State Government Sells Your Private Information By Mike Krause
Last week, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the Driver's Protection Act of 1994, a federal law that restricts a state's ability to sell driver's license information. This is good news for drivers who don't want their home address to be sold to a stalker. But even after the Supreme Court decision, personal information about Colorado drivers is available for sale to business.
That your personal information is for sale by the State of Colorado might seem surprising to folks after what happened last year when the Colorado Department of Revenue was caught selling drivers license information, including photographs, to Image Data Corp. for a national database. This national database is being established at the behest of the U.S. Secret Service, which wants to have a personal file on everyone in the country, for its "True ID" program. In response, the Colorado legislature last year passed Senate Bill 99-174 which specifically bars the Department of Revenue from selling or otherwise releasing digitized images (including signatures), fingerprints, photos or social security numbers. The bill also requires the Department of Revenue to "make every attempt" to retrieve the 30,000 photographs and digital images sold prior to the legislation.
But having protected privacy with one bill, the legislature undermined privacy with another bill: House Bill 99-1293, which requires the Department of Revenue to establish an electronic transfer system to sell bulk quantities of information not otherwise protected to "primary users and vendors." The information available for sale, in bulk quantities, includes names, addresses, date of birth, driving records, restrictions (e.g., "must wear glasses"), and other information associated with your license and vehicle registration.
The legislation requires that your personal information be sold both to "primary users" (such as automobile insurance companies, which use the information for their own purposes) and to companies which re-sell the information to other companies.
The new law requires the data buyers to enter into a contract with the Department of Revenue specifically outlining the intended use of the information obtained, pay a fee (which would go to the highway users fund) and then the data is made available.
The stated purpose of the new law is to combat fraud and increase efficiency. Even though fighting fraud and being efficient are desirable, is it appropriate for the state government to take large amounts of personal information gathered from the citizenry and bundle it into electronic bytes to be uploaded to whichever business entity is willing to pay up? If so, can we expect the same regarding other sources of information (and potential revenue for the state) such as medical histories, police agency files, tax records and the like?
There is another troubling question about the state being involved in large scale information selling: what happens to the information once it is in the hands of the buyer? We are talking about an awful lot of information here.
There are over 700,000 licensed drivers in Colorado. It is questionable whether the Department of Revenue has the capability to enforce oversight on that much information in the hands of an unlimited number of companies; there is every possibility that this kind of dealing in data on Colorado citizens could result in un-authorized use.
As a whole, we citizens routinely hand over large amounts of personal and intrusive information to the state as a matter of law. Whether obtaining a license, complying with a police officer during a traffic stop, or telling the tax man how much money we make, we are always, it seems, handing over another bit of ourselves.
As a matter of social contract, the burden of responsibility is on the state government as to how that information is handled. And the mere fact that the Congress--whose own lust for gathering information on the citizenry is nothing short of rapacious--felt compelled to slap the hands of the states on this issue casts doubts on how that responsibility is being applied.
While this may be just another example of the need for eternal vigilance as the price of liberty, it would be nice to if the state government were concerned with protecting the privacy of Coloradans all of the time and not just when told to by the Congress or Supreme Court, or when there's public outcry.
Mike Krause wrote this article for the Independence Institute, a free-market think tank in Golden, http://i2i.org. (email)webmngr@i2i.org.
========== forwarded from ScanThis News ===============
The DPPA also permits DMVs to disclose personal information from motor vehicle records for use "by any government agency" or by "any private person or entity acting on behalf of a Federal, State or local agency in carrying out its functions." 18 USC 2721(b)(1) (1994 ed. and Supp. III). The Act also allows States to divulge drivers' personal information for any state-authorized purpose relating to the operation of a motor vehicle or public safety, 721(b)(14); for use in connection with car safety, prevention of car theft, and promotion of driver safety, 2721(b)(2); for use by a business to verify the accuracy of personal information submitted to that business and to prevent fraud or pursue legal remedies if the information that the individual submitted to the business is revealed to have been inaccurate, 2721(b)(3); in connection with court, agency, or self-regulatory body proceedings, 2721(b)(4); for research purposes so long as the information is not further disclosed or used to contact the individuals to whom the data pertain, 2721(b)(5); for use by insurers in connection with claims investigations, antifraud activities, rating or underwriting, 2721(b)(6); to notify vehicle owners that their vehicle has been towed or impounded, 2721(b)(7); for use by licensed private investigative agencies or security services for any purpose permitted by the DPPA, 18 U. S. C. 2721(b)(8); and in connection with private toll transportation services, 2721(b)(10).
=============================================================== >"...Congress--whose own lust for gathering information on the citizenry is nothing short of rapacious..." ===============================================================
Just Say NO to Government Tracking of Innocent Citizens! http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint.shtml
Clinton announces "mug shot" database http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint/page1/fp-digital-mug-shot-photos.html
DoT Highway Safety Deskbook http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/enforce/deskbk.html
Secret Service aided license photo database http://www.cnn.com/US/9902/18/license.photos/
U.S. Helped Fund License Photo Database http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/daily/feb99/privacy18.htm
Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994 as codified http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint/page1b/fp-dmv-records-18-usc-123.html
"The makers of our Constitution ... sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone-the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. To protect, that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment. " OLMSTEAD v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438 (1928); Mr. Justice BRANDEIS (dissenting).
"The principles laid down in this opinion [by Lord Camden in Entick v. Carrington, 19 How. St. Tr. 1029] affect the very essence of constitutional liberty and security. They reach farther than the concrete form of the case then before the court, with its adventitious circumstances; they apply to all invasions on the part of the government and its employes of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life. It is not the breaking of his doors, and the rummaging of his drawers, that constitutes the essence of the offence; but it is the invasion of his indefeasible right of personal security, personal liberty and private property, where that right has never been forfeited by his conviction of some public offence, - it is the invasion of this sacred right which underlies and constitutes the essence of [381 U.S. 479, 485] Lord Camden's judgment." Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 627-630, (1886).