Slashdot Mirror
Cash Value 1/10 of a Cent
goombah99 writes "It happens all-too-often that the govenment and companies negligently reveal citizen's private information on their websites. When collection of this information is something required by law there is an obligation to protect it. But is privacy a 'property' and does its loss require compensation? Wired news reports 'The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Wednesday over whether the federal government should reimburse individuals whose sensitive data was disclosed illegally, even if no harm can be proven. At issue before the court, according to privacy advocates, is how valuable privacy really is.'"
It's also really funny.
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Wednesday over whether the federal government should reimburse individuals whose sensitive data was disclosed illegally, even if no harm can be proven.
At issue before the court, according to privacy advocates, is how valuable privacy really is.
The Privacy Act of 1974 prohibits the government from disclosing private information intentionally, without the individual's consent, and provides for a $1,000 minimum fine if the individual is "adversely affected."
In the case, known as Doe v. Chao, to be argued Wednesday, the Department of Labor distributed the Social Security number of a coal miner who was appealing for black lung benefits.
Since 1969, the Labor Department has used miners' Social Security numbers as their case numbers on documents shared with coal companies, insurance companies and lawyers for all sides. Those documents also were published in court filings that later ended up in legal databases.
In 1997, seven anonymous coal miners sued, alleging the government had flagrantly violated the Privacy Act and put them at risk of identity theft.
Only one of those miners, known as Buck Doe, prevailed in the original case, winning $1,000 by arguing that he suffered emotional distress from the fear that the data leak would lead to identity theft. The government, arguing that the plaintiff needed to show real injury, appealed the decision to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and won.
Buck Doe argues that the leak itself causes enough distress to warrant an automatic penalty, even if the information leak never leads to financial harm.
Marcia Hoffman, staff counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which filed a friend of the court brief (PDF) supporting the anonymous miner, argues that Congress preset the penalty precisely because it is so hard to put a price on an abstract concept such as privacy or to prove damages in absence of others' misuse of that data.
"If your Social Security number is disclosed, there is a real potential harm from identity theft," Hoffman said.
Ari Schwartz, associate director of the Center for Democracy & Technology, which was one of many organizations that cosigned EPIC's brief, argues that the outcome of the case will have implications beyond the Privacy Act and could affect future privacy legislation.
"The outcome of this case will make a general statement about how we value privacy in the United States today," Schwartz said. "If someone rummages through all your stuff, nothing's taken, but they find out information about you, (yet) you can't show actual damages.
"Yet something intangible has been taken from you, and what do we do to make up for that as a society?" asked Schwartz. "It seems clear to us from the history of the Privacy Act that Congress at that time wanted people to be compensated even for intangible harm."
The government, on the other hand, argues that the law requires citizens to demonstrate real damages from intentional disclosures of information.
In its brief (PDF) to the Supreme Court, the government notes that the Veterans Affairs department is currently engaged in a class-action suit over privacy practices and could be liable for a $168 million penalty if the high court holds that the 168,000 individuals involved do not have to show harm.
The government was joined in its opposition to the miner's claim by an odd ally, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
The group's executive director, Lucy Dalglish, argues that if the government has to pay damages in the case of any improper release of someone's Social Security number, then reporters will not get information from the government that they need and are entitled to.
"In the spirit of releasing as much information to the public as possible, we think he should have to prove damages," Dalglish said. "If every time you release information about an individual, you are going to be threatened with this $1,000-per-record
The Supreme Court has consistently held that privacy is a right of Americans, guaranteed implicitly by the Constitution.
I agree with the Supreme Court.
The lawsuit concerns disclosure of a person's SSN. However, in a written response from my US Senator, I was informed that any company, anywhere can DEMAND your SSN as a condition for services, e.g. I go the the doctor's office and the doctor can require my SSN before seeing me, I apply for a lease on an apartment, the lease company can require my SSN as a condition on the application. There are absolutely no restrictions for companies requiring/requesting this information, and there are no regulations on how they must then safeguard it! I was told that if the kid cutting my grass wants my SSN as a condition, he can require it (of course this is a silly example, but is perfectly legal, according to current US laws. Either that or my Senator and the government websites I was directed to are seriously flawed.) Now, I routinely refuse to provide the info and challenge them to deny me service (with a crowded waiting room, etc), but it isn't a good way work with some businesses. (normally they just want the number because it makes it easy for assigning a unique number for their databases)
The privacy act applies to government use of our information, not private corporations. And the SSA told me while Congress passed laws governing the use of SSN, Congress never bothered passing legislation authorizing the SSA to enforce the laws.
If I can locate the document, I will try to provide the rest of the info, but I have to go take my blood pressure medicine.
The Fourth Amendment would tend to disagree:
Privacy is a Right, like the Rights to Believe, to Communicate, to Move, to stay and Fight, and to Own Property. These are enumerated specifically, and it was the belief of the Framers that they are inherent in being a human. They set forth cases in which those rights could be limited, such as for convicts, slaves, and in time of war.
The issue is not whether you have a right to privacy. The issue is whether the government, having already collected the otherwise private information, is free to pass that information on to others.
sigs, as if you care.
The DA thought it was funny, the mayor and chief of police didn't.
It depends on the state. If you really need to find out, use AgeOfConsent.com for your particular situation.
This