By Cliff Montgomery – Mar. 24th, 2010
When Congress passed the Privacy Act in 1974, it ruled that each person’s right to privacy is fundamental to aworking democracy and that this right is recognized by the U.S. Constitution. It also declared that eachindividual’s privacy is harmed by the federal government’s collection, use, maintenance and dissemination ofpersonal data.
The Privacy Act put into place numerous federal standards for the collection and maintenance of personalinformation. But a recent move by the land Security Department, and published in the Federal Register,may take much of the teeth out of that legislation.
The 1974 law established such standards as:
1. The recognition of an individual’s right to determine what data about him the feds are collecting, maintaining, using, or disseminating
2. Recognition of an individual’s right to access any personal information held in federal agency files, as well as the right to demand a copy of any or all records, and to amend or correct these records
3. The assurance that federal collection, use, maintenance, or dissemination of any identifiable personal information is performed for a necessary and legal purpose, that the info is reasonably up-to-date and accurate, and that proper procedures exist to prevent abuse of any data collection.
So what has land Security done? The American Spark quotes the summary of the Federal Registerstatement:
The Department of land Security is issuing a final rule to amend its regulations to exempt portions of a Department of land Security/U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement system of records… from certain provisions of the Privacy Act.
Specifically, the Department exempts portions of the Department of land Security/U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement–011 Immigration and Enforcement Operational Records system from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act because of criminal, civil, and administrative enforcement requirements.
As the Federal Register makes clear, this system of records originally was titled, “Department of landSecurity/U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement–011 Removable Alien Records System of Records.”That seems more honest, if nothing else.
Neither the land Security Department nor U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) are doinganything wrong–at least in a strictly legal sense. The Privacy Act permits federal exemptions from itsrequirements in certain cases where there is thought to be a ‘serious need’ for such an exemption, providedthat need has been acknowledged by a specific statutory authority.
Notice the exemption appears to be for single cases, which indeed may merit special consideration. But ICE isclaiming a blanket exemption, covering an entire system of records on individuals.
We’ll leave aside the fact that other government agencies conduct investigations just as important as thoseconsidered by ICE, and apparently without having to claim such a blanket exemption from the 1974 Privacy Act.
What most immediately bothers us at the Spark is the possible setting of precedence. For it appears that ICEis claiming a blanket right to investigate any ‘suspicious’ U.S. resident, without the knowledge, consent oroversight of the person being investigated–or without the oversight of any other citizen or resident, for thatmatter.
We feel that’s far too much uncontested power for government officials to have, however noble their intentions.
Even the concept behind the move is potentially dangerous, for it assumes the faulty notion that Americancitizens and residents somehow are more ‘safe’ if their Natural Rights are ignored by federal and stategovernments.
The problem with that logic? The rights of a citizen or resident constitute the only real security that personpossesses in this life.
Thus it’s a fallacy to discuss government investigations in terms of ‘freedom vs. security’. People without rightsare people without any security whatsoever.
Our view? It’s time for American citizens and residents to begin keeping some of that security.
