US Congress Committee Talking About Privacy

rm007 writes "The US House of Representatives Judicial Committee's Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law is holding hearings on the Privacy Officer for the Department of Homeland Security and approved the Defense of Privacy Act. The DHS Privacy Officer hearings are to examine how well the incumbent, Nuala O'Connor Kelly, is doing and whether the statute creating the position sufficiently addresses concerns about the handling of personally identifiable information. This should be worth watching. Wired News has an article that covers both of these as does GovExec.com, a newsletter for senior Federal employees."

Comments

There is no Constitutional right to privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

The real problem here is that there is no Constitutional right to privacy.

Sure, some use amendments to imply one, but it just is not there, and the same amendments can be used to imply such things as a supposed "right to security" which can erode a supposed "right to privacy".

Time for an amendment.

Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy

[BranMan]

Actually, the Constitution is very specific - I paraphrase: "Any right not enumerated is considered to belong to the people". Since privacy is NOT mentioned, it cannot be infringed by the Federal Gov. - the people have a right to privacy.

The framers, and the drafters of the "Bill of Rights" did not want to fall into the trap of forgetting something, so they made sure they had a safety net in place. They weren't dummies.

Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy

[DangerSteel]

>>The right to privacy may be implied in the 9th amendment, but it's a logical extension of the right of property which is protected by the 5th amendment. Unfortunatly if you've paid attention to the news the last few years you have seen how the government takes away much of your property ( or won't let you use it in a certain way- like to build a house, effectively taking it away) for thier own use under the guise "the public good or use" It's one of Neal Boortz's ( www.boortz.com ) hot buttons. >>People act for their self benifit, and when they can to help their friends. Look at Bush and the oil industry or Cheney and Halliburton. Cheney will make millions from them when he leaves the white house. The temptation is too great. That is why we need rules in place to protect those in power from abusing the power we give them. The poster of this info may not rememeber (or may not want to) that Dick Cheney sold all his interest in Haliburton before he was Vice-President to asuage any fears of improprieties in future government contracts. He gave up a lot of future material wealth to serve this country, hate blinds a lot of people to that, maybe people who cannot understand good motives.

Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

The constitution specifically grants the government the power to regulate interstate commerce.

Re:There is no Constitutional right to privacy

[red floyd]

Actually, he's talking about the Ninth Amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The Tenth (same link) says that the Federal Government has no powers except those explicitly listed.

To paraphrase:

9. Even though we didn't mention them, you've got those rights.
10. If we didn't say the feds can do something, they can't.

A small explanation

[deltagreen]

For those that weren't immediately able to understand what the story is about (that includes me), here is the start of the Wired article:

For the third year in a row, a bipartisan congressional coalition is pushing a bill that would require all government agencies to study the privacy impact of new rules before they put them into effect.

The Defense of Privacy Act (PDF), which was approved by a House subcommittee on Tuesday, would complement the E-Government Act of 2001, which requires agencies to submit privacy impact assessments whenever they buy new technology

Re:A small explanation

[El Torico]

And here is a very important quote from that same article,

"The bill doesn't tell agencies they can't issue regulations that violate people's privacy rights," Nojeim said. "It simply tells them they must consider alternative, privacy-sensitive regulations. They don't have to adopt those, however."

Which translates as, "We may be just window-dressing here."

There is an inherent conflict between privacy and security, and it is good to see that this is at least being revisited. Election years are good times to review policies, so maybe there is a serious intent to protect everyone's privacy in the US, but I have doubts.

while this is true...

[tuxette]

Yes. Data on us are recorded every time we use a credit card or use the phone or buy a plane ticket or whatever else. However, the difference between the US and the EU is what can be done with this data.

Apparently in the US, "anything goes." Companies promise to keep data private, only to sell or transfer it to third parties, as in the case of several airlines. Sensitive personal data is outsourced to countries like India and Pakistan for processing. What happens? The natives can threaten to release this data if they're not paid a certain amount of money.

In Europe, EU and individual national laws dictate that this data can among other things only be used for a specific purpose determined before data collection, not be used for other purposes, and not be released to third parties without the consent of the data subject. Furthermore, personal data cannot be transferred to countries that do not have privacy laws equivalent to or stronger than the Directive.

The EU Directive is the rule; countries in the EU and EEA are required to have national privacy laws based on the Directive.

Re:while this is true...

[demachina]

"Companies promise to keep data private, only to sell or transfer it to third parties, as in the case of several airlines."

Actually on the evening news last night it appears you are giving the airlines a bad rap, though you are citing legitimate past transgressions. The TSA is apparently desperate to start testing its new screening program, which requires every detail about every passenger be exposed to TSA including credit history and any criminal record, including misdemeanors. If there are ANY issues in your background including simple errors in your credit history, you will be pulled aside every time you fly and be given "special treatment". I imagine it will be iffy if you will be able to count on getting on an airplane when this is in place, unless your electronic trail is squeaky clean. This is coming from the TSA which, in the rush to hire new screeners, hired nearly something approaching a hundred felons and still hasn't done background checks on many of the people who control what goes in to airports.

Apparently the TSA is having problems testing the program because airlines are refusing to participate or turn over the necessary data citing privacy concerns. Unfortunately is appears the government has a simple solution. The Department of Homeland security is planning to simply order the airlines to participate and they will have to unless someone stops Ridge and company.

If there is a person responsible for protecting privacy in the Department of Homeland Security I think they rate an F unless they stop this intrusive screening program which is more likely to hassle ordinary people and punish advesaries of the Bush administration than it is to catch any terrorists.

If you want to see what your government is now capable of look up a recent anti war conference at Drake University. The Bush administration started a massive, secretive investigation in an effort to identify everyone who attended and everything was said. The governement also tried to gag everyone at Drake so that this blatant assault on free spreech would remain secret, though thanks to the Internet is isn't:

http://www.counterpunch.org/nimmo02102004.html
http://bernie.house.gov/documents/articles/2004021 1092740.asp