or processing. Rather, the questionnaire is designed to assist Congress in its evaluation and understanding of the current trends and practices in those areas where individual rights and privacy may be affected in some way. Letters to the Subcommittee and other congressional offices show a growing public concern and what is frequently an unnecessary alarm over the extent of government data collection about citizens and the reasons for it. While I believe some of this concern is warranted, much of it could be allayed by clearer definition of official duties and of the rights of citizens and by better communication with the public, the press and Congress about agency programs. It is the Subcommittee's hope that the replies from this survey will better enable Congress to respond to public inquiries and to help it determine the need for comprehensive new laws and for a new federal agency to govern computerized and mechanized data banks where they affect individual rights to privacy and due process. Since reports from our investigation will be published, it is essential that to the extent possible the questions be answered seriatim and in layman's terms so that the public may understand your operations. I realize that the collection of such a large amount of information will constitute an administrative burden, but I hope it will not tax your employees unduly. The Subcommittee believes that a worthy cause will be furthered by the diligent and good faith efforts of the officials from your agency to supply these responses to the best of their ability. In the final analysis, I believe Congress, the Executive Branch and the people will profit by this investigation. Your own personal assistance in our study is deeply appreciated. With kindest wishes, Sincerely yours, SAM J. ERVIN, JR., Chairman. By the spring of 1974 all 54 agencies had responded. These responses are reprinted at length in the thousands of pages which constitute the bulk of this report. The next section of this introduction contains a brief "Summary of Findings" derived from those responses. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The 858 data banks analyzed in this survey constitute a representative sample of the countless files and dossiers on individuals kept by the various agencies of the executive branch of the Federal Government. These 858 data banks are by no means all of the Government files on individuals. Rather, they are the systems which the 54 agencies polled by the subcommittee were willing to admit they maintain. There are without a doubt a great many more Federal data banks which the subcommittee, despite more than four years of patient effort, was unable to uncover. There are a number of indications that the agencies' responses consistently understate the scope of their personal data banks. To begin with, a surprising number of the agencies displayed a remarkable lack of understanding of what a "data bank containing personal information about individuals" is. The responses from the Departments of Commerce, Defense, and Justice, as well as the Office of Management and Budget, stated that data banks containing such information as an individual's social security number, salary, race, sex, history of drug addiction and the like do not contain "personal" information. The number of data banks not reported on this basis is impossible to calculate. Some of the agencies, including the Federal Communications Commission, the Office of Economic Opportunity and the Department of Commerce, responded only with regard to their computerized data banks and omitted the manual files altogether. A few agencies inexplicably omitted some of their more routine data banks. For example, the Department of Agriculture reported a number of data banks containing information about the general public, but omitted altogether the personnel and, payroll records the Department is required to keep. Moreover, a number of the more sensitive "intelligence" systems such as the Internal Revenue Service's Special Service Staff files and the FBI's Investigative files were not included in the initial agency responses at all. Having learned of such systems from other sources, the subcommittee was able to extract sufficient information to include them in the survey. There are almost certainly a number of other unreported systems of which the subcommittee is unaware. In some cases, agencies such as the Department of the Interior and the Federal Home Loan Bank Board simply refused to report anything about their data banks containing personal information about individuals. The Department of the Interior is a particularly bad example. On at least two occasions the subcommittee chairman requested that the Department of the Interior respond to the survey questionnaire. Each time the Department of the Interior refused to disclose any of the requested information about the data banks containing personal information about individuals which the Department doubtlessly maintains. A bare reference to the payroll and personnel records, which the Department is required to keep, is the maximum (XXXVII) |