Report of the National Task Force on Privacy, Technology
and Criminal Justice Information


Law and Policy
Change Drivers
Recommendations


Criminal Justice Information Policy


U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics


July 2001, NCJ 187669


U.S. Department of Justice
Bureau of Justice Statistics

Lawrence A. Greenfeld
Acting Director

Acknowledgments. This report was prepared by SEARCH,
The National Consortium for Justice Information and
Statistics, Kenneth E. Bischoff, Chair, and Gary R. Cooper,
Executive Director. The project director was Sheila J.
Barton, Deputy Executive Director. Robert R. Belair,
SEARCH General Counsel, wrote this report. Kevin L.
Coy, Associate, Mullenholz, Brimsek & Belair, assisted in
its preparation. Twyla R. Cunningham, Manager, Corporate
Communications, and Linda B. Townsdin, Writer/Editor,
edited this report, and Jane L. Bassett, Publishing
Specialist, provided layout and design assistance. The
Federal project monitor was Carol G. Kaplan, Chief,
Criminal History Improvement Programs, Bureau of Justice
Statistics.

Report of work prepared under Cooperative Agreement
number 96-BJ-CX-K010, awarded to SEARCH Group,
Incorporated, 7311 Greenhaven Drive, Suite 145,
Sacramento, California 95831. Contents of this document
do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the
Bureau of Justice Statistics or the U.S. Department of
Justice.

Copyright (c) SEARCH Group, Incorporated, dba
SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice
Information and Statistics, 2001

The U.S. Department of Justice authorizes any person to
reproduce, publish, translate, or otherwise use all or any
part of the copyrighted material to this publication, except
for those items indicating they are copyrighted or printed by
any source other than SEARCH, The National Consortium
for Justice Information and Statistics.


I. Introduction and executive summary

Rationale for Bureau of Justice Statistics and SEARCH
project

In 1998, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) in the Office
of Justice Programs (OJP), U.S. Department of Justice, and
SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice
Information and Statistics, -1 [Hereafter, SEARCH.]
determined that the time was appropriate to conduct a
comprehensive project -2 [The project was funded by and
operated under the auspices of the Bureau of Justice
Statistics (BJS). Since its inception, BJS has taken a
leadership role in the improvement of criminal history
record information and the development of appropriate
policies for handling this information. SEARCH is a State
criminal justice support organization comprised of one
governor's appointee from each State, the District of
Columbia, and the territories of Puerto Rico and the U.S.
Virgin Islands, as well eight at-large Members selected by
the SEARCH Chair. For over 3 decades, SEARCH has
promoted the effective and appropriate use of information,
identification, and communications technology for State
and local criminal justice agencies. For the same period of
time, SEARCH has been vitally concerned with the privacy
and public access implications of the automation and use of
personally identifiable criminal justice record information.]
to review the law and policy addressing the collection, use,
and dissemination of criminal justice record information
and, particularly, criminal history record information
(CHRI). -3 [CHRI consists of arrest and conviction
information, as well as other types of disposition
information.]

In the mid-1970s and again in the mid-1980s, BJS and its
predecessor organizations, along with SEARCH, had
looked closely and comprehensively at this very issue.
Those reviews:

* Concluded that CHRI should not be made available to the
general public.

* Recognized that there are some legitimate, noncriminal
justice uses of CHRI (for example, for background checks
for positions of trust).

* Recognized a sharp distinction between arrest-only and
conviction information, and recommended more relaxed
rules for the dissemination of conviction information.

* Strongly endorsed the view that CHRI should be made
available for various noncriminal justice purposes only
after a search conducted on the basis of fingerprints.

* Recommended that various privacy and fair information
practice protections should attach to the handling of CHRI,
including a right on the part of the record subject to see and
correct the record.

Those efforts and recommendations by BJS and SEARCH
made a direct contribution to the development of law and
policy for the handling of CHRI in all 50 States.

By the late 1990s, however, it had become apparent that
changes in technology, as well as in the public's attitude
about access to information and privacy, made it
appropriate and important to take a new look at CHRI law
and policy. In particular, the existing CHRI law takes a
"smokestack" approach: one body of law for the
comprehensive CHRI maintained by law enforcement at a
central State repository (sometimes referred to as a "rap
sheet"); an entirely separate body of law regulating the
dissemination and use of the very same records (albeit, not
as comprehensive or complete) maintained in the courts;
another separate body of law and policy for the collection,
use, and dissemination of this information by various
commercial compilers; and a different set of laws for the
media's handling of this information. This smokestack
approach, combined with an eruption of public concern
about privacy, and further combined with a necessary and
constructive effort sweeping the Nation to integrate
criminal justice and other governmental information
systems, set the scene for an in-depth review of CHRI law
and policy.

Goals and deliverables

The goal of BJS and SEARCH was to craft a road map for
the development of a new generation of CHRI law and
policy. Specifically, the BJS/SEARCH effort consists of
four deliverables:

1. This report, which analyzes existing law and policy for
handling CHRI; identifies the technological and societal
developments that may be changing the criminal justice
privacy environment; and makes initial recommendations to
address the next generation of criminal justice information
law and policy.

2. A first-ever, public opinion survey about public access to
CHRI undertaken by the Opinion Research Corporation and
Dr. Alan F. Westin. -4 [The summary results of this survey,
along with interpretive commentary, is being published
separately by BJS in a forthcoming companion report titled
"Privacy, Technology and Criminal Justice Information:
Public Attitudes Toward Uses of Criminal History
Information, Summary of Survey Findings," (NCJ 187633).
Hereafter, Privacy Survey Report.]

3. A national conference - the proceedings of which will be
published separately - to address and highlight emerging
criminal justice information privacy issues, which was held
in Washington, D.C., on May 31 and June 1, 2000.

4. Targeted standards applying the recommendations of the
National Task Force on Privacy, Technology and Criminal
Justice Information, -5 [Hereafter, Privacy Task Force or
Task Force.] as set forth in this report, to specific types of
criminal justice record information and integrated systems.
Work in this area began with the development of design
principles for safeguarding the privacy of personal
information in integrated criminal justice systems (to be
published separately). Additional projects to promote the
next generation of criminal justice information privacy law
and policy recommended in this report are under
development.

To assist in conducting the project, BJS and SEARCH
convened a Task Force of preeminent academics, criminal
justice officials (including representatives from law
enforcement, the courts, corrections, and prosecution),
private-sector compilers and resellers of criminal justice
record information, the media, and the criminal justice
record user community. -6 [Biographies of Task Force
participants are included as Appendix 1.] The Task Force
held three, multiple-day meetings: Asilomar in Pacific
Grove, California, on January 13-14, 1999; Boston,
Massachusetts, on May 11-12, 1999; and Victoria, British
Columbia, Canada, on October 18-19, 1999. The
observations and recommendations in the report reflect the
Task Force's consensus views, but do not necessarily reflect
the views of any particular member of the Task Force or of
his or her institutional affiliations.

Key factors changing the criminal history record
information environment

The Task Force identified the following technological,
cultural, economic, and other "change drivers" that are
moving the Nation toward a new information environment
and impelling the consideration of new criminal justice
record information privacy policies.

* Public concern about privacy. In the late 1990s, the
American public registered the strongest concerns ever
recorded about threats to their personal privacy from both
government and business. In a 1999 study conducted by Dr.
Alan F. Westin, 94 percent of respondents said they are
concerned about the possible misuse of their personal
information. Of the concerned, 77 percent said they were
"very concerned."

* The "Information Culture." A new and emerging culture
of information access and use facilitated by personal
computers, browsers, search engines, online databases, and
the Internet, has helped to create a demand for, and a
market in, information, including criminal justice
information, while, at the same time, fostering in many a
sense of lack of control over one's personal information and
a loss of privacy.

* Technological change. Revolutionary improvements in
information, identification, and communications
technologies (including increasingly advanced software
applications and Internet-based technologies), and the
increased affordability of these technologies fuels the
appetite for information and creates new players in the
criminal justice information arena. 

* System integration. Initiatives to integrate criminal justice
information systems operated by law enforcement, courts,
prosecution, and corrections, as well as initiatives to
integrate these systems with information systems
maintaining other types of personal information, create
powerful new information resources. At the same time,
these integration initiatives may create uncertainty about
the types of privacy laws and policies that apply to these
new systems and which dilute existing policies designed to
keep information separate.

* New approach that closely resembles a "Business Model"
for the criminal justice system. Two fundamental changes
in the way the criminal justice system operates have had a
profound impact upon the approach that criminal justice
agencies take toward obtaining and using information - a
"data-driven, problem-solving approach." These changes
are: a new, more cooperative, community-based
relationship between criminal justice agencies and citizens;
and added criminal justice agency responsibilities to
provide information to surrounding communities, Federal,
State, and local agencies, other police departments, and
other organizations. This new approach also creates privacy
risks through a wider circulation of criminal justice
information.

* Noncriminal justice demand. A persistent and
ever-increasing demand by noncriminal justice users to
obtain CHRI has had a pervasive and important impact on
the availability of information. 

* Commercial compilation and sale. Changes in the
information marketplace - which feature the private sector's
acquisition, compilation, and sale of criminal justice
information obtained from police and, more particularly,
court-based open record systems - are making information
similar to that found in criminal history records more
widely available to those outside the criminal justice
system. 

* Government statutes and initiatives. A host of new
government initiatives and laws, aimed at providing
criminal justice information to broader audiences, on a
more cost-effective and timely basis, has also fueled the
availability of criminal justice information.

* Juvenile justice reform. Demands for juvenile justice
records, particularly those involving violent offenses that
result in treating juvenile information in a way which very
much resembles the handling of adult records, is also
putting pressure on traditional information and privacy
policies.

* Intelligence systems. Criminal justice intelligence
systems are being automated, regionalized, and armed with
CHRI and other personal information to create detailed
personal profiles for law enforcement use.

Content of project report

This project report begins with a review of information
privacy law and policy. The report identifies five interests
critical to a democracy and that are served by information
privacy: (1) due process and fairness, (2) individual dignity,
(3) individual autonomy, (4) oversight and trust in
governmental institutions, and (5) the promotion of
privacy-dependent relationships. 

In reviewing the history of information privacy, the report
describes the development of the code of fair information
practices in the early 1970s, a code that continues to shape
both U.S. and worldwide privacy policy to this day.

The report provides further background information with an
overview of the criminal justice information system
structure. The report describes the Nation's system for the
interstate exchange of CHRI, including the role of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the central State
repositories of CHRI, the Interstate Identification Index
(III), the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact
(which establishes formal procedures and governance
structures for noncriminal justice use of the III), and the
Compact Council. The report also enumerates the types of
personally identifiable information that are encompassed
within the term "criminal justice record information,"
including juvenile justice information, investigative and
intelligence information, various kinds of original records
of entry, and, of course, the criminal history record.

The report also sets forth the constitutional and common
law standards that apply to CHRI. The report emphasizes
that the courts recognize individuals have a privacy interest
in CHRI which pertains to them, but that this interest has
seldom been relied upon by the courts to strike down or
limit statutory and regulatory standards for the collection,
use, and dissemination of CHRI.

The report provides further background by tracing the
development of Federal and State criminal history record
legislation and regulation. In the period since 1967, the
Congress, the Justice Department, State legislatures, and
regulatory bodies have devoted considerable attention to
standards for collecting, maintaining, using, and
disseminating CHRI. Both BJS and SEARCH have been
active participants in the development of these standards.
The report notes that today, these standards provide for the
following: subject access and correction rights; restrictions
on the amalgamation of criminal history information with
other types of personal information; various kinds of
standards to ensure the accuracy, completeness, and
timeliness of CHRI; fingerprint support of information
entered into law enforcement criminal history systems and
obtained from those systems; various kinds of disposition
reporting requirements; sealing and purging standards in
the case of old information or arrest information without a
disposition; security standards; standards for criminal
history use or dissemination; widespread criminal justice
access to CHRI; limited noncriminal justice access to
CHRI; and very limited public access to CHRI.

The report also includes brief case studies of three States
that have taken very different approaches to public access
to law enforcement CHRI: Florida, which takes an "open
record" approach; Washington, which takes an
"intermediate" approach (providing significant access to
conviction information but very limited access to
nonconviction information); and Massachusetts, a largely
"closed-record" State that permits access only to criminal
justice entities.

The bulk of the report focuses on the "change drivers"
described above. In particular, the report gives attention to
the public's concern about privacy and the technological
changes that make previously inaccessible court records
widely available.

Task Force recommendations

Finally, the report presents the 14 recommendations
adopted by the National Task Force on Privacy, Technology
and Criminal Justice Information.

Several points should be emphasized about these
recommendations:

* First, the purpose of these recommendations is not to
prescribe the specifics of a new generation of law and
policy for criminal justice record information. Rather, the
purpose of the recommendations is to address the
conceptual and structural outline of a new generation of law
and policy. Accordingly, the Task Force recommends that
further work on these specifics be undertaken by a
statutorily chartered study organization with a 3-year
sunset.

* Second, in looking at the approach to CHRI, the Task
Force recommends a global policy to address criminal
history and juvenile justice record information largely
without regard to whether this information is held by law
enforcement agencies (that is, the central State
repositories), the courts, or commercial compilers and
aggregators. The Task Force's rationale for this approach is
that the privacy and information implications are largely
unaffected by whether the information is sourced to courts,
law enforcement, or commercial compilers.

* Third, the Task Force reaffirms the importance of using
fingerprints to the extent that technology, cost, and
availability make fingerprints available to law enforcement,
the courts, and the commercial sector. Only with the use of
fingerprints can a reliable determination be made that a
criminal history record pertains to the person who is the
subject of the search.

* Fourth, the Task Force view is that the creation of
comprehensive profiles about individuals is a threat to
privacy and, importantly, is perceived by the public as a
threat to privacy. Accordingly, the Task Force recommends
that criminal justice record information not be amalgamated
with other types of personal information (such as financial
or medical information) in databases of criminal history and
criminal justice records.

* Fifth, the Task Force view is that the national initiative to
integrate various criminal justice record information
systems, in order to improve the utility, effectiveness, and
cost efficiency of these systems, is a positive development
and should be encouraged. The Task Force recognizes,
however, that the establishment of these kinds of systems
raises privacy and profiling issues and, therefore, the
structure and content of integrated information systems
should be shaped to minimize these threats.

Specifically, the Task Force adopted the following
recommendations, which were subsequently endorsed in
January 2000 by SEARCH's Membership Group
(governors' appointees):

I. The Task Force recommends that a body be statutorily
created to consider and make policy recommendations to
the Federal and State legislative, executive, and judicial
branches of government as they work to balance the
increasing demand for all forms of criminal justice
information and the privacy risks associated with the
collection and use of such information. The Task Force
recommends that the body look at information and privacy
issues arising from all types of criminal justice information,
including criminal history record information, intelligence
and investigative information, victim and witness
information, indexes and flagging systems, wanted person
information, and civil restraining orders. The Task Force
further recommends that such a body be comprised of
public and private stakeholders; that the body be limited to
an advisory role; and that it have neither rulemaking nor
adjudicatory authority. Finally, the Task Force recommends
that the body sunset after not more than 3 years, unless
statutorily reauthorized.

II. The Task Force recommends the development of a new
generation of criminal justice information and privacy law
and policy, taking into account public safety, privacy, and
government oversight interests. This law and policy should
be broad in scope, so as to address the collection,
maintenance, use, and dissemination of criminal justice
record information by law enforcement agencies, including
State central repositories and the FBI, the courts, and
commercial compilers and resellers of criminal justice
record information. 

III. The Task Force recommends that the adequacy of
existing legal remedies for invasions of privacy arising
from the use of criminal history record information should
be reexamined by legal scholars, State legislatures,
Congress, State and Federal agencies, and the courts. 

IV. The Task Force recommends the development of a new
generation of confidentiality and disclosure law and policy
for criminal history record information, taking into account
the type of criminal history record information; the extent
to which the database contains other types of criminal
justice information (victim and witness information, or
intelligence or investigative information) and sensitive
personal information (medical or financial information, and
so on); the purpose for the intended use of the information;
and the onward transfer of the information (the
redissemination of the criminal history information by
downstream users).

V. The Task Force recommends that intelligence and
investigative information also be addressed by new privacy
law and policy, but that this process should begin with the
establishment of a Task Force dedicated exclusively to a
review of intelligence and investigative systems, and the
law and privacy issues related to those systems.

VI. The Task Force recommends that legislators and
criminal history record information system managers
develop, implement, and use the best available technologies
to promote data quality and data security.

VII. The Task Force recommends that criminal history
record information, whether held by the courts, by law
enforcement, or by commercial compilers and resellers,
should, subject to appropriate safeguards, be supported by
and accessible by fingerprints to the extent legally
permissible and to the extent that technology, cost, and the
availability of fingerprints to both database managers and
users make this practicable.

VIII. The Task Force recommends that criminal history
record information should be sealed or expunged (purged)
when the record no longer serves an important public safety
or other public policy interest. A sealed record should be
unsealed and available for criminal justice and/or public
use only when the record subject has engaged in a
subsequent offense or when other compelling public policy
considerations substantially outweigh the record subject's
privacy interests. During the period that a criminal history
record is sealed, use and disclosure should be prohibited.

IX. The Task Force recommends that individuals who are
the subject of criminal history record information be told
about the practices, procedures, and policies for the
collection, maintenance, use, and disclosure of criminal
history information about them; be given a right of access
to and correction of this information, including a right to
see a record of the disclosure of the information in most
circumstances; and enjoy effective remedies for a violation
of any applicable privacy and information standards. In
addition, the Task Force recommends that States establish
meaningful oversight mechanisms to ensure that these
privacy protections are properly implemented and enforced.

X. The Task Force recommends that where public safety
considerations so require, the record of a juvenile offender
who commits an offense which, if committed by an adult,
would be a felony or a violent misdemeanor, be treated in
the same manner that similar adult records are treated. Even
if a State opts to retain stronger privacy and confidentiality
rules for these types of juvenile records, these records
should be fingerprint-supported and should be capable of
being captured in an automated, national system.

XI. The Task Force recommends that criminal justice
record information law and policy should restrict the
combining of different types of criminal justice record
information into databases accessible to noncriminal justice
users and should restrict the amalgamation of criminal
justice record information in databases with other types of
personal information, except where necessary to satisfy
public policy objectives.

XII. 
The Task Force recommends that where public policy
considerations require amalgamation of information,
systems be designed to recognize and administer differing
standards (including dissemination policies and standards)
based upon differing levels of data sensitivity, and allow
the flexibility necessary to revise those standards to reflect
future changes in public policy.

XIII. The Task Force recommends that the integration of
criminal justice information systems should be encouraged
in recognition of the value of integrated systems in
improving the utility, effectiveness, and cost efficiency of
information systems. Prior to establishing integrated
systems, however, privacy implications should be
examined, and legal and policy protections in place, to
ensure that future public- and private-sector uses of these
information systems remain consistent with the purposes
for which they were originally created. In addition, once an
integrated system is created, any future uses or expansions
of that system should be evaluated to assess the privacy
implications.

XIV. The Task Force recommends that new criminal justice
privacy law and policy should continue to give weight to
the distinction between conviction information and
nonconviction information. The Task Force recognizes,
however, that there are certain instances in which
disclosure of nonconviction information may be
appropriate.



II. Report purpose and scope

It hardly comes as a surprise that Federal agencies collect
vast amounts of personal information, including
information collected through the criminal justice system. It
is also no surprise that this information collection activity
serves critical public safety and other public values.
Moreover, access to public record information, including
criminal justice information, promotes interests critical to a
democratic society, including:

* Promoting government accountability. Access to public
records helps the public monitor government activities,
thereby assisting the public to hold elected officials and
nonelected civil servants accountable and protecting against
secret government activities.

* Promoting first amendment rights. Access to public
record information helps to create the informed citizenry
necessary for the robust, wide-open public debates that play
an important structural role in securing and fostering free
speech and republican self-government. 

* Promoting confidence in the judicial and political
systems. Access to public record information bolsters
public knowledge about, and helps instill confidence in, the
operation of the political system as well as the judicial
system. 

* Promoting private-sector accountability. The use of
background checks that rely on public record information
allows the verification of assertions made by individuals (or
facts omitted by individuals), thereby permitting
prospective employers and business partners to protect
themselves and vulnerable populations which may be in
their care, including children, the disabled, and the elderly.

* Promoting meritocracy. In a mobile society where merit
(often initially represented by credentials) is often used
rather than family connections and lineage for purposes
such as employment, access to public records provides an
important means of verifying an individual's credentials,
including whether the individual has a criminal record.

Because this information is collected and used for the good
of society, why isn't that the end of the debate? Why not
make all information, including personal information
collected by Federal agencies, publicly available?

The answer, of course, is that there are powerful competing
values, interests, and concerns. One such interest is privacy.
Privacy encompasses not only secrecy but also fair
information practices regarding the use, access, accuracy,
right to challenge inaccurate information, and knowledge
that record systems even exist. -7 [Other values and
interests include national security interests, secrecy
requirements necessary to facilitate ongoing law
enforcement investigations, the protection of trade secrets,
and so on.] These information privacy interests were given
voice in the 1970s, at a time when centralized and
automated record systems were chiefly associated with
governmental activities. During the 1970s, a set of broad
fair information practice policies emerged, with specific
applications for criminal justice information. Since the
1970s, there have been many changes, including
technological, political, and marketplace changes, that have
changed the information environment.

This report identifies developments that may be outpacing
established privacy and fair information practices
protections for criminal justice information, and which may
necessitate a new look at appropriate law and policy for
managing this information. The report is intended to serve
as a resource for State and Federal policymakers, the courts,
criminal justice agencies, private-sector, self-regulatory
organizations, privacy advocates, and individuals interested
in privacy and criminal justice issues. 

For purposes of this report, "criminal justice information" is
defined broadly to include all information obtained,
maintained, or generated about an individual by the courts
or a criminal justice agency as a result of suspicion that the
individual may be engaging in criminal activity or in
relation to his or her arrest and the subsequent disposition
of this arrest. "Criminal justice information" includes:
criminal history record information (CHRI); criminal
intelligence information; criminal investigative
information; disposition information; identification record
information; nonconviction information; and wanted person
information. -8 [Technical Report No. 13: Standards for the
Security and Privacy of Criminal History Record
Information, 3rd ed. (Sacramento: SEARCH Group, Inc.,
1988) pp. 8-9. Hereafter, Technical Report No. 13, 3rd ed.
A glossary of justice information terms is included as
Appendix 2.]

Criminal intelligence and criminal investigative
information are within the definition of criminal justice
information as it is addressed in this report. The Task Force
concluded after considerable deliberation, however, that
changes in criminal intelligence and investigative
information systems raise complex and discrete privacy
issues. Those issues merit examination by a separate Task
Force or other group devoted solely to that issue,
particularly a group with more representation from the
investigative and intelligence communities than is reflected
in the membership of the Task Force on Privacy,
Technology and Criminal Justice Information.


III. Information privacy standards: Background

Customarily, the term "information privacy" is used to refer
to standards for the collection, maintenance, use, and
disclosure of personally identifiable information. A central
component of "information privacy" is the ability of an
individual to control the use of information about him or
herself. -9 [See, for example, Alan F. Westin, Privacy and
Freedom (New York: Atheneum, 1967) p. 7. Hereafter,
Privacy and Freedom.]

Information privacy is frequently distinguished from other
clusters of personal interests that are nourished by the
privacy doctrine, including surveillance privacy - the
interest in being free from governmental and other
organized surveillance of individual activities under
circumstances where the individual has a reasonable
expectation of privacy; and behavioral privacy - the right to
engage in certain intimate and sensitive behaviors (such as
behaviors relating to reproductive rights) free from
governmental or other control. -10 [In Whalen v. Roe, 429
U.S. 589, 599, 600 (1977), the Supreme Court discussed
the various clusters of interests protected by the broad term
"privacy."]

Protection of information privacy is widely seen as serving
at least five interests that are critical to a democracy:

1. An interest in ensuring society (both public and private
sectors) makes decisions about individuals in a way that
comports with notions of due process and fairness.
Accuracy of CHRI and use of that information which
includes providing notice to the individual and giving the
individual an opportunity to respond, is consistent with
notions about fairness. The absence of these protections
may produce erroneous or unjustified decisions about
employment, credit, health care, housing, or other valued
benefits or statuses.

2. An interest in protecting individual dignity. When
individuals endure stigma, embarrassment, and humiliation
arising from the uncontrolled use and disclosure of
information about them, they lose the sense of dignity and
integrity essential for effective participation in a free and
democratic society.

3. An interest in protecting individual autonomy. When
individuals lack control over personal information about
themselves, they lose a sense of control over their lives.
The ability of individuals to control personal information
about themselves promotes personal autonomy and liberty. 

4. An interest in promoting a sense of trust in, and a check
upon the behavior of, institutions. When individuals lose
the ability to selectively disclose their sensitive personal
information, they lose trust in the public and private
institutions that collect, hold, use, and disclose this personal
information. (Public opinion surveys indicate that the
public's "distrust index" (the extent to which the public
distrusts the government) is at all-time high levels of
approximately 80 percent.) -11 [See note 75 infra.]

5. An interest in promoting the viability of relationships
critical to the effective functioning of a democratic society.
Numerous relationships, such as the doctor-patient
relationship, the lawyer-client relationship, or even the
news media and confidential source relationship, depend
upon promises of confidentiality in order to promote the
candid sharing of personal information and trust within the
relationship.

The concept of information privacy as a distinct branch of
privacy is relatively new. The concept found full voice in
the late 1960s, amid rising concerns about computers and
growing disenchantment with government, and articulated
in writings such as Alan Westin's book, Privacy and
Freedom, -12 [Privacy and Freedom, supra note 9.] with
later iterations in the 1972 National Academy of Science's
report, Databanks in a Free Society, -13 [Alan F. Westin
and Michael A. Baker, Databanks in a Free Society:
Computers, Record-Keeping and Privacy (New York:
Quadrangle Books, 1972). See also, Robert R. Belair,
"Information Privacy: A Legal and Policy Analysis," in
Science, Technology and Uses of Information (Washington,
D.C.: National Science Foundation, 1986).] and the 1973
Report of the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare's
Advisory Committee on Automated Personal Data Systems
(HEW Report). -14 [Records, Computers and the Rights of
Citizens, DHEW Publication No. (OS) 73-97 (Washington,
D.C.: Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1973),
available at
http://aspe.hhs.gov/datacncl/1973privacy/tocprefacemembe
rs.htm.]

These seminal works recognized the importance of
information privacy and the need to balance privacy with
other competing interests, such as public safety. As part of
this dialogue, the HEW Report's "Code of Fair Information
Practices" set forth five basic procedural principles for fair
information practices:

1.   There must be no personal-data recordkeeping
systems whose very existence is secret.

2.   There must be a way for an individual to find out
what information about him is in a record and how it is
used.

3.   There must be a way for an individual to prevent
information about him obtained for one purpose from being
used or made available for other purposes without his
consent.

4.   There must be a way for an individual to correct or
amend a record of identifiable information about him.

5. Any organization creating, maintaining, using, or
disseminating records of identifiable personal data must
assure the reliability of the data for their intended use and
must take reasonable precautions to prevent misuse of the
data. -15 [Ibid., p. 41.]

The HEW Code of Fair Information Practices was widely
influential when it was released, and served as a basis for
the Federal Privacy Act of 1974. The HEW Code of Fair
Information Practices was further examined and applied to
specific recordkeeping relationships in the 1977 Report of
the Privacy Protection Study Commission. -16 [U.S.
Privacy Protection Study Commission, Personal Privacy in
an Information Society (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office, July 1977).] Balancing
privacy with competing interests has also been widely
accepted as a means of accounting for privacy concerns. -17
[Charles D. Raab, "From Balancing to Steering: New
Directions for Data Protection," in Visions of Privacy:
Policy Choices for the Digital Age, Colin J. Bennett and
Rebecca Grant, eds. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press,
1999) pp. 68-93.] Although some have questioned whether
the Code of Fair Information Practices remains a viable
approach, -18 [Ibid. Other privacy experts continue to
believe that Fair Information Practices and the "balancing
of interests" approach can continue to serve as the basis for
privacy law and policy, either as currently constituted or
with modifications. See, for example, David H. Flaherty,
"Visions of Privacy: Past, Present and Future," in ibid., pp.
19-38.] the Code and balancing privacy with competing
interests continues to provide a framework for fair
information practices in the United States. -19 [See, for
example, Testimony of Donna E. Shalala, Secretary, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, before the
Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources,
September 11, 1997 (recommending that the Congress pass
health information privacy legislation based upon the 1973
Code of Fair Information Practices). Not surprisingly,
however, the Fair Information Practices outlined in the
HEW Report have been expanded upon in the nearly 30
years since they were first promulgated. Today, influenced
in part by developments in Europe, discussion of fair
information practices also frequently focus, for example, on
procedural and substantive safeguards surrounding the
collection of information to ensure that information is used
only for purposes consistent with those for which the
information is collected, and that the information collected
is relevant to the purpose for which it is being collected.]



IV. Privacy protections for criminal justice information

A brief overview of the structure of the criminal justice
information system

Before examining the legal and policy regime surrounding
criminal justice information, this section briefly reviews the
structure of the criminal justice information system as it
relates to CHRI (at both the Federal and State levels),
juvenile justice information, intelligence and investigative
information, and original records of entry.

* Criminal history record information: Federal role. At the
Federal level, the FBI functions as a criminal history record
repository, holding both Federal offender information and
records of arrest and dispositions under State law. 

- Interstate Identification Index (III). During the last 30
years, the FBI, working with the State criminal justice
information community, developed the III. The III consists
of an FBI-maintained index of all individuals with State or
Federal criminal history records, supported by a National
Fingerprint File. Authorized requestors access the III to
determine whether any State (or the FBI for Federal
offenses) maintains a criminal history record about a
particular individual.

- III Compact. In October 1998, the Congress enacted the
Crime Identification Technology Act (CITA), -20 [42
U.S.C.  14601.] which includes as Title II, the National
Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact Act (III Compact).
Once ratified by the States, the III Compact will permit the
III to be used by authorized, noncriminal justice requestors.
-21 [As of June 2001, 12 States (Montana, Georgia,
Nevada, Florida, Colorado, Iowa, Connecticut, South
Carolina, Arkansas, Alaska, Oklahoma, and Maine) had
ratified the III Compact, which became effective on April
28, 1999, following the ratification of the Compact by the
first two States. The Compact now applies between the
States that have ratified it and the Federal government. See,
"Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact," available at
http://www.search.org/policy/compact/privacy.asp.]

* Criminal history record information: central State
repositories. Every State has established a "central State
repository" of criminal history information and fingerprints,
operated by a State law enforcement agency. Central State
repositories maintain a fingerprint record of every
individual arrested in the 

State for a serious/reportable offense (standards vary among
the States, but, customarily, reportable offenses are
misdemeanors punishable by a year or more in prison, plus
felonies). The repository also maintains an automated
record of those individuals' arrests, along with all available
dispositions. This record is referred to as a criminal history
record or "rap sheet."

- Repository mission. The central State repository's
principal mission is to provide CHRI to State and local law
enforcement agencies. The repositories also provide CHRI
to the other components of the criminal justice system -
courts, prosecutors, and corrections - as well as certain
noncriminal justice users. -22 [Robert R. Belair and Paul L.
Woodard, Use and Management of Criminal History
Record Information: A Comprehensive Report, Criminal
Justice Information Policy series, NCJ 143501
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of
Justice Statistics, November 1993) pp. 14-17. Hereafter,
Use and Management of CHRI.]

- Information maintained by repositories. Traditionally,
central State repositories maintain subject identification
information (fingerprint records), criminal history
information (which historically and traditionally consists of
identifying information, arrests, and available dispositions,
but little or no information about third parties such as
witnesses, victims, or family members), -23 [See, SEARCH
Group, Inc., Increasing the Utility of the Criminal History
Record: Report of the National Task Force, Criminal
Justice Information Policy series, NCJ 156922
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of
Justice Statistics, December 1995) pp. 23-27.] and certain
other information (such as pretrial release information and
felony conviction flags). Repositories virtually never
maintain other types of personal information (employment
history, medical history, military, or citizenship status, and
so on). -24 [Ibid., pp. 22-23.]

- Liaison with FBI. Repositories serve as a contact point
and liaison with the FBI: sending fingerprints and arrest and
disposition information to the FBI; responding to search
inquiries from the FBI; and initiating search inquiries to the
FBI on behalf of authorized, in-State requestors.

- Information maintained by local agencies. Over the past
30 years, local agencies, with rare exception for the very
largest local agencies, have withdrawn from the business of
maintaining formal and comprehensive criminal history
records (other than booking information and other original
records of entry). Instead, local agencies rely on the State
repository and, through the State repository, the FBI to
provide complete and comprehensive criminal history
records. 

* Juvenile justice information. Juvenile justice information
is, broadly speaking, information on juveniles, which, but
for the age of the juvenile, would be considered criminal
justice information. -25 [This age varies by State.]
Traditionally, the repositories do not maintain juvenile
justice information; for the few repositories that do, it is
frequently not integrated with adult records of that
individual. (As a practical matter, juvenile justice
information, until very recently, was not available on any
kind of reliable or organized basis. Rather, each separate
juvenile or family court and each separate law enforcement
agency would maintain juvenile records. These records
frequently were not automated or fingerprint-supported.
Moreover, traditionally, some of these records were not
available by law (based on sealing requirements), even to
criminal justice agencies.)

* Investigative and intelligence information. Customarily,
investigative and intelligence information has rarely been
maintained at a central State repository; when maintained,
it has not been integrated with CHRI. Historically,
investigative and intelligence information was maintained
only at the local police agency or law enforcement agency
level; it was not automated or fingerprint-supported; and it
was shared on a closely held, need-to-know basis within the
law enforcement community. -26 [See, Robert R. Belair,
Intelligence and Investigative Records, Criminal Justice
Information Policy series, NCJ 95787 (Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics,
February 1985) pp. 43-49.]

* Original records of entry. Pieces of an individual's
criminal history record, but only infrequently an
individual's entire criminal history record, are held in "open
record" files maintained by police agencies and courts.
These original records of entry describe formal detentions
and arrests and include incident reports, arrest reports, case
reports, and other information that documents that an
individual has been detained, taken into custody, or
otherwise formally charged. In addition, records of court
proceedings maintained by the courts include indictments,
arraignments, preliminary hearings, pretrial release
hearings, and other court events that, by law and tradition,
are open to public inspection. Until very recently, both
types of open record systems were manual or, at best, only
partially automated; they were not comprehensive or
reliable, and related only to events occurring at the
particular law enforcement agency or court. As a
consequence, these systems were difficult and expensive to
use and largely unsuitable for the compilation of a reliable
or comprehensive criminal history record file. Compilation
of these records into a criminal history file on an individual
was also difficult because these record systems were
incident-focused, rather than individual-focused, and were
not comprehensive, cumulative, or otherwise linked on the
basis of the individuals involved in each incident.

By the 1990s, these relatively traditional elements of the
criminal justice information environment were changing.
Criminal justice information, particularly including
court-based CHRI, was largely automated and was
becoming more publicly available. The role of the central
repositories as the gatekeeper for CHRI was being
challenged not only by the 
courts, but also by automated, for-profit information
brokers and suppliers and by local criminal justice agencies.
Fundamental changes in expectations about the availability
and utility of criminal justice information fueled
accelerating pressures for more and easier access to
criminal justice information.


Constitutional and common law standards with respect to
the privacy of criminal history record information

- Constitutional standards

The Constitution remains largely neutral with respect to the
privacy of CHRI. In particular, the Supreme Court has held
that the Constitution does not recognize a privacy interest
in the dissemination by criminal justice agencies of
information about official acts, such as arrests. -27 [Paul v.
Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 713 (1976).] In 1989, in Department
of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press,
-28 [489 U.S. 749 (1989).] the Supreme Court did
recognize, however, that there is a statutory privacy
interest, under the Federal Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA), in automated, comprehensive criminal history
records. -29 [The Court has used statutory law, rather than
constitutional law, to protect privacy in other contexts as
well. In Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996), for
example, the Court, recognizing the sensitivity of mental
health information, held that Rule 501 of the Federal Rules
of Evidence recognizes a psychotherapist-patient privilege,
which extends to confidential communications between a
licensed social worker and a patient in the course of
psychotherapy.] The Court held "as a categorical matter that
a third party's request for law enforcement records or
information about a private citizen can reasonably be
expected to invade that citizen's privacy, and that when the
request seeks no 'official information' about a Government
agency, but merely records that the Government happens to
be storing, the invasion of privacy is 'unwarranted'" and
therefore exempt from disclosure under FOIA's privacy
provision. -30 [489 U.S. 749, 780 (1989).]

In 1995, the Court again addressed the privacy risk posed
by computerized criminal history information. In Arizona v.
Evans, -31 [514 U.S. 1 (1995).] the Court found that the
"exclusionary rule" does not require suppression of
evidence seized incident to an arrest resulting from an
inaccurate computer record when the error was caused by
court, rather than police, personnel. In a concurring
opinion, Justice O'Connor noted that "the advent of
powerful, computer-based recordkeeping systems ...
facilitate[s] arrests in ways that have never before been
possible. The police ... are entitled to enjoy the substantial
advantages this technology confers. They may not,
however, rely on it blindly. With the benefits of more
efficient law enforcement mechanisms comes the burden of
corresponding constitutional responsibilities." -32 [Ibid., at
17-18 (O'Connor, J., concurring).] Justice Ginsburg, in
dissent, also expressed concern over the impact of modern
technology on privacy: "Widespread reliance on computers
to store and convey information generates, along with
manifold benefits, new possibilities of error, due to both
computer malfunctions and operator mistakes ..._.
[C]omputerization greatly amplifies an error's effect, and
correspondingly intensifies the need for prompt correction;
for inaccurate data can infect not only one agency, but the
many agencies that share access to the database." -33 [Ibid.,
at 26 (Ginsburg, J. dissenting).]

During the 1999-2000 term, the Supreme Court handed
down two decisions regarding statutory controls on access
to public record information, which, while not decided on
privacy grounds, are likely to encourage stronger privacy
initiatives.

The first opinion, Los Angeles Police Department v. United
Reporting Publishing Corp., -34 [528 U.S. 32 (1999).]
arose from a 1996 change in California law governing the
release of arrest information. -35 [CAL. GOV. CODE 
6254(f).] The change limited the release of arrestee and
victim address information to those who certify that the
request is made for scholarly, journalistic, political, or
governmental purposes, or for investigative purposes by a
licensed private investigator. The law specifically prohibits
the use of such information "directly or indirectly to sell a
product or service to any individual or group of
individuals."

United Reporting Publishing Corp., a private publishing
service that had been providing arrestee address
information to clients under the old statute, filed suit,
alleging that the statute was an unconstitutional violation of
its first amendment commercial speech rights. The Ninth
Circuit, while finding that arrestees have a substantial
privacy interest in the information at issue, nevertheless
concluded (as did the district court) the California law was
an unconstitutional infringement on United Reporting's first
amendment commercial speech rights because the "myriad
of exceptions ... precludes the statute from directly and
materially advancing the government's purported privacy
interest." -36 [United Reporting Publishing Corp. v. Los
Angeles Police Department, 146 F.3d 1133, 1140 (9th Cir.
1998).]

On December 7, 1999, the Supreme Court voted 7 to 2 to
reverse, reinstating the California statute. In its opinion, the
majority characterized United Reporting as a case dealing
with access to government records rather than restrictions
on free speech. -37 [The Court's decision did not address
the commercial speech interests at issue in the regulation of
the use of personal information in private records, an issue
that has also drawn the attention of the appellate courts.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, for example, acted on
first amendment commercial speech grounds, to vacate a
rule issued by the Federal Communications Commission
that required consumers to opt-in to most disclosures of
their consumer proprietary network information (CPNI).
U.S. West, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission,
182 F.3d 1224 (10th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1213
(2000). CPNI is information that relates to the quantity,
technical configuration, type, destination, and amount of
use of a telecommunications service subscribed to by any
customer of a telecommunications carrier that is made
available to the carrier by the customer solely by virtue of
the carrier-customer relationship, including most
information contained in telephone bills. See, 47 U.S.C. 
222(f)(1)(A)-(B).] The Supreme Court also characterized
the case as a challenge to the "facial validity" of the
California statute and not a challenge based upon the
implementation or actual experience with the statute. -38
[In a related development, on December 13, 1999, the
Supreme Court issued an order in McClure v. Amelkin, 528
U.S. 1059 (1999), setting aside a decision by the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals that struck down a Kentucky law
limiting access to motor vehicle accident reports. The Sixth
Circuit struck down the law - which allows access to
accident victims, victims' lawyers, victims' insurers, and the
news media (but not for commercial purposes) - after
finding that the law violates commercial free speech rights.
The Supreme Court sent the case back to the Sixth Circuit
and ordered the lower court to restudy the case, taking into
consideration the Supreme Court's decision in United
Reporting.] For these reasons the Court opined that
California could distinguish among users and uses in
crafting rules for access to State-held records. The Court
left open the possibility, however, that the statute, as
applied, might impinge on United Reporting's commercial
speech rights.

In the second opinion, Reno v. Condon, -39 [528 U.S. 32,
120 S.Ct. 483 (2000). The Fourth Circuit case was the first
of four decisions issued by the Courts of Appeals on the
constitutionality of the DPPA; two decisions upheld the
constitutionality of the DPPA, two held it to be
unconstitutional. See, Condon v. Reno, 155 F.3d 453 (4th
Cir. 1998) (holding DPPA is unconstitutional); Pryor v.
Reno, 171 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 1999) (holding DPPA is
unconstitutional); Travis v. Reno, 160 F.3d. 1000 (7th Cir.
1998) (upholding DPPA); Oklahoma v. United States, 161
F.3d 1266 (10th Cir. 1998) (upholding DPPA). The DPPA
has also been challenged on first amendment grounds;
however, discussions of first amendment challenges are
omitted here. See, for example, Travis v. Reno and
Oklahoma v. United States.] the Supreme Court
unanimously reversed the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals,
rejecting a tenth amendment -40 ["The powers not
delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people." U.S. Const., Amend. X.]
challenge by the State of South Carolina to the
constitutionality of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of
1994 (DPPA). -41 [18 U.S.C.  2721 et seq.] The DPPA
provides that State departments of motor vehicles (DMVs)
"shall not knowingly disclose or otherwise make available
to any person or entity personal information about any
individual obtained by the department in connection with a
motor vehicle record." -42 [18 U.S.C.  2721(a).] The
DPPA does contain 14 exceptions pursuant to which States
may elect to disclose DMV records in certain instances. -43
[18 U.S.C.  2721(b).] Violation of the DPPA may result in
criminal fines and a civil cause of action against a person
who knowingly violates the statute. -44 [18 U.S.C. 
2723(a), 2724(a).] Although the Court's brief opinion was
based on tenth amendment rather than privacy grounds, the
decision potentially opens the door for further Federal
regulation of access to State records on privacy grounds.
-45 [The Court concluded that "the DPPA does not require
States in their sovereign capacity to regulate their own
citizens. The DPPA regulates the States as the owners of
databases. It does not require the South Carolina
Legislature to enact any laws or regulations, and it does not
require State officials to assist in the enforcement of
Federal statutes regulating private individuals. We
accordingly conclude that the DPPA is consistent with the
constitutional principles enunciated in [New York v. United
States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992); and Printz v. United States,
521 U.S. 898 (1997)]." Reno v. Condon, 528 U.S. 32, 120
S.Ct. 666, 672 (2000). In addition, the Court disagreed with
the Fourth Circuit's holding that the DPPA exclusively
regulated the States, finding instead that the "DPPA
regulates the universe of entities that participate as
suppliers to the market for motor vehicle information - the
States as initial suppliers of the information in interstate
commerce and private resellers or redisclosers of that
information in commerce." Ibid. As a result, the Court did
not address the "question whether general applicability is a
constitutional requirement for federal regulation of the
States."]

- Common law standards

Common law privacy doctrines, such as the widely
recognized privacy tort of public disclosure of private facts,
have proven largely ineffectual when applied to CHRI.
Sovereign immunity, civil and official immunity, and the
need to show tangible harm arising from the alleged
disclosure or misuse of criminal history records have
proven to be virtually insurmountable obstacles to common
law privacy actions. -46 [See, Technical Memorandum No.
12: Criminal Justice Information, Perspective on Liabilities
(Sacramento: SEARCH Group, Inc., August 1977) (and as
updated in 1981) pp. 5-20.] The limited nature of common
law and constitutional privacy protections has meant that
safeguarding information privacy interests has been left
largely to the legislative arena.

Federal criminal history record legislation and regulations

Beginning in the late 1960s and extending throughout the
1970s, information privacy standards for criminal justice
information and, in particular, criminal history records,
received considerable attention in statutory provisions and
U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) regulations. Although the
privacy protections that emerged from that debate were not
driven by constitutional requirements, constitutional values
- such as the presumption that an individual is innocent
until proven guilty - have played a role in the development
of the law and regulations governing the management of
CHRI. -47 [As the Privacy Protection Study Commission
noted in its 1977 report: "Constitutional standards specify
that convictions, not arrests establish guilt. Thus denial of
employment [for example] because of an unproved charge,
a charge that has been dismissed, or one for which there has
been an adjudication of innocence, is fundamentally
unfair." Supra note 16, Appendix 3, Employment Records,
p. 50. The value of arrest records as a decisionmaking tool,
particularly in the employment context, has also been
challenged on the grounds that racial minorities are arrested
in disproportionately high numbers. As a result, the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission and several courts
have found that inquiries about arrest records can be a
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See,
for example, 29 C.F.R.  1607.4(c)(1); and Gregory v.
Litton Sys., 316 F. Supp. 401 (C.D. Cal. 1970), aff'd as
modified, 472 F.2d. 631 (9th Cir. 1972) (fact that an
individual suffered a number of arrests without any
convictions was not conclusive as to wrongdoing and was
irrelevant to work qualifications and, because the mere
inquiry into arrest records tends to have a chilling effect on
minority job applicants, inquiries about arrests may violate
Title VII). The U.S. DOJ requires that federally funded
criminal justice information systems distinguish between
nonconviction information (including certain arrest
information) and conviction information. 20 C.F.R. 
20.21(b).]

In 1967, the Report of the President's Commission on Law
Enforcement and the Administration of Justice spoke of the
need for an "integrated national information system" and
recommended that there be established a "national law
enforcement directory that records an individual's arrests
for serious crimes, the disposition of each case and all
subsequent formal contacts with criminal justice agencies
related to those arrests." The report also emphasized that it
is "essential" to identify and protect security and privacy
rights to ensure a fair, credible, and politically acceptable
national criminal justice information system. -48 [Project
SEARCH, Technical Report No. 2: Security and Privacy
Considerations in Criminal History Information Systems
(Sacramento: California Crime Technological Research
Foundation, 1970) pp. 3-5 (quoting from the President's
Commission Report).]

For most of the last 30 years, the U.S. DOJ, working
through the FBI, the Law Enforcement Assistance
Administration (LEAA) and its successor agencies,
including, in particular, OJP, BJS, and the Bureau of
Justice Assistance (BJA), and the State and local criminal
justice information community, including SEARCH and the
FBI Criminal Justice Information Services Division's
Advisory Policy Board (CJIS APB), have worked toward
the implementation of an automated national system for the
exchange of criminal history records, along with a set of
comprehensive privacy standards. Several prominent
features dominated that environment.

Privacy standards for CHRI have been left largely to
statutory and regulatory initiative. During the 1970s, when
public concern about privacy, automation, and
governmental and private information systems was running
high, the Congress considered several legislative proposals
that would have imposed uniform, national information and
privacy standards for CHRI. All of those proposals failed.
-49 [See, Use and Management of CHRI, supra note 22, p.
36. The FBI's basic statutory authority to maintain and
disseminate criminal history records is at 28 U.S.C.  534.
This provision authorizes the Attorney General to "acquire,
collect, classify and preserve criminal identification, crime
and other records" and to "exchange such records and
information with and for the official use of, authorized
officials of the federal government, the States, cities and
penal and other institutions."]

While the comprehensive proposals for uniform,
nationwide standards failed, Congress was not idle. In
1972, for example, Congress authorized the FBI to
"exchange identification records" with State and local
officials for "purposes of employment and licensing,"
provided that the exchange of information is authorized by
State statute and approved by the Attorney General, and
provided that the exchange of information is made only for
official use and is subject to the same restrictions with
respect to dissemination as would apply to the FBI. -50
[Pub. L. No. 92-544, Title II,  201, 86 Stat. 1115.]

In 1973, Congress enacted the so-called "Kennedy
Amendment" to the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968, which provides that all CHRI
collected, maintained, or disseminated by State and local
criminal justice agencies with financial support under the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act must be made
available for review and challenge by record subjects and
must be used only for law enforcement and other lawful
purposes. -51 [42 U.S.C.  3789G(b), as amended by 
524(b) of the Crime Control Act of 1973, Pub. L. No. 93-83
(1973).]

LEAA implemented the Kennedy Amendment by adopting
comprehensive regulations - known as the "DOJ
regulations" - intended to "assure that CHRI wherever it
appears is collected, stored, and disseminated in a manner
to insure the completeness, integrity, accuracy and security
of such information and to protect individual privacy." -52
[28 C.F.R  20.01.] The regulations set relatively detailed
and ambitious standards for data quality, while giving
States discretion to set their own standards for
dissemination, recognizing that incomplete or inaccurate
criminal history data, particularly arrest information
without disposition information, could have negative
implications for the record subject and his or her
participation in society.

In addition to regulation of the handling of criminal history
information by criminal justice agencies, Federal law also
regulates private-sector uses of criminal history information
in certain circumstances. The Fair Credit Reporting Act
(FCRA), for example, regulates the compilation, disclosure,
and use of consumer reports, which may include criminal
history information. -53 [The Fair Credit Reporting Act is
discussed in greater detail in infra, chapter V, p. 58.]

SEARCH Technical Report No. 13

SEARCH has also been active in the formulation of
standards for the security and privacy of CHRI. Beginning
in 1970, the year after SEARCH was established, SEARCH
published a series of reports addressing privacy and security
in computerized criminal history files, and providing
guidance for legislative and regulatory protections for
CHRI. -54 [See, Technical Report No. 2: Security and
Privacy Considerations in Criminal History Information
Systems, supra note 48; Project SEARCH, Technical
Memorandum No. 3: A Model State Act for Criminal
Offender Record Information (Sacramento: California
Crime Technological Research Foundation, May 1971); and
Project SEARCH, Technical Memorandum No. 4: Model
Administrative Regulations for Criminal Offender Record
Information (Sacramento: California Crime Technological
Research Foundation, 1972).]

In 1975, SEARCH published the widely influential
Technical Report No. 13, SEARCH's first comprehensive
statement of 25 recommendations for safeguarding the
security and privacy of criminal justice information. -55
[See, Technical Report No. 13: Standards for the Security
and Privacy of Criminal Justice Information (Sacramento:
SEARCH Group, Inc., 1975).] These recommendations
influenced LEAA's development of the DOJ regulations
discussed above, and the Appendix to the DOJ regulations
refers States to Technical Report No. 13 for guidance in
formulating their State plans. -56 [See, 28 C.F.R. Part 20,
Appendix  20.22(a).] Technical Report No. 13 has been
revised twice since 1975 - most recently in 1988 - to reflect
technological and societal changes that have had an impact
on criminal justice information management and privacy.
-57 [Technical Report No. 13, 3rd ed., supra note 8. The
second revision occurred in 1977, at which time the
commentary to the 1975 report was expanded, but the
original recommendations were unchanged. Ibid., p. 1.]

State legislation

The bulk of the criminal justice information maintained in
the United States is maintained at the State level; therefore,
most of the legislation on governing this information is
found at the State level (with certain important exceptions,
such as the DOJ regulations discussed above). Throughout
the 1970s and into the 1980s, States adopted statutes based
in large measure on the DOJ regulations and the SEARCH
recommendations. By the early 1990s, approximately
one-half of the States had enacted comprehensive criminal
history record legislation, and every State had enacted
statutes that address at least some aspects of criminal
history records. The majority of State laws followed the
scheme in the DOJ regulations that distinguishes between
information referring to convictions and current arrests
(arrests that are no older than 1 year and that do not yet
have the disposition) and "nonconviction data," which
includes arrests more than 1 year old without a disposition
or arrests with dispositions favorable to the accused.

Under the DOJ regulations and many State laws, conviction
information can be made available largely without
restriction. Nonconviction data, on the other hand, can not
be made available under the DOJ regulations unless
authorized by a State statute, ordinance, executive order, or
court rule. -58 [28 C.F.R.  20.21(b).] Furthermore, the
DOJ regulations provide that when CHRI is disseminated
to noncriminal justice agencies, its use "shall be limited to
the purpose for which it was given." -59 [28 C.F.R. 
20.21(c)(1).]

Today, a relatively stable and uniform approach to protect
the privacy of CHRI is in place throughout the United
States. -60 [BJS supports a biennial survey, conducted by
SEARCH, to assess State privacy practices. See, Paul L.
Woodard and Eric C. Johnson, Compendium of State
Privacy and Security Legislation: 1999 Overview, NCJ
182294 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,
Bureau of Justice Statistics, July 2000). Hereafter,
Compendium.] Five fundamental principles, in many ways
reflective of the HEW Code of Fair Information Practices,
characterize the U.S. approach to protecting the privacy of
CHRI:

1. Subject access and correction. As of 1999, 51 of the 53
jurisdictions surveyed (the 50 States plus the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands) give
record subjects a right to inspect their criminal history
records, and 44 jurisdictions permit record subjects to
challenge and/or offer corrections for information in their
criminal history records. -61 [Ibid., p. 16.]

2. Restrictions on the collection and/or integration of
criminal history information. Most States have adopted
formal or informal restrictions that segregate CHRI from
other types of personal information. Thus, CHRI seldom
includes juvenile justice information; customarily never
includes investigative or intelligence information; and
customarily never includes medical information,
employment information, financial information, military or
citizenship status information, or other types of personal
information. Although repositories continue to segregate
CHRI in this manner, end-users of information increasingly
are able to combine CHRI obtained from the State
repositories with noncriminal history record information
obtained from commercial information vendors and other
sources in order to create a more detailed picture of the
individual.

3. Data quality and data maintenance safeguards. As of
1999, 52 of 53 jurisdictions have adopted standards for
ensuring the accuracy and completeness of CHRI. -62
[Ibid.]

* Fingerprint versus "name-only" access. In virtually every
State, all criminal histories maintained by a central State
repository must be supported by a fingerprint record and,
with certain exceptions, requests must be accompanied by a
fingerprint. Fingerprint support ensures that the record
maintained at the repository relates to the correct person,
and that the repository's response similarly relates to the
correct person. The principal exception for law enforcement
requests occurs in instances where the law enforcement
agency does not have the individual in custody and,
therefore, cannot provide a fingerprint, or in situations
requiring a quick turnaround. In those instances, a
"name-only" check (customarily, not just a name but also
other demographic information, such as gender, date of
birth, race, and other physical indicators) is permitted.

* Disposition reporting. Repositories attempt to obtain
disposition information from the courts. In recent years, the
percentage of arrests maintained at the repositories that
include available dispositions has increased substantially;
however, incomplete records remain a problem. -63 [As of
1999, the most recent year for which figures are available,
18 States and the District of Columbia report that 80% or
more of arrests within the past 5 years in the criminal
history database had final dispositions recorded, while 32
States and the District of Columbia report that 60% or more
of the arrests in the past 5 years have final dispositions
attached. Overall, the figures are lower when arrests older
than 5 years are factored in. When arrests greater than 5
years old are included, only 15 States report that 80% or
more arrests in their entire criminal history database have
final dispositions attached, while 32 States report that 60%
or more arrests have dispositions attached. Sheila J. Barton,
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems,
1999, Criminal Justice Information Policy series, NCJ
184793 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,
Bureau of Justice Statistics, October 2000) p. 2.]

* Sealing and purging. As of 1999, 42 States have adopted
laws that permit the purging (destruction) of nonconviction
information and 27 jurisdictions have adopted standards for
the purging of conviction information if certain conditions
are met. In addition, 33 States have adopted laws and
regulations to permit the sealing of nonconviction
information and 30 States have adopted laws and standards
to permit the sealing of conviction information. -64
[Compendium, supra note 60, p. 16.]

4. Security. As of 1999, 42 jurisdictions have adopted
formal standards for technical, administrative, physical,
and/or personnel security. -65 [Ibid.] As a practical matter,
however, security standards are in place for all 52
jurisdictions that have established central State repositories.
The extent and nature of those standards, however, vary
substantially.

5. Use and disclosure. As of 1999, all 53 jurisdictions have
adopted laws or regulations setting standards for the use
and/or dissemination of CHRI. -66 [Ibid.] As a practical
matter, every State makes all CHRI available for criminal
justice purposes. Outside of the criminal justice system,
however, conviction information is widely available but
nonconviction information remains largely unavailable or
available only to certain types of users (licensing boards
and certain kinds of employers who employ individuals in
highly sensitive positions, such as school bus drivers or
child care workers). -67 [Traditionally, law and policy has
distinguished sharply between conviction and
nonconviction information. In many jurisdictions,
conviction information is available to broad segments of
noncriminal justice employers and other authorized users, if
not the general public, through central repositories. By
contrast, nonconviction information, even in 1999, is
almost never publicly available from central repositories,
with rare exceptions in some States for special categories of
offenses, such as sex offenses.] (Of course, sealing and
purging provisions also work effectively to provide
dissemination and confidentiality safeguards.)

* Criminal justice access. Law and policy in every State
provides that criminal justice requestors can obtain all
information in the criminal history record unless the
information has been sealed by statute or court order. Most
States, however, have some process for sealing or purging
CHRI when it is no longer considered relevant.

* Noncriminal justice access. The repositories provide
CHRI to noncriminal justice requestors authorized by State
law, such as licensing boards and certain types of
employers. In most States, authorized noncriminal justice
requestors receive less than the full record - most often
limited to conviction-only information.

* Public access. Except in a few "open record" States, such
as Florida and Wisconsin, the general public is restricted in
its ability to obtain CHRI from the central State repository,
with the exception of certain classes of information, such as
sex offender registry information.

Access to criminal history record information in "open,"
"intermediate," and "closed" record States: Three case
studies

Florida: An "open records" State

In 1977, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement
(FDLE) adopted a policy of making all State-generated
criminal history records available upon request by any
member of the public for any purpose, upon payment of the
applicable fees, which are designed to offset the costs of
public record access requests.

The policy, which is designed to implement the State's
public record law, is interpreted in conjunction with
Chapter 943 of the Florida Statutes, which regulates the
collection, maintenance, and dissemination of criminal
justice information. Section 943.053(2) effectively restricts
the applicability of the State public records law to
Florida-generated records by providing that criminal justice
information obtained from the Federal government and
other States shall only be disseminated in accordance with
Federal law and policy, and the law and policy of the
originating States. Similarly, section 943.054(1) restricts
the ability of FDLE to make available any information
derived from a system of the U.S. DOJ to only those
noncriminal justice purposes approved by the Attorney
General or the Attorney General's designee. 

During fiscal year 1998-1999, FDLE responded to
1,484,273 requests for criminal history record checks.
Criminal history checks for sensitive employment,
licensing, and firearms purchases identified 264,148
individuals with criminal histories. Noncriminal justice
recipients of criminal history records fall into two broad
categories. The first category is comprised of agencies and
organizations with approved statutory authorizations to
receive information from the FBI as well as FDLE. As of
September 30, 1999, this category included 221 agencies
with FBI-assigned originating agency identifiers (ORIs)
signifying approval of their access authority by the U.S.
Attorney General. This category is comprised primarily of
State departments and agencies authorized to access
information for employment background checks, but the list
also includes licensing bureaus, universities, State
commissions, and the agency responsible for running the
State lottery. For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1999, these
agencies filed 271,230 records requests for approved
licensing and employment purposes.

The second category is comprised of agencies and
organizations without statutory authorization that are
eligible to receive information only from FDLE files
pursuant to the public records law. There is a $15 fee for
processing requests made either by letter or electronic
submission. Requestors in this second category can request
a search of Florida-generated criminal records for any
purpose, by paying the appropriate fee. These inquiries are
typically "name only," although fingerprints will be
compared if supplied by the requestor. Responses to these
requests include all unsealed, Florida-generated criminal
history records in the FDLE computerized files. As of
September 30, 1999, this category includes approximately
15,913 agencies and organizations that filed 1,001,307
criminal record access checks under the public records law
during fiscal year 1998-1999. These requests were filed by
all levels and types of agencies for a wide variety of
purposes, although FDLE officials report the most common
reason was employment screening. Most of these agencies
are regular users that have been assigned account numbers
to facilitate billing and processing. Other requests are
received on a one-time-only or irregular basis from
agencies or individuals for undetermined purposes. 

In addition to requests for an individual's entire criminal
history record, FDLE administers databases of sexual
offenders and sexual predators (as defined under Florida
law) that the public can search over the Internet. Searches
can be conducted online, instantly, on the basis of county,
city, ZIP code, and/or pattern for last name. FDLE
estimates that these databases, which contain records on
approximately 15,650 offenders, received 347,245 hits
during fiscal year 1998-1999.

Sources:
* Florida Department of Law Enforcement.
* Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Annual
Performance Report, Fiscal Year 1998-1999.
* Florida Department of Law Enforcement Internet site:
http://www.fdle.state.fl.us 
* Paul L. Woodard, A Florida Case Study: Availability of
Criminal History Records, The Effect of an Open Records
Policy (Sacramento: SEARCH Group, Inc., 1990).



Washington: An "intermediate records" State

The Washington State Patrol (WSP) is responsible for the
maintenance of the Washington repository of CHRI.

Certified criminal justice agencies may request and receive
CHRI without restriction for criminal justice purposes.

Noncriminal justice entities and individuals may receive
access to only conviction information. Depending upon the
purpose of the request, WSP may respond under two
different statutes, the Criminal Records Privacy Act
(Chapter 10.97 Revised Code of Washington (RCW)) or
the Child and Adult Abuse Information Act (RCW 
43.43.830-.845). Responses to information requests made
using Washington Access to Criminal History (WATCH),
an online system, are immediate. Paper requests take 3-10
weeks for processing. Fees, which are waived for nonprofit
organizations in certain circumstances, range from $10 for
a "name-only" search to $25 for a fingerprint-supported
search. WSP estimates that, from 1996 through 1999, it has
responded to 1,128,392 noncriminal justice requests for
CHRI.

Requests made pursuant to the Criminal Records Privacy
Act, which provide the requestor with conviction
information, can be made by anyone for any purpose,
without the consent of the record subject. If there is a 

record, the requestor will receive a report detailing all State
of Washington convictions and pending arrests under 1 year
old without disposition. The record will also reflect whether
the individual is a registered sex offender or kidnapper.
Secondary disclosure of CHRI obtained pursuant to the
statute, however, is restricted. WSP estimates that, from
1996 through 1999, it has responded to 392,218 requests
for CHRI by noncriminal justice agencies under this Act.

Eligibility for access to CHRI under the Child and Adult
Abuse Information Act is "limited to businesses or
organizations licensed in the State of Washington; any
agency of the State; or other governmental entities that
educate, train, treat, supervise, house, or provide recreation
to developmentally disabled persons, vulnerable adults, or
children under 16 years of age." If a record exists, it will
include "State of Washington convictions and pending
arrest offenses under one year old of crimes against
children or other persons, crimes of financial exploitation,
civil adjudications, and sex offender and kidnapper
registration information." The State requires that the
requestor provide a copy of the report to the record subject.
Use of records obtained by employers pursuant to this Act
is limited by RCW 43.43.835(5) to "making the initial
employment or engagement decision." Further
dissemination or use of the record is prohibited. Violators
are subject to civil damages. WSP estimates that, from
1996 through 1999, it responded to 692,734 requests from
businesses/organizations/employers. This includes
volunteer and employee record checks. WSP does not
maintain statistics specifically regarding the number of
employers who requested information.

WSP does not make sex offender information publicly
available over the Internet, although some local
departments do so. WSP does make some sex offender
information available for certain employment background
checks. WSP disseminates limited information on sex
offenders to the general public in response to written
requests. Based upon the risk level of the offender, local
law enforcement may notify neighbors and community
members or, in the case of high-risk offenders, issue press
releases. WSP estimates that it responded to 36 written
requests for information on specific sex offenders during
1999. These were specific requests for a list of
sex/kidnapping offenders through the WSP Public
Disclosure Office. Information provided includes name,
date of birth, registering agency, and the date of
registration.

Sources:
* Washington State Patrol.
* Washington State Patrol Internet site:
http://www.wa.gov/wsp/crime
/crimhist.htm 
* Devon B. Adams, Update 1999: Summary of State Sex
Offender Registry Dissemination Procedures, Fact Sheet
series, NCJ 177620 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, August 1999) p. 7.



Massachusetts: A "closed records" State

The Massachusetts Criminal History Systems Board
(CHSB) was created in 1972 by the Criminal Offender
Record Information Act (CORI) and is governed by a
17-member board comprised of representatives of the
criminal justice community.

Criminal justice requests for criminal history records are
handled electronically, while public access requests, which
are restricted, are processed using the U.S. mail and email.

Public access requests must include the name and date of
birth of the person who is the subject of the inquiry. There
is a $25 fee for processing requests, which must be typed
and accompanied by a self-addressed, stamped envelope.
Not all criminal history records are available to the public.
The determination of public access depends upon a number
of factors, including the charge, the sentence, current status,
and length of time that has passed since sentence
completion. Specifically, in order for the information to be
publicly accessible, the record subject must have been:

* Convicted of a crime punishable by a sentence of 5 years
or more; or

* Convicted of any crime and sentenced to a term of
incarceration.

In addition, at the time of the request for access to the
individual's criminal history record, the record subject
must:

* Be incarcerated; or

* Be on probation; or

* Be on parole; or

* Have been convicted of a misdemeanor, having been
released from all custody (that is, incarceration, probation,
or parole) or supervision for not more than 1 year; or

* Have been convicted of a felony, having been released
from all custody (that is, incarceration, probation, or parole)
or supervision within the last 2 years; or

* Have been sentenced to the custody of the Department of
Correction, having finally been discharged therefrom, either
having been denied release on parole or having been
returned to penal custody for violating parole, for not more
than 3 years.

CHSB estimates that it received 12,373 public access
requests during 1999.

CHSB certifies applicants for access to non-publicly
available criminal history information if the requestor: (1)
qualifies as a criminal justice agency; (2) qualifies as an
agency or individual authorized to have access by State
law; and/or (3) it has been determined that the public
interest in disseminating such information clearly
outweighs individual privacy interests. There are
approximately 6,700 noncriminal justice agencies in
Massachusetts authorized to access criminal records.
Parents, for example, can seek access to all conviction and
pending case information on prospective daycare providers
with the written, notarized consent of the record subject.
Parents are prohibited from disclosing any results of the
criminal history check to third parties. In addition,
Massachusetts law prohibits a person from requesting or
requiring a record subject to produce a copy of his or her
record, unless authorized to do so by CHSB. In 1999,
CHSB processed 659,808 requests for access to criminal
history information that is not publicly available.

Sex offender information is subject to separate rules.
Massachusetts makes information available about
registered sex offenders classified by the Massachusetts
Sex Offender Registry Board (SORB) as posing a moderate
or high risk (after the offender has an opportunity for
administrative evidentiary proceedings). Registry
information may be obtained in person at local police
departments or by requesting information from the SORB
by mail.

The form of public inquiries is limited. If a member of the
public makes an in-person request, he or she may:

1. Inquire whether a specifically named individual or a
person described by sufficient identifying information to
allow the police to identify the individual is a sex offender;
or 

2. Inquire whether any sex offenders live or work within the
same city or town at a specific address, including, but not
limited to, a residential address, business address, school,
after-school program, daycare center, playground,
recreational area, or other identified address; or 

3. Inquire whether any sex offenders live or work at a
specific street address within the city or town where the
person is requesting sex offender information; or 

4. Where the police department is located in a city or town
with more than one ZIP code area, the inquiry may ask
whether any sex offenders live or work within a specified
ZIP code. In Boston, such inquiry may be made by
specified police district. 

Only option one (inquiries about named individuals) is
available in the case of written requests to the SORB.

If an in-person request results in the identification of a sex
offender, the requestor will be provided with the offender's
name, home address, work address, age, sex, height,
weight, eye and hair color, the sex offenses committed and
the dates of conviction and/or adjudication, and a
photograph of the offender, if available. If a written request
is submitted to the SORB, the requestor will be provided
with a report identifying whether the person is a sex
offender with an obligation to register; the offenses for
which he/she was convicted or adjudicated; and the dates of
such convictions or adjudications.  Responses to both
personal and mail requests are provided free of charge and
all information provided includes language cautioning that
the misuse of sex offender information for purposes of
harassment or discrimination is prohibited.

Sources:
* Massachusetts Criminal History Systems Board.
* Massachusetts Sex Offender Registry Board Internet site:
http://www.state.ma.us/sorb



V.   Change drivers and trend lines: The basis for a new
look at privacy and criminal justice information

By the late 1990s, 10 interrelated and fundamental
developments were outflanking the generation of privacy
and information safeguards that emerged in the 1970s and
the 1980s.

These trends and change drivers have overtaken traditional
rules for access and use, arguably requiring new rules to
re-establish the balance between privacy and disclosure of
criminal justice information. -68 [These trends and change
drivers reflect elements of cause and consequence. It is, of
course, not as important to assign degrees of causality to
these developments as it is to identify and understand these
developments and the nature of the challenge that they pose
to established criminal justice information policy and
privacy standards.] On one side of the equation, there is
growing public concern about privacy in general, and the
confidentiality of personal information in particular. On the
other side, there are a number of cultural-, technological-,
and policy-driven factors that tend to promote greater
access to criminal justice information. The Task Force
concludes that many of these change drivers are
irreversible. What is not irreversible, however, is the degree
to which these change drivers will inform future privacy
standards for criminal justice information. By identifying
the change drivers set forth below, the Task Force hopes to
encourage effective debate as to a new generation of
criminal justice information privacy standards. 

* Public concern about privacy. In the late 1990s, the
American public registers the strongest concerns ever
recorded about threats to their personal privacy from both
government and business. Ninety-four percent of
respondents said in a 1999 survey that they are concerned
about the possible misuse of their personal information. Of
the concerned, 77% said they were "very concerned." -69
[IBM Multi-National Consumer Privacy Survey, October
1999, p. 71, available at
http://www.ibm.com/services/e-business/priwkshop.html.
Hereafter, IBM Consumer Privacy Survey.]

* The "Information Culture." A new and emerging culture
of information access and use facilitated by personal
computers, browsers, search engines, online databases, and
the Internet has helped to create a demand for, and a market
in, information, including criminal justice information,
while at the same time fostering in many a sense of lack of
control over one's personal information and a loss of
privacy.

* Technological change. Revolutionary improvements in
information, identification, and communications
technologies (including increasingly advanced software
applications and Internet-based technologies), and the
increased affordability of these technologies, fuels the
appetite for information and creates new players in the
criminal justice information arena. 

* System integration. Initiatives to integrate criminal justice
information systems operated by law enforcement, courts,
prosecution, and corrections - as well as to integrate these
systems with information systems maintaining other types
of personal information - create powerful new information
resources. At the same time, these integration initiatives
may create uncertainty about the types of privacy laws and
policies that apply to these new systems, and dilute existing
policies designed to keep information separate.

* New approach that closely resembles a "Business Model"
for the criminal justice system. Two fundamental changes
in the way the criminal justice system operates - (1) a new,
more cooperative, community-based relationship between
criminal justice agencies and citizens; and (2) added
criminal justice agency responsibilities to provide
information to surrounding communities, Federal, State,
and local agencies, other police departments, and other
organizations - have had a profound impact upon the
approach that criminal justice agencies take to obtaining
and using information. This new approach - a "data-driven,
problem-solving approach" - also creates privacy risks
through a wider circulation of criminal justice information.

* Noncriminal justice demand. A persistent and
ever-increasing demand by noncriminal justice users to
obtain CHRI has had a pervasive and important impact on
the availability of information. 

* Commercial compilation and sale. Changes in the
information marketplace, which feature the private sector's
acquisition, compilation, and sale of criminal justice
information obtained from police and, more particularly,
court-based open record systems, are making information
similar to that found in criminal history records more
widely available to those outside the criminal justice
system. 

* Government statutes and initiatives. A host of new
government initiatives and laws, aimed at providing
criminal justice information to broader audiences, on a
more cost-effective and timely basis, has also fueled the
availability of criminal justice information.

* Juvenile justice reform. Demands for juvenile justice
records, particularly those involving violent offenses, which
result in treating juvenile information in a way that very
much resembles the handling of adult records, is also
putting pressure on traditional information and privacy
policies.

* Intelligence systems. Criminal justice intelligence
systems are being automated, regionalized, and armed with
CHRI and other personal information to create detailed
personal profiles for law enforcement use.

Information privacy concerns at a historic high level

Today, concern about information privacy in the United
States is at a high-water mark. This concern is evidenced in
public opinion survey results, government attention to the
privacy issue, and media treatment of government and
private-sector initiatives that are viewed as an impingement
on privacy or fair information practices.

- Public opinion survey results

Periodic surveys, including those conducted by Harris
Interactive and Opinion Research Corporation in
association with Dr. Alan F. Westin, -70 [As previously
noted, one of the responsibilities of the National Task Force
was to provide advice with respect to the first-ever national
opinion survey of the public's attitudes about privacy and
criminal justice information. The results of that survey,
which was developed and administered by Opinion
Research Corporation concurrent to the preparation of this
report and conducted once this report was largely finished,
is being published separately by BJS as a companion report
titled "Privacy, Technology and Criminal Justice
Information: Public Attitudes Toward Uses of Criminal
History Information, Summary of Survey Findings" (NCJ
187633).] repeatedly indicate that the public is deeply
concerned about privacy.

The growing traction of privacy as an issue can be
illustrated by the following statistics from public opinion
surveys concerning consumer privacy issues:

* A 1999 Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey asked
respondents this question: "Which one or two issues
concern them the most about the next century?" With 29
percent of respondents, the potential "loss of personal
privacy" topped the list, finishing ahead of concerns about
issues such as terrorism, overpopulation, world war, and
global warming. -71 [Albert R. Hunt, "Americans Look to
21st Century With Optimism and Confidence," Wall Street
Journal (September 16, 1999) p. A9. On the other hand, in
1995, when an Equifax/Harris survey gave respondents a
list limited to nine consumer issues to rate in importance,
privacy finished exactly in the middle (fifth) in terms of
being "very important," at 61%. Rated higher in being very
important were controlling the cost of medical insurance
(84%); staying out of excessive debt (83%); reducing
insurance fraud (74%); and controlling false advertising
(71%). See, infra, note 74.]

* In the late 1990s, the American public registered the
strongest concerns ever recorded about threats to their
personal privacy from both government and business. In a
1999 survey, 94% of respondents said they are concerned
about the possible misuse of their personal information. Of
the concerned, 77% said they were "very concerned." -72
[IBM Consumer Privacy Survey, supra note 69, p. 71.]

* In that same 1999 survey, 72% of Internet users said they
were "very" concerned about threats to their personal
privacy today when using the Internet, and 92% said they
were "very" or "somewhat" concerned. However, 66%
believed that the "benefits of using the Internet to get
information, send email, and to shop far outweigh the
privacy problems that are currently being worked on today."
-73 [Ibid., pp. 72, 77.]

* A mid-1990s survey indicated that although a narrow
majority of survey respondents worried primarily about
government invasions of privacy (52% in 1994 and 51% in
1995), a substantial minority expressed primary concern
about activities of business (40% in 1994 and 43% in
1995). And, almost two-thirds of the public disagreed with
the statement that "the Federal Government since
Watergate has not been seriously invading people's privacy
(64% in 1990 and 62% in 1995)." -74 [Louis Harris and
Associates, Equifax-Harris Mid-Decade Consumer Privacy
Survey (1995) p. 9.]

* Surveys suggest that the driving factors behind privacy
attitudes, both in general and in specific consumer areas,
are the individual's level of distrust in institutions and fears
of technology abuse. -75 [Ibid., p. 12. The Harris/Westin
Distrust Index, first used in 1978 and tested throughout the
1990s, combines measurement of distrust in institutions
(government, voting, and business) with fear that
technology is almost out of control. The surveys have found
that a respondent's score on the Distrust Index correlates
with a majority of that respondent's positions on privacy in
general and the industry-specific questions on each survey.
The higher the Distrust Score, the more a respondent will
express concern about threats to privacy, believe that
consumers have lost all control over uses of their
information by business, reject the relevance and propriety
of information sought in particular situations, call for
legislation to forbid various information practices, etc.
In 1995, for example, the American public divided as
follows on the Distrust Index:
* High (distrustful on 3-4 questions): 29%
* Medium (distrustful on 2 questions): 42%
* Low (distrustful on 1 question): 23%
* Not (no distrustful answers): 6%
In 13 of the survey's 16 questions asking about general
privacy concerns and measuring specific privacy attitudes,
the strongest privacy positions were registered by the High
Distrustful respondents; the next strongest by the Medium
Distrustful; and so on through the Low to Not Distrustful.
In survey terms, this is confirmation of the direct
relationship between the Distrust orientation and positions
on privacy issues. Ibid.]

* A large percentage of the public feels that consumers
have "lost all control over how personal information about
them is circulated and used by companies." -76 [IBM
Consumer Privacy Survey, supra note 69, p. 70.]

* Seventy-two percent said they have read or heard a great
deal or a moderate amount about invasion of privacy in the
past year. One-quarter of the public (25% in 1991 and
1995) said they have personally been victims of what they
felt was an invasion of their privacy, -77 [Louis Harris and
Associates, Inc., 1996 Equifax/Harris Consumer Privacy
Survey (1996) p. 4.] and 29% (in 1999) said they had been
victims of a business invasion of their consumer privacy.
-78 [IBM Consumer Privacy Survey, supra note 69, p. 74.]

* There has also been a major increase in privacy-asserting
behaviors by U.S. consumers. The percentage of people
who said they have refused to give information to a
business or company because they thought it was not
needed or was too personal has risen from 52% in 1990 to
78% in 1999. Also in 1999, 53% of respondents said they
have asked a company not to sell or give their name and
address to another company, and 54% said they had decided
not to use or purchase something from a company because
they were not sure how their personal information would be
used. -79 [Ibid., p. 87.]

- Activity at the Federal and State level to protect privacy

This high level of public concern about privacy issues has
not gone unnoticed by the Federal government and States.
Recent congressional activity suggests that Congress likely
will be increasingly active on a range of privacy issues. -80
[This is not to say that Congress also has not been criticized
as being insensitive to privacy concerns. Congress, for
example, passed legislation requiring a unique national
health identifier for every American (to facilitate health
care), as well as a requirement that all States use an
individual's Social Security number as the person's driver's
license number (to combat illegal immigration). Congress
later reversed itself in both cases, following complaints
about the adverse privacy implications of these measures.]
For example:

* Perhaps the most prominent piece of privacy legislation
to be enacted during the 106th Congress was Title V of the
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (G-L-B Act). -81 [Pub. L. No.
106-102.] It requires that financial institutions take steps to
protect the privacy of nonpublic financial information about
consumers, including providing notice and an opportunity
to opt-out of most disclosures of nonpublic personal
information to nonaffiliated third parties. The enactment of
the G-L-B Act, however, has not ended the debate. Many
members of Congress believe that still stronger protections
are needed.

* Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) included language in the
Department of Transportation Appropriations Act for fiscal
year 2000 -82 [Pub. L. No. 106-69,  350.] that requires the
States to adopt an opt-in mechanism for use of personal
information in motor vehicle records for marketing
(excluding insurance rate setting), survey, or solicitation
purposes, and for any use of driver's license photographs.

* Other domestic privacy issues receiving congressional
attention include health information privacy issues, online
privacy, the use and disclosure of the Social Security
number, access to public record/government repository
information, and the possible creation of a privacy study
commission.
Privacy is an issue that cuts across political and ideological
boundaries. On February 10, 2000, for example, Senator
Shelby, Senator Richard Bryan (D-NV), Representative Ed
Markey (D-MA), and Representative Joe Barton (R-TX)
held a news conference to announce the formation of the
bipartisan, bicameral Congressional Privacy Caucus (CPC).
The purpose of the CPC is to: (1) educate Members of
Congress and staff about individual privacy issues; (2)
provide a forum for the discussion of individual privacy
issues; and (3) advocate for personal privacy protections.

The State legislatures have also been active on privacy
issues. During 2000, at least 1,622 consumer privacy bills
(focusing on financial services, health, insurance, direct
marketing, telecommunications, and online/Internet
services) were introduced in State legislatures and 422 bills
were enacted. Thirty-nine States enacted legislation, with
health, finance, and insurance-related measures being the
most common enactments. -83 [Privacy & American
Business, "Privacy Legislation in the States - 2000"
(January 2001).] In another example, groups as diverse as
the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Phyllis
Schlafly's Eagle Forum have supported health information
privacy legislation.

At the same time, the Federal executive branch has
launched numerous privacy protection initiatives. The
Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Federal
Communications Commission, the U.S. DOJ, the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, the Office of
Management and Budget, the Office of the Vice President,
the Federal financial regulatory agencies, the National
Highway Transportation and Safety Administration (on
intelligent vehicle-tracking systems), and the U.S.
Department of Commerce have all published
privacy-related regulations or guidelines; conducted privacy
studies; initiated privacy-related, administrative actions;
and/or promoted information privacy initiatives.

State officials have also been active on the privacy issue.
The National Association of Attorneys General, for
example, has voted to make privacy one of their top
priorities and several Attorneys General have already taken
legal action against companies they believe to be misusing
consumer data. -84 [Gail Appleson, "Drive to Protect U.S.
Consumer Privacy, " Reuters (March 24, 2000, 3:47 PM
ET).] In addition, the Governor of Washington issued an
Executive Order requiring State agencies to implement a set
of privacy protections for public records to the maximum
extent permitted by State law. -85 [Governor Gary Locke,
"Public Records Privacy Protections," Washington State
Executive Order 00-03 (April 25, 2000).]

- Privacy issues are receiving increasing media attention,
often requiring companies and government agencies to
modify their practices

Media coverage and its aftermath is also illustrative of
increasing concern over information privacy issues.
Typically, this cycle begins with media reports highlighting
government or private-sector information practices that
raise privacy issues. Once these practices become
well-publicized, an ensuing firestorm of public pressure
frequently forces the private- or public-sector entity
responsible to modify or terminate the practices that
offended public sensibilities. To date, although a few of the
more prominent privacy firestorms have involved
information that may have been used by law enforcement to
some degree for intelligence or investigative purposes, the
most notable of these "firestorms" have not involved
criminal justice information.

Examples of private-sector privacy firestorms during the
past 2 years include: Internet advertising giant
DoubleClick; Image Data, a small New Hampshire
company test marketing the use of DMV photographs for
anti-fraud and identity theft prevention purposes; America
Online (AOL); and supermarkets and pharmacies, such as
Giant and CVS.

* DoubleClick. During its 4-year life, Internet advertising
giant DoubleClick has collected clickstream information
from its participating Web sites and then used that data to
help those Web sites customize the banner and pop-up
advertisements that visitors see. DoubleClick could not
identify the visitor, only the visitor's computer. The privacy
firestorm began in November 1999 when DoubleClick
spent $1.7 billion to purchase Abacus Direct, the largest
database of consumer catalogue activity. DoubleClick's
plan, which drew intense criticism, was to marry its
clickstream data with Abacus' offline data to identify
specific consumers (not just their computers), and then
create a profile of the consumer's interests and buying
activity.

Not only did DoubleClick receive a torrent of adverse
media coverage, it also received over 100,000 consumer
complaints in response to an online protest organized by the
Center for Democracy and Technology. In addition, the
FTC, as well as the attorneys general of Michigan,
Connecticut, New York, and Vermont, announced an
investigation of DoubleClick's activities; several
class-action lawsuits had been filed; and Internet-industry
players, such as search engine AltaVista Co. and Internet
home delivery service Kozmo.com Inc., took steps to
distance themselves from DoubleClick. If that had not been
enough, the company's stock price fell by more than 25
percent during the firestorm, but rebounded somewhat
following the company's announcement on March 2, 2000,
that it would not go forward with the profile plan. -86
["DoubleClick Cries 'Uncle' ...Sam (Sort of)," Privacy
Times, Evan Hendricks, ed., Vol. 20, No. 5 (March 3,
2000) pp. 5-6. See also, Bloomberg News, "DoubleClick in
Settlement Discussions" CNET News (Mar. 23, 2000),
available at
http://aolcom.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-1582990.html.]

* Image Data. One of the largest privacy firestorms of 1999
began in January 1999 when the Washington Post reported
that Image Data, a small New Hampshire company, had
developed a product designed to combat check and credit
card fraud and identity theft, using State DMV
photographs. Image Data had entered into contracts with
several States, whereby Image Data was permitted to
digitize DMV photographs of individuals and store the
photographs in a database. Under Image Data's plan,
merchants would be able to access this database, using a
small screen installed near the merchant's cash register, to
verify the identity of the purchaser when the customer
presented the merchant with a check or credit card.

Image Data had entered into agreements with South
Carolina, Colorado, and Florida to obtain driver's license
photographs and other information and was testing its
program in South Carolina when the Post story broke. A
public outcry ensued with State officials receiving a torrent
of angry telephone calls protesting the plan (a class-action
lawsuit was even filed in Florida). Public ire appears to
have been a product of several factors. As one South
Carolina woman described it: "We were livid [upon hearing
about the Image Data program]. In my opinion, a South
Carolina driver's license is a need, not a want. We have no
choice but to give our information in order to have one.
Then they turn around and sell it to a company, as personal
as it is: my weight, my height, my address - my God, my
image. There are endless possibilities as to what could be
done with it." -87 [Robert O'Harrow, Jr., "Drivers Angered
Over Firm's Purchase of Photos," Washington Post
(January 28, 1999) pp. E1, E8. See also, Robert O'Harrow,
Jr., "Posing a Privacy Problem? Driver's License Photos
Used in Anti-Fraud Database," Washington Post (January
22, 1999) pp. A1, A22; Robert O'Harrow Jr. and Liz
Leyden, "Sale of License Photos Sparks Uproar, Colorado
Governor Vows to Prevent Transfer to Private Firm,"
Washington Post (January 30, 1999) p. E1; Robert
O'Harrow, Jr., "Gov. Cancels Sale of Fla. Driver License
Photos to Private Firm," Washington Post (February 2,
1999) p. E3.] As a result of the public outcry that ensued,
all three States terminated their contracts with Image Data.
South Carolina, the only State that had transferred photos
before the story broke, sought to retrieve any photos already
transferred. Image Data is reported to be moving forward
with its program on an "opt-in" basis, giving consumers the
option of having their driver's license photograph added to
the Image Data database.

In the months subsequent to the initial story, reports arose
alleging that the Secret Service and other Federal agencies
intended to use the Image Data database of photographs for
counter-terrorism, immigration control, and other law
enforcement activities. Both the Secret Service and Image
Data have denied this charge, stating that while Federal
authorities expressed interest in the technology (and
Congress "earmarked" funds for the program in 1997), the
database developed by Image Data was never a part of these
discussions. -88 [See, David McGuire, "Feds Deny Alleged
Misuse of Photo Database," Newsbytes (September 7,
1999), available at
http://www.infowar.com/class_1/99/class1_090899a_j.sht
ml.]

* America Online. America Online announced a new
privacy policy incorporating "Eight Principles of Privacy,"
following well-publicized reports of privacy breaches of
AOL subscriber information, including the proposed sale of
subscribers' home telephone numbers and the case of
Timothy McVeigh (no relation to the convicted Oklahoma
City bomber of the same name). McVeigh was discharged
from the Navy for violating its policy on homosexuals as a
result of personal information the Navy obtained from AOL
about McVeigh, without a search warrant or McVeigh's
consent. 

* CVS/Giant Pharmacies. In February 1998, the
Washington Post reported that two pharmacy chains - CVS
and Giant - used, or planned to use, an outside contractor to
send prescription refill notices and drug promotional
materials to pharmacy patrons using prescription
information supplied by the pharmacies. Within days of the
initial media report, both companies took out full-page
advertisements announcing the cancellation of the
programs, amid a flurry of editorial criticism and customer
complaints. CVS has since been sued, with the plaintiff
alleging that CVS breached its fiduciary duty as well as its
duty of confidentiality to its pharmacy customers. A State
court rejected a motion to dismiss by the defendants,
concluding that there is enough in the complaint for a jury
to resolve, and the case is still pending. -89 [Weld v. CVS,
Superior Court of Massachusetts (Suffolk) No. 98-0897.]

Media glare and public outrage over privacy missteps is not
limited to the private sector. Examples of governmental
privacy missteps over the past few years include the "Know
Your Customer" proposal of the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (FDIC); the OASIS proposal of the Health
Care Financing Administration (HCFA); a U.S. Postal
Service proposal regarding private mailboxes; and a Social
Security Administration initiative to provide individuals
with online access to their Social Security earnings records. 

* Know Your Customer. One of the most controversial
Clinton Administration proposals, from a privacy
perspective, was the FDIC's proposed "Know Your
Customer" (KYC) regulations. The proposed KYC rule
would have required all banks to develop a written program
designed to enable the bank to "provide for identification
and transaction monitoring procedures and identify
transactions that would be subject to suspicious activity
reporting requirements." According to the FDIC, the
proposed regulation was intended to protect the integrity of
the banking system and to "assist the government in its
efforts to combat money laundering and other illegal
activities that may be occurring through financial
institutions. It is intended to detect patterns of illegal
activity often characterized by large cash deposits and
withdrawals that are outside the normal and expected
activity." Some opponents characterized the measure as
turning bank tellers into government informers and citizens
into criminal suspects.

Opposition to the proposed KYC rule was widespread,
including an Internet-based campaign against the measure.
The FDIC was deluged with criticism about the proposal,
including a flood of complaints from individuals. The
agency received over 250,000 comments on the proposed
rule; all but a small handful of the comments received were
hostile to the proposal. Hostility toward the proposed KYC
rule came not only from the grass roots level, but also on
Capitol Hill where a half-dozen bills designed to prohibit
the implementation of the rules were introduced. In March
1999, the FDIC and the other agencies that sponsored the
measure announced they were withdrawing the measure in
its entirety. 

* Outcome and Assessment Information Set. The HCFA
was caught in a privacy storm in the spring of 1999 as a
result of its planned "Outcome and Assessment Information
Set" (OASIS) for home health care patients, which HCFA
planned to have all home care facilities complete about
their patients. Following adverse press coverage and
criticism from privacy advocates, Vice President Gore, and
numerous Congressmen, the agency postponed
implementation of the project while it revamped the
program. Changes were designed to ensure that: (1) only
essential information would be collected; (2) the
information gathered would be properly protected; (3)
disclosures of the information would be limited to the
minimum extent necessary to carry out the mission of
HCFA; and (4) Medicare beneficiaries would be fully
informed as to why information was being collected and
how it would be used.

* U.S. Postal Service. In March 1999, the U.S. Postal
Service issued a regulation requiring users of commercial
mail receiving agencies (CMRAs), such as Mailboxes, Etc.,
to use the acronym "CMRA" in the address, thereby
identifying that the address is at a CMRA (as opposed to a
U.S. Postal Service post office box or a regular commercial
or residential address). Mail not complying with this rule
would not be delivered. The regulation was designed to
help prevent the use of CMRAs as a tool for criminal
activity. The regulation also required that CMRAs demand
personal identification from all box renters and complete a
form for submission to the Post Office, which included the
box holder's Social Security number and other personal
information. The Post Office would then make that form
available to anyone who requested it. 

After complaints from citizens, privacy advocates, and
several members of Congress, the Postal Service modified
its regulation. It delayed the requirement that "CMRA" be
included in the address. The post office also relaxed the
registration requirements, announcing it would not make
applications by small businesses publicly available and that
it would advise CMRAs not to require Social Security cards
as a form of identification. Some privacy advocates found
these revisions insufficient and continued to oppose the
regulation.

* Social Security Administration (SSA). An April 1997
USA Today report that the SSA was making Personal
Earnings and Benefit Estimates (PEBES) available to
individuals over the Internet sparked another privacy furor.
When the story broke on April 7, 1997, SSA initially
defended the online disclosure of PEBES, which had begun
approximately a month before, as a way to provide the
information to taxpayers quickly and easily. SSA also noted
there were severe penalties for fraudulently accessing SSA
records and that in order to request a report, the individual
had to supply five separate data elements: name, Social
Security number, date of birth, place of birth, and mother's
maiden name.

This did not stem the criticism. Some privacy advocates,
while supportive of the idea of online access, noted that all
five of the data elements required for access were publicly
available information, jeopardizing the security of the
information and the privacy of taxpayers. Senators with key
oversight responsibilities for SSA voiced reservations over
the plan, and SSA was swamped with tens of thousands of
calls from citizens complaining about threats to their
privacy. On April 9, two days after the USA Today story
first appeared, SSA "temporarily" suspended the online
access initiative. Service has never been reinstated. -90
[See, "SSA Pulls Plug on Web Page Offering Americans'
Earnings," Privacy Times, Evan Hendricks, ed., Vol. 17,
No. 8 (April 17, 1997) pp. 1-2.] Instead, SSA has returned
to its prior practice of allowing individuals to request
PEBES statements using the Internet and mailing responses
several weeks later.

- Other indications of the importance of privacy concerns:
The European Union Data Protection Directive, omnibus
proposals in the United States, and self-regulatory
initiatives

The European Union Data Protection Directive

The European Union (EU) enacted the "Directive on the
Protection of Individuals with Regard to the Processing of
Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data"
(the Directive) -91 [Directive 95/46/EC.] in 1995, and it
became effective on October 25, 1998. The Directive is a
comprehensive, omnibus privacy measure that regulates the
processing of personal data. 

The Directive places restrictions on the export of personal
data to countries outside the EU that are deemed to lack
"adequate" privacy protections. -92 [Under Article 2 of the
Directive, "personal data" are broadly defined to include:
"[A]ny information relating to an identified or identifiable
natural person ('data subject'); an identifiable person is one
who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by
reference to an identification number or to one or more
factors specific to his physical, physiological, mental,
economic, cultural or social identity."] European Union
officials do not believe the United States has "adequate"
privacy protections; therefore, U.S. companies wishing to
move personal data across borders from EU countries to the
United States have to negotiate contractual arrangements
that satisfy the terms of the Directive or otherwise meet
specific exceptions or tests (for example, consent of the
data subject; important public interest test; protection of the
vital interests of the data subject; or public information
test). -93 [Directive, Article 26.]

The U.S. Department of Commerce spearheaded the
Clinton Administration's efforts to reach an understanding
with the EU regarding the Directive's impact on transfers of
personal data from the EU to the United States. In July
2000, the Commerce Department and the European
Commission finalized and formalized the "Safe Harbor"
agreement, after years of negotiations and several public
discussion drafts. 

Although the Safe Harbor accord explicitly states that it is
not intended to have applicability beyond international
trade, the Directive and the Safe Harbor process are having
an impact on the domestic privacy debate in the United
States. It is too soon to determine the extent of the impact;
however, at least two factors are at work. First, the
Directive and the Safe Harbor discussions have generated
considerable media coverage, further raising the profile of
privacy issues in the United States. Second, the Directive
has increased the pressure on the United States to
strengthen its privacy laws. Privacy advocates, for example,
have questioned whether the Safe Harbor accord will result
in two sets of privacy protections in the United States, one
for information pertaining to citizens of the EU and a
second, lower, standard for Americans.

Omnibus legislation

The EU Directive and growing public concern over
information privacy is also evidenced in a growing trend at
the State level: the active consideration of omnibus privacy
legislation. 

* In California, for example, State Senator Steve Peace
(D-El Cajon) introduced Senate Bill 129, "The Personal
Information and Privacy Act of 1999," which, as originally
introduced, would have prohibited the collection, use, and
disclosure of any type of personally identifiable information
without the consent of the individual subject. 

- The original bill also would have required organizations
to inform individuals how and what type of information is
collected and the purposes for which it is used; the types of
organizations to which the information is disclosed; and the
choices and means the organization offers to limit the use
and disclosure of the information.

- The final version of the bill, which was signed into law by
Governor Gray Davis in September 2000, was more limited
in scope than the original bill, creating a privacy
ombudsman with various responsibilities, including, among
others, accepting complaints about organizations from
private citizens. The bill also imposes certain requirements
on State agencies. -94 [Codified at CAL. BUS. & PROF.
CODE  350-352 and CAL. GOV'T CODE  11019.9.]

* Similar efforts, while ultimately largely unsuccessful,
were undertaken during the 1999-2000 legislative session
in both Massachusetts and New York. The Massachusetts
legislation, with the support of then-Governor Paul Cellucci
and then-Lieutenant Governor (now Governor) Jane Swift,
would have addressed a wide range of privacy issues
ranging from how retailers and marketers handled personal
information to surveillance of employees in the workplace.
In New York, a package of over a dozen bills designed to
safeguard the personal information of consumers, rather
than a single bill, were introduced with the support of
Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (D-Manhattan) and
Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.

Self-regulatory initiatives

Finally, in part as a result of the pressure generated by
media, advocacy group, and legislative and international
scrutiny, and in part because consumers increasingly expect
companies to provide adequate privacy, the private sector
has launched several efforts to develop and implement
voluntary privacy guidelines. The Individual Reference
Services Group (IRSG), a trade association for companies
that sell identification and location information products,
has developed a set of self-regulatory principles for their
member companies. -95 [The IRSG is discussed in further
detail in infra, p. 60.] In another example, the Online
Privacy Alliance has developed cross-sectoral privacy
guidelines for companies that obtain personal information
about consumers arising from online/e-commerce activity.
BBBOnline and TRUSTe have developed privacy "seals" to
be displayed by Internet sites adhering to certain privacy
standards. 

These self-regulatory programs and others require or
encourage companies to provide consumers with notice
about a company's information and privacy practices; a
degree of choice in how much information the consumer
wishes to provide or whether the consumer wishes to
provide any information at all; some access and correction
rights; data quality protections; security protections; and
confidentiality safeguards. Increasingly, these voluntary
programs also provide for verification of company
compliance and some type of remedy for consumers who
are aggrieved by a violation of these self-regulatory
guidelines. -96 [A comparison of the privacy protections
provided by leading self-regulatory codes, certain Federal
privacy laws, and the Federal justice information system
privacy regulations (DOJ regulations) are included as
Appendix 3.]

The Information Culture

There is a considerable and growing public demand for a
wide array of information, including criminal justice
information. This demand is fueled by, and also fuels,
technological advances that make it possible to gather and
store increasingly larger amounts of information from an
increasingly larger number of sources, in ever faster, more
reliable, and more efficient ways. Information, including
criminal justice information, also frequently marries
traditional text with a variety of nontext formats including
audio, video, and digital imaging.

As a practical matter, the public's exposure to criminal
justice information was, for the most part, once confined to
personal experience, media reports, and mugshots posted in
the local post office. Today, large segments of the public
expect to be able to use criminal justice information about
individuals to better inform themselves about others,
including their neighbors and their caregivers. -97
[Approximately 90% of the public would allow some
access to conviction records by potential employers, while
38% would favor access by individuals wanting to learn if a
neighbor has a criminal record. Privacy Survey Report,
supra note 4, p. 5.] In addition, information, including
criminal justice information, is increasingly searchable and
accessible through the Internet or other electronic means. 

The process builds upon itself. Technological advances
make information available to the public in a new, more
efficient way. Then, as the public becomes acclimated to
the new technology, it comes to expect the benefits and
comes to anticipate and expect new advances that will build
further upon this technology, making even more
information more readily available. The public increasingly
expects information on demand and expects increasingly
sophisticated databases and search engines to assist them in
meeting their needs. This includes, but is not limited to,
criminal justice information. Members of the public, while
concerned about protecting their own privacy, expect to be
able to access information to protect themselves and their
children from risks that may be posed by offenders and
others. As one commentator observed: "Given a choice
between privacy and accountability, all of us can be relied
upon to choose privacy for ourselves and accountability for
everybody else." -98 [Chris Gaither, "Big Brother is Your
Friend," Wired News (September 20, 1999) (quoting
science fiction author David Brin).]

This shift in attitudes is apparent in the activities of
business, government, and individuals and applies not only
to criminal justice information, but also to information
sectors throughout the economy. "If the shift to an
information society means anything, it means thinking
about information as one of the most important resources in
society." -99 [James Boyle, Shamans, Software, and
Spleens: Law and the Construction of the Information
Society (Boston: Harvard University Press, 1996) p. 174.]
Businesses increasingly seek to gather information about
their customers, storing this information electronically in
"data warehouses" where it can be retrieved later for
analysis for purposes ranging from inventory control to
targeted marketing. Government, including the courts,
criminal justice agencies, and noncriminal justice agencies,
increasingly views personal information as a means to
improve decisionmaking in areas ranging from child
support enforcement, immigration control, and gun control,
to bail decisions.

The Task Force views this move toward an "Information
Culture" as an important factor in criminal justice
information policy.

Changes in technology

Computers have been used to capture and manage criminal
justice information since at least the late 1960s. Until
recently, however, computerized criminal justice
information systems merely created what amounted to an
automated "file cabinet." Whoever owned the automated
file cabinet had responsibility for managing the system; as a
practical matter, the "owner" enjoyed substantial discretion
in setting rules for the collection, retention, use, and
disclosure of information maintained in that automated file
cabinet. Today's powerful and nimble information systems,
however, facilitate a far different environment. Users can
access information from remote locations and from
multiple databases. In doing so, users can create their own
multidimensional, cross-sectoral, customized, personal
information reports. Today, those who maintain these
databases are less able to control how information in them
are used. With the ability to draw and assemble information
from the various databases, information users may be able
to create customized, comprehensive information products
for use in various settings. 

These customized reports could include a mix of criminal
justice and noncriminal justice information about an
individual. These reports could support criminal justice
applications, but could also be deployed in noncriminal
justice settings. The evolution of these types of personal
reports will be influenced and shaped by current and future
law governing information collection, use, and disclosure.

This information management revolution is occurring
contemporaneously with a revolution in identification
technology - such as DNA, livescan, and Automated
Fingerprint Identification Systems - that gives users the
potential not only for a richer, customized information
product, but also for a product with a much higher degree
of reliability and integrity (that is, an assurance the
information truly relates to the person who is the intended
subject of the inquiry).

The Internet is a dramatic and new feature on the
information landscape. The Internet is an inexpensive and
relatively user-friendly technology, which not only provides
robust information management capabilities, but also does
so on a real-time, communications platform. Furthermore,
the Internet creates remarkable opportunities for national
and international publication - and remarkable risks to
privacy. Recently, several States have placed all or parts of
their sexual offender databases on the Internet. A few
States, including Texas and Washington, make conviction
information available over the Internet.

These information technology advances hold enormous
promise for criminal justice users and authorized,
noncriminal justice users to obtain comprehensive, reliable,
and customized information about individuals on a
near-instantaneous basis. These advances, however, also
create or, at a minimum, exacerbate privacy risks. The
online availability of an individual's criminal history and
criminal justice record information, along with the potential
to obtain juvenile justice information, combined with
information about educational background, financial status,
medical information, immigration, and citizenship status is
certain to ignite a new privacy debate about who should get
access to this kind of information; for what purposes; and
subject to what privacy safeguards and restrictions.

It is a clich to say we are living in the "Information Age"
or in an "information society" or that we are in the midst of
an "Information Revolution." Nevertheless, it is undeniable
that technological advances in computing and
communications are significantly impacting the way in
which information is viewed by the public, by the courts
and criminal justice agencies, and by government agencies
generally.

One way to conceptualize the manner in which technology
is received and integrated by society is to think of a new
technology as a physical object moving into a steel web
representing society's existing rules and arrangements.

"Technology never breaks through this social web, which is
an extremely dense intertwining of economic, legal,
organizational, social, and cultural constraints. Rather, a
new technology makes a slow and gradual passage through
the web. In the process, both the technology is shaped in its
forms of application and accepted capabilities and the
strands of the web are altered. Sometimes the strands open
fairly widely to accommodate new forms of technological
use; sometimes, they hold fairly firm to block certain uses
of the technology or substantially alter its application." -100
[Alan F. Westin, preface to Donald A. Marchand, The
Politics of Privacy, Computers, and Criminal Justice
Records: Controlling the Social Costs of Technological
Change (Arlington, Va.: Information Resources Press,
1980) p. vi. Hereafter, The Politics of Privacy.]

The strands of the "steel web," representing the way
information is viewed by society, are being reshaped by the
new information technologies.

One of the most significant technologies that has been
making its way through the "steel web" of society is the
computer. Today, the computer is a central fixture in
American life. Computers are used for everything from
word processing, to data storage, to inventory control at
supermarkets, to advanced mathematical research. The
centrality of computers is just as applicable in the criminal
justice recordkeeping arena. As recently as 1986, the
then-Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons was able to
refer to computers as "the ultimate status symbol." -101
[Norman A. Carlson, "The Federal Bureau of Prisons and
Data Quality," in Data Quality Policies and Procedures:
Proceedings of a BJS/SEARCH Conference, NCJ 101849
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of
Justice Statistics, November 1986) p. 46. Hereafter, Data
Quality Policies and Procedures.] Today, in contrast, it is
the rarest of office worker who is without a computer on his
or her desktop. In addition, advances in computing and
telecommunications technologies have acclimated the
public to automatic teller machines, credit cards, electronic
commerce over the Internet, and a host of other innovations
that depend on the ready transfer of information. 

Increases in the speed of computers and communications
technologies are also having an effect. While speed "for its
own sake is hardly impressive," it "is important because is
allows men to do things they otherwise would not have
done, for lack of will, time, or energy. The development of
computers signifies not just an increase in the speed of
calculation, but offers as well a quantum leap in the amount
and kinds of things that can be done within a human
framework." -102 [Marchand, The Politics of Privacy,
supra note 100, p. 10 (quoting Kenneth C. Laudon,
Computers and Bureaucratic Reform (New York: Wiley,
1974) p. 6).]

This ability to do things that otherwise would not have been
done due to "lack of will, time, or energy" has important
implications for the privacy of criminal justice information.
Technological innovations have removed (and are
removing) many of the de facto protections - the
nondiscoverability - that once protected the privacy of an
individual's criminal justice information, not by any
intentional design, but because there was a "lack of will,
time, or energy" to obtain it.

Court records and police blotter information, for example,
traditionally have been public documents available (with
the exception of certain sealed records) to anyone who went
to the courthouse to view them. In the past, this imposed a
number of barriers and "transaction costs" on someone
seeking to obtain arrest or conviction information:

* First, it was necessary to know in which of the Nation's
thousands of courts or police stations to look for the record.

* Second, it was necessary to actually go to the courthouse
or police station (which might be across the street or across
the country) to view the records.

* Third, it took time to determine if the court or police
station had a record.

* Fourth, it took time for police or court staff to retrieve the
record.

* Fifth, if there was a record, further research might be
necessary elsewhere to determine whether the case was
prosecuted, or how the case was resolved on appeal.

In addition to the time involved, there were additional
costs, which could be significant, for copying the records.
Thus, while the records technically were open to the public,
accessing the information imposed transaction costs that
had the effect of limiting public access.

Advances in technology, however, are eliminating these
barriers to access and the de facto privacy protections that
they once afforded to those with arrest or conviction
records. Courts and police departments are automating their
records, and many are making this information available in
an electronic format on a wholesale basis. Thus, in doing
so, they permit private companies to assemble databases of
criminal justice information that include information from
jurisdictions across the country - "one-stop shopping" for
criminal justice information. Some States go further. Texas
and Washington, for example, make conviction information
(and some arrest information) available to the public over
the Internet. As of May 1999, 15 States allow the public to
access sex offender databases over the Internet as well.
-103 [Devron B. Adams, Update 1999: Summary of State
Sex Offender Registry Dissemination Procedures, Fact
Sheet series, NCJ 177620 (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, August
1999). In addition to the 15 States that grant public access
to searchable sex offender databases via the Internet, 10
States have Internet sites that are either accessible only to
law enforcement or are limited information about the
registry itself rather than individual offenders; 5 States
without Internet sites are planning to develop them, and the
remaining 20 States and the District of Columbia report
having no sex offender registry site on the Internet and
provided no information as to whether one was planned.
Ibid.] These databases allow the public to search not only
by name, but also by geographic location, such as ZIP code,
so that it is possible to identify sex offenders in a
neighborhood, whether the party conducting the search
knows their names or not.

With the reduction of the "transaction costs" for such
inquiries, it is possible to conduct background checks in an
increased number of circumstances and by a wider number
of people. Background checks, while once largely the
province of licensing boards, banks, securities firms, and
government agencies screening for sensitive national
security positions, are now possible (or even required) for a
much larger, and continually growing, roster of positions,
including bus drivers, school janitors, daycare workers,
nursing home workers, volunteer coaches, and Boy Scout
troop leaders. -104 [See, for example, Valerie Strauss,
"Ackerman Orders Volunteer Screening," Washington Post
(October 8, 1999) pp. B1, B4.] In the case of sex offender
registries, there need not be an employment or volunteer
relationship at all. 

This trend is reflected not only in the increasing
commercial sale of such information but also in the law.
Employers may be found liable under common law theories
of negligent hiring if they hire an individual without
conducting a background check and the individual then
commits an on-the-job crime. -105 [See, infra, p. 53 (more
public access/demand).] Increasingly, State and Federal
statutory law authorizes State central repositories to
disclose CHRI for background checks for positions
involving financial responsibility or for the interaction with
potentially vulnerable populations, such as children and the
elderly. -106 [See, infra, p. 61 (Federal and State
initiatives).]

It has been said the "strains that technology places on our
values and beliefs, finally are reflected in economic,
political, and ideological conflict. That is, they raise
questions about the proper goals of society and the proper
ways of pursuing those goals." -107 [Marchand, The
Politics of Privacy, supra note 100, p. 15 (quoting
Emmanuel G. Mesthene, "The Role of Technology in
Society" in Technology and Man's Future, Albert H. Teich,
ed. (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1972) p. 148).] That is
true of the way in which the Information Revolution is
affecting the collection, use, and disclosure of criminal
justice information. The fact that technology has reduced
the transaction costs involved in accessing criminal justice
information, removing traditional de facto barriers that once
created protections, raises difficult questions about the
proper use of criminal justice information in this new
environment, including spawning a debate as to whether we
should reexamine our approach to "public record
information." -108 [While court records and other original
records of entry have traditionally been publicly available,
not all information held by the Federal and State
governments is publicly available. CHRI contained in the
State repositories, for example, is only available for certain
purposes in many, although not all, States. In addition, the
Federal Privacy Act, Freedom of Information Act, and other
Federal and State laws restrict public access to a variety of
information held by government agencies, including
sensitive personal information, such as tax returns and
health information. In May 1998, President Clinton issued
an order to the heads of executive departments and agencies
to review their compliance with the Federal Privacy Act to
account for changes in technology. See, William Jefferson
Clinton, "Memorandum for the Heads of Executive
Departments and Agencies. Subject: Privacy and Personal
Information in Federal Records," (May 14, 1998).] In 1998,
Congress, recognizing the vital role criminal justice
information, identification, and communication
technologies must play, enacted the Crime Identification
Technology Act of 1998 (CITA). -109 [Pub. L. No.
105-251,  101-102 (October 9, 1998), 112 Stat. 1871 (to
be codified at 42 U.S.C.  14601).] CITA authorizes $1.25
billion over 5 years for grants to the States to upgrade
criminal justice and criminal history record systems;
improve criminal justice identification; promote the
compatibility and integration of national, State, and local
systems for a variety of purposes; and capture information
for statistical and research purposes to improve the
administration of criminal justice. -110 [Pub. L. No.
105-251,  102(a), (e).]

The areas identified in CITA are reflective of a re-shaping
of criminal justice information environment. The important
theme of CITA - the integration of State, Federal, and local
systems, so that the criminal justice information systems
will be compatible - is discussed in detail later in this
report. 

- Information technologies

The importance of information technologies in the
collection, organization, and dissemination of information,
including criminal history information, can hardly be
overstated. The increased power, utility, and affordability of
computer power have revolutionized the way information is
handled in the United States.

In recent years, the price of computer memory and other
hardware has decreased, -111 [Owen M. Greenspan, et. al.,
Report of the National Task Force on Court Automation
and Integration, NCJ 177601 (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, June
1999) p. 24. Hereafter, Task Force on Court Automation.
"In 1975 an IBM mainframe cost approximately $10
million and provided 10 million instructions per second
(MIPS), or about $1 million per MIPS. In 1998, a
Pentium(r) personal computer cost approximately $2,500
and provided roughly 300 MIPS, at a cost of $6-$10 per
MIPS." Ibid., at n. 26.] making computers accessible not
only to the largest members of the criminal justice
community, but now also to the smallest. -112 [While the
cost of memory and other computer hardware has declined,
technology costs incurred by courts and criminal justice
agencies may not have declined overall. Agencies have
shifted from an environment where there was only a
mainframe, or perhaps no computers at all, to the current
environment where there must be a computer of some sort
at practically every workstation. In addition, as the volume
of users and workstations increase, the need for technical
support has also increased.] Where the criminal justice
community's exposure to the computer was once limited to
mainframes maintained by the FBI and central State
repositories, today computers can be found in even the
smallest of local police departments and in patrol cars as
well.

Technological advances have made computers smaller,
faster, and capable of storing ever-increasing amounts of
data in seemingly ever-decreasing amounts of space. Disk
drive capacity now doubles at least once a year and,
according to experts, this time frame is shrinking
significantly. -113 [Task Force on Court Automation, supra
note 111, p. 35.] The ready availability of computers at all
levels of law enforcement, as well as society at large, has
spurred advances in computer programming and data
retrieval, making it possible for users to customize systems
to meet their own institutional needs. 

This increased programming and search flexibility, in turn,
has supported the creation of "data warehouses" where
large amounts of information are accumulated and available
to be searched on the basis of a multitude of discrete
selection criteria. Today, it is possible to gather and store
large amounts of data about data subjects and to enrich that
data with information obtained from outside sources to
create detailed information profiles about individuals. It is
also possible to search those profiles to identify files on the
basis of almost any common characteristic. Although it
once may have been possible to search a database using
only an individual's name or identification number, for
example, today databases can be searched using addresses,
telephone numbers, or even random words. In addition,
data-matching programs permit the comparison of multiple
databases for overlapping data.

This was, of course, not always the case. The criminal
history record system, while predating the computer, is a
relatively new innovation. At the beginning of the 20th
century there was hardly such a thing as a criminal history
record, let alone a criminal history record system. -114
["Use and Management of CHRI, supra note 22, p. 20.] In
1924, criminal history recordkeeping and fingerprinting
took a step forward when Congress directed the FBI to
create an "identification division" to acquire, maintain, and
use fingerprint information. -115 [Ibid. p. 21.] This new
identification division began with 800,000 fingerprints
obtained from various sources, and maintained on manual
fingerprint cards. -116 [Ibid.] Over the succeeding years,
the FBI accumulated paper fingerprint cards and
information files by the millions. Each individual's file was
fingerprint-supported and also retrievable by name or FBI
number. -117 [Ibid., p. 22.] These records occupied huge
warehouses and required armies of clerks to maintain and
update.

By the 1960s, the early computer brought the first
movement toward the automation to criminal history
records. The expense of early computers restricted their use
to only the largest institutional players, such as the FBI.
Computers proliferated slowly to include State repositories
and the largest of police departments. These early systems,
however, were little more than automated file cabinets,
with manual input requirements and limited retrieval
capabilities. Automated systems were used for new entrants
into the criminal justice system, while records on offenders
whose records pre-dated the inauguration of the computer
system were still maintained in the traditional paper format.

In addition to changing the manner in which State
repositories organize and maintain criminal justice
information, advances in information technologies have
affected the way information is reported to the repositories
by the courts and law enforcement agencies. Until recently,
the automation of arrest and disposition reporting to State
repositories has lagged behind the automation of
disclosures from the State repositories in response to
inquiries from law enforcement and the courts.
Increasingly, however, computer technology is being used
to automate the reporting process, thereby speeding the
reporting process and saving resources. -118 [Ibid., p. 43.]

Historically, arrest information has been reported to the
repositories and the FBI on fingerprint cards that also
included space for textual information about the record
subject. State law frequently requires that cards for
reportable offenses be submitted within 24-48 hours of
arrest or "promptly" or "without undue delay." However,
even if these laws are complied with, mail delays and
normal data processing resulted in a delay of a week or
more from the date of arrest until the information was
entered into the repository systems. Increased automation at
the local level and direct computer-to-computer
transmissions now create the potential for real-time
transmission of data from the local law enforcement agency
to the State repository. The same is true of disposition 
reporting information from the courts, which is increasingly
automated with the advent of automated case management
systems, particularly in high-volume jurisdictions. -119
[Ibid., p. 44.]

- Identification technologies

Means of identification

Technological advances have had a profound impact on
identification capabilities. People are identifiable in many
ways, including name, Social Security number, or other
account number, and by physical characteristics. With the
exception of physical characteristics, all of these
identification methods are inherently unreliable in the
criminal justice context. Names can be shared by many
people and Social Security numbers can be falsified; this
makes reliance on such names and numbers unreliable in
many instances, which opens the door to fraud, mistake,
and abuse. Physical characteristics, called "biometric
identifiers," are unique characteristics for purposes of
personal identification. -120 [Robert R. Belair and Robert
L. Marx, Legal and Policy Issues Relating to Biometric
Identification Technologies (Sacramento: SEARCH Group,
Inc., 1990) p. 1. Hereafter, Biometric Identification
Technologies.] Examples of biometric identifiers include
fingerprinting, DNA, retinal scanning, voice spectrography,
and hand geometry scanning. -121 [Ibid. There are many
other potential biometric identifiers including, for example,
vein prints, poroscopy (pore prints), cheiloscopy (lip
prints), otoscopy (ear prints), dentition prints, and sweat
prints. Ibid., pp. 39-42.] Although biometric identification
is a more reliable means of personal identification, virtually
none of the identification documents used in the United
States is supported by biometric identifiers. -122 [Ibid.]

Identification cards are the most common form of
identification device. In recent years, efforts have been
made to reduce the ability to falsify or counterfeit
identification documents and to increase their utility to law
enforcement. Some of these changes simply involve the use
of inks and other materials that are more difficult to alter or
counterfeit. Other innovations include MICR lines or
magnetic strips, which contain identification information
and are more difficult to tamper with than paper
identification. It is also possible to include digitized
fingerprints and other biometric identifiers on the magnetic
strip or in an embedded chip, to further enhance reliability.
These magnetic strips, as well as bar codes, can also be
"swiped" or "scanned" through reading devices by law
enforcement to quickly access the stored data.

Biometric identifiers are used in the criminal justice field
not only to link suspects to crime scenes, but also as a
reliable means of verifying identity for background checks.
There is increasing pressure, however, to move to a
name-only identification regime to produce both faster and
less-expensive background checks. Such a move to
name-only checks, however, is not without potential
privacy and accuracy problems. First, name-only checks
can result in multiple hits for individuals with common
names, such as John Smith. Second, as noted previously in
discussing traditional identification documents, falsification
is a problem. If an individual assumes a false identity
(identity fraud is an increasingly common crime), it is
possible that the identity in question is that of a real person,
not an identity that was simply made up by the applicant.
-123 [In addition to the use of biometric identification,
information products, frequently drawing from information
contained in public records, can also assist in detecting
identity fraud.] If this is true, and the applicant commits a
crime, it could lead to the issuance of an arrest warrant and
other problems for an innocent person.

Fingerprinting

Fingerprinting is the best-known and most widely used
means of biometric identification. Attempts to use
fingerprints for identification purposes, while first the
subject of scientific inquiry in the 17th century, can be
traced back to ancient China and Egypt. -124 [Biometric
Identification Technologies, supra note 120, p. 13.] Today,
fingerprinting is a critical tool for law enforcement efforts
to solve crime and fingerprinting criminal suspects is
commonplace. The FBI, for example, receives
approximately 50,000 fingerprints per day, about one-half
of which come from criminal matters. -125 [Vicki Smith,
"FBI Touts Fingerprint Database: Says Police Will Get ID
and History within Two Hours," The Associated Press
(August 10, 1999), available at
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/dailynews/fbi9908
10.html.] Outside the criminal justice setting, fingerprints
are also the most widely used and recognized means of
biometric identification. Children are frequently
fingerprinted. In addition, job applicants and applicants for
many types of licenses are fingerprinted, not only as a
means of identification, but also to facilitate reliable
criminal background checks.

In the criminal justice context, Automated Fingerprint
Identification Systems (AFIS), which first emerged in the
late 1960s, are an example of the power of information
technology advances. -126 [Biometric Identification
Technologies, supra note 120, p. 2.] In an early AFIS,
manual fingerprint records were scanned into a computer
system, converted into digital records, and stored. In order
to search the AFIS database, the fingerprint that is the
subject of the search was digitized and compared to the
existing fingerprints already digitized and on file. If the
system made a potential match, a fingerprint examiner
compared the fingerprints and made an actual identification
determination. This technology was complemented in the
1980s by the emergence of automated, direct-read
fingerprint devices. Direct-read fingerprint devices take an
inkless photograph of an individual's finger or thumb and
convert that fingerprint or thumbprint into a digital record.
These inkless photographs take only seconds to produce
and result in a clearer image than the traditional method of
"rolling" the finger on a fingerprint card to create an inked
impression. -127 [Ibid. The appendix to the 1990 report
contains a detailed and technical analysis of AFIS.]

The impact of AFIS, further enhanced by the increased
efficiency and clarity of direct-read technology, has been
substantial. In San Francisco, for example, prior to AFIS,
police made approximately 60 identifications of crime
scene prints each year by manually searching fingerprint
files. -128 [Ken Moses, "Maintaining and Using Juvenile
Fingerprints," in Juvenile and Adult Records: One System,
One Record? Proceedings of a BJS/SEARCH Conference,
NCJ 114947 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, January 1990) p. 50.
Hereafter, Juvenile and Adult Records.] In slightly less than
4 years from San Francisco's implementation of an AFIS,
police had searched over 12,000 crime scene fingerprints
and made 2,500 criminal identifications, a dramatic
increase. -129 [Ibid.]

Potential privacy concerns also result from the increased
efficiency brought by this new information technology.
Although fingerprint searches used to be a time-consuming
process, today large databanks can be searched in a very
short time and with little or no additional effort by staff.
This means law enforcement can conduct "cold searches"
(that is, searches where there are no suspects or leads, other
than fingerprints found at the scene). -130 [U.S. Congress,
Office of Technology Assessment, Criminal Justice, New
Technologies, and the Constitution, Special Report,
OTA-CIT-366 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, May 1988) p. 19.] Another result of AFIS
is an increasing demand from law enforcement to expand
the pool of fingerprints on file and accessible to an AFIS,
thereby increasing the possibility of a match. Some criminal
justice sources have argued in favor of expanding AFIS
systems to include juvenile fingerprints. -131 [Moses,
Juvenile and Adult Records, supra note 128, p. 51.] Other
potential expansions of source records for AFIS searches
include child fingerprinting programs, fingerprints taken for
professional licensing, fingerprints taken for security
clearance applications, and employment background
checks, to name a few. 

The FBI launched the next generation of AFIS technology
in July 1999: the Integrated Automated Fingerprint
Identification System (IAFIS). Under IAFIS, fingerprint
images (rather than traditional fingerprint cards) will be
taken at local law enforcement agencies by livescan or
cardscan equipment, processed by a local AFIS, and then
transmitted electronically to the State repository for
processing. If a positive identification is not made at either
the State or local level, the fingerprint data and any relevant
textual data will be transmitted electronically to the FBI for
processing and the FBI, in turn, will electronically transmit
a response to the local booking station. It is estimated the
entire process can be completed in 2 hours or less,
permitting local law enforcement to identify prior offenders
and fugitives, even if they have provided false identification
information, prior to their initial bail hearing or release
from booking. -132 [Use and Management of CHRI, supra
note 22, p. 47.]

Retinal scans, voice spectrography, and hand geometry

While fingerprinting is, by far, the best known and most
widely used biometric identifier, there are other techniques,
although they are more likely to be used for controlling an
individual's access to information or locations than for
criminal investigations. Retinal scans record the unique
vasculature (blood vessels) in the fundus, or posterior orbit
of the eye. In voice spectrography, a spectrograph produces
a graphic representation of the sound emitted by a human
voice. Hand geometry systems, another means of biometric
identification, measure characteristics, including finger
lengths, finger density, hand width, the silhouette of the
entire hand, a profile view of the knuckles and back of the
hand, and skin translucency. These results can then be
digitized and stored for future identification. -133
[SEARCH Group, Inc., "Biometric Technologies are
Promising for Criminal Justice," Interface (Spring 1991) p.
33.]

DNA testing

Although fingerprinting is the traditional and most
widespread method of biometric identification, with a long
pedigree and years of public acceptance in the criminal
justice system, Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) testing is a
newer and, in many ways, more versatile, biometric
identification innovation. DNA is unique among biometric
identifiers: unlike fingerprints and other biometric
identifiers, DNA can reveal more about an individual than
simply his or her identity. This fact therefore raises unique
privacy concerns. DNA has been called "the single greatest
advance in the search for truth since advent of
cross-examination." -134 [Biometric Identification
Technologies, supra note 120, p. 27 (quoting a 1988
comment by New York State Judge Joseph Harris).] That
comment was made in 1988, shortly after the first time
DNA testing was used, in a 1987 British case involving the
rape and murder of two young girls. -135 [Ibid.]

Since then, DNA has exploded onto the public scene, not
only for its vast potential as an identification and
crime-solving tool, but also as the key to advances in
medicine and cloning. In the dozen years since DNA was
first used to solve a crime, its stock as an identifier has
risen. A 1990 SEARCH report on biometric identifiers
recognized the potential of DNA testing as "enormous."
-136 [Ibid., p. 26.] Policymakers have agreed, with State
after State (led by the General Assembly of Virginia in
1988) establishing DNA testing laboratories and databases. 

As with fingerprinting, DNA testing is not an effective
means of identification unless there is an identified sample
to compare with the unidentified DNA. Standards for
collecting and maintaining these samples raise civil
liberties and privacy concerns. The potential uses of DNA
beyond identification raise additional concerns because,
unlike fingerprints, DNA can be used to identify familial
relationships as well as potential genetic defects or a
genetic disposition for disease. -137 [Despite the
identification benefits, there is some public apprehension
about being voluntarily tested. In Florida, for example, a
free DNA-identification pilot program for school children
was not well received, despite the fact that parents, not the
State, would receive and control the sample. Jeffrey
McMurray, "Florida Police Find Mystery in Parents' Snub
of DNA Testing," Washington Post (March 14, 1999) p.
A22.] The information privacy concept of minimizing the
information collected and retained about an individual to
that which is necessary to the task can be put at risk unless
DNA testing systems are carefully designed to capture only
the information necessary for identification purposes (or
other purpose for which the sample was originally
collected). Privacy issues also arise from the retention of
the underlying biological sample (rather than the digitized
results of DNA identification analysis), because the
biological sample could be analyzed subsequently for
disease traits or other purposes beyond the original
identification purpose for which the sample was collected.
-138 [Destruction of the underlying samples has been "met
with harsh criticism from law enforcement representatives,"
arguing that by destroying the samples law enforcement
would, as one official put it, "be destined to start over every
time there's a technological change." Declan McCullagh,
"What to do with DNA Data?" Wired News (November 18,
1999) available at
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,32617,00.html.
]

Civil libertarians are particularly concerned about the
privacy risks posed by DNA databases. Barry Steinhardt of
the ACLU, when asked to comment on efforts to perfect a
chip that could be used to quickly produce a unique genetic
profile from DNA discovered at a crime scene, expressed
the concern this way: "Anything that makes it easier and
cheaper to create a DNA databank is dangerous because it
will increase the impetus to DNA test..._. We don't oppose
specific technologies, but what we are concerned about is
the creation of the databanks." -139 [Robin Lloyd, "Lab on
a Chip May Turn Police Into DNA Detectives,"
Washington Post (March 1, 1999) p. A9.]

States are building DNA databases, typically by requiring
felons, particularly those convicted of violent crimes, to
submit DNA samples to the State database. In December
1998, then-New York City Police Commissioner Howard
Safir recommended that DNA samples be taken of all
arrestees, declaring "The innocents have nothing to fear..._.
Only if you are guilty should you worry about DNA
testing." -140 ["DNA Samples in All Arrests?" Washington
Post (December 15, 1998) p. A16. The International
Association of Chiefs of Police has also called for the
collection of DNA samples from all arrestees. J.D. Abolins,
"International Police Group Wants DNA Sample From
ALL Suspects," 2 ISPI Privacy Reporter (Summer 1999).]
Safir's proposal has been adamantly opposed by the New
York Civil Liberties Union, which argues that mere arrest is
insufficient grounds for collection of a DNA sample. -141
[Ibid., Post article, p. A16.] This debate is also taking place
on the national level, as the Federal government considers
whether to develop such a comprehensive DNA database.
The National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence,
which was appointed by the Attorney General to study
issues related to the evidentiary use of DNA, has concluded
that the practice is currently impractical due to a lack of
staffing and other resources in crime laboratories
nationwide and a backlog of samples currently awaiting
analysis. -142 [National Institute of Justice,
"Recommendation of the National Commission on the
Future of DNA Evidence to the Attorney General
Regarding Arrestee DNA Sample Collection," available at
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov /nij/dna/arrestrc.html. Some
States are moving forward with additional testing. New
York State, for example, passed a law in 1999 increasing
the number of offenses with a DNA sample requirement
upon conviction from 21 to 107, a change the Governor
estimated would increase the number of samples collected
in New York each year from 3,000 to 30,000. Gary
Tuchman, "New York to expand DNA testing of convicts,"
CNN (October 20, 1999) available at
http://www.cnn.com/US/9910/20/dna.database/index.html.]

- Communication technologies, including the Internet

The communications revolution

The third area in which advances are generating both
benefits to criminal justice and risks to privacy is
communications technology. The past decade has witnessed
an explosion of new technologies that allow people (and
systems) to communicate faster, easier, and from more
locations than ever before. -143 [These developments can
be attributed, at least in part, to the explosion in
competition between telecommunications companies as a
result of deregulation. Another factor in this arena is the
growing competition between telecommunications
companies, cable system operators, and Internet Service
Providers as applications of these technologies become
increasingly interrelated.] These changes are affecting the
way criminal justice information is communicated between
various criminal record repositories, between the courts and
the repositories, between repositories and law enforcement,
and with other criminal justice agencies. Then-Senate
Minority Leader Thomas Daschle (D-SD) summarized the
importance of improved communications this way:
"Revolutionary technological improvements in
communications systems allow localities separated by great
distances to share information instantaneously. This
communication between law enforcement agencies can
make the difference between locating suspects and getting
them off the streets, or leaving them free to commit more
crimes." -144 [144 Cong. Rec. S3,943 (April 30, 1998)
(statement of Senator Tom Daschle, D-SD).]

Information distribution is no longer tied to a fixed
distribution point, such as where a telephone wire has been
run. Laptop computers outfitted with wireless
communications packages now permit law enforcement
officers to access a wide array of Federal, State, and local
databases from remote locations, without the assistance of
dispatchers. -145 [Kelly J. Harris, Law Enforcement
Mobile Computing: Armed with Information, Technical
Bulletin series (Sacramento: SEARCH Group, Inc., 1997,
No. 1) p. 1.]

Electronic mail, or "email," is another part of the
communications revolution. Data can now be transmitted
around the world almost instantly. Users can send one
another not only directly keyed-in messages, but also attach
files, thereby allowing potentially privacy-sensitive
information to be externally distributed in a matter of
keystrokes. Communications advances also make it
increasingly possible for systems to share larger volumes of
data electronically and to do so at faster rates. In addition,
while data was once primarily processed in text format, it is
increasingly possible to easily transmit, process, store, and
integrate audio, video, and digital data, creating a richer and
more complete data environment.

Increased speed and high-quality fiber-optic networks allow
such tasks as automated arrest and disposition reporting to
take place more quickly and easily than before. It also
permits larger quantities of data to be transferred from one
computer system to another because data entry (by
keystroke or scanning) now only needs to be done once,
thereby relieving "downstream" recipients of the need to
determine whether some of the data received is of enough
value to make the data entries.

The widespread maintenance and dissemination of
information in electronic form has raised a host of concerns
about how to best protect the confidentiality, accuracy, and
integrity of information in electronic form. This is typically
accomplished through a combination of physical,
administrative, and technical measures designed to control
access to data and to control the ability of authorized users
to access and disseminate information. When information is
transferred between systems over the Internet or other
nonsecure means, there is added potential that the
transmission would be intercepted. Encryption is one means
to protect the confidentiality of information at risk of being
intercepted by an unauthorized party. Encryption is the
"transformation of plaintext into an apparently less readable
form (called ciphertext) through a mathematical process.
The ciphertext may be read by anyone who has the key that
decrypts (undoes the encryption of) the ciphertext." -146
[RSA Laboratories, "Frequently Asked Questions About
Today's Cryptography: Glossary," available at
http://www.rsasecurity.com/rsalabs/faq/B.html.]

Federal and interstate communications systems: National
Crime Information Center, National Law Enforcement
Telecommunications System, and other resources

The National Crime Information Center (NCIC) is an
automated database of criminal justice and justice-related
information maintained by the FBI, including "hot files" of
missing or wanted persons, stolen vehicles, and identifiable
stolen property. Communications components of the NCIC
permit access to NCIC files through central control terminal
operators in each State that are connected to the NCIC via
dedicated telephone lines maintained by the FBI. Local law
enforcement agencies and officers can access NCIC
through the State law enforcement network. In July 1999,
the FBI inaugurated the next generation of the NCIC - a
project known as "NCIC 2000." NCIC 2000 upgrades the
NCIC's telecommunications system and its hardware to
permit the paperless exchange of information. In addition,
NCIC 2000 is able to handle graphic information in
paperless imaging format, including material such as mug
shots, tattoos, and the signatures of offenders. -147 [Federal
Bureau of Investigation, Press Release, July 15, 1999.]

The National Law Enforcement Telecommunications
System (NLETS) is a high-speed message system
maintained by the States through a not-for-profit
corporation. NLETS permits the interstate exchange of
criminal justice information between local, State, and
Federal criminal justice agencies. NLETS supports
inquiries into a variety of State files, including criminal
history files, motor vehicle registration files, driver's license
files, and other databases maintained by the States. NLETS
also interfaces with the NCIC, the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police, the National Insurance Theft Bureau, the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and
other national-level files. -148 [Use and Management of
CHRI, supra note 22, p. xi.]

Among the funding priorities designated in CITA are
multiagency, multijurisdictional communications systems
among the States to share routine and emergency
information among Federal, State, and local law
enforcement agencies. "A 1997 incident along the Vermont
and New Hampshire border underscored the need for
multi-jurisdictional systems. During a cross-border
shooting spree that left four people dead, including two
New Hampshire State Troopers, Vermont and New
Hampshire officers were forced to park two police cruisers
next to one another to coordinate activities between
Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers because
the two States' police radios could not communicate with
one another." -149 [144 Cong. Rec. S12,042 (Oct. 8, 1998)
(statement of Senator Patrick Leahy, D-VT).] As a result of
this incident, officials from Vermont, New York, New
Hampshire, and Maine have developed the "Northern
Lights" proposal, which would allow these northern-border
States to "integrate their law enforcement communications
systems to better coordinate interdiction efforts and share
intelligence data." -150 [Ibid.]

The Internet

Perhaps the most important technological development
underpinning the need for a reassessment of the privacy
landscape - the Internet - is actually a by-product of the
other advances in communications and information
technology already discussed. The number of American
Internet users in 1998 was approximately 47 million. -151
[About.com, Internet Industry, "How many people use the
Internet?" (August 1, 1999), available at
http://internet.about.com/industry/internet/library/archivebl/
stats/blstats2a.htm.] It is estimated that, as of September
2000, nearly 148 million Americans had access to the
Internet, over 89 million of whom were active users. -152
[Nielsen//Netratings, "Average Web Usage, September
2000," available at <www.nielsen-netratings.com.] This
explosive growth has caught everyone's attention. The
public is "surfing" the Internet in large and increasing
numbers, business is enthralled by the promise of electronic
commerce, and Congress and the State legislatures are
paying close attention to developments to determine what
legislation is necessary to regulate everything from Internet
privacy to Internet decency to Internet taxation. 

The Internet is a growing means for law enforcement to
interact with the public and a valuable research tool. The
FBI and other law enforcement organizations, such as the
Los Angeles Police Department, post their "most wanted"
lists on the Internet. -153 [See, for example,
http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/fugitive/fpphome.htm; and
http://www.lapdonline.org/.] Other law enforcement
agencies allow citizens to use the Internet to make
anonymous tips, report nonemergency crimes, and file
initial police reports in certain matters, including burglary,
theft, and vandalism. -154 [See, for example,
http://www.cji.net/sierraso/index.html (Office of the Sheriff
of Sierra County, California); and
http://www.placer.ca.gov/sheriff/ (Sheriff's Department of
Placer County, California).]

As of May 1999, 15 States have posted sex offender and
sexual predator registration information from State sex
offender registries on the Internet in a format accessible to
and searchable by the public. -155 [See, supra note 103.]
These sites commonly include the offender's name, address,
vital statistics, offense (sometimes including case number),
and sometimes a photograph as well. -156 [See, for
example, http://www.dps.state.ak.us/nSorcr/asp/ (Alaska);
http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Sexual_Predators/index.asp
(Florida); http://www.state.in.us/serv/cji_sor (Indiana);
http://www.ink.org/public/kbi/kbiregoffpage.html
(Kansas); http://sex-offender.vsp.state.va.us/cool-ICE/
(Virginia); and
http://www.statetroopers.com/sexoff/sexoff.shtml (West
Virginia).] These sites allow individuals to search by name
or geographic area (typically city, county, or ZIP code).
-157 [Ibid.] States are not the only ones to sponsor sex
offender sites on the Internet. Local police also maintain
sex-offender sites either on their own or in concert with
local newspapers. -158 [See, for example,
http://www.ccspd.org/search_output.html (Cook County,
Illinois); and http://oakparkjournal.com/sexoffend-op.htm
(Oak Park, Illinois).]

In addition to interacting with the public, law enforcement
is also using the Internet to interact with fellow law
enforcement officers and to do law enforcement work.
Internet sites such as www.officer.com and
www.leolinks.com provide law enforcement officers with
access to a wide array of information on everything from
hate groups and terrorism, to computer crime, traffic
enforcement, statutes, other law enforcement organizations,
police unions, and educational and training opportunities.

Trend toward integrated systems

Traditionally, each of the four components of the criminal
justice system - law enforcement, prosecutors, courts, and
corrections - maintained a discrete information system
designed to meet that component's particular information
needs. There was little, if any, linkage between these
systems, and certainly no system architecture that provided
one system for all components. In recent years, however,
the criminal justice system has worked toward integrating
these systems, using a multipurpose architecture. 

- Definition of integration

The BJA/SEARCH National Task Force on Court
Automation and Integration defines integration of justice
information systems to mean, "the electronic sharing of
information by two or more distinct justice entities within a
system. The degree to which information systems are
considered 'integrated' depends upon who participates, what
information is shared or exchanged, and how data are
shared or exchanged within the system." -159 [Task Force
on Court Automation, supra note 111, p. 2. Although some
members of the Privacy Task Force believed that this
definition was too narrow, the Task Force used this
definition as the basis of its discussions.]

It is also important to understand what integration is not.
Integration is not the mere linkage or connection of
distributed or dispersed databases. Nor is integration the
amalgamation of private data in a particular information
system.

Participants

Participation in integrated systems can occur in three
principal configurations: vertical integration of criminal
justice users, horizontal integration of criminal justice
users, and the integration of criminal and noncriminal
justice databases. 

Vertical integration refers to the linkage of systems
operated by the same type of criminal justice organization
at various levels of government; city police systems are
linked with county police systems that are linked with State
police systems, which are linked with Federal systems, and
so forth. Horizontal integration refers to the linkage of
different components of the criminal justice system on a
particular level - the State police system, the State court
system, the State prosecutors' system, and so forth. Indeed,
local and municipal agencies have been leaders in
pioneering horizontal integration. 

Information exchanged

The information exchanged by integrated systems varies.
"Some systems may include only adult criminal justice
data, whereas others may include juvenile, family, domestic
relations, and social service data. Some systems may
address all operating requirements, such as ... revenue
management systems, whereas others may limit the
database to case management information requirements.
However, 'information' is increasingly more than just raw
data elements: it may include images, audio, video,
substance abuse test results, DNA profiles, and fingerprint
minutiae." -160 [Ibid., p. 3.]

Method of information exchange

The underlying technology of an integrated system may
also vary. Information may be exchanged through a
common database that is shared by participating agencies.
Information may also be shared by a coordinated system,
with data maintained in separate databases and exchanged
via standardized messages. In addition, hybrid systems
exist, which allow agencies to maintain separate databases
while using a central database that controls the level of
access afforded to different users in the system. -161 [Ibid.]

- Benefits and privacy risks of integration

Integration has numerous benefits. Integration may reduce
labor costs and operating expenses by eliminating the need
for agencies to undertake duplicative data entry and
collection, eliminating the need to maintain duplicate
records, and increasing efficiency. Furthermore, the data in
an integrated system may be more accurate because it was
only entered once. The information may also be available
on a more timely basis because information collected early
in the process is available for later processes even before
those later processes begin. This information availability
can improve the performance of the courts and criminal
justice agencies, and thereby improve public safety. Finally,
and perhaps most importantly, data may be more complete
because the responsibility for collecting and reporting each
data element is firmly fixed with a particular agency. -162
[Ibid., p. 29. For a more extensive discussion of the benefits
of integration, see, ibid., pp. 29-34. See also, Robert L.
Marx, System Integration: Issues Surrounding Integration
of County-Level Justice Information Systems, NCJ 156841
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of
Justice Assistance, November 1996) p. 29.]

Integration, however, also poses privacy risks. First, there is
the potential that integrated systems may propagate
inaccuracy if the data are entered incorrectly in the first
instance. Second, an integrated system may make sensitive
data about an individual, which is important to one part of
the criminal justice system, readily available to other parts
of the system, where that information is not necessary or
useful to the needs of that institutional player. The
corrections system, for example, gathers large amounts of
detailed information concerning the lives of inmates over
the course of their incarceration. An inmate's correction
record might include breaches of discipline and resulting
disciplinary action; information about sexual activity;
sensitive medical information, such as HIV status; drug use
and rehabilitation information; mental health information;
and educational or employment information. Although this
may be important information for the corrections facility
where the inmate is held, it is not necessarily relevant to
law enforcement officials or others with access to the
integrated system.

A third privacy risk arising from integration is that there
will be more information and increasing demands for its
use. As systems are integrated, the data in those systems
become richer and, therefore, more valuable to a wider pool
of potential users. Although a system may have been
integrated to increase its utility to law enforcement,
corrections, prosecutors, and the courts, "function creep"
becomes a real possibility and privacy concern. How widely
should the information in these integrated systems should
be made available is a key question. Access by law
enforcement, courts, prosecutors, and corrections are
common suggestions. Should the list be expanded to
include the defense bar or the public defender's office?
What about access for those outside the system, such as
child support enforcement and welfare agencies?

A fourth privacy risk arises when information subject to
strict rules in one sector is captured by an integrated system
operating in a more accommodating privacy environment.
Data coming from the privacy-sensitive central repository
environment, for example, may be captured in an integrated
system subject to the relatively privacy-lenient environment
in the courts. This raises a question as to which privacy
rules apply to information in an integrated system. Do the
standards for the integrated system reflect the policies of
the most privacy-protective participating agency, the least
privacy-protective, or is a new privacy standard developed
for the integrated system? Or, in the alternative, do privacy
rules vary depending upon the source of the information or
the purposes for which the information is accessed? 

A new approach that closely resembles a "Business Model"
for the criminal justice system

In recent years, there has been a shift in the way courts and
criminal justice agencies view their mission. Increasingly,
agencies focus on their interaction with the public and seek
to accomplish their missions through active crime
prevention efforts in addition to the more traditional
approach of reacting to crimes once they occur. In addition
to the well-known "community policing" model, there "are
literally hundreds of examples of this trend, from
offender-victim reconciliation projects in Vermont and
Minneapolis to 'beat probation' in Madison, Wisconsin;
from neighborhood-based prosecution centers in Portland,
Oregon, and New York City, to community probation in
Massachusetts." -163 [Todd R. Cleary and David R. Karp,
"The Community Justice Movement," in Community
Justice: An Emerging Field, David R. Karp, ed. (New
York: Rowman & Littlefield, 1998) p. 3. Hereafter,
Community Justice.] These programs come in a variety of
forms; the term "community courts," for example,
encompasses a wide range of specialized courts, including:
teen courts, drug courts, misdemeanor courts, and family
courts. -164 [Ibid., p. 9.]

These programs rely, in part, on the ability to exchange
information with the community about crimes, suspects,
and criminals in a quick, accurate, and efficient manner.
The importance of information to the new criminal justice
model has been described this way:

The new age of community justice is made possible by the
power of information. Using geo-coded data, crime control
services are organized around locations of crime events,
offenders, and victims. Data, both official data about crimes
and offenders and qualitative data that come from
interaction with offenders, victims, and neighborhood
residents, drive problem-solving and action. Information
will also provide evaluative feedback about the successes of
strategies. The imaginative use (and production of
information) is one of the factors that sets aggressive
community safety strategies apart from the more mundane
concept of the local constable. -165 [Ibid., p. 18.]

A number of community organizations throughout the
Nation use the information-sharing aspects of community
policing to fight crime in their communities. Turn Around
America, for example, mobilizes neighborhoods in an effort
to stop drug trafficking. The group, which is led by
neighbors in conjunction with law enforcement and others,
is designed to address the economics of the drug trade -
separating the buyer from the seller. -166 [See,
http://www.drugfighters.com.] This "separation" of buyer
and seller is accomplished by marches through, and vigils
at, locations believed to be venues where drug dealing
occurs. These activities are designed to spotlight venues
where drug trafficking occurs and discourage buyers who
fear public exposure. Turn Around America views positive
relations and information-sharing with law enforcement as
an important element of their ability to succeed. -167 [As
noted in an article about the Turn Around effort in
Waxahachie, Texas, "The relationship between the
community and police depends on trust, shared
information, cooperation, support, mutual respect and
social interaction. If you try this approach in your
community, make every effort to keep law enforcement
officials aware of your group's concerns, goals and
activities. Ask that a representative from the police attend
each of your planning sessions. Make certain they
understand that your intentions are to enhance and not
replace the role of law enforcement within the community.
Look at contact with local police as an education that will
ultimately benefit everyone." Nathan Bickerstaff,
"Community Anti-Drug Group Development Shows
Community and Police Teamwork," available at
http://www.communitypolicing.org/artbytop/w4/w4bicker.h
tm.] Much of the building of positive relations between
such community groups and the police can be achieved
without the disclosure of personal information. Although
Turn Around America claims to have drastically lowered
crime in areas it has targeted, -168 [Turn Around America
cites the following statistics: "The ... process has proven
effective all over the country with all types of communities
in ridding neighborhoods of drug trafficking and drastically
lowering crime and violence, for example: Taylor, Texas,
80% crime reduction in targeted area; Waxahachie, Texas,
93% clearance for major crime cases; East Palo Alto,
California, 86% drop in crime; and Red Oak, Georgia, 98%
drop in 911 calls." See, http://www.drugfighters.com.] civil
liberties organizations, such as the ACLU, have criticized
the group's practices as harassment and an invasion of
privacy of individuals who have not been charged with a
crime. -169 [See, Victoria Loe, "ACLU Scrutinizing Effort
by Authorities to Shame Drug Dealers" Dallas Morning
News (July 2, 1996) p. 1A; John Moritz, "Morales Backs
Disclosure of Drug House Locations; Anti-Drug Activists
Want Addresses to Put Pressure on Dealers, Customers,"
Ft. Worth Star-Telegram (December 24, 1996) p. 2.]
Concern has also been raised over the propriety of law
enforcement organizations sharing information about
suspected drug traffickers with these groups. -170 [Ibid.]

In addition to more community interaction, courts and
criminal justice agencies are interacting with one another
and noncriminal justice agencies in new ways to process
offenders, rehabilitate offenders, and prevent future crimes.
Criminal justice agencies and the courts frequently
recognize new obligations that make them responsible to,
and/or dependent upon, other agencies. The Midtown
Community Court in Manhattan, which specializes in
misdemeanor cases, is one example. "Contained in one
building, the Midtown Community Court makes concrete
use of a social services center, a community service
program, community mediation services, and a
sophisticated information network that tracks and relays
cases as they travel between departments." -171
[Community Justice, supra note 163, p. 9.]

This kind of interactivity and accountability often means
that CHRI is being widely shared by criminal justice
agencies, not only with other law enforcement agencies, but
also with social welfare agencies, educational institutions,
and the public. These new relationships and initiatives are
increasing the amount and expanding the scope of
recipients of criminal history information. 

In Texas, for example, law enforcement agencies,
prosecutors, and probation officers are required to notify
the school district where a student is believed to be enrolled
of the student's arrest for designated offenses. In addition,
the school district must be apprised of whether the matter is
prosecuted or adjudicated, as well as the final disposition of
the matter. -172 [TEX. CRIM. PROC. CODE  15.27. This
article imposes certain confidentiality requirements on the
school district personnel receiving the information.] This
information may serve as the basis for the transfer of that
student from the general student population into an
"alternative education program" that provides instruction in
core subjects as well as self-discipline, supervision, and
counseling. -173 [TEX. EDUC. CODE  37.008.]

Other examples of these changes, including the publication
of sex offender information, reporting of child protection
orders, and expanded disclosure of CHRI for background
checks in the employment and firearms purchasing
contexts, are discussed at length elsewhere in this report.
One Task Force member characterized these new
information flows as a "data-driven, problem solving
approach" to crime and other social problems. These
mechanisms are designed with prevention in mind:
prevention of sex offenses, of child abuse and
endangerment, of poor hiring decisions that could endanger
people and create liability for employers, and of firearms
purchases by those whom society deems a risk.

Another distinct development is the privatization or
outsourcing of criminal justice information functions.
Privatization introduces a new player into the information
equation - often a private, for-profit company or service
bureau. Private contractors, however, can be contractually
bound to observe the same standards that are applicable to
government agencies.

In September 1999, the U.S. DOJ published a final rule
amending its regulations to permit the criminal justice
agencies, subject to certain controls, to grant private entities
access to CHRI for the purpose of providing services for
the administration of criminal justice. -174 [64 Federal
Register 52223 (September 28, 1999).] Criminal justice
agencies will be required to include a security addendum
approved by the Director of the FBI to their agreements
with the private-sector contractor to "authorize access to
CHRI, limit the use of the information to the specific
purposes for which it is being provided, ensure the security
and confidentiality of the information consistent with
applicable laws and regulations, provide for sanctions, and
contain such other provisions as the Director of the FBI
(acting for the Attorney General) may require." -175 [Ibid.,
at 52223 - 52224.] The regulations also authorize criminal
justice agencies to outsource certain dispatching, data
processing, and information service functions to other
government agencies pursuant to executive order, statute,
regulation, or interagency agreement. -176Ibid., at 52224.]

The new prevention model poses potential privacy risks.
Sex offender registries, for example, have been criticized
by civil libertarians on numerous grounds, including the
potential harm to registrants from the public disclosure of
their status as registrants. One potential risk is that
registrants may be the targets of vigilantism and physically
harmed. -177 [Examples of vigilantism against sex offender
registrants reported by the ACLU include the firebombing
of a registrant's car in California, the beating of a man
believed to be a paroled sex offender in New Jersey, and
the destruction of the homes of registrants in New Jersey
and Washington by arson. ACLU, "Names Removed From
Missouri Sex Offender List," Press Release (August 27,
1997), available at http://aclu.org/news/n082897a.html.]
Another risk is that offenders will lose their jobs. In
September 1999, Oregon voluntarily placed its plans to
provide public access to sex offender registry information
over the Internet on hold pending an ACLU-assisted
lawsuit, in which 10 sex offenders each claimed that "[i]f
his name, photograph, and identity is broadcast over the
Internet as a sex offender, he will readily and immediately
lose his employment." -178 [Robert Ellis Smith, "In the
Courts: Sex Offenders," Privacy Journal Vol. 25, No. 11
(September 1999) p. 7.] Accuracy of registry information is
also a concern. -179 [Accuracy concerns, of course, are not
limited to sex offender registries. Inaccurate criminal
justice information can have serious repercussions for the
individual, including loss of employment. A Maryland
woman, for example, reportedly lost her job as a child-care
director at a Maryland YMCA, when, during a background
check, her name and Social Security number erroneously
appeared during a search of a Baltimore County computer
in connection with four child protective services cases.
Although Baltimore County family services later
acknowledged and corrected the error, the woman was not
reinstated by the YMCA. Evan Hendricks, "Maryland
Woman Victimized by Inaccurate Criminal Data," Privacy
Times, Vol. 17, No. 23 (December 15, 1997) pp. 9-10.] In
one instance, a Kansas family was subjected to scorn, and
rocks thrown at their mobile home, after local officials
posted notices that a sex offender lived at their address. In
reality, the sex offender had lived at the address previously
and moved without notifying authorities. -180 [Robert Ellis
Smith, "Inevitable," Privacy Journal, Vol. 23, No. 7 (May
1997) p. 4.]

More public access, demand for criminal justice records

Beginning in the late 1970s, policymakers grew
increasingly interested in capturing, maintaining, and
sharing criminal justice and criminal history record
information and grew less interested in providing privacy
safeguards for arrestees and offenders. During this same
period, as noted earlier, the Supreme Court found that
information about arrests and convictions relates to public
events and is, therefore, not subject to constitutional
privacy protections. -181 [See, for example, Paul v. Davis,
424 U.S. 693, 713 (1976).] The result, throughout the
1980s and 1990s, was a steady expansion of statutory and
regulatory provisions permitting the use and disclosure of
CHRI.

Today, criminal justice and criminal history record
information is available from State central repositories not
only for criminal justice purposes, but 

also for a wide variety of noncriminal justice purposes
authorized by law or regulation. In particular, these
purposes include employment background screening,
licensing eligibility checks, and a wide array of noncriminal
justice, governmental purposes.

Demand continues to grow. This is particularly true of
employers and volunteer organizations, such as the Boy
Scouts, which increasingly seek access to CHRI for
pre-employment background checks. There are two driving
forces behind this increased demand for access: (1) a desire
to make informed hiring decisions that assess the potential
risk prospective employees may pose to the hiring
organization, its employees, or its clients; and (2) a desire
to minimize potential legal exposure that could result from
hiring individuals without conducting a criminal history
check.

The potential for both harm to individuals and resulting
employer liability is illustrated by recent negligent hiring
cases. -182 [Under the tort of negligent hiring, an employer
can be held liable for wrongful acts of an employee if the
wrongful act was a cause-in-fact of the plaintiff's injury,
provided that the failure of the employer to exercise due
care in the hiring, training, or supervision of the employee
was a cause-in-fact of the act of the employee who caused
the injury. See, for example, Miller v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., 580 N.W.2d 233 (1998).] In one instance, a home
health care company in Boston hired a home health care
aide without conducting a background check, which would
have revealed the aide had six larceny-related convictions,
and that he did not have the education or work experience
stated on his employment application. -183 [See, Ward v.
Trusted Health, No. 94-4297 (Suffolk Super. Ct., Mass.
February 1999). See also, Mayer & Riser, PLLC, "Worker
Murders Man and His Grandmother: Employer Liable for
Negligent Hiring," available at
http://www.mayer-riser.com/Articles/ap/liability/neghiring0
599.htm.] Several months later, the employee murdered a
32-year-old quadriplegic man in his care and the man's
77-year-old grandmother, allegedly in order to cover up
ongoing theft from the man. The man's parents sued,
alleging that the company was negligent in allowing a
convicted felon to care for their son. A jury found for the
parents and awarded $26.5 million in punitive and
compensatory damages. -184 [Ibid.]

Negligent hiring cases are not limited to positions that are
typically viewed as being sensitive either because of the
trust the position requires or the vulnerable nature of the
population served. A jury held a Florida furniture store that
did not conduct a background check liable for $2.5 million
in damages for a person who was assaulted by a store
employee with a prior criminal record. -185 [See,
Tallahassee Furniture Co. v. Harrison, 583 So.2d 744 (4
Fla. App. 1991), rev. denied 595 So.2d 558 (Fla. 1992). In
addition to failing to conduct a background check on the
man, who worked for the company's owner as a part-time
laborer for several months prior to being hired as a full-time
deliveryman, the furniture store also failed to conduct a job
interview, request references, or request that the man
complete an application form. Ibid.] In another set of cases,
a pizza delivery chain reportedly paid a total of $375,000 to
settle two lawsuits by parents of young boys who were
allegedly molested by a pizza delivery man who, unknown
to the pizza company, had a prior record for burglary and
grand theft. -186 [See, Employment Data Services,
"Negligent Hiring the New 'Entitlement,'" available at
http://users.javanet.com/~empdata/negligent.html.] In
addition to the employer liability question, these cases also
raise policy questions about the reintegration of convicted
persons into society after their sentence is complete, and if
background checks are expected not only of persons in
sensitive positions, but also of those in positions
traditionally viewed as being less sensitive, such as pizza
delivery persons. -187 [In addition to concerns about
reintegrating the former offender into society, there is also
the related risk that the former offender will be unable to
obtain gainful employment and will be consigned to a
permanent underclass.]

It is a rare legislative cycle, however, that does not see the
enactment of new State laws authorizing access to criminal
history information for noncriminal justice purposes, either
for specified noncriminal justice users or the public at large.
Unlike some negligent hiring cases, however, most
legislative authorizations focus on positions that involve a
particular trust or regular interaction with vulnerable
populations, such as the sick, the elderly, and children. -188
[Other policy considerations are the basis for permitting
access to noncriminal justice users. Manufacturers,
distributors, and dispensers of controlled substances are
prohibited from hiring individuals convicted of felonies
related to controlled substances, and are expected to screen
employees in other circumstances. See, 21 C.F.R. 
1301.76, 1301.90, 1301.93.] In the 105th Congress, for
example, the Senate held hearings on the need for access to
criminal history data for nursing home workers; the
Congress enacted legislation strengthening the National
Child Protection Act, which authorizes background checks
for employees providing services to children, the elderly,
and the handicapped; and the Congress amended the Fair
Credit Reporting Act to permit consumer reports to include
conviction information, regardless of how long ago the
conviction occurred. 

The FBI has reported that the number of criminal history
record access requests it receives from noncriminal justice
requesters now exceeds the number of requests from
criminal justice. Noncriminal justice requests include not
only private employers, but also other government agencies
not associated with the criminal justice system. An Office
of Technology Assessment (OTA) survey in 1979 of
criminal history record system managers in 35 States found
20.6 percent of the total number of access requests received
by these repositories were by noncriminal justice agencies.
-189 [Gary R. Cooper and Robert R. Belair, Privacy and the
Private Employer, Criminal Justice Information Policy
series (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,
Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1981) p. 14 (citing An
Assessment of the Social Impacts of NCIC and CCH,
prepared by the Bureau of Governmental Research and
Service, University of South Carolina, for the U.S.
Congress' Office of Technology Assessment (1979) p. 227).
Hereafter, Privacy and the Private Employer.]

As long ago as 1981, a BJS/SEARCH report, Privacy and
the Private Employer, recognized that increased access to
criminal history information, particularly for employment
purposes, was a nascent trend. At that time, however, there
was little data regarding the number of criminal history
information requests made to criminal justice agencies by
private employers. -190 [Privacy and the Private Employer,
p. 14.] The report recognized that one means by which
employers could obtain criminal history information about
applicants - in addition to asking the applicant directly or
using a third party such as a consumer-reporting agency -
was "to request the data directly from criminal justice
agencies, usually local police departments." -191 [Ibid.]
The role of local police departments was highlighted in the
report, which noted that many State statutes regulating the
disclosure of criminal history information regulated only
disclosures by the State repositories, not local law
enforcement. -192 [Ibid., pp. 34-35.]

A 1998 survey determined that approximately 35% of the
fingerprint cards submitted by the States to the FBI and
processed during fiscal year 1997 were for noncriminal
justice purposes. -193 [Compendium, supra note 60, p. 8.]
The survey found that in eight States - Delaware, Florida,
Idaho, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, and
Washington - and the District of Columbia, the number of
requests for noncriminal justice purposes exceed the
number of requests made for criminal justice purposes.
-194 [Ibid.] A similar 1993 study found that only
approximately 9% of the fingerprint cards the FBI received
from the States that year were for noncriminal justice
purposes, with no States submitting more noncriminal
justice requests than criminal justice requests. -195 [Ibid,
pp. 8-9.]

There are several State law patterns and similarities in the
treatment of criminal history record dissemination for
noncriminal justice purposes. Most States treat conviction
information and open-arrest information less than 1 year
old (arrests with no record of disposition) differently from
nonconviction information. Typically, States place few or
no restrictions on the dissemination of conviction records,
and a number of States do not place restrictions on
open-arrest information less than 1 year old. Nonconviction
records are restricted to a greater degree, with
dissemination frequently limited to specified types of
noncriminal justice users for specified purposes. -196 [State
statutes vary in their level of detail. Many States rely upon
executive orders, regulations, and written and unwritten
repository policies to supplement and elaborate on their
statutes. Ibid., p. 8] The different approaches reflect the fact
that the widespread dissemination of nonconviction
information makes it more difficult for an innocent arrestee
to be reintegrated into society. -197 [A Maryland woman,
for example, is reported to have lost her job running a
daycare center at a military housing complex because a
background check revealed that the woman was arrested for
burglary and assault. According to reports, the woman had
been erroneously arrested in 1985. Her superiors
subsequently acknowledged that there was a discrepancy,
but did not offer to rehire her. See, supra note 179.] Finally,
the widespread reporting and dissemination of
nonconviction data may exacerbate the potentially
disproportionate adverse impact of the criminal justice
system on minority populations. -198 [See, supra note 47.
See also, Michael A. Fletcher, "Criminal Justice Disparities
Cited," Washington Post (May 4, 2000) p. A2; Leadership
Conference on Civil Rights and Leadership Conference
Education Fund, Justice on Trial: Racial Disparities in the
Criminal Justice System (Washington, D.C.: May 4, 2000),
available at
http://www.civilrights.org/policy_and_legislation/pl_issues
/criminal_justice/.]

Some States authorize the use of conviction information for
any occupational licensing or employment purpose, while
other States limit authorization for background checks
using conviction and, particularly, nonconviction
information to applicants for specific high-risk occupations,
such as child care, sensitive government positions, elder
care, care of the disabled, health care, banking, firefighters,
and police. -199 [Compendium, supra note 60, p. 9.]
Similarly, the "Bible Rider" authorized the FBI to exchange
conviction information with officials of federally chartered
or insured banking institutions and certain segments of the
securities industry and with nuclear power plants. -200
[This measure is popularly referred to as the "Bible Rider"
because it was originally sponsored by then-Senator Alan
Bible (D-NV), who attached the authorization for such
exchanges of information as a rider to an appropriations
bill. Regulations have since been published at 28 C.F.R. 
50.12.]

Another area where the States are authorizing access to
CHRI, or even actively disclosing the information, relates
to sex offenders. As noted earlier, 15 States now post sex
offender registration information on the Internet. Other
States, such as New York and California, offer a "900
number" for citizens to call to find out if an individual is a
registered sex offender. -201 [Robert Teir and Kevin Coy,
"Approaches to Sexual Predators: Community Notification
and Civil Commitment," 23 New England Journal on
Criminal and Civil Confinement (Summer 1997) pp. 405,
409, n. 18.] This trend, spurred primarily by public reaction
to high-profile abductions, rapes, and murders of young
children, is discussed in more detail in the subsequent
discussion of Federal legislation in this chapter.

The growing number of users authorized to access CHRI
for various purposes is one that the Task Force expects will
continue to grow.

Changes in the marketplace: Growing commercialization of
records as private companies sell criminal justice records
compiled from public record information

- The changing marketplace

In the last few years a new marketplace has emerged to
meet the burgeoning noncriminal justice demand for
criminal history data and to take advantage of changes in
information technology. Today, private companies
routinely "harvest" public record information, including
arrest and conviction information, from newly automated
court dockets and, to a lesser extent, police blotter systems.
-202 [Court records contain far more information than
simply indexes of charges leveled against a criminal
defendant and the disposition of those charges. Criminal
court records may also include transcripts of preliminary
hearings and court proceedings, voir dire information,
exhibits submitted into evidence, deposition information,
motions and pleadings, and other information generated as
a case advances through the criminal justice system. These
records can easily include sensitive personal information
about the defendants, victims, and witnesses in a particular
case. This information can be generated not only as paper
records, but also in the form of computer-aided
transcription, videotaped depositions, and in some
jurisdictions, televised trials. Court systems are increasingly
aware of the sensitive nature of the information contained
in court records. In Washington, for example, the State
Judicial Information System Committee is conducting
public meetings around the State to discuss the impacts and
effectiveness of its data dissemination policy as part of its
review of the policy. "The policy review will focus on the
major issues that the requests for information have raised
over the last four years and will revisit the extent to which
compiled information on individuals needs protection."
See, "Data Dissemination Policy Review," available at
www.courts.wa.gov/datadis/policy.cfm.] These companies
then sell the criminal history profiles to employers,
insurers, and other noncriminal justice users. In addition,
individual reference services "provide critical assistance to
Federal, State, and local government agencies to carry out
their law enforcement and other missions." -203 [Federal
Trade Commission, Individual Reference Services: A
Report to Congress (December 1997) p. 9.] Further, these
companies or their customers may merge criminal record
information with an individual's education, employment
history, credit history, and other records, as well as with
putative data to create informal but, nonetheless, powerful
and comprehensive reports.

Although court records have always been in the public
domain, these records were maintained on a court-by-court
basis, and were organized either chronologically or by
docket number, or by name, sometimes with a date of birth
in an index available to the public. In addition, these
records were manual, paper-boxed records requiring a
researcher to travel to the court to physically access and
inspect the records. All of this had the practical impact of
limiting the accessibility of these records to those who had
reason to believe that a particular individual had appeared
in a particular court at a particular time, and had the
resources and motivation to conduct this kind of a search.

The automation of court records and, to a lesser extent, of
police blotters and the emergence of companies that harvest
and disseminate arrest and conviction records have changed
the criminal justice information privacy landscape. These
companies, frequently referred to as "individual reference
services companies," gather not only CHRI, but also other
types of personal and public record information. The
companies make this information available to corporate and
professional users, as well as government agencies and
individuals.

This information, compiled from a variety of sources, can
be used for a wide range of purposes, which may or may
not be regulated by statute. -204 [Over a dozen State
constitutions contain language protecting personal privacy
rights, usually from government interference. See, Fred H.
Cate, Privacy in the Information Age (Washington, D.C.:
Brookings Institution Press, 1997) pp. 66-68. Some State
constitutional provisions, such as Article 1, Section 1 of the
California Constitution, have been interpreted to apply to
both the public and private sector. The California Supreme
Court has held that a plaintiff alleging an invasion of
privacy in violation of the State constitutional right to
privacy must establish "(1) a legally protected privacy
interest; (2) a reasonable expectation of privacy in the
circumstances; and (3) conduct by the defendant
constituting a serious invasion of privacy." Even if the
plaintiff proves all three of these elements, the defendant
has an affirmative defense if the invasion of privacy
"substantially furthers one or more countervailing interests"
and the plaintiff is unable to show there are "feasible and
effective alternatives to [the] defendant's conduct which
have a lesser impact on privacy interests." Hill v. National
Collegiate Athletic Association, 865 P.2d 633, 657 (Cal.
1994). To date, however, application of these State
constitutional privacy protections has not resulted in
significant information privacy protections beyond those
derived from the U.S. Constitution. Cate, Privacy in the
Information Age, p. 68.] Information obtained from public
record sources, for example, is used for preventing fraud;
promoting child support enforcement; locating witnesses
for civil and criminal cases, and missing children, heirs,
and beneficiaries; protecting consumers from unqualified
"professionals" or potential predators; locating and
apprehending individuals eluding law enforcement;
supporting media research; and increasing the ease with
which the public can access public records. -205 [Piper &
Marbury, L.L.P., White Paper: Individual Reference
Services (Washington, D.C.: Individual References
Services Group, December 1997) p. 2. Hereafter, IRSG
White Paper, available at
http://www.irsg.org/html/white_paper.htm.]

One member of the IRSG , the Online Professional
Electronic Network (OPEN), for example, makes a
relatively comprehensive criminal arrest and conviction
record search product available to its business and
professional subscribers that "searches millions of online
arrest records submitted by county jail facilities from an
every-growing [sic] number of States. Arrest record data
includes booking time, inmate ID, arresting agency and
charge code with description. Also available through this
search is the ability to place orders for on-site searches for
conviction information in any U.S. County." -206 ["OPEN
Products," available at
http://www.openonline.com/productguide.htm#criminalacr
cmvoc.htm.] For this product, arrest records can be
searched using name or Social Security number, while
conviction information searches require name, Social
Security number, date of birth, and county to be searched.
-207 [Ibid.]

Another reference services company, identifying itself on
the Internet as the "Global Information Network," offers
several CHRI products, including: a "county criminal court
record report," from a potential pool of 3,300 counties; a
"Statewide criminal repository record report," from
approximately 30 State repositories (a release form from
the subject may be 

required); and a "Federal criminal court record report" for
actions in the Nation's 94 Federal District Courts. -208
[See, for example,
http://www.searchinfo.com/criminal.html.] Typically,
county record searches are completed within two business
days, Federal court searches within three business days, and
State repository requests "usually take considerably longer
... the turn around varies by State." -209 [Ibid.] This vendor
accepts orders via a toll-free telephone number; other
companies selling background checks permit ordering
online. -210 [Ibid. For an example of a firm permitting
online ordering, see, http://www.1800ussearch.com.]

In addition to the commercial sale of CHRI to the public, a
number of commercial vendors also sell identification and
location products that are used by law enforcement
agencies ranging from the U.S. Marshals to local sheriff's
departments for the apprehension of fugitives. -211 [IRSG
White Paper, supra note 205, p. 12.] U.S. Marshals, for
example, were able to apprehend two fugitives using a
system offered by CDB Infotek, a member of the IRSG.
The Marshals entered the names of two fugitives and the
system returned information indicating a nearby location.
DBT, another member of the IRSG, reports that its products
are used by more than 1,000 law enforcement agencies and
that law enforcement has used its products to apprehend
criminals ranging from child kidnappers to bank robbers to
jewel thieves. -212 [See, http://www.dbtonline.com. A
special agent of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms characterized the value of such services as "a
tremendous benefit to our law enforcement mission and a
real time saver ..._. The spontaneous retrieval of accurate
data maintained in [the database] contributed to effectively
directing and positioning our surveillance teams that
resulted in the surrender of two suspects. When one of the
suspects was believed to be in a large apartment complex,
your ... system was able to provide us complete drivers
license information for every driver in the complex which
totaled over 700 and did so in less than 10 minutes. [It] is
an incredible tool for law enforcement providing us with a
capability to assimilate information from your uniquely
cross referenced records." Letter from Robert J. Creighton,
Special Agent in Charge, Miami Field Division,
Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco
and Firearms, to Database Technologies, Inc. (September
14, 1995).]

- The Fair Credit Reporting Act

The Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970 (FCRA), as
amended, regulates the use of CHRI by consumer-reporting
agencies for employment, credit, and certain other
purposes. -213 [15 U.S.C.  1681 et seq.]
Consumer-reporting agencies are organizations that, for a
fee or on a cooperative, nonprofit basis, are in the practice
of assembling or evaluating personally identifiable
information obtained from third parties and bearing upon a
consumer's credit worthiness, character, reputation,
personal characteristics, or mode of living. This, of course,
includes criminal history information, such as arrest and
conviction information.

Under the FCRA, a consumer-reporting agency may only
provide a consumer report to a party when the agency has
reason to believe that the party will use the report to make a
credit determination, an employment determination, an
insurance underwriting determination, or otherwise in
connection with a legitimate business need in a transaction
involving the consumer or pursuant to written instructions
of the consumer. -214 [Consumer-reporting agencies,
however, are forced to rely on the representations of
permissible purposes made by their customers. Therefore, if
a customer makes a false representation, he or she can
obtain a consumer report without actually having a
permissible purpose. Although making such a
misrepresentation is punishable under the FCRA, the
penalty may not always be sufficient to discourage the
conduct. Such appears to have been the case in WDIA v.
McGraw-Hill, C-1-93-448 (December 1, 1998, S.D. Ohio).
In WDIA, a consumer-reporting agency sued the parent
company of Business Week after a Business Week reporter
obtained a consumer report on then-Vice President Dan
Quayle for an article, after falsely representing that he had a
permissible purpose to receive the report. WDIA sought
$75,000 in actual damages and $45 million in punitive
damages. However, the court, which ruled in WDIA's favor
on the merits, awarded only $7,500 in actual damages and
no punitive damages at all, noting that the news coverage
was a "vital public interest" and Business Week promised
not to engage in such conduct in the future. The reporter is
reported to have claimed the ruling was a "vindication."
Robert Ellis Smith, "In the Courts: Business Week" Privacy
Journal, Vol. 25, No. 3 (January 1999) p. 7.]

As substantially amended in 1997, the FCRA includes all
of the safeguards expected in a comprehensive, fair
information practice/privacy statute, including notice to
consumers; consent, including opportunities for
opt-in/opt-out; accuracy, relevance, and timeliness
standards; confidentiality and use safeguards; security
expectations; consumer access and correction rights;
content restrictions; and remedies, including administrative
sanctions and private rights of action. More specifically, the
FCRA provides consumers with the following privacy
rights:

* A consumer-reporting agency that furnishes a consumer
report for employment purposes containing public record
information, including criminal history records, which is
"likely to have an adverse effect upon a consumer's ability
to obtain employment," must either provide the consumer
with notice at the same time that the information is reported
to the potential employer or "must maintain strict
procedures" to ensure that the information is complete and
up-to-date. -215 [15 U.S.C.  1681k (FCRA  613).]

* A consumer must be notified when information is used to
take an action against him or her, such as the denial of
employment. In such cases, the party denying the benefit
must provide the consumer with information on how to
contact the consumer-reporting agency that provided the
information.

* Consumer-reporting agencies must, upon request, provide
a consumer with a copy of that consumer's file, as well as a
listing of everyone who has requested it recently. The cost
to the consumer of obtaining the report cannot exceed $8,
and may be free if requested in connection with a recent
denial of benefits or other specified circumstances.

* Consumers are permitted to request a correction of
information they believe to be inaccurate. The
consumer-reporting agency must investigate unless the
dispute is frivolous. The consumer-reporting agency must
also send a written investigation report to the individual and
a copy of the revised report, if changes were made. The
consumer may also request that corrected reports be sent to
recent recipients. If the dispute is not resolved in the
consumer's favor, the consumer has the option of including
a brief statement to the consumer's file, typically for
distribution with future reports. 

* Consumer-reporting agencies must remove or correct
unverified or inaccurate information from its files, typically
within 30 days after the consumer disputes the information.

* In most cases, a consumer-reporting agency may not
report negative information that is more than 7 years old
(including arrest information); 10 years for bankruptcies. A
1998 amendment to the FCRA permits the inclusion of
criminal conviction information, without time limitations.

* Consumers can sue for violations or seek assistance from
the FTC and other Federal agencies responsible for the
enforcement of the FCRA.

- The Individual Reference Services Group

In 1997 the major companies in the individual reference
services industry, joined by the three national
consumer-reporting systems, established the Individual
Reference Services Group (IRSG). Companies in the
individual reference services industry provide public record
information, including CHRI (obtained primarily from the
courts), to government agencies, companies, law firms,
private investigators, and, in some instances, the public.
The IRSG adopted self-regulatory principles (IRSG
Principles) that became effective at the end of 1998. -216
[Individual Reference Services Group, "Individual
Reference Service Industry Principles" (December 15,
1997), available at
http://www.irsg.org/html/industry_principles_principles.ht
m. The IRSG Principles apply to information products that
assist users to identify individuals, verify identities, and
locate individuals for various purposes. These identification
and location products are beyond the scope and protections
of the FCRA because they do not bear on one of the seven
characteristics (credit worthiness, credit standing, credit
capacity, character, general reputation, personal
characteristics, or mode of living) set forth in the FCRA
definition of "consumer report," which is set forth at 15
U.S.C.  1681a(d).] The IRSG Principles require signatory
and complying companies to:

* Make efforts to educate their customers and the public
about their services, the privacy issues associated with
those services, the IRSG Principles, and the societal
benefits from the responsible flow of information.

* Acquire individually identifiable information from only
reputable sources in the public and private sector and take
measures to understand the information collection practices
of those sources.

* Take reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy of the
information in their products, and to either correct
inaccurate information or refer the individual to the agency
that created the information.

* Limit the distribution of nonpublic information according
to specified criteria based on the nature of the information
requested and the intended use of that information. 

* Maintain systems and facilities to protect information
from unauthorized access by means of physical, electronic,
and administrative safeguards.

* Have an information practices policy statement notifying
individuals of their information practices.

* Provide individuals with a means for limiting the general
public's access to nonpublic information. The companies
may also provide individuals with the ability to limit access
to other information in their databases.

* Provide individuals with information about the types and
sources of the public record and publicly available
information that the companies include in their information
products and services.

* Limit the distribution of information about individuals
identified as being less than 18 years of age.

- Privacy risks posed by changes in the marketplace

Changes in the marketplace, particularly the emergence of
sophisticated private-sector networks providing CHRI, raise
a number of privacy issues: 

* First, of course, private-sector resellers of criminal
histories encourage and facilitate the availability of criminal
history information to the public or to noncriminal justice
business users in a way that is fast, convenient, and
inexpensive.

* Second, the commercial marketplace for criminal
histories may exacerbate the risk of communicating
incomplete or inaccurate records. Records obtained from
police blotters or from court sources are customarily less
complete than records held by the State criminal record
repositories. 

* Third, there is certainly the potential that the
commercial-sector records will keep and disclose records,
regardless of how long ago the underlying offense occurred.
Although the FCRA provides a 7-year limitation for
disclosures of arrest information by consumer-reporting
agencies, nonconsumer-reporting agencies are subject to no
such restriction. In addition, as noted, the FCRA was
amended in 1998 to permit the disclosure of conviction
information, regardless of the date of the conviction. As a
result, it is legally possible to create a private criminal
history database that will forever record and report an
individual's interactions with the criminal justice system.

Thus, private databases may outflank State sealing and
expungement laws. Once a criminal record has been
captured in a private database or published in the
newspaper (now also electronically searchable and
available on the Internet) or published on the Internet, court
or other legal directives to seal or expunge those records
have limited effect.

* Finally, because private databases seldom are supported
by fingerprints or other biometric identifiers, they run a risk
of misidentification and of attributing erroneous
information to an individual. On the other hand, Task Force
participants are aware of few examples of misidentification
arising from name checks used in commercial criminal
history reporting systems. 

Although commercial harvesting and reporting of criminal
histories may pose a privacy risk, it should also be noted
that commercial systems meet a burgeoning noncriminal
justice demand and facilitate use of these records for
numerous important public safety, anti-fraud, and other
economically and socially important purposes. -217 [IRSG
White Paper, supra note 205, p. 1. "Individual reference
services provide important societal benefits. They help a
broad range of people, from welfare mothers seeking to
enforce child support orders, to pension beneficiaries and
heirs, to fraud victims. These services also assist in
important governmental functions, such as tracing fraud,
apprehending criminals, and locating witnesses to crimes."
Ibid.]

Federal and State initiatives

The Federal government is spearheading numerous
initiatives aimed at providing authorized users with better
and more timely criminal justice information. One
inevitable effect of such efforts is to create at least the
potential for new and significant privacy risks. This report
describes several initiatives.

Perhaps the most important of the new Federal initiatives is
the National Instant Criminal Background Check System
(NICS), which became operational in November 1998.
NICS, as authorized in the 1993 Brady Handgun Violence
Prevention Act, provides firearms dealers with
instantaneous information about whether an individual has
a criminal history record background that makes the
individual ineligible to obtain a firearm. The NICS draws
on three Federal databases that include CHRI, information
on wanted persons, and certain other kinds of sensitive
information, including mental health information,
information on individuals who have received dishonorable
discharges from the military, and citizenship status
information. The sensitivity and breadth of this
information, combined with its availability on a name-only
basis, seems certain to add fuel to the criminal justice
information privacy debate.

In 1998, as noted, Congress amended the FCRA to remove
a provision that prohibited consumer-reporting agencies
from reporting "obsolete" conviction information (that is,
convictions more than 7 years old). -218 [Consumer
Reporting Employment Clarification Act of 1998, Pub. L.
No. 105-347,  5. It has been suggested that a similar
FCRA obsolescence requirement for arrest information also
be eliminated.]

- The Security Clearance Information Act of 1985

The Security Clearance Information Act of 1985 (SCIA)
-219 [Pub. L. No. 99-169 (1985), codified in part at 5
U.S.C.  9101.] opens virtually all CHRI to the Central
Intelligence Agency, the Office of Personnel Management,
the U.S. Department of Defense, and the FBI for
background checks for security clearances and for
placement of people in national security duties. This Act
eliminated wide disparities between State laws; some gave
the security agencies broad access and others provided no
access at all. -220Robert R. Belair, "Public Availability of
Criminal History Records: A Legal Analysis," in Open vs.
Confidential Records, Proceedings of a BJS/SEARCH
Conference, NCJ 113560 (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1988) p.
16.]

SCIA, however, does not provide unlimited access. The
General Accounting Office (GAO), in a February 1999
report on the military's criminal history screening practices,
noted that SCIA does not require States or the FBI to
provide the military with access to criminal history records
for determining whether an individual is suitable for mere
enlistment in the military. -221 [Military Recruiting: New
Initiatives Could Improve Criminal History Screening,
GAO/NSIAD-99-53 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. General
Accounting Office, February 1999) p. 11. Hereafter,
Military Recruiting Report. According to this report, the
U.S. Department of Defense has proposed legislative
changes to "give it the authority to readily obtain access to
State and local criminal history information at reasonable
costs for the purpose of accepting or retaining individuals
into service." Ibid., p. 12, n. 12.] In addition, Federal
agencies cannot obtain sealed data, thereby preserving State
prerogatives in the area. Furthermore, Federal agencies
must obtain the written consent of the individual, and the
information obtained may only be used for national security
purposes.

- Sex offender statutes

In 1989, Jacob Wetterling, then 11, was abducted at
gunpoint by a masked man, never to be seen again. -222
[Patty Wetterling, "The Jacob Wetterling Story," in
National Conference on Sex Offender Registries:
Proceedings of a BJS/SARCH Conference, NCJ 168965
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of
Justice Statistics, May 1998) p. 3. Hereafter, Sex Offender
Registries Conference.] In 1994, 7-year-old Megan Kanka
was raped and murdered by a repeat sex offender who lived
next door to her, after he lured her inside with promises to
let her play with a puppy. Polly Klaas and Ashley Estelle
suffered similar fates at the hands of offenders in California
and Texas, respectively. These crimes brought repeat sex
offenders to the forefront of the national consciousness and
led to a flurry of State and Federal legislation. -223 [See,
Teir and Coy, supra note 201, p. 405.]

Texas State Senator Florence Shapiro (R-Plano), who
spearheaded the drive for sex offender legislation in Texas
following the abduction, rape, and murder of 7-year-old
Ashley Estelle, summed up the importance of such
legislation this way: "Legislatures and justice agencies must
remove barriers that prevent the free flow of information
between agencies so criminal justice professionals are not
reluctant to do their job out of fear of liability. Information
is critical to our systems. Secrecy is the sex offender's best
friend, so we must shine a light on everything they do."
-224 [Florence Shapiro, "The Big Picture of Sex Offenders
and Public Policy," in Sex Offender Registries Conference,
p. 94.] A string of recent Federal statutes seeks to turn on
that light.

The Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and
Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act, named after
Jacob Wetterling, requires States to establish effective
registration systems for convicted child molesters and other
sexually violent offenders. The most dangerous of these
offenders, "sexually violent predators" are subject to more
stringent registration standards. The Act requires States to
require designated sex offenders to register and provide law
enforcement with a current address for 10 years, with
sexually violent predators required to provide more
extensive registration information. The Act also requires
that this information be retained by the State central
repository and made public in certain public safety
circumstances. -225 [42 U.S.C.  14071.]

The Federal Megan's Law, named after Megan Kanka,
builds on the Wetterling Act. -226 [104 P.L. 145, 100 Stat.
1345.] While the Wetterling Act, as originally enacted,
gave law enforcement the option to release information
about sex offenders who were perceived as a threat to
public safety, Megan's Law, like many of its State
counterparts, requires States to release information about
sex offenders when it is required for public safety. This
"mandatory community notification" is designed to inform
parents and members of the community when a sex
offender, who is perceived to be a threat to public safety,
moves into a neighborhood. Megan's parents said after their
daughter's rape and murder that they had been unaware that
her killer, who was their neighbor, was a previously
convicted sex offender, and that they would have been
especially vigilant if they had known a convicted sex
offender lived in their midst.

The third of the Federal sex offender statutes, the Pam
Lychner Sexual Offender Tracking and Identification Act,
-227 [The Lychner Act was named in memory of victims'
rights activist Pam Lychner, who founded the victims'
rights organization Justice for All after she was brutally
attacked by a twice-convicted felon. She later died, along
with her two daughters, in the crash of TWA flight 800 in
July 1996.] establishes a national database for the tracking
of sex offenders. The Act also requires the FBI to
administer sex offender registration programs in States that
fail to have "minimally sufficient" programs. Finally, the
Act changes the Wetterling Act requirement that offenders
register for 10 years to a lifetime registration requirement
for aggravated offenders, recidivists, and sexually violent
predators. -228 [42 U.S.C.  14072.]

- The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act

The 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act -229
[Pub. L. No. 103-159 (November 30, 1993).] established
the NICS for the purpose of determining if an individual is
disqualified from the purchase of a firearm on the basis of:
indictment for or conviction of a felony; being a fugitive
from justice; being an unlawful user of, or addicted to, a
controlled substance; having been adjudicated as mentally
defective or committed to a mental institution; being an
illegal alien; having renounced U.S. citizenship; being
dishonorably discharged from the military; having been
convicted of a misdemeanor of domestic abuse; or being
subject to a protective order. -230 [18 U.S.C.  922(g)
(Supp. 1997).]

When a Federal firearms licensee conducts a NICS check, a
name search is conducted in three different databases at the
national level to determine the eligibility status of an
applicant to purchase a firearm: the NCIC, III, and the
NICS index. The NICS index "contains about 940,000
records of prohibited persons, as outlined in the Brady Act,
such as individuals who have received dishonorable
discharges from the armed services, individuals who have
renounced their citizenship, mental defectives,
illegal/unlawful aliens and others." -231 [National Instant
Criminal Background Check System (NICS): The First
Seven Months (November 30, 1998-June 30, 1999)
(Washington, D.C.: Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Criminal Justice Information Services Division) pp. 2-3.
The 940,000 records in the NICS index, which concern
mental defectives, the dishonorably discharged, etc., are
currently only a small portion of the overall number of
records checked as a part of a Federal NICS check, when
compared to the approximately 34.7 million criminal
history records in the III and the 700,000 records on wanted
persons and protective orders in the NCIC. Ibid., p. 3.]

Recognizing the potentially sensitive nature of the
information that would be used by the NICS, the Brady Act
requires establishment of security and privacy safeguards:
"After 90 days' notice to the public and an opportunity for
hearing by interested parties, the Attorney General shall
prescribe regulations to ensure the privacy and security of
the information of the [NICS] system." -232 [18 U.S.C. 
922 Historical and Statutory Notes, National Instant
Criminal Background Check System  (h) (Supp. 1997).]
Further, the Act prohibits gun dealers from disclosing
nonpublic information received as a result of a background
check except to the purchaser or to law enforcement
authorities, or pursuant to a court order. The Act also
addresses the retention and destruction of background
check records and firearms purchaser applications. Further,
the Brady Act gives purchasers a right to review denials and
correct erroneous information, and prohibits the
establishment by Federal agencies of firearms registration
systems. 

On October 30, 1998, the U.S. DOJ issued final regulations
for the NICS. -233 [63 Federal Register 58303 (October 30,
1998), to be codified at 28 C.F.R., Part 25.] The final rule
included provision for an "audit log" that would be retained
on a temporary basis "solely for the purpose of satisfying
the statutory requirement of ensuring the privacy and
security of the NICS and the proper administration of the
system." -234 [Ibid. On November 30, 1998, the same day
NICS became operational, the National Rifle Association
filed suit in Federal district court arguing that the FBI's
audit log, even if intended to be "temporary," was a
violation of Section 103(I) of the Brady Act (prohibiting
Federal agencies from establishing a national gun registry).
Both a Federal district court and the Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit have held in favor of the
government. See, National Rifle Association of America v.
Reno, 216 F.3d 122 (D.C. Cir. 2000).]

During 1999, NICS' first full year of operation, NICS
processed about 8.6 million inquiries. The FBI conducted
about one-half of the presale background checks for which
these inquiries were made, with the other half being
handled by State and local agencies. In 1999, approximately
2.4% (204,000) of applications for firearm transfer were
rejected. The FBI's rejection rate was 1.8% (81,000
applications) and the rejection rate for checks handled by
State and local agencies was 3% (123,000 applications). In
over 70% of the cases where an application for firearms
transfer was rejected, a current felony indictment or prior
felony conviction was the reason. -235 [Lea Gifford, et. al.,
Background Checks for Firearm Transfers, Bulletin series,
NCJ 180882 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, June 2000), pp. 1-3.]

- The National Child Protection Act

The National Child Protection Act of 1993 (NCPA) -236
[Pub. L. No. 103-209 (Dec. 20, 1993).] authorizes States to
make nationwide background checks (based upon
fingerprint-based identification) to determine if a care
"provider has been convicted of a crime that bears upon the
provider's fitness to have responsibility for the safety and
well-being of children, the elderly, or individuals with
disabilities." -237 [42 U.S.C.  5119a(a).] The NCPA, as
originally enacted, permitted use of the national system
only as authorized by State law and approved by the U.S.
Attorney General. -238 [Ibid.] This, as might reasonably be
expected, resulted in inconsistencies among State laws.
National volunteer organizations, such as the Boys and
Girls Clubs of America, found themselves with
State-authorized access in only six States, yet with
volunteers in all 50 States. -239 [Testimony of U.S.
Representative Mark A. Foley (R-FL) before the House
Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime regarding H.R. 2488, the
Volunteers for Children Act (April 30, 1998).] As a result
of these concerns, Congress amended the NCPA in 1998 to
permit qualified entities, such as schools or youth-serving
nonprofit organizations, to conduct fingerprint-based
background checks using the national system regardless of
whether State law specifically authorizes them to conduct
such checks, provided that certain criteria are met. -240
[Volunteers for Children Act, Pub. L. No. 105-251, 
221-222 (October 9, 1998), 112 Stat. 1885 (amending 42
U.S.C.  5119a).]

The number of people/positions potentially covered by the
NCPA is staggering. In the area of child care alone, for
example, State criminal record check statutes frequently
cover daycare, foster and adoptive homes, schools, social
service/welfare agencies, school bus/ transportation
services, juvenile detention/residential facilities, those with
supervisory or disciplinary power over children, youth
organizations, youth camps, public recreation, or youth
programs. -241 [Noy S. Davis, "Authorized Record Checks
for Screening Child Care and Youth Service Workers," in
National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady
and Beyond, Proceedings of a BJS/SEARCH Group
Conference, NCJ 151263 (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1995) p.
85, figure 2. Hereafter, Brady Conference.] The American
Bar Association Center on Children and the Law estimates
that nearly 35 million adults have contact with children
through these kinds of programs. -242 [Kimberly Dennis,
"Report on National Study of Existing Screening Practices
by Child Care Organizations," in Brady Conference, p. 90,
figure 1.] The NCPA also covers elder care and care of the
disabled. The potential workload implications and the
potential numbers of access requests for and disclosures of
criminal history information are staggering.

Juvenile justice reform

Concerns regarding the frequency of juvenile crime, its
periodic violence and recidivism have combined to
generate pressure to open juvenile records to greater use
within both the criminal justice and the noncriminal justice
communities. Concomitantly, these same forces have
generated pressure to improve the quality of juvenile
history records, including making the records
fingerprint-supported and assuring appropriate disposition
reporting. Recent Federal legislation has focused attention
on the privacy issues associated with juvenile records by
including initiatives to rework the juvenile justice
information system to make it look much more like the
adult system. The effort to improve juvenile history records
and to make juvenile history records more available is
controversial and adds to the emerging debate over privacy
and criminal justice. 

- A brief history of the philosophy of the juvenile justice
system

The juvenile justice system was one of the products of the
"Progressive Movement" of the late 19th and early 20th
centuries. "To the Progressives, crime was the result of
external forces, not of the exercise of an individual's free
will. Their goal was to reform the offender, not punish the
offense." -243 [Robert R. Belair, Privacy and Juvenile
Justice Records: A Mid-Decade Status Report, Criminal
Justice Information Policy series, NCJ 161255
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of
Justice Statistics, 1997) p. 6. Hereafter, Privacy and
Juvenile Justice Records Status Report.] The Illinois State
Legislature established the Nation's first independent
juvenile court system in 1899, to be a system in which
"children were not to be treated as criminals nor dealt with
by the process used for criminals." -244 [Robert R. Belair,
Privacy and Juvenile Justice Records, Criminal Justice
Information Policy series (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1982) p.
12 (quoting Eldefonzo, Law Enforcement and the Youthful
Offender, 3rd ed. (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1978) p.
147).] The Illinois juvenile court, and those subsequently
created in other States, adopted the British notion of parens
patriae (the State as parent) and the State came to see its
role as stepping in when parents failed to carry out their
supervisory responsibilities. 

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 1967 decision, characterized
the juvenile justice system this way: "The early conception
of the Juvenile Court proceeding was one in which a
fatherly judge touches the heart and conscience of the
erring youth by talking over his problems, by paternal
advice and admonition and in which in extreme situations,
benevolent and wise institutions of the State provided
guidance and help, to save him from a downward career."
-245 [In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 25-26 (1967).] The child was
seen as impressionable and malleable, not truly responsible
for his or her actions, and should not be saddled with
responsibility for his or her actions in the same manner, and
with the lifelong impact, as adult offenders.

The juvenile justice recordkeeping system was also
designed with the protection of the child in mind. A law
review commentary in 1909 stressed that the importance of
confidentiality for juvenile records was to "get away from
the notion that the child is to be dealt with as a criminal; to
save it from the brand of criminality, the brand that sticks to
it for life; to take it in hand and instead of first stigmatizing
and then reforming it, to protect it from the stigma - this is
the work which is now being accomplished (by the juvenile
court)." -246 [Mack, "The Juvenile Court," 23 Harvard Law
Review 104, 109 (1909).]

During the 1950s and 1960s this view of the juvenile
justice system came into question, with the Supreme Court
noting in 1966 that "While there can be no doubt of the
original laudable purpose of juvenile courts, studies and
critiques in recent years raise serious questions as to
whether actual performance measures well enough against
the theoretical purpose to make tolerable the immunity of
the process from the reach of constitutional guarantees
applicable to adults." -247 [Kent v. United States, 383 U.S.
541, 555 (1966).] The Court answered its own question in
the negative, extending to juveniles much the same right to
adversarial-style due process as adults. -248 [Ibid.]

The following year the Court went further, rejecting parens
patriae and extending to juveniles the four basic elements
of due process: the right to notice, the right to counsel, the
right to cross-examine witnesses, and the right against
self-incrimination. -249 [In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967).] In
that same case, In re Gault, the Court questioned the
confidentiality of juvenile records, noting "the summary
procedures of Juvenile Courts are sometimes defended by a
statement that it is the law's policy 'to hide youthful errors
from the full gaze of the public and bury them in the
graveyard of the forgotten past.' This claim of secrecy,
however, is more rhetoric than reality." -250 [Ibid., at 24.]

Although the Supreme Court's extension of "adult" rights to
juveniles broke down one of the walls around the juvenile
justice system, increased juvenile crime (and increased
media attention to juvenile crime) created additional
pressures for changes in the juvenile justice system. Public
attitudes toward youthful offenders hardened over the years,
with ever-decreasing tolerance for youthful offenders,
particularly violent offenders. While the public might agree
that shoplifting was a "youthful error," youth gangs, and
random violence by juveniles are unlikely to be included in
that category.

A vigorous debate began as to the extent to which the
juvenile recordkeeping system should be integrated with
that of the adult system by either unifying the records or at
least linking the adult and juvenile records. -251 [See
generally, Juvenile and Adult Records, supra note 128.]
Those arguing for the maintenance of separate record
systems believe the juvenile system should continue to
adhere to its Progressive traditions with respect to juvenile
justice records. As one commentator observed: "The
juvenile justice system should open its records to the
criminal justice system and the public only if it is in the
best interest of the child, and I have serious doubts that it
ever would be." -252 [Howard N. Snyder, "Thoughts on the
Development of and Access to an Automated Juvenile
History System," in Juvenile and Adult Records, supra note
128, p. 56.]

The statistical growth of violent juvenile crime during the
late 1980s and early 1990s, and the media attention
accompanying it, created a powerful counter-argument for
many. As Reggie B. Walton, formerly the presiding judge
of the criminal division of the District of Columbia
Superior Court put it: "To the crime victim, and society as a
whole, it matters not whether the offender is 16 or 17, or
has just turned 18. What is important is that a crime has
been committed, an injury has been sustained, and
protection against further acts by the perpetrator are taken if
and when the offender is apprehended ... greater utilization
of juvenile records is warranted, so long as measures have
been taken to guard against abuses." -253 [Reggie B.
Walton, "Utilization of Juvenile Records in Adult
Proceedings, A Judge's Perspective," in Juvenile and Adult
Records, supra note 128, p. 43. Others, such as the National
Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, have argued
that the confidentiality surrounding juvenile justice
proceedings should be "reexamined and relaxed to promote
public confidence" in juvenile courts. See, Hon. Gordon A.
Martin Jr., "Open the Doors: A Judicial Call to End
Confidentiality in Delinquency Proceedings," 21 New
England Journal on Criminal and Civil Confinement
(Summer 1995) 393, 410.]

Although the solution to the problem is debatable, Judge
Walton's assessment of public opinion and the public's fear
of crime, particularly juvenile crime, appears right on the
mark. Anecdotal evidence of youth violence is plentiful,
including a recent string of school shootings by juveniles.
This series of school shootings is a tragic, well-publicized
manifestation of juvenile crime, which rose significantly
during the late 1980s and early 1990s before beginning to
decline.

Despite a series of high-profile juvenile crimes, including
the high school shootings, the "substantial growth in
juvenile violent crime arrests that began in the late 1980s
peaked in 1994." -254 [Howard N. Snyder, Juvenile Arrests
1997, Juvenile Justice Bulletin series, NCJ 173938
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, December
1998) p. 1. Hereafter, Juvenile Arrests 1997.] In 1998, for
the fourth year in a row, the total number of juvenile arrests
for Violent Crime Index offenses - murder, forcible rape,
robbery, and aggravated assault - declined. -255 [Crime in
the United States, 1998 Uniform Crime Reports
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Federal
Bureau of Investigation, 1999) p. 209.] Even with these
declines, however, the number of juvenile Violent Crime
Index arrests remained higher than the 1988 level. -256
[Juvenile Arrests 1997, supra note 254, p. 1.]

- Recent legal trends

State legislatures took note of media and public concerns.
Beginning in the late 1970s, they have instituted a number
of reforms that have radically impacted the functioning of
the traditional juvenile justice system, including revising
the circumstances under which juveniles can be transferred
for trial in the adult system, increased centralization of
juvenile records, increased availability of juvenile records
outside the juvenile system, increased fingerprinting, and,
most recently, DNA testing of juveniles.

First, the States have made it easier to transfer juveniles
from the juvenile system to the adult system by establishing
a system of discretionary and mandatory circumstances
under which youth are transferred from the juvenile system
to the adult system to be "tried as adults." A 1995 GAO
report found that since 1978, 44 States and the District of
Columbia had amended their statutes addressing the
circumstances under which juveniles could be tried in
criminal court. The GAO found that in 24 States, these
changes have increased the population of juveniles subject
to transfer to adult courts (primarily by decreasing the age
at which juveniles may be transferred or by increasing the
number and types of offenses subject to transfer); in three
States, these changes have decreased the population of
juveniles subject to transfer; and in 17 States, changes in
the law have neither increased nor decreased the population
subject to transfer. -257 [Privacy and Juvenile Justice
Records Status Report, supra note 243, pp. 8-9.] The
criminal history records relating to an offense for which a
juvenile is charged as an adult typically are maintained in
the adult CHRI system and treated the same as other adult
records, a largely uncontroversial practice.

Second, juvenile justice records are being maintained on an
increasingly centralized basis. Juvenile justice records were
traditionally maintained on a dispersed and local basis;
however, the centralization trend that reshaped the
maintenance of adult records in the 1960s and 1970s has
had an increasing impact on juvenile records as well. In
1988, only 13 of the 50 State repositories for adult records
maintained juvenile record information. By 1995, 27 States
had expressly authorized a central repository for the
collection and maintenance of juvenile criminal history
information, either by the adult repository or a special
juvenile repository. -258 [Ibid., p. 23.] In addition, in 1992,
the Attorney General authorized the FBI to begin accepting
State-reported data concerning serious juvenile offenses.
-259 [Use and Management of CHRI, supra note 22, p. 23.]
The FBI decided to disseminate this juvenile information
under the same standards applicable to adult records. -260
[Ibid.]

A third trend in recent years is the increasing availability of
juvenile justice record information outside of the juvenile
system. In contrast to the situation in the early 1980s, by the
end of 1995 juvenile justice information is almost fully
available to adult courts for sentencing and most other
purposes. -261 [Privacy and Juvenile Justice Records Status
Report, supra note 243, p. 28.] "In roughly one-half the
States, prosecutors have a statutory right of access to
juvenile record information and a BJS survey indicates that
prosecutors, in most States, have little difficulty in
obtaining access." -262 [Ibid.] There are also signs that
juvenile records are becoming available outside the justice
system. According to a 1996 Navy survey, three States
release the juvenile records of applicants for enlistment to
the military. -263 [Military Recruiting Report, supra note
221, p. 12. 18 U.S.C.  5038 limits the disclosure of
Federal juvenile records to judicial inquiries, law
enforcement needs, juvenile treatment requirements,
positions raising national security concerns, and certain
victim inquiries. Ibid.] Access to these records is of interest
to the military because "juvenile crime records are likely to
be a major source of criminal history information for the
population targeted by military recruiters - men and women
generally 17 to 21 years old." -264 [Ibid.]

A fourth trend in the juvenile system that has privacy
implications is increased fingerprinting, photographing, and
obtaining DNA samples from juveniles. Traditionally,
photographs and fingerprinting were undertaken only for
the most serious of offenses likely to go before a juvenile
judge; however, by 1995, 40 States had expressly
authorized police to take fingerprints when arresting a
juvenile. -265 [Privacy and Juvenile Justice Records Status
Report, supra note 243, p. 28.] Twenty-two States limited
the fingerprinting to offenses that would have been a felony
if committed by an adult, five States authorized
fingerprinting for offenses that would be either felonies or
misdemeanors if committed by an adult, and 13 States
made no reference to the type of offense. -266 [Ibid.] With
the advent of DNA testing in the late 1980s, State
legislatures have rushed to add new statutes authorizing the
collection of DNA samples of juveniles, with at least 25
having done so by mid-1998. -267 [See, for example, ALA.
CODE  12-15-102 (Michie Supp. 1997); ALASKA STAT.
 44.41.035 (Michie 1996); ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. 
13-4438 (West Supp. 1997); ARK. CODE ANN. 
12-12-1109 (Michie Supp. 1997); CAL. PENAL CODE 
290.2 (West Supp. 1998); FLA. STAT. ANN.  943.325
(West 1996 & Supp. 1998); IDAHO CODE  19-5506
(Michie 1997); KAN. STAT. ANN.  21-2511 (Supp.
1997); LA. REV. STAT. ANN.  15:601 (West Supp.
1998); ME. REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 25,  1573 (West Supp.
1997); MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN.  28.173 (West Supp.
1998); MONT. CODE ANN.  44-6-103 (1997); N.H.
REV. STAT. ANN.  632-A:21 (Michie Supp. 1997); N.J.
STAT. ANN.  53:1-20.20 (West Supp. 1998); N.M.
STAT. ANN.  29-16-3 (Michie 1997); OHIO REV.
CODE ANN.  2151.315 (West Supp. 1998); OR. REV.
STAT.  181.085 (1997); 35 PA. STAT. ANN.  7651.306
(Purdon Supp. 1998); S.C. CODE ANN.  23-3-620 (West
Supp. 1997); TEX. GOV'T CODE  411.150 (Vernon's
Supp. 1998); UTAH CODE ANN.  53-5-212.1 (1998);
VA. CODE ANN.  16.1-299.1 (1998); WASH. REV.
CODE  43.43.754 (West Supp. 1998); and WIS. STAT.
ANN.  165.76 (West 1997).] These statutes typically, but
not always, limit the collection of DNA samples to
juveniles who have committed specified offenses, typically
sexual offenses, violent crimes, and other felonies. -268
[See, for example, MONT. CODE ANN.  44-6-103 (1997)
(applies to youth found to have "committed a sexual or
violent offense"); 35 PA. STAT. ANN.  7651.306 (Purdon
Supp. 1998) (applies to a "person who is convicted or
adjudicated delinquent for a felony sex offense or other
specified offense"); ALASKA STAT.  44.41.035 (Michie
1998) (applies to minors age 16 and above, "adjudicated as
a delinquent for an act that would be a crime against a
person if committed by an adult").]

All of these recent trends have seriously eroded the
Progressive Model for the juvenile justice system. The turn
of the century system, which still has substantial support,
envisioned its role as a firm hand that could provide an
errant child with rehabilitation and a fresh start, with sealed
records being one means of meeting that goal. -269 [There
are a number of initiatives around the country, such as
Juvenile Drug Courts, that attempt to rehabilitate youthful
offenders, under the watchful eye of a judge, through
innovative, integrated social service programs for the
offender and his or her family. See, for example, Robin J.
Kimbrough, "Treating Juvenile Substance Abuse: The
Promise of Juvenile Drug Courts," Juvenile Justice Vol. V,
No. 2 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,
December 1998) pp. 11-19. Such programs may trigger
additional privacy protections depending on the entities
involved and the subject matter. Certain substance abuse
treatment records are subject to Federal confidentiality
protections. See, 42 C.F.R. Part 2. In addition, if
educational institutions are involved, privacy protections in
the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974,
Pub L. No. 93-380 (codified at 20 U.S.C.  1232g), requires
educational institutions to grant students or parents access
to student records and establishes limits on disclosure to
third parties.] Other societal concerns have weighed against
that model and in favor of treating juveniles convicted of
violent crimes the same as, or more like, adults. First and
foremost was the rise in juvenile crime (now somewhat
mitigated), particularly violent crimes. These crimes make
it difficult for the public to accept the notion that the
perpetrator should get a fresh start rather than life
imprisonment. 

Some have argued that the majority of those juveniles in the
juvenile system desist from future criminal acts (or what
would be criminal acts if committed by adults), and that
perhaps the test for access to the juvenile's records by the
adult system and the public should be whether the juvenile
offender comes within the purview of the adult system
within a certain number of years of having reached the age
of majority. -270 [Mark H. Moore, "The Public Policy
Considerations of A Merged Record," in Juvenile and
Adult Records, supra note 128, p. 48.] Others have raised
concerns that it is unfair to a first-time adult offender with
no juvenile record to be treated the same way as an adult
who had a juvenile record, which is kept from the court so
that offender could get a "fresh start."

Although the trend in recent years has been toward greater
access to juvenile records, the debate is ongoing and the
central policy questions surrounding the juvenile
recordkeeping system remain largely unresolved. Final
resolution of these and other policy questions are likely to
be influenced by juvenile crime statistics and the public's
reaction to the crimes those statistics represent, as well as
the success of rehabilitation efforts directed at youthful
offenders.

Criminal intelligence information systems

Innovations in the development and operation of criminal
intelligence systems are another change driver encouraging
a reexamination of privacy protections for criminal justice
information.

The terms "criminal investigative information" and
"criminal intelligence information" are often used
interchangeably. They relate, however, to two distinct,
although related, concepts. -271 [Intelligence and
Investigative Records, supra note 26, p. 9.] Criminal
investigative information is defined to mean "information
on identifiable individuals compiled in the course of an
investigation of specific criminal acts." -272 [Technical
Report No. 13, 3rd ed., supra note 8, Standard 2.1(d).]
Criminal intelligence information, in contrast, is defined as
"information on identifiable individuals compiled in an
effort to anticipate, prevent, or monitor possible criminal
activity." -273 [Ibid. at Standard 2.1(e). Federal regulations
define "criminal intelligence information" to mean "data
which has been evaluated to determine that it: (i) Is relevant
to the identification of and the criminal activity engaged in
by an individual who or organization which is reasonably
suspected of involvement in criminal activity, and (ii)
Meets criminal intelligence system submission criteria." 28
C.F.R.  23.3(b)(3).] Criminal intelligence and
investigative systems may gather the same types of
information about individuals; the principal difference is
the purpose for which information is gathered. -274
[Intelligence and Investigative Records, supra note 26, p.
10.] Criminal intelligence information-gathering efforts are
frequently the more controversial, as they involve
collection of information not about a person's connection
with an actual crime, but rather a person's possible
connection to criminal activities.

Both the importance and sensitivity of this information
have long been recognized. Criminal intelligence
information, for example, is an essential tool in controlling
organized crime activity, as well as gang activity, drug
trafficking, and terrorism. At the same time, the privacy
sensitivity of criminal intelligence information and its
potential impact on freedom of association rights has been
recognized. The growth of criminal intelligence-gathering
efforts slowed during the 1970s following a series of
congressional hearings chaired by then-U.S. Senator Frank
Church (D-ID). These hearings exposed a number of
criminal intelligence system abuses that occurred during the
civil unrest of the 1960s and early 1970s, as well as during
the Watergate period. In 1975, LEAA issued regulations
governing the gathering of criminal intelligence
information that covered any criminal intelligence system
receiving funding through the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968. -275 [See, 28 C.F.R. Part 20.]
The LEAA criminal intelligence regulations require that
information be "relevant" and that the individual or
organization in question be "reasonably suspected of
involvement in criminal activity." -276 [28 C.F.R. 
23.3(b)(3)(i).] Since this congressional and regulatory
activity, a number of salient developments have occurred
with important privacy implications:

1. First, criminal intelligence and investigative information
systems have become automated. Traditionally, criminal
intelligence and investigative information systems
consisted of little more than notebooks and other manual
files. In the past 25 years, however, the automation of this
information has expanded at a rapid rate, so that today,
virtually all large and important criminal intelligence
systems are automated. This, in turn, has encouraged the
establishment of more criminal intelligence systems, with
more data, about more people.

2. Second, criminal intelligence systems have become far
more textured and robust. Today there are a multitude of
data sources, allowing intelligence files to be compiled and
supplemented using personal information obtained from
other criminal intelligence information systems,
newspapers, commercial vendors, and other information
sources. This information may include financial data,
medical information, family data, and other very sensitive
types of information. 

3. A third important change is the increased sharing of
criminal intelligence information among jurisdictions.
Traditionally, criminal intelligence information was
maintained locally, with little sharing of information
outside of the host agency. During the late 1960s, attempts
to create regional criminal intelligence information
compacts failed. -277 [Intelligence and Investigative
Records, supra note 26, p. 20.] Today, fueled by automation
and with increased Federal funding, this information is
increasingly shared between jurisdictions and agencies,
both in terms of "vertical sharing" between local police,
State police, and the FBI, and "horizontal sharing" between
States and between local law enforcement organizations.

The Task Force recognizes that the analysis and structuring
of privacy policies for criminal intelligence data is complex
and raises issues that are substantially different than the
privacy issues raised by changes in CHRI and other
criminal justice information systems. Accordingly, the Task
Force recommends that the U.S. DOJ sponsor an initiative
exclusively dedicated to the examination of the privacy
implications arising from a new generation of criminal
intelligence information systems.



VI. Task Force recommendations

Background

The National Task Force on Privacy, Technology and
Criminal Justice Information brought together
representatives from the academic community, State and
Federal government, law enforcement, the courts,
commercial compilers of criminal justice information, the
privacy advocacy community, and others who have
expertise in criminal justice information and privacy and
who are national leaders in the debate about criminal justice
information privacy. Task Force members cover the privacy
spectrum from those favoring high levels of privacy
protection for criminal justice information to those favoring
high levels of public use and disclosure.

As this report indicates, the Task Force has identified a
series of "change drivers" that are profoundly changing the
traditional balance between criminal justice information
access and privacy. Without intervention by policymakers,
those change drivers inevitably will create an environment
favoring enhanced public access and use, with no assurance
that the resulting balance between access and privacy will
be satisfactory.

Although constituted to examine "privacy, technology, and
criminal justice information," the Task Force made an early
determination to focus its time and resources on the
complex issues associated with access to CHRI.
Accordingly, the Task Force report does not address, in any
depth, the broad range of other issues arising from the
increasing demand for public access to other types of
criminal justice information, such as intelligence and
investigative data, and the accompanying privacy risks
associated with making that data more widely available.

Task Force recommendations comprise a range of
proposals for handling CHRI. Recommendation I reflects
the Task Force's conclusion that change drivers are creating
a pattern of essentially making ad hoc policy at the local,
State, and national level. The Task Force believes there is a
need, at least in the short term, for an institutionalized
entity responsible for making considered public policy
recommendations with respect to all issues associated with
the increasing demand for criminal justice information and
the privacy risks associated with that demand.

Recommendations and commentary

The National Task Force on Privacy, Technology and
Criminal Justice Information adopts the following 14
recommendations in three broad areas: privacy protections,
data quality and security, and data integration and
amalgamation.

Action is necessary to ensure appropriate privacy protection

Recommendation I: The Task Force recommends that a
body be statutorily created to consider and make policy
recommendations to the Federal and State legislative,
executive, and judicial branches of government as they
work to balance the increasing demand for all forms of
criminal justice information and the privacy risks
associated with the collection and use of such information.
The Task Force recommends that the body look at
information and privacy issues arising from all types of
criminal justice information, including criminal history
record information, intelligence and investigative
information, victim and witness information, indexes and
flagging systems, wanted person information, and civil
restraining orders. The Task Force further recommends that
such a body be comprised of public and private
stakeholders; that the body be limited to an advisory role;
and that it have neither rulemaking nor adjudicatory
authority. Finally, the Task Force recommends that the
body sunset after not more than 3 years, unless statutorily
reauthorized.

Commentary:

* The Task Force believes that without the establishment of
a body to study and provide guidance on criminal justice
privacy issues on an ongoing basis, the change drivers
identified in chapter V of this report will result, essentially,
in a pattern of ad hoc policymaking at the local, State, and
national level.

* The Task Force believes that the establishment of a body
dedicated to the detailed examination of issues relating to
the privacy, confidentiality, and security of criminal justice
information is necessary to build upon the work of the Task
Force and provide advice and guidance to local, State, and
Federal agencies, courts, and policymakers on the many
issues surrounding the collection, use, maintenance, and
dissemination of criminal justice information. 

* The Task Force believes there is a need, at least in the
short term, for an institutionalized entity responsible for
making considered public policy recommendations with
respect to all issues associated with the increasing demand
for criminal justice information and the privacy risks
associated with that demand. Although the Task Force has
made a number of recommendations, the Task Force
believes that additional, detailed work is necessary,
particularly when the discussion moves from general
principles to more specific policy issues.

* The body would not have adjudicatory or rulemaking
authority. The Task Force envisions an advisory body,
available to consult and advise Federal, State, and local
officials, as well as the public, on criminal justice privacy
issues. The Task Force believes this approach respects the
nature of our Federal system, while providing a mechanism
to provide guidance at all levels of government.

* The Task Force believes the new body should include
representatives of public- and private-sector organizations
that create, use, compile, or sell criminal justice
information. Examples of categories of entities that the
Task Force believes should be represented in the new body
include: law enforcement, the courts, prosecutors,
corrections, criminal history repositories, academics,
privacy advocates, commercial compilers, and the media.
Public-sector representation should include Federal, State,
and local officials, as appropriate.

* The Task Force believes that a short-lived body will be
sufficient to guide the formulation of a new generation of
criminal justice information privacy laws, regulations, and
policies. If a longer period of time proves necessary, an
extension permitting the body to continue its work could be
considered.

Recommendation II: The Task Force recommends the
development of a new generation of criminal justice
information and privacy law and policy, taking into account
public safety, privacy, and government oversight interests.
This law and policy should be broad in scope, so as to
address the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination
of criminal justice record information by law enforcement
agencies, including State central repositories and the FBI,
the courts, and commercial compilers and resellers of
criminal justice record information. 

Commentary:

* When the first criminal history record privacy principles
were developed in the mid-1970s, they were designed to
regulate the actions of a relatively limited number of
entities. Today, CHRI is collected, maintained, used, and
disclosed by numerous types of entities, including, in
particular, law enforcement agencies (local police, State
central repositories, and the FBI); courts; and commercial
compilers and resellers. Thus, it makes little sense and
achieves little purpose to fashion privacy and
confidentiality policy and law that applies to only one of
these sectors.

* On the other hand, certainly there can be differences in
standards for collection, maintenance, use, and disclosure
based upon special considerations pertaining to each of
these sectors. Notwithstanding these differences, any law or
policy should at least take into account and, where possible,
synthesize or rationalize standards among the various
sectors that collect, maintain, use, and disclose CHRI.

* Any standards established for private actors, such as the
media and commercial compilers, should carefully consider
the first amendment interests of these entities.

Recommendation III: The Task Force recommends that the
adequacy of existing legal remedies for invasions of privacy
arising from the use of criminal history record information
should be reexamined by legal scholars, State legislatures,
Congress, State and Federal agencies, and the courts. 

Commentary: Individuals who are aggrieved by privacy
violations arising from their arrest and/or conviction
information face substantial legal hurdles if they are to
obtain any type of relief. The outcome of a judicial privacy
challenge pivots on the nature of the privacy complaint
(was the information incomplete or inaccurate? old or
otherwise not relevant? subject to a seal or purge order?
used without the individual's knowledge or opportunity to
respond?); the identity or category of the defendant (was it
a Federal or State law enforcement agency? a court? the
media? a commercial information broker?); as well as the
nature of the alleged harm (can the individual/plaintiff
demonstrate tangible harm or "merely" intangible harm,
such as stigma or embarrassment?). These factors, as well
as the victim's legal theory (tort, statutory rights, or
constitutional rights) and the interplay of these legal
theories with the defendant's legal and constitutional rights
to obtain, use, and disseminate CHRI, determine the
outcome of most criminal history privacy claims. In the
new information era where CHRI - even aged or purged
information - remains not just available, but easy and
inexpensive to use and disseminate, the question arises
whether traditional judicial remedies remain meaningful.

Recommendation IV: The Task Force recommends the
development of a new generation of confidentiality and
disclosure law and policy for criminal history record
information, taking into account the type of criminal history
record information; the extent to which the database
contains other types of criminal justice information (victim
and witness information, or intelligence or investigative
information) and sensitive personal information (medical or
financial information, and so on); the purpose for the
intended use of the information; and the onward transfer of
the information (the redissemination of the criminal history
information by downstream users).

Commentary:

* In assessing the privacy risk posed by CHRI, the source
of the information is unlikely to be a compelling
consideration. If the source is a central repository, for
example, as opposed to a court, why does this affect the
privacy impact on the individual?

* On the other hand, the type of criminal history
information seems far more likely to create a privacy
impact. Arguments can be made, for example, that: 

- Juvenile justice record information should be treated
differently than adult CHRI.

- Witness and victim information should be treated
differently.

* Further, arguments can be made that the purpose of the
intended use should be a criterion for shaping privacy
policy. Relevant questions as to use include the following: 

- Should the traditional distinction between criminal justice
uses and noncriminal justice uses be retained?

- Should there be any distinctions among criminal justice
uses?

- Should governmental, noncriminal justice be treated
differently than private, noncriminal justice uses?

- Should national security use continue to receive a high
priority?

- Is there a meaningful distinction between licensing uses
and employment uses?

- Should the identity (as opposed to the purpose) of the
prospective user be a criterion for imposing restrictions?

Recommendation V: The Task Force recommends that
intelligence and investigative information also be addressed
by new privacy law and policy, but that this process should
begin with the establishment of a Task Force dedicated
exclusively to a review of intelligence and investigative
systems, and the law and privacy issues related to those
systems.

Commentary:

* Task Force members agree that intelligence and
investigative information systems are growing in number
and size. Moreover, these systems sometimes contain CHRI
and other types of sensitive personal information. -278 [The
RISS.NET (Regional Information Sharing Systems) and its
compatible components - Western States Information
Network's (WSIN) Statewide Integrated Narcotic System
(SINS), the California Bureau of Investigation's Automated
Criminal Intelligence File (ACII), and the Southwest
Border States - are among the most important criminal
intelligence systems. Both the SINS and ACII have
developed integrated data submission capabilities between
investigations and criminal intelligence. Each operates
under file guidelines (CFR 28, part 23 governs Federal
systems, and the ACII follows the California Attorney
General's Criminal Intelligence File Guidelines).] The
ubiquity and importance of these systems appear to be
having an impact upon the information culture, and appear
to pose privacy risks.

* Task Force members also agree that intelligence and
investigative information should be addressed as part of any
new generation of privacy policy. The Task Force
recommends, however, that prior to crafting proposed law
or policies for intelligence and investigative information
and information systems, a separate Task Force or initiative
examine both the privacy risks and the important public
safety interests relating to these systems. The sources,
requirements for confirmation (accuracy) of data, retention,
dissemination, purpose, and usage policies for criminal
intelligence and investigative data are different than those
policies as they relate to CHRI and should be separately
examined by a Task Force with greater representation from
the intelligence and investigative community than was
present on this Task Force. -279 [It bears emphasis that
criminal intelligence and investigative systems, while both
different than criminal history systems, are also very
different from each other:
Criminal Intelligence Information vs. Investigative
Information
* Proactive vs. Reactive
* Prevention vs. Identification
* Not intended for court vs. Intended for court
* "Soft" information vs. "Hard" information
* Not necessarily crime-related vs. Must be crime-related
Organizations that have extensive experience in these
arenas, and which would need to be represented in any
review of the privacy implications of intelligence and
investigative systems, include: the RISS, the Law
Enforcement Intelligence Unit (L.E.I.U.), and the Board of
Directors for the Association of State Criminal
Investigative Agencies (ACIA).]

Data quality and security are important

Recommendation VI: The Task Force recommends that
legislators and criminal history record information system
managers develop, implement, and use the best available
technologies to promote data quality and data security.

Commentary: Data security and data quality are
fundamental fair information practices. The Task Force
believes that it is vital that the system managers in the
criminal history information community continue to
promote the quality and security of data through the use of
new technology.

Recommendation VII: The Task Force recommends that
criminal history record information, whether held by the
courts, by law enforcement, or by commercial compilers
and resellers, should, subject to appropriate safeguards, be
supported by and accessible by fingerprints to the extent
legally permissible and to the extent that technology, cost,
and the availability of fingerprints to both database
managers and users make this practicable.

Commentary:

* Use of fingerprints when conducting record checks is a
means of enhancing data quality and data accuracy, by
reducing the potential for identification errors that may
result in a false positive or false negative response to a
background check or other type of inquiry.

* Requesting or requiring fingerprints to compare to
existing criminal history records gives the individual notice
and, if optional, the opportunity to consent to the records
check. Name-only checks, by contrast, can be conducted
without the individual's knowledge or consent. On the other
hand, several Task Force members noted that obtaining
fingerprints is more intrusive than a name-only check.

* Changes in technology (livescan and IAFIS) may soon
make fingerprinting just as quick, convenient, and
inexpensive as "name-only" checks. 

* Relying on "name-only" checks inevitably means that
requesters must collect and use more demographics, such as
Social Security numbers. This carries its own privacy risk
and provides a further argument in favor of fingerprinting.

* Mismatched information (applying the wrong CHRI to
the wrong person) is a major privacy risk and is associated
with name-only checks. This also provides a basis for the
use of fingerprinting. In some jurisdictions a "name-only"
check is used as an initial screen and is then followed by a
fingerprint check only if the name check indicates a
potential record match. Although this reduces the potential
for a false positive, it does not reduce the potential for a
false negative.

* The use of aliases creates a risk that name-only checks
will not retrieve available criminal histories, thus creating a
public safety risk. This also provides a basis for
fingerprint-based searches.

* Commercial compilers and resellers of CHRI and their
customers seldom have access to fingerprints. Future
changes in technology, however, may make the use of
fingerprints more practical and cost-effective. The Task
Force encourages the use of fingerprints when practical.

* The collection and use of fingerprints should be
accompanied by appropriate safeguards to ensure the
accuracy, security, and confidentiality of the fingerprints
collected. In cases where fingerprints are requested (such as
in the employment context) rather than required (such as in
arrest context), individuals should receive notice prior to
the collection of fingerprints of the collecting entity's
information practices, including whether the fingerprints
will be retained or databased for future use. 

Recommendation VIII: The Task Force recommends that
criminal history record information should be sealed or
expunged (purged) when the record no longer serves an
important public safety or other public policy interest. A
sealed record should be unsealed and available for criminal
justice and/or public use only when the record subject has
engaged in a subsequent offense or when other compelling
public policy considerations substantially outweigh the
record subject's privacy interests. During the period that a
criminal history record is sealed, use and disclosure should
be prohibited.

Commentary:

* At present, laws in 40 States provide for the purging of
nonconviction information and in 26 States for the purging
of conviction information. Also at present, laws in 31
States provide for the sealing of nonconviction information
and in 30 States for the sealing of conviction information.
The standards for a purge or seal order vary substantially
among the States, but turn on the type of offense, the
number of previous offenses, and the establishment of a
"clean record" period. The methods for obtaining a seal or
purge order also vary substantially among the States and
include statutory or automatic sealing or purging
mechanisms, as well as record subject-initiated and
court-ordered purging and sealing.

* Sealing standards should apply not only to criminal
history records at the central State repository, but also to
original records of entry and to commercially maintained
CHRI.

* Several Task Force members supported the position that
expunging a criminal history record from all levels of the
criminal justice system should not be done because it
effectively "rewrites history" and creates the potential for
confusion. They argued that this confusion is exacerbated
by the fact that the media and commercial compilers of
information increasingly retain a record of the underlying
event. Although it may be advisable from a privacy
standpoint to regulate future disclosures of a particular
record, the record itself should not be destroyed. The Task
Force as a whole, however, declined to adopt this position,
noting that expungement could serve important privacy
interests and should be available to the courts and criminal
justice agencies, particularly in the case of individuals who
have been falsely accused.

* The Task Force recognizes that while it is inefficient for
all levels of the criminal justice system to retain all criminal
history records in perpetuity, records should be retained
permanently by at least one agency, such as the FBI at the
Federal level and the State repositories at the State level,
unless expungement has been ordered by a competent court
or authority.

* The Task Force recommendation pertains to the criminal
history record of living persons. The Task Force does not
believe all records need to be retained or sealed in
perpetuity. There may be some records, however, that
should be retained beyond the death of the record subject
for academic or government oversight purposes. In
addition, it may be appropriate to unseal some records
following the death of the subject (or some reasonable
duration thereafter) for academic or government oversight
purposes.

Recommendation IX: The Task Force recommends that
individuals who are the subject of criminal history record
information be told about the practices, procedures, and
policies for the collection, maintenance, use, and disclosure
of criminal history information about them; be given a right
of access to and correction of this information, including a
right to see a record of the disclosure of the information in
most circumstances; and enjoy effective remedies for a
violation of any applicable privacy and information
standards. In addition, the Task Force recommends that
States establish meaningful oversight mechanisms to ensure
that these privacy protections are properly implemented and
enforced.

Commentary:

* This recommendation promotes transparency in the
collection, use, disclosure, and retention of CHRI. The Task
Force believes that requiring the publication and
distribution of notice of the system's data practices will
promote a continued dialogue and review of privacy issues
and policies.

* Increasingly, notice is a fundamental part of every
information privacy law and standard. In addition,
providing record subjects with a right of access is also a
means of improving data accuracy. 

* Although individuals may not have a choice about being
arrested, once the individual is arrested, he or she has some
choice about the disposition of the charges. This choice
may affect the type of information that becomes a part of a
criminal history record. For example, if the individual
enters a drug court or into a particular type of diversion or
probation program, the consequences of that choice include
different information consequences.

* At present, the law in 43 States requires the creation and
maintenance of transaction logs (records describing the use
and disclosure of criminal history records), and requires
that record subjects be given access to the logs. These laws
provide a significant privacy benefit. The Task Force
believes that courts and commercial providers of CHRI
should be required to maintain these types of logs, and
provide access to record subjects as well. Access to
information contained in these logs may, however, need to
be restricted in certain instances if disclosure would
implicate attorney-client privilege, attorney work product
privilege, or where disclosure would interfere with ongoing
investigations either by law enforcement or employers.

* In part as a result of pressure from the European Union,
U.S. policymakers have recently taken a new look at the
availability and practicality of remedies for violation of
privacy law and regulations. Most States provide for both
civil remedies and criminal penalties in the event of a
violation of their criminal history record statute. It is not
clear, however, whether these remedies are practicable or
convenient for record subjects. Furthermore, there is reason
to believe that these remedies are seldom invoked. Finally,
these remedies do not apply to courts or commercial
compilers and resellers.

* The Task Force noted, however, that a number of laws
provide at least some of the types of protections called for
by this recommendation. The Fair Credit Reporting Act, for
example, provides individuals with rights regarding the use
of CHRI in the employment context.

Recommendation X: The Task Force recommends that
where public safety considerations so require, the record of
a juvenile offender who commits an offense which, if
committed by an adult, would be a felony or a violent
misdemeanor, be treated in the same manner that similar
adult records are treated. Even if a State opts to retain
stronger privacy and confidentiality rules for these types of
juvenile records, these records should be
fingerprint-supported and should be capable of being
captured in an automated, national system.

Commentary:

* Juvenile justice record policy is currently the subject of
debate in the Congress and many State legislatures.
Legislation currently before Congress would grant greater
access to juvenile justice information arising from offenses
that would be considered a felony, or in some bills a violent
felony, if committed by an adult. These bills would create
incentives for States to disseminate information on juvenile
violent felonies on the same basis as records relating to
adult felonies. In most instances, however, the legislation
would restrict access to information about juvenile offenses
to the courts, law enforcement agencies, and schools. 

* The Task Force recognizes that State law and State
practice with respect to the administration of juvenile
justice systems and recordkeeping varies substantially.
Implementing this recommendation will likely require
greater cooperation and coordination among the States to
ensure that the type and quality of data collected are similar
across the States. 

* The Task Force discussed the question of whether there
should be a minimum age requirement incorporated into
this recommendation. Although most Task Force members
agreed that age is a relevant factor, a consensus age was not
reached. Broadly speaking, Task Force members were more
comfortable applying the recommendation to older
juveniles than to younger juveniles. Several Task Force
members suggested 14, although others found that age to be
too low. Another Task Force member observed that
focusing on the age of the offender, rather than the crime
committed, is a flawed approach, citing cases, particularly
in the narcotics trafficking context, where adults and older
juveniles use young children to commit crimes, knowing
that the child will face only limited repercussions. 

* Even if States opt to retain a juvenile justice record
information policy that provides more confidentiality and
privacy protections than is provided for adult records,
States should: require fingerprinting so as to be able to
reliably identify the juvenile; and require that these records
be captured in a manner that at least creates the capability
to share these records on a national basis.

* The Task Force believes that in certain circumstances,
juveniles deserve a "second chance," and, therefore, these
juvenile records warrant greater privacy protection than
adult records. On the other hand, the Task Force also
believes that juvenile adjudications for serious offenses
should be available for public safety purposes on the same
basis as adult adjudications. Public safety purposes include
law enforcement uses, court uses, uses by the military, uses
for background checks for security clearances, screening
firearms purchasers, and uses for background checks for
sensitive public and private employment positions.

Data integration and amalgamation issues are important

Recommendation XI: The Task Force recommends that
criminal justice record information law and policy should
restrict the combining of different types of criminal justice
record information into databases accessible to noncriminal
justice users and should restrict the amalgamation of
criminal justice record information in databases with other
types of personal information, except where necessary to
satisfy public policy objectives.

Commentary:

* As a matter of law and custom, CHRI has been limited to
subject identification information; a history of arrests and
dispositions; and, occasionally, other types of information,
such as juvenile record information, special felony
conviction flags, or pretrial release information.

* The law in over a dozen States restricts CHRI from being
integrated or combined with intelligence and investigative
information. Even more States have adopted law or
standards that prohibit combining CHRI with juvenile
record information.

* In recent years, a number of studies and reports have
called for expanding criminal history records to include
information about victims, witnesses, and certain other
third parties. Amalgamation, therefore, potentially
implicates the privacy and safety interests of those other
than offenders and arrestees.

* There are instances when the amalgamation of various
types of criminal justice information or the amalgamation
of criminal justice information with other personally
identifiable information may be necessary to further public
policy goals, such as public safety. The Task Force notes
that public policy need not be expressed in terms of
legislation, but may also result from judicial decisions or
executive branch policies.

* This recommendation would restrict the creation of
profiling databases that would combine CHRI with other
types of personal information. This is a forward-looking
recommendation, as the Task Force is unaware of the
existence of any such database at present. What is
customary, and would remain unchanged by this
recommendation, is the ability of commercial compilers
and investigators to gather both CHRI and other types of
personal information from disparate sources as part of an
investigation, consumer report, background check, or
similar inquiry.

Recommendation XII: The Task Force recommends that
where public policy considerations require amalgamation of
information, systems be designed to recognize and
administer differing standards (including dissemination
policies and standards) based upon differing levels of data
sensitivity, and allow the flexibility necessary to revise
those standards to reflect future changes in public policy.

Commentary:

* Advances in information, identification, and
communications technologies and related software pose
challenges to existing criminal justice record privacy and
information law and policy. At the same time, advances in
these technologies create opportunities to use these
technologies to improve the accuracy of criminal justice
record information; improve the security of this
information; and improve the ability of criminal record
managers to distinguish among varying types of criminal
justice information and manage this information with
different policies for retention, use, and disclosure.

* The Task Force gave strong emphasis to the role that
information, identification, and communications
technologies play as a change driver and as a threat to
traditional privacy protections.

* These technologies, however, can also be used to enhance
and protect privacy. New technologies, including, in
particular, new software technologies, are both robust and
nimble and make it far easier, cheaper, and faster to apply
different disclosure and other information policies to
different types of criminal justice record information and
other personal information, even when the information is
maintained in the same database or system. These
technologies make it much easier than it once was, for
example, to distinguish between conviction and
nonconviction data or to combine juvenile justice
information with adult criminal justice information, while
retaining the ability to provide enhanced confidentiality
protections for juvenile justice information.

Recommendation XIII: The Task Force recommends that
the integration of criminal justice information systems
should be encouraged in recognition of the value of
integrated systems in improving the utility, effectiveness,
and cost efficiency of information systems. Prior to
establishing integrated systems, however, privacy
implications should be examined, and legal and policy
protections in place, to ensure that future public- and
private-sector uses of these information systems remain
consistent with the purposes for which they were originally
created. In addition, once an integrated system is created,
any future uses or expansions of that system should be
evaluated to assess the privacy implications.

Commentary:

* Privacy risks that arise from integration should be
managed and minimized. 

* Integration can serve a variety of socially beneficial
purposes. Integration, for example, can help move accused
offenders more quickly, efficiently, and cost-effectively
through the criminal justice system, thereby reducing the
amount of time the accused spends in jail awaiting trial and
the amount of time victims must wait to have their day in
court.

* Some types of integration - such as integrating criminal
history record systems with intelligence and investigative
systems, or with systems that contain medical, financial, or
other very sensitive personal information - are especially
privacy-sensitive and should be subject to appropriately
strong privacy protections.

Recommendation XIV: The Task Force recommends that
new criminal justice privacy law and policy should
continue to give weight to the distinction between
conviction information and nonconviction information. The
Task Force recognizes, however, that there are certain
instances in which disclosure of nonconviction information
may be appropriate.

Commentary:

* The distinction between conviction information and
nonconviction information ("nonconviction information" is
customarily defined to mean "an arrest which is over 1 year
old without a disposition, as well as acquittals and other
dispositions which do not involve a conviction" -280 [See
glossary of criminal justice information terms included as
Appendix 2.] has long been a cornerstone of criminal
history record privacy policy. Conviction information is not
only available to the criminal justice system, but is widely
available to governmental, noncriminal justice agencies and
to many types of employers and other noncriminal justice
users. Nonconviction information, even in the late 1990s,
remains largely unavailable to the general public (at least
from State central repositories) and only partly available to
private-sector employers and other users. 

* Valid arguments exist for States to treat nonconviction
information with more confidentiality and privacy
protections than conviction information, given that
nonconviction information carries a presumption of
innocence; that its dissemination frustrates efforts to
reintegrate arrestees into society; and that dissemination of
nonconviction information exacerbates the disproportionate
impact that CHRI oftentimes has upon minorities.

* The fact that a State repository may not have a disposition
within 1 year of arrest, which is the traditional standard,
should not necessarily preclude the repository from
disclosing any information. In such circumstances, the State
repository should be able to point a requestor to the court in
question so the requestor can inquire as to the disposition
status. In responding to some inquiries, such as those made
pursuant to the National Child Protection Act, the State is
affirmatively required to track down dispositions.

* Examples of appropriate disclosure of nonconviction
information most frequently cited by Task Force members
involved sex offenses against young children and rape
arrests where the victim failed to testify. Several Task
Force members pointed out that parents would want to
know that a prospective child-care worker had been
arrested for child molestation, even if this individual was
never convicted.

* Some Task Force members also noted that arrest
information, regardless of disposition, is of historical and
social interest and is a valuable government oversight tool.
It was observed, for example, that information concerning
the arrest of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., for loitering and
an array of other offenses during the civil rights movement
of the 1960s is a valuable record illustrating improper
government action. Information concerning false arrests
resulting not from malice, but from error or negligence also
serves a valuable oversight function.



VII. Conclusion

This report and the Privacy Task Force's other efforts come
at a critical juncture. Fundamental reassessments and
changes regarding the rules for the handling of personal
information are under way not only in the criminal justice
information community, but also in many other information
sectors, including medical information, financial
information, the online collection of information, and
public record information of various types. 

Many of the same change drivers identified in this report
(such as the Information Culture, new technology, new
Business Models, and so on) have also impacted other
information sectors and have fueled the reassessments and
changes under way. There are differences, however,
between the criminal justice sector and other sectors where
reassessments are under way. These differences could have
an impact on how change in the criminal justice
information sector proceeds. First, as the public opinion
survey data in the companion report indicate, the criminal
justice system may benefit from a higher overall level of
public trust than other sectors that use personal information.
Second, the public safety value associated with access to,
and disclosure of, criminal justice information is more
frequently seen to outweigh other interests, including
personal privacy, than is the case in other information
sectors.

These differences between the collection and use of
criminal justice information and other types of personal
information do not mean that changes in the safeguards
afforded to criminal justice information are unnecessary or
that changes will not take place. These differences suggest,
however, that any eventual changes will likely require a
delicate and difficult-to-achieve balance to preserve the
robust use of criminal justice information for socially
beneficial purposes while finding ways to protect personal
privacy.

The recommendations of the Task Force are a first step -
but only a first step - in the development of a new
generation of criminal justice information law and policy
that achieves an important, nuanced balance between the
use of criminal justice information and the privacy interests
of those to whom the information pertains.


Appendix 1:

Task Force participants

Chair: Robert R. Belair, Mullenholz, Brimsek & Belair;
SEARCH General Counsel

Members

Kathy T. Albert, Global Network Coordinator, Global
Justice Information Network, U.S. Department of Justice
     
Dr. Ann Cavoukian, Commissioner, Office of Information
and Privacy Commissioner, Ontario, Canada
     
Hon. Thomas M. Cecil, Judge, Sacramento Superior Court,
California
     
Col. Timothy J. DaRosa, Deputy Director, Division of
Administration, Illinois State Police
     
James X. Dempsey, Senior Staff Counsel, Center for
Democracy and Technology
     
Dr. David H. Flaherty, Principal Officer, David H. Flaherty
Inc., Privacy and Information Consultants
     
Dr. Charles M. Friel, Professor, College of Criminal
Justice, Sam Houston State University, Texas
     
David Gavin, Assistant Chief of Administration, Crime
Records Service, Texas Department of Public Safety
     
Roger W. Ham, Chief Information Officer, Los Angeles
Police Department, California
     
Ronald P. Hawley, Assistant Director, Division of Criminal
Information, North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation
-*[Mr. Hawley is now Chief Information Officer, North
Carolina Office of Information Technology Services]

Hon. Catherine D. "Kitty" Kimball, Associate Justice,
Supreme Court of Louisiana
     
Prof. Jane E. Kirtley, Silha Professor of Media Law and
Ethics, School of Journalism and Mass Communications,
University of Minnesota
     
Linda Lightfoot, Executive Editor, The Advocate

Anthony S. Lowe, Senior Legislative Counsel,
Subcommittee on Antitrust, Business Rights, and
Competition, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee
     
Dr. Barry Mahoney, President, Justice Management
Institute
     
Prof. Kent Markus, Visiting Professor, Capital University
Law School, Ohio
     
Hon. Gordon A. Martin, Jr., Associate Justice, District
Court Department, Massachusetts Trial Court
     
Thomas R. McMahon, General Counsel, Illinois
Department of Human Services
     
Iris Morgan, Senior Management Analyst II, Criminal
Justice Information Services, Florida Department of Law
Enforcement
     
Deirdre Mulligan, Staff Counsel, Center for Democracy and
Technology
     
Ron Oldroyd, Assistant Juvenile Court Administrator, Utah
     
Lawrence F. Potts, Director, Administrative Group, Boy
Scouts of America
     
Jack H. Reed, Chairman, I.R.S.C., Inc. and Confidential
Business Resources, Inc; Vice President, DBT Online, Inc.
     
Jack Scheidegger, Chief Executive Officer, Western
Identification Network, Inc.
     
James F. Shea, Assistant Director of Systems, New York
State Division of Criminal Justice Services
     
Harold M. "Hal" Sklar, Attorney-Advisor, Criminal Justice
Information Services Division, Federal Bureau of
Investigation
     
Prof. George B. Trubow, Director, Center for Information
Technology and Privacy Law, The John Marshall Law
School, Illinois -** [Prof. Trubow has since retired]
     
Donna M. Uzzell, Director, Criminal Justice Information
Services, Florida Department of Law Enforcement

William C. Vickrey, Administrative Director of the Courts,
Administrative Office of the California Courts
     
Dr. Alan F. Westin, Professor Emeritus of Public Law and
Government, Columbia University, New York
     
Dr. John Woulds, Director of Operations, Office of the
Data Protection Registrar, United Kingdom

Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice

Dr. Jan M. Chaiken, Director - [Dr. Chaiken's tenure as
BJS Director ended in January 2001]

Carol G. Kaplan, Chief, Criminal History Improvement
Programs

General Counsel's Office, Office of Justice Programs, U.S.
Department of Justice

Anne Gardner, Attorney-Advisor

Paul F. Kendall, General Counsel

SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice
Information and Statistics

Sheila J. Barton, Deputy Executive Director, Law and
Policy Division
     
Gary R. Cooper, Executive Director
     
Eric C. Johnson, Policy Research Analyst, Law and Policy
Division


Participants' biographies


Robert R. Belair
Robert R. Belair is a partner with the Washington, D.C.,
law firm of Mullenholz, Brimsek & Belair and is General
Counsel to SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice
Information and Statistics. He also serves as Chief
Executive Officer of Privacy and Legislative Associates, a
legal and policy consulting firm. The principal emphasis of
Mr. Belair's practice is privacy and information law
involving administrative, legislative, and litigation activity.
His practice includes counseling in all aspects of privacy
and information law, including credit, financial,
educational, criminal, juvenile, medical, and employment
records and telecommunications; defamation; intellectual
property, including software copyright; constitutional law;
and criminal justice administration.

As General Counsel to SEARCH, Mr. Belair has
participated in SEARCH's privacy and security programs
and has authored many studies in the area of criminal
justice information law and policy. He was actively
involved in the development of SEARCH's revised
standards of criminal history record information, Technical
Report No. 13: Standards for the Security and Privacy of
Criminal History Record Information (Third Edition).
Mr. Belair has served as consultant to numerous Federal
agencies and commissions on information policy and law.
He is former Deputy General Counsel and Acting Counsel
of the Domestic Council Committee on the Right of
Privacy, Office of the President.

Mr. Belair is a graduate of Kalamazoo College (Michigan)
and Columbia University School of Law.


Dr. Ann Cavoukian
In May 1997, Dr. Ann Cavoukian was appointed
Information and Privacy Commissioner, Ontario, Canada.
As Commissioner, Dr. Cavoukian oversees the operations
of Ontario's freedom of information and protection of
privacy laws, which apply to both provincial and municipal
government organizations. She serves as an officer of the
legislature, independent of the government of the day.

Dr. Cavoukian joined the Information and Privacy
Commission in 1987, during its start-up phase, as its first
Director of Compliance. She was appointed Assistant
Commissioner in 1990. Prior to her work at the
Commission, Dr. Cavoukian headed the Research Services
Branch of the Ministry of the Attorney General, where she
was responsible for conducting research on the
administration of civil and criminal law. 

Dr. Cavoukian speaks extensively on the importance of
privacy around the world. Her published works include a
book on privacy titled Who Knows: Safeguarding Your
Privacy in a Networked World (McGraw-Hill, 1997).

Dr. Cavoukian received her M.A. and Ph.D. in psychology
from the University of Toronto. She specialized in
criminology and lectured on psychology and the criminal
justice system.


Hon. Thomas M. Cecil
Judge Thomas M. Cecil has served on the Sacramento
(California) Superior and Municipal Courts since March
1989. During his tenure on the bench, he has presided over
each of the criminal departments in both the municipal and
superior courts. For the past 4 years, Judge Cecil has
conducted felony trials, the vast majority of which involved
murders.

For the 6 years prior to his appointment to the bench, Judge
Cecil served as Chief Counsel and Deputy Director of the
California Department of Consumer Affairs. His
responsibilities included lobbying the California Legislature
on issues impacting consumers, press relations, consumer
education, and overseeing the legal staff of the Department.
As an attorney, Judge Cecil practiced in a variety of areas,
including bankruptcy, corporate law, family law, political
law, and general business litigation. He also served as
Special Counsel to the Joint Select Committee on
Municipal Liability Insurance with the California
Legislature.

Judge Cecil previously served as a member and Chair of the
Pacific Bell Telecommunications Consumer Advisory
Panel (1988-91). He is now a member and current Chair of
the California Judicial Council's Advisory Committee on
Court Technology.


Col. Timothy J. DaRosa
Col. Timothy J. DaRosa is a 22-year veteran of the Illinois
State Police. In March 1991, he was appointed Deputy
Director of the Division of Administration. He is
responsible for an annual budget in excess of $35 million
and over 750 employees who serve in the Bureaus of
Communications, Criminal Identification, Personnel,
Information Services, and Logistics, and the Crime Studies
Section.

In his capacity as Deputy Director, Col. DaRosa is
responsible for the administration of the Department's
Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS), voice
and data communications systems, and the Illinois State
Police data center that includes the Law Enforcement
Agency Data System (LEADS). Col. DaRosa also oversees
the operation of the Firearm Owners Identification (FOID)
Program and serves as the Illinois point-of-contact for
firearms transactions relative to the National Instant
Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

Col. DaRosa currently serves as Chairman of the Illinois
LEADS Advisory Policy Board and is a member of the
Federal Brady Act Task Force Working Group, and the
International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)
Criminal Justice Information Systems Committee. Col.
DaRosa's professional affiliations include the National
Criminal Justice Association, the Police Executive
Research Forum, the Illinois Association of Chiefs of
Police, and the IACP. In November 1998, he was appointed
by Illinois' governor to serve on the SEARCH Membership
Group.

Col. DaRosa holds a B.S. degree in criminal justice
administration from Southern Illinois University at
Carbondale, and is a veteran of the U.S. Army.


James X. Dempsey
James X. Dempsey is Senior Staff Counsel at the Center for
Democracy and Technology (CDT) in Washington, D.C.
He joined CDT in 1997, where he works on fourth
amendment and electronic surveillance issues. Prior to
joining CDT, Mr. Dempsey was Deputy Director of the
Center for National Security Studies. From 1995-96, Mr.
Dempsey also served as Special Counsel to the National
Security Archive, a nongovernmental organization that uses
the Freedom of Information Act to gain the declassification
of documents on U.S. foreign policy.

From 1985-94, Mr. Dempsey was Assistant Counsel to the
House Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional
Rights. His primary areas of responsibility for the
Subcommittee were oversight of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI), privacy, and civil liberties. He worked
on issues at the intersection of national security and
constitutional rights, including terrorism,
counterintelligence, and electronic surveillance, as well as
crime issues, including the Federal death penalty, remedies
for racial bias in death sentencing, information privacy, and
police brutality. Mr. Dempsey has traveled to Russia,
Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Guatemala, Chile, and
Argentina to speak on civil liberties issues.

From 1980-84, Mr. Dempsey was an Associate with the
Washington, D.C., law firm of Arnold & Porter, where he
practiced in areas of government and commercial contracts,
energy law, and anti-trust. He also maintained an extensive
pro bono representation of death row inmates in Federal
habeas proceedings. He clerked for the Hon. Robert
Braucher of the Massachusetts Supreme Court.

Mr. Dempsey graduated from Harvard Law School in 1979
and from Yale College in 1975. He is co-author of
Terrorism & the Constitution: Sacrificing Civil Liberties in
the Name of National Security (with Prof. Davie Cole of
Georgetown Law School).


Dr. David H. Flaherty
Dr. David H. Flaherty is Principal Officer of David H.
Flaherty, Inc., Privacy and Information Consultants, in
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. He became British
Columbia's first Information and Privacy Commissioner in
1993. Appointed by the government of British Columbia,
Dr. Flaherty had a 6-year, nonrenewable term of office. In
this position, he was an independent Officer of the
Legislature of British Columbia, and his role was to
independently monitor the administration of British
Columbia's Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act.

Dr. Flaherty has over 20 years of experience with privacy
protection and access to information issues as an academic,
a teacher, an advisor, a consultant, and an advocate. He is
recognized as one of the world's leading experts on privacy
and data protection.

Since 1965, Dr. Flaherty has been a full-time academic in
the United States and Canada. He received a B.A. (honors)
degree in history from McGill University in 1962, and an
M.A. and Ph.D. in history from Columbia University in
1963 and 1967, respectively. He taught at Princeton
University from 1965-68 and the University of Virginia
from 1968-72. In 1972, Dr. Flaherty joined the faculty at
the University of Western Ontario, where he taught history
and law until accepting the position of Commissioner. His
research and teaching fields include American and
Canadian legal history, information law and policy, and
privacy and data protection in modern industrial societies.

From 1971-72, Dr. Flaherty was a Fellow in law and history
at Harvard Law School; a Visiting Fellow at Magdalen
College, Oxford, in 1978-79; a Visiting Scholar at Stanford
Law School in 1985-86; a Fellow of the Woodrow Wilson
International Centre for Scholars in Washington, D.C.,
during the 1992-93 academic year; a Canada-U.S. Fulbright
Fellow (Law); a Visiting Scholar at the Georgetown
National Law Center; and a Fellow of the Kennedy Institute
for Ethics, at Georgetown University. From 1985-87, Dr.
Flaherty served as a Consultant to the Standing Committee
on Justice and Solicitor General of the Canadian House of
Commons for its report on the functioning of Federal
access to information and privacy acts.

Dr. Flaherty has written and published four books and
edited two international bibliographies on privacy and data
protection policy. His major book, Protecting Privacy in
Surveillance Societies: The Federal Republic of Germany,
Sweden, France, Canada and the United States (1989),
examines how privacy and data protection laws for the
public sector work in practice. In addition, he also has been
an editor and co-editor of six publications relating to
various aspects of Canadian and American studies,
including Challenging Times: The Women's Movement in
Canada and the United States (1992). Several of Dr.
Flaherty's current writings emanate from his role as
Information and Privacy Commissioner, and discuss the
principles and practical application of information and
privacy law in British Columbia.


Dr. Charles M. Friel
Dr. Charles M. Friel is a Professor in the College of
Criminal Justice, Sam Houston State University (Texas),
where he previously served as Dean.

In 1978 and again in 1984, Dr. Friel received fellowships
from the Japanese Ministry of Justice to study that nation's
correctional system. In 1988, he served as a visiting lecturer
in various police colleges in the People's Republic of
China.

Dr. Friel has lectured extensively throughout the United
States and Canada. He is an At-large Member of SEARCH,
as well as a member of its Board of Directors. He was the
1988 recipient of SEARCH's O.J. Hawkins Award for
Innovative Leadership and Outstanding Contributions in
Criminal Justice Information Systems, Policy and Statistics
in the United States. Dr. Friel is also the 1992 recipient of
the Justice Charles W. Barrow Award for distinguished
service to the Texas judiciary.

Dr. Friel's undergraduate studies at Maryknoll College
(New York) included philosophy and Latin; he received a
Ph.D. in experimental psychology from the Catholic
University of America, Washington, D.C. 


David Gavin
David Gavin has worked for the Texas Department of
Public Safety for 21 years. Since 1991, Mr. Gavin has
served as Assistant Chief of the Department's
Administration Division. He held prior positions with the
Texas Crime Information Center, the Texas Uniform Crime
Reporting Program, the Texas Computerized Criminal
History File, and the Texas Automated Fingerprint
Identification System. Mr. Gavin's current duties include
responsibilities for all those programs. 

Within the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services
(CJIS) advisory process, he has served as Chair of the
Western Regional Working Group and the National Crime
Information Center Subcommittee. He currently is Chair of
the FBI CJIS Advisory Policy Board. His education
includes a master's degree from the University of Texas,
Austin.


Roger W. Ham
Roger W. Ham is the first Chief Information Officer (CIO)
of the Los Angeles (California) Police Department (LAPD).
He serves the Department at the level of Deputy Chief and
commands five divisions, including Emergency Command
and Control Communications Systems, Communications,
Information Resources, Crime Analysis Section, and the
Systems Development Task Force. Chief Ham manages a
professional and operational staff of over 900, including
sworn commanding officers and civilian managers. As
Commanding Officer, he is responsible for the conduct of
operations and the efficient utilization of the financial and
human resources in the Information and Communications
Services Bureau. Chief Ham directs and manages an annual
technology project budget of over $400 million.

As CIO, Chief Ham is developing information systems
divisions, which are centers of competency with speed,
maneuverability, responsiveness, flexibility, and
accountability. He has a focused synergistic approach so
that all units under his command work together toward the
shared vision and goals of the LAPD.

Chief Ham has over 28 years of experience in developing
leading-edge technologies. He started his career working
for Mobil Oil Corporation as a project engineer managing
command and control of field operations through
automated systems. He was the Bureau Commander,
Communications Administrator, and Information Systems
Manager for the City of Huntington Beach Police
Department in California for over 21 years. 

Chief Ham has an M.B.A. from the University of Southern
California and a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering
from California State University, Long Beach. He has
served on many professional and business organizations.


Ronald P. Hawley
Ronald P. Hawley began his career with the North Carolina
State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) in August 1973. Since
January 2001, he has served as CIO of the North Carolina
Office of Information Technology Services. Previous to
that, he served as Assistant Director for the SBI's Division
of Criminal Information, a position he had held since July
1993. Mr. Hawley's early assignments with the SBI
included Special Agent, Assistant District Supervisor,
District Supervisor, and a tour of duty with Governor's
Security.

Subsequent to his appointment to the Division, Mr. Hawley
became involved with several committees and working
groups related to criminal justice information technology.
These include Co-chair of the Criminal Justice Information
Network Study Committee, member of the Criminal Justice
Information Services (CJIS) Southern Regional Working
Group, and member of the CJIS Ad Hoc Task Force on
Security, Privacy and Policy Matters. Mr. Hawley is an
At-Large appointee to the SEARCH Membership Group.
He previously was the governor-appointed member of
SEARCH representing North Carolina, and served on the
SEARCH Board of Directors and as Vice Chair of the
SEARCH Law and Policy Program Advisory Committee.

Mr. Hawley is a graduate of Campbell College and received
a master's degree in education from the University of
Maine. 


Hon. Catherine D. "Kitty" Kimball
The Honorable Catherine D. "Kitty" Kimball serves as
Associate Justice of the Louisiana Supreme Court. Her
previous work experience included Law Clerk, U.S. District
Court, Western District of Louisiana; Special Counsel,
Louisiana Attorney General's Office; General Counsel,
Louisiana Commission on Law Enforcement and
Administration of Criminal Justice; private solo practice;
and Assistant District Attorney for the 18th Judicial
District.

In December 1982, Justice Kimball was elected District
Judge, Division A, for the 18th Judicial District. She served
in that capacity until being elected as Associate Justice of
the Supreme Court of Louisiana in November 1992.

Justice Kimball's current professional responsibilities and
associations include: Member, Louisiana State Bar
Association; Member, American Judicature Society;
Member, National Association of Women Judges; Member,
State-Federal Judicial Council; Member, Wex Malone
American Inn of Court; Charter Member, Louisiana
Association of Elected Women; Chair, Louisiana Supreme
Court Case Management Information System Task Force;
Member, Governor's Task Force on Violent Crime and
Homicide; Member, Automated Fingerprint Identification
Selection Committee; and Chair, Judicial Budgetary
Control Board. 

Justice Kimball has previously served as Past President,
Louisiana Legislative Wives Auxiliary; First Vice-President
and Member, Executive Committee of the Louisiana
District Judges Association; President and Member,
Louisiana State University Law Alumni Association;
Member, Louisiana Juvenile Judges Association; Member,
National Conference of State Trial Judges; Member, 18th
Judicial District Bar Association; Member, American Trial
Lawyers Association; Chief Judge, 18th Judicial District
Court; Member, Governor's Commission on Child Support;
Member, Economic Justice for All Task Force; Member,
Committee to Evaluate New Judgeships; Member, Orleans
Criminal and Civil Court Committee; Member, Supreme
Court Committee on the Judicial Electoral Process;
Member, Louisiana Task Force on Women in the Courts.
She also has been inducted into the Louisiana State
University Law School Hall of Fame. 


Prof. Jane E. Kirtley
Jane E. Kirtley is the Silha Professor of Media Law and
Ethics at the School of Journalism and Mass
Communication, University of Minnesota. Prior to
assuming her position at the University of Minnesota in
August 1999, Prof. Kirtley served as Executive Director of
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, a
voluntary unincorporated association of reporters and
editors devoted to protecting the first amendment and
freedom of information interests of the news media. In that
position, she was responsible for overseeing the legal
defense and publications efforts of the Reporters
Committee, as well as supervising the group's fundraising
activities. Prof. Kirtley also edited the Committee's
quarterly magazine, The News Media & The Law.

Prof. Kirtley has prepared numerous friend-of-the-court
briefs on behalf of the Reporters Committee and other news
media organizations, including Reno v. ACLU, Hustler
Magazine v. Falwell, The Florida Star v. B.J.F., and
Department of Justice v. Tax Analysts. She frequently
writes and speaks on media law and freedom of information
issues in the United States and abroad, including Russia,
Mongolia, Belarus, Bulgaria, Latvia, Romania, Poland, the
Czech Republic, Japan, Chile, the United Kingdom,
Ireland, and Canada. Prof. Kirtley also writes "The Press
and the Law" column each month for American Journalism
Review, and has appeared on programs such as "Nightline,"
"All Things Considered," "The Jim Lehrer News Hour,"
"Good Morning America," "Today," "Donahue!,"
"Crossfire," "Burden of Proof," "CNN & Co.," and the
British Broadcasting Corp.'s "Law in Action." She also has
served as an Adjunct Professor with the American
University School of Communications Graduate Program.

Prior to her tenure at the Reporters Committee, Prof.
Kirtley was associated with the law firm of Nixon,
Hargrave, Devans & Doyle. She is a member of the New
York, District of Columbia, and Virginia bars. Prof. Kirtley
worked as a reporter of the Evansville Press, the Oak
Ridger, and the Nashville Banner.

She serves on many advisory boards and committees,
including the Freedom Forum's First Amendment Center,
the American Bar Association's (ABA) National
Conference of Lawyers and Representatives of the Media,
the Libel Defense Resource, the Student Press Law Center,
and the editorial board of Government Information
Quarterly. In 1993, Prof. Kirtley received the Distinguished
Service Award from the Newspaper Division of the
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass
Communication, and in 1994, the John Peter Zenger Award
for Freedom of the Press and the People's Right to Know
from the University of Arizona. In 1996, she was one of 24
individuals inducted into the Freedom of Information Act
Hall of Fame, established to commemorate the 30th
anniversary of the signing of the Act.

Prof. Kirtley obtained her J.D. degree in 1979 from
Vanderbilt University School of Law, where she served as
Executive Articles Editor of the Vanderbilt Journal of
Transnational Law. She received bachelor's and master's
degrees from Northwestern University's Medill School of
Journalism in 1975 and 1976.


Linda Lightfoot
Linda Lightfoot is Executive Editor of The Advocate in
Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Ms. Lightfoot has been employed
by Capital City Press, the publisher of The Advocate, since
1965. She started as a "society" writer, and has been a
Reporter in the areas of courts and education; headed the
Capitol News Bureau, covering State government and
higher education; and was Assistant Executive Editor prior
to her present appointment as Executive Editor in 1991.

Ms. Lightfoot has and continues to be involved in many
professional and community activities, including the
American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE), currently
serving on its Board of Directors; as a member of the
Freedom of Information Committee; and as representative
of ASNE on the National Conference of Lawyers and
Representatives of the News Media, which is a committee
of the ABA. She has also served as a Nominating Juror for
the Pulitzer Prize for 1997 and 1998. She currently is on the
Visiting Committee for the School of Communications,
Loyola University; a member of the Society of Professional
Journalists; a member of the Board of Directors of the Press
Club of Baton Rouge; a member of the Louisiana Press
Association's Legislative Committee; and a member of the
Louisiana Leadership Alumni, a program of the Council for
a Better Louisiana.

In 1993-94, Ms. Lightfoot served on the Task Force to
Study Cameras in the Trial Courts of Louisiana. She was
appointed by the Supreme Court of Louisiana to represent
newspapers on the Task Force and authored the majority of
the report in favor of cameras. 

Ms. Lightfoot received a bachelor's degree in political
science and journalism from the University of Mississippi,
and has studied at the Institute of Politics, Loyola
University, and the Louisiana State University Executive
Program.


Anthony S. Lowe
Anthony S. Lowe is Senior Legislative Counsel to the U.S.
Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Antitrust,
Business Rights, and Competition, a position he has held
since 1997. He is responsible for the development and
introduction of crime-related legislation and handles all
crime-related issues before the full committee for the
subcommittee chair.

Mr. Lowe's prior experience includes Legislative Assistant
to U.S. Sen. Slade Gorton (R-WA) from 1988-90, during
which time he was assigned to the these committees:
Judiciary; Rules; Commerce, State, Justice Appropriations;
Government Affairs; Impeachment Trial; and Indian
Affairs. He also served as Legal Counsel to the Washington
State Senate, Majority Office of Legal Counsel and Policy
Development from 1991-92; as Deputy Prosecutor in the
King County, Washington, Prosecutor's Office; as Judicial
Extern for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,
Judge Robert R. Beezer; as Associate Director,
International Center for Economic Growth and
International Center for Self-Governance Programs of the
Institute for Contemporary Studies, Washington, D.C.; and
as Senior Trade Intern, International Trade Administration,
Foreign and Commercial Service, U.S. Department of
Commerce.

Mr. Lowe received his B.A. (cum laude) degree in
international political science from the University of
Washington and his J.D. from the University of Santa Clara
(California). He also studied at the National University of
Singapore Law School and the East China Institute of
Politics and Law. He is a member of the Bars of
Pennsylvania, Washington State, U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, U.S. Court of International Trade, U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington, and
Washington, D.C.


Dr. Barry Mahoney
Since 1993, Dr. Barry Mahoney has been President of The
Justice Management Institute (JMI), a Denver-based,
nonprofit organization engaged in education, research, and
technical assistance focused on the operations of courts and
other organizations involved in the administration of
justice. He is responsible for overall management and
program development for JMI, and during 1998-99 he
directed JMI projects on reduction of litigation cost and
delay, drug court planning and implementation, and
court-linked community justice innovations. 

Dr. Mahoney's prior professional work includes extensive
experience in litigation as an Assistant Attorney General for
the State of New York in 1962-67, and as a lawyer in
private practice in New York City in 1967-71. During
1971-73, he was First Assistant Counsel for the New York
State Division of Criminal Justice Services. From 1973-78,
he was with the National Center for State Courts (NCSC),
where he was the Associate Director responsible for all of
the organization's national-scope research and technical
assistance programs. In 1978-79 and 1982-83, Dr. Mahoney
was the Director of the London Office of the Vera Institute
of Justice. During 1979-82 and 1983-92, he was with the
NCSC's Institute for Court Management, where he led a
number of national-scope research and technical assistance
projects focused on court delay reduction, intermediate
sanctions, and fine use and collection.

Dr. Mahoney has served as a lead faculty member for
educational programs conducted by the National Judicial
College, the National Association for Court Management,
and many other national-, State-, and local-level
organizations. Dr. Mahoney served as a member of the
Advisory Panel for the Assessment of Alternatives for a
National Computerized Criminal History System conducted
by the Office of Technology Assessment of the U.S.
Congress in 1979-82, and since 1997 has been a member of
the SEARCH/Bureau of Justice Assistance National Task
Force on Court Automation and Integration.

Dr. Mahoney is a graduate of Dartmouth College and the
Harvard Law School, and holds a Ph.D. in political science
from Columbia University.


Prof. Kent Markus
Kent Markus is a visiting Professor at Capital University
Law School in Columbus, Ohio, and Director of Capital's
new Dave Thomas Center for Adoption Law, the first law
school-based institution focused on adoption law in the
United States.

Before heading to Capital in the fall of 1998, Prof. Markus
served as the Deputy Chief of Staff at the U.S. Department
of Justice (DOJ) and as the highest-ranking advisor -
Counselor - to Attorney General Janet Reno. During his
approximately 5 years at the DOJ, Prof. Markus, at various
points in time, was responsible for the national
implementation of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention
Act and the 1994 Crime Act; established and was the first
director of the Community Oriented Policing Services
(COPS) Office (responsible for putting 100,000 new
community policing officers on America's streets);
managed the DOJ's dealings with the Congress; and was the
DOJ's point person on crime policy in general, with special
attention to juvenile crime, gun violence, and criminal
record systems.

Prior to his service at the DOJ, Prof. Markus was the Chief
of Staff at the Democratic National Committee. He also
previously served as Chief of Staff for former Ohio
Attorney General Lee Fisher. Earlier in his career, Prof.
Markus, a Cleveland native, worked at law firms in
Australia, Alaska, and Washington, D.C., before heading
back home to clerk for U.S. District Judge Alvin I. "Buddy"
Krenzer, practice law, and teach at Cleveland State Law
School. On Capitol Hill, Prof. Markus worked for former
U.S. House Speakers Carl Albert and Thomas P. "Tip"
O'Neill, and former House Rules Committee Chairman
Richard Bolling.

Prof. Markus teaches Administrative Law, Remedies, and a
seminar on the Role of the Prosecutor at Capital University.
He is a 1981 graduate of Northwestern University's School
of Speech, a 1984 honors graduate of Harvard Law School,
and a graduate of the Kennedy School's Program for Senior
Executives in State and Local Government.


Hon. Gordon A. Martin, Jr.
Judge Gordon A. Martin, Jr., was appointed to the
Massachusetts Trial Court in 1983. He headed one of the
country's frontline urban district courts with the most gun,
drug, and domestic violence cases in the State, and now
operates a special assignment session for cases from
various Eastern Massachusetts courts.
Judge Martin was a Trial Attorney with the Civil Rights
Division of the U.S. DOJ during the Kennedy
Administration and thereafter First Assistant U.S. Attorney
for the District of Massachusetts. He was subsequently a
Commissioner of the Massachusetts Commission Against
Discrimination before organizing the firm in which he was
a partner until becoming a judge.

In 1994, he was honored by New England's largest program
for battered women, Casa Myrna Vasquez, for his work on
behalf of abused women. That same year, Judge Martin was
designated one of the three initial U.S. House of
Representatives "practitioner" appointees to the Federal
Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, chaired by Attorney General Janet Reno. In that
capacity, he participated in the preparation of Combating
Violence and Delinquency: The National Juvenile Justice
Action Plan. He was re-appointed to the Council in 1998.
Judge Martin also is completing his second term as a
trustee of the National Council of Juvenile and Family
Court Judges. He spoke at the SEARCH/Bureau of Justice
Statistics National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records
in 1996.

Judge Martin co-authored Civil Rights Litigation: Cases
and Perspectives (Carolina Press 1995), and has written law
review articles on a wide range of topics, including juvenile
justice articles in the Connecticut Law Review and the New
England Journal on Criminal and Civil Confinement. 

Judge Martin is a graduate of Harvard College and the New
York University School of Law.


Thomas R. McMahon
Thomas R. McMahon is General Counsel of the Illinois
Department of Human Services. The Department is
comprised of the former Departments of Mental Health and
Developmental Disabilities; Alcohol and Substance Abuse;
Rehabilitation Services; and portions of the Departments of
Public Aid, Public Health, and Children and Family
Services. He administers the Division of Legal Services and
provides counsel to the Department on a wide range of
administrative, policy, and regulatory matters. 

Prior to his employment with the Department, Mr.
McMahon was associated with the firm of Cappetta &
Shadle, Ltd., and served as an Assistant States Attorney in
Lake County, Illinois. Before entering the legal profession,
Mr. McMahon was employed by the Ray Graham
Association for the Handicapped in various capacities,
including the administration of sheltered workshop
programming for individuals with developmental
disabilities. 

Mr. McMahon received his undergraduate degree from the
University of Illinois and his J.D. from The John Marshall
Law School. Mr. McMahon is an adjunct faculty member at
DePaul University School of Law (Illinois).


Iris Morgan
Iris Morgan is a Senior Management Analyst II for the
Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Program in
the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE). She
is currently serving as the coordinator for delivery of
information services statewide, supervisor of the CJIS Help
Desk, and project leader for the development and
installation of the Florida Crime Information Center (FCIC)
II Workstation Software Project. Prior to assuming that
role, she was responsible for conducting FCIC/National
Crime Information System (NCIC) audits of criminal
justice agencies accessing the FCIC/NCIC systems.

Ms. Morgan has over 19 years experience with FDLE and
the CJIS Program Area. During this time she has served in
a variety of technical, analytical, and supervisory positions.
She has also been instrumental in designing several major
criminal justice information system enhancements,
including: the Offender-Based Transaction System,
Uniform Offense and Arrest Reports, National Fingerprint
File Program, Uniform Crime Reports Program, and
Criminal Justice Data Element Dictionary, as well as
redesign of the Computerized Criminal History file.


Deirdre Mulligan
Deirdre Mulligan is Staff Counsel at the Center for
Democracy and Technology, a public interest organization
based in Washington, D.C., dedicated to preserving and
enhancing democratic values and civil liberties on the
Internet and other interactive communications media. As
Staff Counsel, Ms. Mulligan evaluates the impact of
technology on individual privacy. She works with other
privacy and civil liberties advocates, the communications
and computer industries, and public policy makers to
strengthen fair information practices and enhance
individual control over personal information through the
development of individual empowering policies and
technologies. Currently Ms. Mulligan is shepherding the
Internet Privacy Working Group - a collaborative public
interest/private-sector working group - developing a
framework for privacy on the Internet.

Prior to joining the Center, Ms. Mulligan worked on
information privacy issues in emerging technologies at the
Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). While at EFF, Ms.
Mulligan staffed the National Information Infrastructure
Advisory Council's Megaproject III on Privacy, Security
and Intellectual Property for Co-chair Ester Dyson. 

Ms. Mulligan received her undergraduate degree from
Smith College. She received her law degree from
Georgetown University.


Ron Oldroyd
Ron Oldroyd is the Assistant Juvenile Court Administrator
for Utah. He began his career with the Juvenile Court in
1973 as a Deputy Probation Officer. Since then he has held
a number of positions within the Juvenile Court. He
received his B.S. and M.S. degrees from the University of
Utah. After receiving his M.S. degree in School
Counseling, he left the court to work as an elementary
school counselor for 4 years prior to returning to the court
as the Chief of Probation in Salt Lake City.

During his tenure with the courts, Mr. Oldroyd has been
very involved with programming for delinquent youth and
Utah's Juvenile Justice Management Information System.
He is currently chairing the re-engineering of this system,
an effort that is expected to take 3 years. Mr. Oldroyd was
also a participant in an initiative of the U.S. DOJ's Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention to define
juvenile probation and its expectations on a national level.


Lawrence F. Potts
Lawrence F. Potts has served as Treasury Division Director
and currently as Director of the Administrative Group of
the Boy Scouts of America. In his present position, he
directs Information Systems, Properties, and Treasury.

Mr. Potts has served with the National Council of the Boy
Scouts since 1982, and in his current position since 1992.
Prior to joining the National Council, he had extensive
experience in the causality insurance industry, holding
positions of controller and treasurer and serving as a
member of several boards of directors. He also served with
the U.S. Armed Forces with the rank of Captain.

Mr. Potts was an original member of the Boy Scouts of
America Youth Protection Task Force. In this capacity, he
was instrumental in creating several tools for the prevention
of child abuse in society and Scouting.

He also was an original member of the National
Collaboration for Youth Sexual Abuse Task Force. This is
an association of 16 not-for-profit youth-serving
organizations interested in the prevention of child sexual
abuse. This group pioneered efforts in information-sharing
and education about sexual abuse among youth-serving
agencies. Mr. Potts is the author of a paper on a model
program's efforts in the child abuse area.

Through the Boy Scouts of America, Mr. Potts is able to
communicate with more than 4.4 million youth and 1.1
million adults of mixed ethnic and racial backgrounds, and
many others throughout society. Currently, he holds the
positions of Chairman, Boy Scouts of America Youth
Protection Task Force; Chairman, Child Abuse Expert
Advisory Panel; Chairman, National Collaboration for
Youth Child Sexual Abuse Task Force; and Member,
National Child Abuse Coalition. He was a member of the
U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect from
1992-96.

Mr. Potts is a Certified Public Accountant and, as such, a
member of the American and Texas Institutes of CPAs. He
also is a member of the Association of Investment Analysts,
the Southwest Pension Conference, and the Sentinel
Institute.

Mr. Potts is a graduate of the University of Texas, Austin,
and is a member of Beta Alpha Psi and Phi Kappa Phi
organizations.


Jack H. Reed
Jack H. Reed is Chairman of I.R.S.C., Inc., an information
provider company, and Confidential Business Resources,
Inc., a corporation recently formed by the merger of nine
companies representing all facets of the information
industry.

Mr. Reed began his career in the personal finance business,
where he spent 9 years, serving in various management
positions. He has been a licensed Private Investigator since
1964, at which time he founded J.H.R.I., Inc., a private
investigation firm. Mr. Reed founded I.R.S.C., Inc., in 1979
and began selling public record and nonpublic information
to private investigators, corporations, insurance companies,
and financial institutions in 1983.

Mr. Reed entered Western State University, College of Law
in 1966. His graduation was delayed until 1972 due to a
serious injury that left him quadriplegic. During his
recovery period, J.H.R.I. continued to grow with Mr. Reed
at the helm.

As a member of the California Association of Licensed
Investigators, Mr. Reed has served as President, and on the
Board of Directors as Vice President of Investigations,
District Director, and Director at Large. He served on the
Legislative Committee for over 20 years and re-engineered
this committee into a formidable entity, which, since its
inception, has prevented any negative legislation affecting
the private investigation and security industry.

Mr. Reed was President of the National Council of
Investigation and Security Services (NCISS), as well as its
Legislative Committee Chair, which involved overseeing
Federal legislation issues in 1997-98. He is an active
member of various other State, national, and international
professional associations, and serves on various committees
within these organizations.

Mr. Reed has been appointed by the Software/Information
Industry Association (SIIA) Board of Directors to serve on
the Executive Committee of the Public Policy and
Government Relations Council. He also serves on the SIIA
Committee on Privacy and Information Regulation and
chairs the State Issues Working Group and Government
Information Policy Committee. Additionally, Mr. Reed
served on the privacy task force spearheaded by California
State Sen. Steve Peace of California (D-El Cajon).

In June 1997, Mr. Reed was invited to attend the Federal
Trade Commission (FTC) hearings, representing NCISS
and the Individual Reference Services Group (IRSG). Mr.
Reed is also a founding member of the IRSG, which is
based in Washington, D.C., and is comprised of
representatives from leading companies within the
information industry who are addressing privacy concerns.
Mr. Reed was recently elected Vice Chair and
Secretary-Treasurer of the IRSG. This group has compiled
"Privacy Principles," which are intended to serve as the
industry model for ethical and privacy standards. These
Principles were approved by the FTC, and resulted in a
recommendation from the FTC in its "Report to Congress"
that no new legislation was needed to regulate the
information industry.


Jack Scheidegger
Jack Scheidegger is Chief Executive Officer of the Western
Identification Network, Inc., a position he has held since
1996. Prior to his current appointment, Mr. Scheidegger
was Chief of the Bureau of Criminal Identification and
Information in the California DOJ.

He also has previously held the positions of Chief, Bureau
of Forensic Services, California DOJ; Director, Bureau of
Medi-Cal Fraud and Patient Abuse, California DOJ; and
Legislative Advocate for the California Attorney General's
Office.

Mr. Scheidegger previously served as California's
governor-appointed Member to the SEARCH Membership
Group. As a SEARCH Member, he served on its Board of
Directors, as Chair of its Law and Policy Program Advisory
Committee, and as Chair of the Bureau of Justice
Statistics/SEARCH National Task Force on Increasing the
Utility of the Criminal History Record. He also has been a
member of the California Peace Officers Association,
American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors, and the
FBI/NCIC Western Regional Working Group (Control
Terminal Officer).

Mr. Scheidegger received his B.A. degree in public
administration from California State University at
Sacramento, and his master's degree in public
administration from the University of Southern California. 


James F. Shea
James F. Shea is Assistant Director of Systems at the New
York State Division of Criminal Justice Services. In this
position, he manages a broad range of projects, including
the State Automated Fingerprint Identification System,
Store and Forward, and the development and support of
systems developed for local agencies, including law
enforcement, prosecution, jails, and probation.

Mr. Shea manages the State's federally funded National
Criminal History Improvement Program and Criminal
Justice Records Improvement Program, as well as
automation projects supported by the National Institute of
Justice and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, U.S. DOJ. He heads up the State criminal
justice data standardization project, serves on the Executive
Board that oversees data standardization for all State
departments, and directs a statewide initiative to
re-examine record sealing and information dissemination.
Mr. Shea previously served on the Governor's Task Force
to improve information systems in New York State.

Mr. Shea holds a B.S. degree from Holy Cross College, an
M.B.A. from Union College, and has participated in
Executive Training Programs at Harvard's Kennedy School
of Government.


Harold M. "Hal" Sklar
Harold M. "Hal" Sklar is an Attorney-Advisor to the
Criminal Justice Information Services Division of the FBI,
having been appointed to that position in September 1997.
He received his J.D. and L.L.M. from the Temple
University School of Law (Pennsylvania) and the
Georgetown University Law Center, respectively. Half of
his 16 years of practice has been in government service,
most notably as a Trial Attorney pursuing Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) fraud for the U.S.
Department of Labor, abusive tax shelter promotion for the
U.S. DOJ, and savings and loan defalcation (Resolution
Trust Corporation).


Prof. George B. Trubow
From 1976 until his retirement in 2001, Prof. George B.
Trubow was a Professor of Law at The John Marshall Law
School in Chicago, Illinois, where he taught Information
Law and Policy, Cyberspace Law, Privacy Law, and
Computer Law and directed the Center for Information
Technology and Privacy Law.

Prof. Trubow practiced law in Kansas and Missouri from
1958-61, and in 1961 became assistant at The John
Marshall Law School. In 1965, he was awarded a
Congressional Fellowship with the American Political
Science Association in Washington, D.C. From 1966-68,
Prof. Trubow was Deputy Counsel to the U.S. Senate
Judiciary Subcommittee on Judicial Machinery. In 1968, he
became Executive Director of the Maryland Governor's
Commission on the Administration of Justice, and he
served on the U.S. Attorney General's Advisory Council on
Law Enforcement Education from 1968-70.

In 1970, Prof. Trubow joined the Law Enforcement
Assistance Administration (LEAA), U.S. DOJ, where he
served as Deputy Director of Law Enforcement Programs
and Director of Inspection and Review, in charge of grant
programs to the States and planning and program
development for LEAA.

In 1974, Prof. Trubow became General Counsel to the
Committee on the Right to Privacy, Executive Office of the
President, during the Ford Administration. The Committee
was concerned with the analysis and development of
Federal information and privacy law and policy. Prof.
Trubow returned to John Marshall in 1976.

Prof. Trubow is active in the ABA Section of Science and
Technology; he was advisor to the National Commission on
Uniform State Laws in drafting the Uniform State
Information Practices Code; and was Reporter for the
Uniform Criminal History Records Act. He was Chair of
the 1994 International Conference on Computers, Freedom
and Privacy and was a longtime member of the Board of
Directors of SEARCH. He has been an advisor to the
Office of Technology Assessment of the U.S. Congress and
to the National Research Council in Fraud Institute, and a
member of the Federal Computer Systems Security and
Privacy Advisory Board.

Prof. Trubow has written and spoken widely on the law of
information technology, "cyberspace," and privacy. He was
law editor of IEEE's Software magazine, and his Center for
Information Technology and Privacy Law publishes a
quarterly law review, The Journal of Computer and
Information Law. He is editor-in-chief of the three-volume
treatise, Privacy Law and Practice (1987), and co-author of
the casebook, Privacy Law (1992).

Prof. Trubow is a graduate of the University of Michigan,
earning both bachelor's and law degrees.


Donna M. Uzzell
Donna M. Uzzell was appointed Director of Criminal
Justice Information Services (CJIS) for the Florida
Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) in November
1996, after serving as Special Agent in Charge of the
Investigative Support Bureau. The CJIS program provides
instant telecommunications capabilities for law
enforcement throughout the State; criminal justice
information storage and retrieval capabilities in Florida and
over the entire Nation; criminal identification services; the
ability to document and analyze criminal activity for the
entire State; statistical and crime trend analysis; criminal
record inquiry services for governmental, private, and
public record requests; improved system integrity through
biennial terminal audits; and a statewide training program
for law enforcement. Prior to her appointment at FDLE, she
was a Sergeant with the Tallahassee Police Department and
a member of that agency for 13 years.

In 1988, Ms. Uzzell was elected to the Leon County
(Florida) School Board and completed her 8 years in office,
serving 2 years as Board Chair. During the past 8 years, she
has worked on safe school policy and procedures and has
conducted training throughout the State on crisis
intervention, safe school planning, interagency
collaboration, and Serious Habitual Offender
Comprehensive Action Program (SHOCAP). She currently
is an adjunct professor at Florida State University, teaching
in the School of Criminology, and is a consultant for Fox
Valley Technical College in Wisconsin.

Ms. Uzzell is a certified crime prevention practitioner and
former Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.)
officer. She has received recognition for her work in the
area of child safety, including a Law Enforcement Officer
of the Year award. She has served on several statewide task
forces on school and child safety and juvenile justice issues.
In 1993, she completed a 4-month special assignment to the
Commissioner of Education on law enforcement and
education collaborative relationships. In 1993, she spent 5
months on special assignment to the Florida Attorney
General's Office developing and implementing the Florida
Community Juvenile Justice Partnership Grant Program.


William C. Vickrey
William C. Vickrey is Administrative Director of the
Courts of the Administrative Office of the California
Courts, managing its legal, court services, fiscal, and other
operations that support the California judicial system. As
Administrative Director of the Courts, Mr. Vickrey also
serves as Secretary of the Judicial Council of California and
the Commission on Judicial Appointment, both of which
are chaired by the Chief Justice of the California Supreme
Court.

Appointed to the position in 1992, Mr. Vickrey has been
responsible for many improvements in the State judicial
system, including the development of a long-range planning
process for State courts, implementation of a statewide
budgeting system, and coordination of trial court resources.
Prior to coming to the Administrative Office of the
California Courts, Mr. Vickrey was the State Court
Administrator for the Utah Administrative Office of the
Courts. He also previously served as Executive Director for
the Utah Department of Corrections, and Director for the
Utah State Division of Youth Corrections.

Mr. Vickrey received the Warren E. Burger Award from the
National Center for State Courts in 1995. He previously
served as President of the Conference of State Court
Administrators.

Mr. Vickrey also co-authored Managing Transition in a
Youth Corrections System (University of Chicago Press);
drafted legislation to establish the Commission on Criminal
and Juvenile Justice; and received the 1984 James Larson
Award for Outstanding Contributions to Corrections.
During 1985, he served as staff to the Governor's Judicial
Article Task Force in Utah. This resulted in the passage of
HB 100, which established the Court of Appeals, among
other reforms of the judiciary. He also co-authored "Utah
Court of Appeals: Blueprint for Judicial Reform" for the
Utah Bar Journal.

Mr. Vickrey received his bachelor's degree from the
University of Utah.


Dr. Alan F. Westin
Dr. Alan F. Westin is Professor Emeritus of Public Law
and Government at Columbia University; publisher of
Privacy & American Business; and President of the Center
for Social & Legal Research. He is the author or editor of
26 books on constitutional law, civil liberties and civil
rights, and American politics.

Dr. Westin's major books on privacy - Privacy and Freedom
(1967) and Databanks in a Free Society (1972) - were
pioneering works in the field of privacy and data protection,
as were his field studies for the U.S. National Bureau of
Standards, Computers, Health Records, and Citizen Rights
(1976), and Computers, Personnel Administration, and
Citizen Rights (1979).

Over the past 40 years, Dr. Westin has been a member of
Federal and State government privacy commissions and an
expert witness before many State and Federal legislative
committees and regulatory agencies. These activities have
covered privacy issues in such fields as financial services,
credit- and consumer-reporting, direct marketing, medical
and health, telecommunications, employment, law
enforcement, online and interactive services, and social
services.

Dr. Westin has been a privacy consultant to many Federal,
State, and local government agencies and private
foundations. He also has consulted on privacy for over 100
major and start-up companies, including IBM, Security
Pacific National Bank, Equifax, American Express,
Citicorp, Bell, Prudential, Bank of America, Chrysler,
AT&T, SmithKline Beecham, News Corporation, Visa, and
Glaxo Wellcome.

He also has spoken at more than 500 national and
international business and government meetings on privacy
issues since the early 1960s, as well as appearing on all the
national U.S. television networks to discuss current privacy
developments in business or government.

Between 1978-98, he has been the academic advisor to
Louis Harris & Associates for 20 national surveys of public
and leadership attitudes toward consumer, employee, and
citizen privacy issues in the United States and Canada. He
also has worked with Opinion Research Corporation on a
dozen proprietary privacy surveys for companies and
industry associations.

In 1993, with Robert Belair, he founded a national
newsletter and information service, Privacy & American
Business, to provide expert analysis and a balanced voice
on business-privacy issues. P&AB also conducts an annual
national conference in Washington on "Managing the
Privacy Revolution," attended by 250 business,
government, academic, and public interest group
representatives. P&AB also conducts the Corporate Privacy
Leadership Program, and a Global Business Privacy
Policies Project.

Dr. Westin earned his bachelor's degree from the University
of Florida, an L.L.B. from Harvard Law School, and his
Ph.D. in political science from Harvard University. He is a
member of the District of Columbia Bar and has been listed
in Who's Who in America for three decades.


Dr. John Woulds
Dr. John Woulds is Director of Operations at the Office of
the Data Protection Registrar, the supervisory authority
established in the United Kingdom under the 1984 Data
Protection Act. Dr. Woulds has been in the Office of the
Data Protection Registrar since March 1985. As Director of
Operations, he is a member of the Registrar's Management
Board and has responsibility for all operational aspects of
the work of the office. This includes registration,
complaints, casework, investigations, compliance
casework, and policy advisory work in all sectors.

Prior to his appointment with the Data Protection Registrar,
he worked for several years in computer management in
scientific computing centers. Before that, he was an active
research scientist in the field of high-energy particle
physics.


Staff biographies

Bureau of Justice Statistics,
U.S. Department of Justice

Dr. Jan M. Chaiken
Dr. Jan M. Chaiken was Director of the Bureau of Justice
Statistics (BJS), U.S. DOJ, until January 2001. His
appointment to this position by President Clinton was
confirmed in September 1994.

Dr. Chaiken earned his Ph.D. in mathematics at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). He was an
Assistant Professor in the mathematics department of
Cornell University; a Research Associate at MIT; a Senior
Mathematician at the Rand Corporation in Santa Monica,
California, from 1972-84; an Adjunct Associate Professor
in the system sciences department of the University of
California, Los Angeles; and a Principal Scientist in the law
and justice area at Abt Associates, Inc., in Cambridge,
Massachusetts, from 1984 until his nomination as BJS
Director.

Dr. Chaiken's research has focused on developing and
applying methods for improving operations of criminal
justice agencies, including studies of the criminal
investigation process, police patrol allocation, predicting
prison populations, models of the criminal justice system,
and statistical analyses of the Federal criminal justice
system.

Dr. Chaiken and his wife, Dr. Marcia Chaiken, who is now
Director of Research at LINC in Alexandria, Virginia,
collaborated on numerous research topics, such as varieties
of criminal behavior, identifying career criminals for
priority prosecution, drugs and crime, multijurisdictional
drug task forces, improving sample designs for learning
about drug use of arrestees, and private policing.

During his tenure as BJS Director, Dr. Chaiken has focused
on the use of modern technologies, such as the World Wide
Web, to provide the public with accurate, up-to-date
statistics, to allow the rapid interstate exchange of criminal
histories and information about registries of sex offenders,
to facilitate the implementation of the FBI's National
Incident-Based Reporting System, and to develop improved
computerized tracking of Federal arrestees and defendants
through the criminal justice process.


Carol G. Kaplan
Carol G. Kaplan is currently Chief, Criminal History
Improvement Programs, BJS, U.S. DOJ. In this capacity,
she is responsible for managing all BJS programs that focus
on improving the quality and accessibility of criminal
history records and the establishment of the national
criminal record system. Ms. Kaplan is also responsible for
all BJS activities to ensure the privacy of criminal record
data and to support implementation of the Brady Handgun
Violence Prevention Act and the National Child Protection
Act of 1993.

Previously, Ms. Kaplan served as the Assistant Deputy
Director, BJS, overseeing programs relating to criminal
justice information policy, privacy policy development, and
Federal justice statistics. In this position, she was
responsible for all BJS publications, conferences, and
technical assistance dealing with criminal history record
issues, privacy policy, and Federal justice statistics. 

Ms. Kaplan has been involved in Federal activities relating
to the development of privacy policy throughout her career,
and participated in drafting the initial landmark Federal
regulations ensuring the privacy, accuracy, and
completeness of criminal records and the confidentiality of
federally supported research data. She has served on
numerous interagency task forces to develop policies and
standards applicable to record usage and was a charter
member of the Office of Justice Programs' Intelligence
Systems Policy Review Board.

Ms. Kaplan was formerly an Attorney with the Department
of Health, Education and Welfare and the Federal
Communications Commission.

Ms. Kaplan is a graduate of Columbia University Law
School and Radcliffe College.


Office of Justice Programs,
U.S. Department of Justice

Anne Gardner
Anne Gardner is an Attorney-Advisor for the Office of
Justice Programs (OJP), U.S. DOJ, under the Attorney
General's Honors Program. Ms. Gardner is a member of
OJP's Intergovernmental Information Sharing Working
Group, Intelligence Systems Policy Review Board, and
Privacy Task Force.

Ms. Gardner received her B.S. degree from the University
of Wisconsin - Madison, and her J.D. from The Catholic
University of America, Columbus School of Law, cum
laude. Her publications include "Legislation: A New
Design for Justice Integration," 30 McGeorge Law Review
9 (1998).


Paul F. Kendall
Paul F. Kendall, General Counsel for OJP, is the Executive
Chairman of OJP's Information Technology Executive
Council, as well as Chairman of the Executive Council's
Inter-governmental Information Sharing Working Group,
the Intelligence Systems Policy Review Board, and the
Privacy Task Force. Mr. Kendall is leading a variety of
efforts in developing State and local coordinated
information technology programs, and is leading the
Review Board's examination of legal and public policy
issues associated with information sharing. Prior to his
appointment as General Counsel, Mr. Kendall held
positions of Senior Counsel at the Federal Mine Safety
Board, and Assistant General Counsel of the Legal Services
Corporation, as well as other positions in public and private
practice.

Mr. Kendall received his B.A. degree from Columbia
College of Columbia University, his M.B.A. from the
University of Maryland, and his J.D. from The Catholic
University of America, Columbus School of Law. His
publications include "Legislation: A New Design for
Justice Integration," 30 McGeorge Law Review 9 (1998).


SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice
Information and Statistics

Sheila J. Barton
As a Deputy Executive Director of SEARCH, Sheila J.
Barton is responsible for the development and
implementation of a multifaceted program of public policy
analysis, documentation of State and Federal information
policy development, education, and assistance to State and
local policymakers; the conduct of national conferences and
workshops on justice information policy issues; and the
publication of timely studies on justice information policy.
She is also In-house Counsel and staff to the SEARCH Law
and Policy Program Advisory Committee and Board of
Directors.

Prior to joining SEARCH, Ms. Barton was a Municipal
Judge in Cheyenne, Wyoming, and also was engaged in the
private practice of law. She also has held the positions of
Public Defender for Cheyenne, and Staff Attorney to the
Wyoming Supreme Court. She previously served in the
New York State Department of Correctional Services,
Office of the Special Legal Assistant to the Commissioner,
and Legal Specialist for the Department's Division of
Health Services. Prior to her service in New York, she was
Associate County Judge for Lincoln County, Nebraska. 

Ms. Barton holds a B.A. degree from Augustana College
(South Dakota) and a J.D. from the University of Nebraska
College of Law. She is a member of the Bars of California,
Nebraska, and Wyoming.


Gary R. Cooper
Since 1983, Gary R. Cooper has served as the Executive
Director of SEARCH. In his role as Executive Director, Mr.
Cooper is called upon to represent SEARCH before the
various branches and levels of government, including the
U.S. Congress and the U. S. DOJ; criminal justice
associations; and the private sector. He has twice chaired
the Evaluation Committee for tests of the Interstate
Identification Index, a committee of the Advisory Policy
Board to the FBI's National Crime Information Center, and
currently chairs the FBI's Evaluation Group for the National
Fingerprint File Pilot Project. 

In 1981, Mr. Cooper was appointed by California's
Governor to the California Commission on Personal
Privacy. He currently serves on the Board of Directors for
the National Foundation for Law and Technology. With
SEARCH for 26 years, Mr. Cooper also has served as the
Deputy Director and the Director of the Law and Policy
Program. 

Mr. Cooper's law enforcement career began as a Patrolman
for the City of Sacramento, and he has held various
research and planning positions with the California Council
on Criminal Justice and the California Crime Technological
Research Foundation. He has written extensively in all
areas of information law and policy, with an emphasis on
the privacy and security of criminal history records. 

Mr. Cooper received his B.A. degree in political science
from the University of California, Davis.


Eric C. Johnson
Eric C. Johnson is a Policy Research Analyst in SEARCH's
Law and Policy Division, where he researches and writes
on issues relating to criminal justice information
management and policy. Mr. Johnson joined SEARCH's
Corporate Communications staff in July 1997 as a
Writer/Researcher. He contributed to SEARCH
publications, including Interface, SEARCH Update, and
SEARCHLite, and also worked on other communications
and program-related projects involving writing, editing, and
design. 

Mr. Johnson authored two of SEARCH's Technical
Bulletins: "Court Automation and Integration: Issues and
Technologies," and "From the Inkpad to the Mousepad:
IAFIS and Fingerprint Technology at the Dawn of the 21st
Century." The latter, which focused on the FBI's Integrated
Automated Fingerprint Identification System, was reprinted
in the April 1999 issue of Government Technology
magazine.

Before joining SEARCH, Mr. Johnson served for 7 years as
Editor of the Northern California Teamster newspaper, with
a circulation of 65,000 in the greater San Francisco Bay
area. He has worked in the mainstream press as a Reporter
and Assignment Editor, and also in government and in
public relations, where his writing was honored with a Bay
Area Publicity Club Award. He holds a Bachelor of Arts
degree in Journalism from San Francisco State University.

Mr. Johnson joined SEARCH's Law and Policy staff on
May 1, 1999.


Glossary of criminal justice information terms


Confidentiality refers to information itself, and means that
only certain persons under specified circumstances are
authorized to have access to particular information. -1
[George B. Trubow, "Information Law Overview," 18 J.
Marshall L. Rev. 815, 817 (1985).]

Criminal History Record Information (CHRI) means
information collected by criminal justice agencies on
individuals consisting of identifiable descriptions and
notations of arrests, detentions, indictments, informations
or other formal criminal charges (and any disposition
arising therefrom), sentencing, correctional supervision,
and release. The term does not include identification
information such as fingerprint records to the extent that
such information does not indicate involvement of the
individual in the criminal justice system. State and Federal
Inspector General Offices are included. -2 [28 C.F.R. 
20.23(b).]

Criminal Intelligence Information means information on
identifiable individuals compiled in an effort to anticipate,
prevent, or monitor possible criminal activity. -3 [Technical
Report No. 13: Standards for the Security and Privacy of
Criminal History Record Information, 3rd ed. (Sacramento:
SEARCH Group, Inc., 1988) Standard 2.1(d). Hereafter,
Technical Report No. 13.]

Criminal Investigative Information means information on
identifiable individuals compiled in the course of an
investigation of specific criminal acts. -4 [Technical Report
No. 13, Standard 2.1(e).]

Criminal Justice Agency means (1) Courts; (2) A
government agency or any subunit thereof that performs the
administration of criminal justice pursuant to a statute or
executive order, and which allocates a substantial part of its
annual budget to the administration of criminal justice. -5
[28 C.F.R.  20.23(c).]

Criminal Justice Information includes CHRI, criminal
intelligence information, criminal investigative
information, disposition information, identification record
information, nonconviction information, and wanted person
information. -6 [Technical Report No. 13, Standard 2.1.]

Disposition means information disclosing that criminal
proceedings have been concluded, including information
disclosing that the police have elected not to refer a matter
to a prosecutor or that a prosecutor has elected not to
commence criminal proceedings, and also disclosing the
nature of the termination in the proceedings; or information
disclosing that proceedings have been indefinitely
postponed and also disclosing the reason for such
postponement. Examples of dispositions include (but are
not limited to), acquittal, dismissal, case continued without
finding, charge dismissed, charge still pending, guilty plea,
nolle prosequi, no paper, nolo contendere plea, convicted,
youthful offender determination, deceased, deferred
disposition, dismissed defendant discharged (civil action,
pardoned, probation before conviction, sentence commuted,
adjudication withheld, mistrial), executive clemency,
placed on probation, paroled, or released from correctional
supervision. -7 [28 C.F.R.  20.23(e).]

Nonconviction information means arrest information
without disposition if an interval of 1 year has elapsed from
the date of arrest and no active prosecution of the charge is
pending; or information disclosing that the police have
elected not to refer a matter to a prosecutor; or information
disclosing that a prosecutor has elected not to commence
criminal proceedings; or information disclosing that
proceedings have been indefinitely postponed, as well as all
acquittals and all dismissals. -8 [28 C.F.R.  20.23(k).]

Privacy is "the claim of individuals, groups, or institutions
to determine for themselves when, how, and to what extent
information about them is communicated to others." -9
[Alan F. Westin, Privacy and Freedom (New York:
Atheneum, 1967) p. 7.]


Appendix 3:

Comparison of criminal history and 
other privacy measures

* Notice
* Choice
* Onward transfer
* Security
* Data integrity
* Access
* Enforcement


Comparison of criminal history and other privacy measures
-1 [The measures reviewed here use various terms to
identify and, in some cases, to define the personal
information covered by the measure. Examples include
personal information and data, protected health
information, individually identifiable information, and so
on. For ease of comparison, this chart uses the abbreviation
"PII" (personally identifiable information), or simply
"information" or "data."]


Notice

Federal justice information system regulations: -2 [28
C.F.R. Part 20. (Also known as the "DOJ regulations.")]

None.


Safe Harbor Privacy Principles: -3 [65 Federal Register
45666 (July 24, 2000).]

An organization must inform individuals about:

* The purposes for which it collects and uses PII.

* How to contact the organization with any inquiries or
complaints.

* The types of third parties to which it discloses the
information.

* The choices and means offered to individuals for limiting
its use and disclosure.

This notice must be provided in clear and conspicuous
language that is readily understood; and the notice must be
made available when individuals are first asked to provide
personal information to the organization or as soon
thereafter as is practicable. In any event, notice must be
provided before the organization uses such information for
a purpose other than that for which it was originally
collected or processed by the transferring organization, or
before the organization discloses it for the first time to a
third party.


Online Privacy Alliance Principles:

The policy must state clearly: 

* What PII is collected.

* The use of that information.

* Possible third-party distribution.

* The choices available to an individual.

* The company's commitment to data security. 

* What steps the organization takes to ensure data quality
and access.

The policy should: 

* Disclose any consequences of a refusal to provide PII.

* Include a statement of enforcement mechanisms and how
to contact the organization.

A privacy policy must be easy to find, read, and understand.
The policy must be available prior to or at the time that the
PII is collected or requested.


Fair Credit Reporting Act:

Upon request, notice, substantially similar to the model
promulgated by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC),
must be provided to consumers; those who regularly supply
the credit-reporting agency with information; and those
who receive reports. -4 [15 U.S.C.  1681e(d).]

A consumer-reporting agency that furnishes a consumer
report for employment purposes containing public record
information, including criminal history records, which is
"likely to have an adverse effect upon a consumer's ability
to obtain employment," must either provide the consumer
with notice at the same time that the information is reported
to the potential employer or "must maintain strict
procedures" to ensure that the information is complete and
up-to-date. -5 [15 U.S.C.  1681k.]

Consumers also must be notified if a credit report provided
the basis for an adverse determination. -6 [15 U.S.C. 
1681b(b)(3).]


Individual Reference Services Group Principles:

Each individual reference service (Service) shall have an
information practices policy statement that is available
upon request that describes:

* What types of PII it has.

* From what types of sources.

* How it is collected.

* The type of entities to whom it may be disclosed.

* The type of uses to which it is put. -7 [Individual
Reference Services Group, "Individual Reference Service
Industry Principles" (December 15, 1997) Article VII.
Available at http://www.dbtonline.com/irsg-principles.asp.
Hereafter, IRSG Principles.]


European Union Directive:

Requires disclosure of information, such as:

* The identity of the controller.

* The purposes of the processing for which the data are
intended.

Notice should also include any further information
necessary to guarantee fair processing, such as:

* The recipients or categories of recipients of the data.

* Whether replies to questions are obligatory or voluntary,
and possible consequences for failing to reply. 

* The existence of the right of access and the right to rectify
data. -8 [Directive 95/46/EC, Articles 10, 11. Hereafter,
Directive.]


Comments:

Notice of potential uses of criminal justice information
traditionally has not been viewed as necessary, in part
because the notice will not influence subject behavior and it
is unlikely that the individual will be interested in the
contents of a privacy notice at the time of arrest, conviction,
or imprisonment.



Choice

Federal justice information system regulations:

None.


Safe Harbor Privacy Principles:

Organization must:

* Offer the opportunity to choose whether PII they provide
is disclosed to third parties or used (where such use is
incompatible with the purpose for which it was originally
collected or subsequently authorized).

* Provide clear, conspicuous, readily available, and
affordable mechanisms.

* Require opt-in choice for sensitive types of information.


Online Privacy Alliance Principles:

Individuals must be given the opportunity to exercise
choice regarding how PII collected from them online may
be used when such use is unrelated to the purpose for which
the information was collected. At a minimum, individuals
should be given the opportunity to opt out of such use.


Fair Credit Reporting Act:

With certain exceptions, consumer consent is required
before a consumer report may be furnished. -9 [15 U.S.C. 
1681b(b)(2), (c)(1).]

Consumers may elect to be excluded from certain lists
relating to offers of insurance or credit not initiated by the
consumer. -10 [15 U.S.C.  1681b(e).]

Consumer-reporting agencies may not provide reports
containing medical information for certain purposes
without the consent of the consumer. -11 [15 U.S.C. 
1681b(g).]


Individual Reference Services Group Principles:

Each Service shall, upon request, inform individuals of the
choices, if any, available to limit access or use of
information about them in its database, provided, however,
that in the case of nonpublic information distributed to the
general public, a Service shall provide an opportunity for an
individual to limit the general public's access or use of such
information. -12 [IRSG Principles, Article VIII.]


European Union Directive

Individual consent for processing is frequently required;
however, certain nonconsensual processing is also
permitted. -13 [See, for example, Directive, Articles 7, 9,
and 13.]

Provides individual with the right to object, in certain
circumstances, to certain processing of data about the
individual. -14 [Directive, Article 14.]


Comments:

Record subjects have never been able to choose to consent
or opt-out of the criminal history record regime.
Participants in the criminal justice process are not voluntary
participants; given the potential for adverse consequences
resulting from disclosure, it is assumed that all record
subjects would opt-out.



Onward transfer

Federal justice information system regulations

Dissemination of nonconviction data must be limited to:

* Criminal justice agencies for administration of the justice
system and justice agency employment.

* Individuals or agencies as authorized by statute, executive
order, ordinance, or court action.

* Agents and contractors of criminal justice agencies.

* Individuals and agencies for the express purpose of
research, evaluative, or statistical activities, provided
safeguards are in place. -15 [28 C.F.R.  20.21(b).]


Safe Harbor Privacy Principles

* An organization may only disclose PII to a third party for
the third party's own use consistent with the principles of
notice and choice.

* PII may be transferred to a third party acting as the
organization's agent, provided that the third party has
adopted the Safe Harbor Principles, is subject to another
"adequate" privacy regime, or has provided suitable
contractual assurances regarding the third party's privacy
practices.


Online Privacy Alliance Principles

* In most circumstances, where there is third-party
distribution of PII, collected online from the individual,
unrelated to the purpose for which it was collected, the
individual should be given the opportunity to opt-out.

* Consent for such use or third-party distribution may also
be obtained through technological tools or opt-in.

Organizations should ensure that third parties to which they
transfer PII are aware of these security practices, and take
reasonable precautions to protect any transferred PII.


Fair Credit Reporting Act:

Consumer reports may be only used for permissible
purposes.

Information may be provided to consumer-reporting
agencies without individual consent. Consent is required
for most disclosures of consumer report information.

Individual Reference Services Group Principles:

See Choice section.


European Union Directive:

Individual consent for processing is frequently required;
however, certain nonconsensual processing is also
permitted. -16 [See, for example, Directive, Articles 7, 9,
and 13.]

Restricts onward transfers to countries without "adequate"
privacy protections. -17 [Directive, Articles 25, 26.]

Contractors "must provide sufficient guarantees," by
contract, which obligate the contractor to the required
security measures. -18 [Directive, Article 17(2) and (3).]


Comments:

Under the DOJ regulations, conviction information may be
disseminated without restriction while nonconviction
information is unavailable unless specifically authorized by
State law, regulation, or policy.

The DOJ regulations are detailed and relatively
privacy-protective of the criminal history information
covered. 



Security

Federal justice information system regulations:

Wherever criminal history record information is collected,
stored, or disseminated, each State shall ensure that
technical, physical, or administrative actions are taken to
ensure the security of the information. -19 [28 C.F.R. 
20.21(f).]


Safe Harbor Privacy Principles:

Organizations creating, maintaining, using, or
disseminating records of PII must take reasonable
precautions to protect it from loss, misuse, unauthorized
access, or disclosure, alteration, and destruction.


Online Privacy Alliance Principles:

Organizations creating, maintaining, using, or
disseminating PII should take: 

* Appropriate measures to ensure its reliability. 

* Reasonable precautions to protect it from loss, misuse, or
alteration.


Fair Credit Reporting Act:

Consumer-reporting agencies are required to "maintain
reasonable procedures" to avoid violations of key
provisions of the Act. -20 [15 U.S.C.  1681e(a).]


Individual Reference Services Group Principles:

Services shall maintain facilities and systems to protect
information from unauthorized access and persons who
may exceed their authorization. In addition to physical and
electronic security, Services shall reasonably implement
employee and contractor supervision and system reviews at
appropriate intervals. -21 [IRSG Principles, Article VI.]


European Union Directive

Requires "appropriate technical and organizational
measures to protect personal data against accidental or
unlawful destruction or accidental loss, alteration,
unauthorized disclosure or access, in particular where the
processing involves transmission of data over a network,
and against all other unlawful forms of processing." -22
[Directive, Article 17(1).]


Comments:

The DOJ regulations compare favorably with those found
in other privacy measures. The DOJ regulations require a
wide range of security measures to guard against
unauthorized access or disclosure, as well as natural
disasters.



Data integrity

Federal justice information system regulations:

Complete records should be maintained at a central State
repository. To be "complete" means that the State
repository must record a disposition within 90 days of the
date of disposition.

To be "accurate" means that no record containing criminal
history record information shall contain erroneous
information. Criminal justice agencies shall institute
processes that will minimize the possibility of recording
and storing information of an inaccurate nature. -23 [28
C.F.R.  20.21(a).]


Safe Harbor Privacy Principles:

Consistent with the other principles, PII must be relevant to
the purposes for which it is to be used. An organization
may not process personal information in a way that is
incompatible with the purposes for which it has been
collected or subsequently authorized by the individual. To
the extent necessary for those purposes, an organization
should take reasonable steps to ensure that data are
accurate, complete, and current.


Online Privacy Alliance Principles:

Organizations creating, maintaining, using, or
disseminating PII should take reasonable steps to ensure
that the data are accurate, complete, and timely for the
purposes for which they are to be used.


Fair Credit Reporting Act:

Consumer-reporting agencies may disclose a consumer
report only for specified permissible purposes. -24 [15
U.S.C.  1681(b).]

The Act prohibits certain information from inclusion in
most consumer reports. -25 [15 U.S.C.  1681(c).]


Individual Reference Services Group Principles

Reasonable steps shall be taken to help ensure the accuracy
of the information in Services.

When contacted about alleged inaccuracies, Services shall
either correct any inaccuracy or direct the individual to the
source of the information. -26 [IRSG Principles, Article
III.]


European Union Directive:

PII must be "collected for specified, explicit, and legitimate
purposes and not further processed in a way incompatible
with those purposes. Further processing of data for
historical, statistical, or scientific purposes shall not be
considered as incompatible, provided that Member States
provide appropriate safeguards." -27 [Directive, Article
6(1)(b).]


Comments:

The DOJ regulations are at least comparable to the other
measures examined here. In some cases, such as the OPA
and IRSG Principles, the DOJ standards may actually be
more stringent because they appear to require more than
"reasonable" efforts. 



Access

Federal justice information system regulations:

Requires that States grant access to record subjects upon
satisfactory verification of identity.

Record subjects are permitted to obtain copies of records
(excluding intelligence, investigative, and related files)
when necessary for challenge or correction.

States are required to establish administrative review and
appeal procedures for record subjects who challenge the
accuracy of information. -28 [28 C.F.R.  20.21(g).]


Safe Harbor Privacy Principles:

Individuals must have access to PII about them that an
organization holds and be able to correct, amend, or delete
that information where it is inaccurate, except where the
burden or expense of providing access would be
disproportionate to the risks to the individual's privacy in
the case in question, or where the rights of persons other
than the individual would be violated.


Online Privacy Alliance Principles:

Organizations should establish appropriate processes or
mechanisms so that inaccuracies in material PII, such as
account or contact information, may be corrected.

These procedures and mechanisms should be simple and
easy to use, and provide assurance that inaccuracies have
been corrected.

Other procedures to ensure data quality may include use of
reliable sources and collection methods; reasonable and
appropriate consumer access and correction; and
protections against accidental or unauthorized alteration.


Fair Credit Reporting Act:

Consumer-reporting agencies are required to disclose, upon
the consumer's request, specified information that the
credit-reporting agency possesses about the consumer, as
well as a summary of the individual's rights under FCRA
and contact information. (Summary of rights must be
substantially similar to FTC model.) -29 [15 U.S.C. 
1681g.]

Consumer has the ability to dispute information believed to
be inaccurate and to request reinvestigation of such
information. -30 [15 U.S.C.  1681I.]


Individual Reference Services Group Principles:

Upon request and reasonable terms, Services shall:
* Inform individuals about the nature of public record and
publicly available information it makes available in its
products.

* Provide individuals with nonpublic information contained
in products or services that specifically identify the
individual.

* Direct individuals to a consumer-reporting agency when
such agency is the source of the PII. -31 [IRSG Principles,
Article IX.]


European Union Directive

Requires, with certain exceptions, that inquiries be acted
upon "without constraint at reasonable intervals and
without excessive delay or expense." -32 [Directive, Article
12(a).]

Requires Member States to guarantee a data subject's right
to determine if personal data are being processed and what
data are being processed. -33 [Ibid.]

"Member States may, in the interest of the data subject or
so as to protect the rights and freedoms of others, restrict
rights of access and information." -34 [Recital 42.]

Requires that data subjects be given the rights of
"rectification, erasure, or blocking," as appropriate. -35
[Directive, Article 12(b).]


Comments:

The DOJ standards are largely comparable concerning
individual rights of access and correction. 

The DOJ regulations are more favorable than some of the
other measures in that they guarantee administrative
procedures and appeals in the event of disagreements
between the record subject and agency over record
correction requests.

The DOJ regulations are less protective insofar as they only
guarantee record subjects the right to obtain copies of their
records if necessary for purposes of challenge or correction.



Enforcement

Federal justice information system regulations:

Any agency or individual in violation may be fined up to
$10,000. In addition, agencies may be subject to loss of
Federal funding. -36 [28 C.F.R.  20.25.]

States must establish administrative and appeals processes
for record subject challenges to record accuracy. -37 [28
C.F.R.  20.21(g).]


Safe Harbor Privacy Principles:

At a minimum, mechanisms must include:

* Readily available and affordable independent recourse by
which an individual's complaints and disputes can be
investigated and resolved and damages awarded where
provided by applicable law or private initiative.

* Procedures for verifying that the attestations and
assertions businesses make about their privacy practices are
true and that practices are implemented as presented.

* Obligations to remedy problems arising out of
noncompliance by companies adopting the principles.

* Sufficiently rigorous sanctions to ensure compliance.


Online Privacy Alliance Principles:

Whether administered by a third-party seal program,
licensing program, or membership association, the effective
enforcement of self-regulation requires:

* Verification and monitoring.

* Complaint resolution.

* Education and outreach.

OPA believes the best way to create public trust is for
organizations to alert consumers and other individuals to
the organization's practices and procedures through
participation in a program that has an easy-to-recognize
symbol or seal.


Fair Credit Reporting Act:

Authorizes private right of action by consumers. -38 [15
U.S.C.  1681n.]

Administrative enforcement by the FTC is authorized and
the FTC may initiate civil court actions. States and other
Federal agencies may bring actions in specified
circumstances. -39 [15 U.S.C. 1681s.]


Individual Reference Services Group Principles

Periodic compliance audits by outside auditors are required.
A summary of results must be made publicly available. -40
[IRSG Principles, Article XI.]


European Union Directive:

Member States are required to provide judicial remedies for
a data subject whose rights are provided under national law.
-41 [Directive, Article 22.]

Data subjects are to be entitled to "compensation from the
controller for the damage suffered." -42 [Directive, Article
21(1).]


Comments:

The DOJ regulations authorize fines against both agencies
and individuals for violations of the regulations. In
addition, agencies run the risk of losing Federal funding if
they fail to comply with the regulations.


8/23/01 jb/pm