related to the Regional Economic Data Bank as outlined in this paper, including the invitation of professional leaders in this field from outside the Region. 2. To review plans and developmental studies of political subdivisions of the Region and to submit (perhaps on a confidential basis) recommendations for their improvement. Also, to submit suggestions as to how such plans might best be coordinated in achieving the fuller potential of the Region for economic development.

3. To perform research on methodologies related to the data bank and its application to community and industrial problems in general.

4. To encourage advanced or graduate students to prepare industry studies including the forecasting of trends related to their potential growth in the St. Louis Region as term papers or theses. Also, papers on other problems and objectives of the Regional Economic Data Bank.

5. To offer special courses or programs of instruction in fields of interest related to the data bank concept and the regional objectives it seeks to serve. 6. To make faculty appointments with a view to strengthening the competence of Regional universities in these fields. (The universities have already moved in this direction but more needs to be done). Also, to make professional lecturer appointments to tap the skills on a part-time basis of experts on economic, scientific, engineering, market research, planning, etc., now employed in the Region.

7. To encourage joint research and joint authorship of books and articles by faculty of several universities of the Region to promote cooperation and harmony of local universities in support of community service programs, encompassed by the objectives of the Regional Economic Data Bank.

8. To join with RIDC and the St. Louis Research Council in sponsoring and/or conducting surveys to enlarge the usefulness of the data bank-for example, an annual inventory of skills employed by business firms of the Region and their anticipated skill requirements in the coming year by virtue of growth in sales, the impact of automation or technological change, etc.

9. To assist the political subdivisions of the Region in preparing proposals for enlarging the availability to the Region of the burgeoning federal programs for urban renewal, war-on-poverty, etc., and to advise on implementation of these programs so that standards of excellence can be achieved which will invite their renewal or enlargement. (The data bank could provide much useful information needed to support these proposals and programs.)

10. To sponsor Regional seminars and technicals conferences for the benefit of graduates and faculty in which outstanding professionals from private industry and public planning bodies can provide insight into their planning techniques and problems as well as needs for university support, etc. 11. To provide computer and library facilities to assist in the work of the Regional Economic Data Bank.

12. To encourage "spin off" applications of theoretical research for industries of especial promise to the Region's economic development.

13. To provide a clearing house for recommending advanced students, for summer or part-time employment with RIDC in special projects, surveys, etc. Indeed, the range of useful university contributions to the RIDC data bank and the broader community programs for economic development it seeks to serve are limited only by the imagination. Perhaps no less important than these contributions are the reverse contributions to strengthening the Region's universities which will come about in relating academic programs to community service projects where high professional standards are required. Moreover, the inspiration to the community of the universities working closely together in such a manner should aid considerably in promoting regional cooperation between governmental units and business firms, social agencies, etc.

A recent editorial in the Wall Street Journal gives much deserved credit to "a marriage between the city's political and business leadership" for the renaissance manifested in downtown St. Louis in reversing the trend of decay and blighted hopes.1 However, concern was also expressed about the dangers of this effort losing its momentum by the sort of complacency that seized St. Louis after its famous triumph in organizing the World's Fair of 1904. Herein, it would

1 Robert L. Bartley, "Business Helps St. Louis Fight Decay," The Wall Street Journal, May, 26, 1966.

seem, lies a great opportunity for the universities of the Region to keep the momentum of a "new Spirit of St. Louis" going forward by broadening its regional outlook and purpose.

To accomplish this the universities will need to harness and strengthen the vast body of professional and intellectually oriented talents of the Region through the sorts of programs and activities suggested above. In sum, the proposed Regional Economic Data Bank should be as good an excuse as any to get on with the job.

APPENDIX

A PRELIMINARY LIST OF DATA SOURCES FOR A REGIONAL

ECONOMIC DATA BANK1

(A) FEDERAL PUBLICATIONS AND RECORDS

1. County Business Patterns, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1946 through 1964 to observe trends in each SIC category with respect to number and size of firms, number of employees and size of payroll (on magnetic tape).

2. Location of Manufacturing Plants, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1954 & 1958 to observe trends in locational shifts of industry by each SIC category as noted above.

3. Census of Manufacturing, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1954, 1958 & 1963 to observe trends in gross sales and receipts and value added by each SIC category as noted above (on magnetic tape).

4. Census of Local Governments, U.S. Dept. of Commerce for 1957 & 1962, to observe trends in local government revenue, expenditures and employment.

5. U.S. Civil Service Commission, unpublished records to observe trends in federal employment within each federal department in the area.

6. U.S. Government agency records, unpublished, to determine revenue and expenditures for each federal department in the area.

7. Statistics of Income, IRS, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962 & 1963, for gross personal income by source and federal income tax paid.

8. Consumer Expenditures and Income, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1950 & 1960, to determine trends in household income and expenditures by amount and type.

9. List of all corporations, partnerships and sole proprietors doing business in and filing income tax returns from the area, for base year, compiled from public records available in the IRS District Office which provide name and address of firm and its employer identification number.

10. Special sample study performed by IRS utilizing federal tax returns filed by the above firms to identify gross sales or receipts and costs of doing business in each SIC category in the study area, without violating the disclosure regulations.

11. Special tabulations of agricultural activity and employment by volume and type-1959 Census of Agriculture, for all census tracts and/or county census divisions in the study area.

12. U.S. Census of Population & Housing, 1960, cross-classified tract data (on magnetic tape) for SMSA (including place of residence versus place of work). 13. Annual Summary of Housing Authorized in Individual Permit-Issuing Places, Bureau of the Census, to determine trends in amount, type and location of residential construction.

14. Special sample study of commodity shipments by origin, destination, tonnage and SIC category to and from the study area-from carload waybill statistics kept by the ICC.

15. Annual Survey of Manufacturers, Bureau of the Census, to determined capital investment per worker.

16. 1940, 1950 & 1960 Census of Population data on County of employment by SIC category.

17. Census of Agriculture, Bureau of the Census, 1949, 1954, 1959 & 1964, to determine trends in agricultural activity in the SMSA.

18. Census of Business, Bureau of the Census, 1954, 1958 & 1963, to determine trends in retail and wholesale trade and selected services.

1 Prepared by D. Reid Ross and Leroy J. Grossman of RIDC.

(B) STATE PUBLICATIONS AND RECORDS

1. State sales tax records by county-to identify trends in volume of retail sales in the study area by SIC category-State Revenue Department.

2. State income tax records to identify trends in personal income and its sources and in gross sales or receipts of firms by SIC categories in the study area-State Revenue Office.

3. State revenue and expenditure records to identify trends in volume of taxes collected & expenditures made in the study area-State Auditor's Office.

4. State records that would reveal the number of State employees working in the study area-State Civil Service or Department records.

5. State employment records to identify trends in the number of firms and employment in each SIC category in the study area-State Division of Employment Security and Division of Industrial Inspection.

6. Annual financial reports of local governments including school districts to identify trends in revenue and expenditures by source and type for all local governments in the study area-State Auditor's Office and/or State Dept. of Education.

7. Various other pertinent records and reports collected or prepared by the State Division of Commerce & Industrial Development and State Planning Commission.

8. Records on volume and type of agriculture activity and employment in the study area-State Department of Agriculture.

9. Records of automobile registration in the study area-Dept. of Motor Vehicle Registration, to determine trends in ownership as well as distribution of ownership throughout the study area.

10. Statistics compiled by the Division of Industrial Inspection on value of manufactured goods and costs of production.

(C) LOCAL GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS AND RECORDS

1. City earnings tax records to identify trends in total payroll in the study area by SIC category, including the number of county residents who work in the city and city residents who work in the county.

2. Building permit records and/or property assessment records to identify total floor space utilized during the base year and trends in volume and distribution of new residential, commercial and industrial floor space in the study area by SIC category-Department of Public Works, Tax Assessor's Office, and Data Processing Division.

3. Local government business licenses or merchants and manufacturer's tax records to identify trends in business volume, amount of floor space used, number of employees, and to classify firms by SIC category in the study area.

4. Bank debits from either local or state records-to identify trends in the volume of bank debits, number and type of accounts and bank loans for business expansion purposes in the study area (by SIC category, if possible).

5. Pertinent data or reports collected by Local Planning Commissions, Urban Renewal Agencies, School Boards and Police Departments.

(D) NEW DATA FROM PRIMARY SOURCES

1. Business classification questionnaire sent to the IRS list referred to above, which consists of all firms doing business in the study area, to obtain sufficient information to assign at least a three digit SIC code, the number of employees during the base year and total annual sales or receipts.

2. Questionnaire to all non-profit organizations and local governments in the study area, including school districts, to determine number of employees, capital improvement plans, what commodities they purchased outside of the area, and the dollar amounts of these purchases.

3. Manufacturers questionnaire to all manufacturers in the study area to assess all locational considerations for all SIC categories in the study area, plant expansion plans and commodities purchased and sold outside the area by type and dollar amount.

4. Agricultural questionnaire to all farmers in the study area asking them what purchases they make and what income they earn from outside the study

area.

5. Questionnaire to local lending institutions to determine interest earned from local loans by SIC category.

6. Questionnaire to railroads asking them to report the number of railroad cars they moved in and out of the study area during base year by SIC category.

7. Home interview survey as part of the O-D portion of the transportation study to determine what household purchases are made outside the study area, by SIC category and amount and source of income earned outside the study

area.

(E) OTHER PUBLISHED DATA

1. Local Chamber of Commerce; Dun & Bradstreet; Standard & Poors; local utility company records and other publications that would reveal SIC classifications for any local firms, dollar volume of business, number of employees, floor space, shifts in location, etc.

2. Records of professional and all trade associations that would reveal dollar volume of business, total number of employees and trends for their business, service or profession.

3. Marketing studies done by private firms for their own internal use.

4. Various published surveys of household expenditures.

5. McGraw-Hill survey of capital expenditure forecasts by industrial category. 6. Federal Reserve District publications.

UNITED STATES SENATE,
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE,
February 13, 1967.

Mr. D. REID ROSS,

St. Louis Regional Industrial Development Corporation,
St. Louis, Mo.

DEAR MR. ROSs: Thank you for your recent letter commenting on your proposed Regional Data Bank which will be established for the St. Louis region. Have read with great interest your letter and accompanying statement and would certainly be interested in assisting you in any possible way.

Your letter suggests that you have given considerable thought to problems of privacy as they relate to the establishment of any data bank. As you know, the Subcommittee on Administrative Practice and Procedure intends to hold hearings on this very topic beginning on March 14th, 1967. I understand from Mr. Benny L. Kass, Assistant Counsel to the Subcommittee, that you are available to appear before the Subcommittee on March 14th. Accordingly, you are cordially invited to attend and testify before the Subcommittee on that date.

The hearing will begin at 10:00 a.m. Will inform you of the exact location as soon as arrangements have been made.

Kind regards.

Sincerely,

EDWARD V. LONG,
Chairman.

Senator LONG. Our next and last witness is Professor Arthur R. Miller of the School of Law of the University of Michigan.

Professor Miller, we are happy to have you here this morning. My counsel just told me you wanted to summarize your statement. When I saw the 32-page statement, I was hoping that you would because our time is running very short. We are grateful to have you here.

For the record, will you state your name and address and official position at the University of Michigan.

STATEMENT OF ARTHUR R. MILLER, PROFESSOR OF LAW,

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

Mr. MILLER. My name is Arthur R. Miller. I am a professor of law at the University of Michigan School of Law in Ann Arbor, Mich. I am also a research associate at the University of Michigan

Mental Health Research Institute, which is involving itself very deeply in the field of computers, information transfer, and communications. Obviously, Senator, I do not wish to read my 32-page statement but would prefer to make some extemporaneous remarks. Senator LONG. It is being placed in the record in its entirety. Mr. MILLER. Thank you very much.

In my statement I try to deal with a rather wide spectrum of privacy problems that are likely to be created by the computer. Perhaps my oral comments should start with a point of slight disagreement with the scope of the testimony of the previous two witnesses. I think that if this Subcommittee is to do an effective job in exploring the threats to individual privacy presented by the activities of governmental officials and private citizens and organizations, it must consider the computer and modern information-handling technology as something much broader than a collection of machines used by a National Data Center in Washington to compile statistics on an aggregate, depersonalized basis.

The previous two witnesses have attempted to draw a sharp line between a so-called statistical center and a so-called intelligence or individualized or dossier center. They advocate the establishment of the former and see little in the way of risks to privacy. I think the technology in the computer field is moving so rapidly that in 5 to 10 years the suggested distinction will be hopelessly untenable. Moreover, the implicit assumption that the computer is a fixed, static machine that will be incorporated in a national data center that will operate within the confines of some building in Washington, D.C., is primitive. Indeed, the entire conception of a national data center being physically located and accessible only by going to a building in Washington, D.C., is inharmonious with the technological developments now taking place.

If the Federal Government is to engage in efficient information handling and processing, in the long run-perhaps not in the next 2 or 3 years-a national data center will become decentralized and information will be input and made available in Federal offices throughout the country, and eventually around the world. This means that masses of computerized information will move (not by hand messenger) from Federal agencies to the national data center and back again by microwave relay, or through telephone lines, or, perhaps, via communications satellites. These developments seem inevitable since the same considerations that motivate the Bureau of the Budget to argue for a statistical center will eventually motivate various Federal agencies to ask for a decentralized intelligence or an individualized data system. The same efficiencies and economies in information handling that the Bureau of the Budget believes would be achieved with a statistical center, the same desire for an increased capacity to manipulate, collect, and record data by machine eventually will create pressure for an individualized intelligence system. In many quarters of the Federal Government, such as the Internal Revenue Service these pressures exist and are being satisfied.

If I am right in fearing that an uncontrolled statistical center will lead to the development of an individualized system, I also would take issue with the suggestion by Dr. Kaysen and the Bureau of the Budget