December 2004 - Materials Science Institute - University of Oregon

RODGER DOYLE
BY THE NUMBERS
Thwarting Big Brother
THE JOB OF BLOCKING PRYING EYES FALLS MOSTLY TO STATES BY RODGER DOYLE
The federal government provides substantial
protection of personal information
in offi cial fi les and maintains
a “do not call” list, but overall it offers few
safeguards for private data. Federal laws
do not shield medical and library records
and give only partial protection to fi nancial
records. The passage of antiterrorism
laws in 2001 permitted more intrusive electronic
surveillance. Although Congress has
considered ways to guard Social Security
numbers since 1991, it has failed to enact
legislation.
Two reasons account for the federal failures,
according to Robert Ellis Smith, publisher
of the monthly newsletter Privacy
Journal. First, members of Congress accept
donations from corporations whose interests
often do not coincide with those of average
citizens. Second, federal laws include
a multitude of exceptions demanded by a
variety of special interests, with the result
that the laws are more complicated and less
favorable to consumers.
State legislatures, on the other hand, are
often able to enact simple and strong consumer
protection measures. The map classifi
es the 50 states and the District of Columbia
on the basis of their recent track records
in defense of privacy. It comes from ratings
generated by Privacy Journal, which examined
such factors as whether the state recognizes
the confi dentiality of bank accounts,
allows access to patients’ own medical records,
limits disclosure of personal information
by state agencies, and permits erasure of
arrest records of innocent persons. Double
credit is given to states with constitutional
protections on any such measures. Smith
created fi ve ranked categories, but on the
map, the three middle categories have been
collapsed into one for simplicity.
Topping the list is California, where the
legislature has recently passed new, stronger
privacy laws and where the courts are
vigilant in their enforcement. Second-place
Minnesota and Hawaii, also a top-tier state,
are with California in being the only states
that have offi ces dedicated to the assurance
of personal privacy. Washington State and
Wisconsin tie for third place.
Wyoming ranks at the bottom; it has no
protections for Social Security numbers,
library records, bank accounts, medical
records and genetic data, no laws for iden-
tity-theft victims, no rights for individuals
to access their own employment records in
state agencies, and no right to privacy by
law. Almost as bad is Mississippi: its laws are
comparable to Wyoming’s, but they do partially
safeguard library and Social Security
records. The third worst is Missouri, which
adds some shielding of genetic data. Also
in the lowest category is Delaware, which
obligates Social Security numbers to be displayed
on state drivers’ licenses. Such a requirement
markedly increases the likelihood
of ID theft. The Federal Trade Commission,
in a 2003 survey, found that almost 4.6 percent
of all Americans had suffered some type
of ID theft in the past 12 months and 0.7
percent reported misuse of one or more of
their accounts other than credit cards, such
as checking, savings or telephone accounts.
Rodger Doyle can be reached at
rdoyle2@adelphia.net
news
SCAN
FURTHER
READING
Bigger Monster, Weaker
Chains: The Growth of an
American Surveillance
Society. Jay Stanley and Barry
Steinhardt. American Civil
Liberties Union, Technology and
Liberty Program, January 2003.
Available at www.aclu.org/
Privacy/
The Naked Employee: How
Technology Is Compromising
Workplace Privacy. Frederick
S. Lane III. American Management
Association, 2003.
Federal Trade Commission
information on identity theft is
available at www.consumer.
gov/idtheft/
Privacy Journal is at
www.privacyjournal.net
www.sciam.com SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN 33
COPYRIGHT 2004 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, INC.