Statistical Déjà Vu: The National Data Center

Proposal of 1965 and Its Descendants

by Rebecca S. Kraus, Ph.D.

History Staff

U.S. Census Bureau

For presentation at the Joint Statistical Meetings

Miami Beach, FL, August 1, 2011

This paper is to inform interested parties of ongoing research and to encourage 

discussion. Any views expressed on historical issues are those of the author and not 

necessarily those of the U.S. Census Bureau.
Abstract

Issues concerning sharing of statistical information, linking data sets, and storing and preserving 

data collected by the federal statistical agencies have long sparked debate. This paper focuses on 

the National Data Center proposal of 1965, ensuing public concern over its privacy implications, 

and the response of the Bureau of the Budget and the U.S. Census Bureau. The purpose of this 

study is to identify the issues leading to the development of the proposal, as well as the 

consequences of the proposal, in order to inform current policy decisions, particularly in regard 

to the U.S. Census Bureau. Examples of subsequent efforts at statistical consolidation and data 

sharing highlight the persistent theme of statistical déjà vu. 

The author would like to thank the following staff of the U.S. Census Bureau for their review 

and comment on the contents of this paper: Francis Grailand Hall, Division Chief, 

Administrative and Customer Services Division (ACSD); Claudette Bennett, Assistant Division 

Chief, Product Development and Publications Services, ACSD; Bill Maury, Chief, History Staff, 

ACSD; Nick Birnbaum, History Staff, ACSD; Nancy Gordon, Associate Director for Strategic 

Planning and Innovation; Mary Frazier, Privacy Office; and Kathleen Styles, formerly of the 

Policy Office. 
1

Statistical Déjà Vu: The National Data Center

Proposal of 1965 and Its Descendants

Introduction: Computers, Researchers, and the Need for Data

In the early 1960s, social scientists recognized the need for greater access to microdata 

maintained by the federal government. Computer technology had improved the efficiency and 

affordability of research with large data sets, and the expansion of government social programs 

called for more data and research to inform public policy. As a result, in 1965 social scientists 

recommended that the federal government develop a national data center that would store and 

make available to researchers the data collected by various statistical agencies. Because of its 

massive data holdings and its pioneering work in the use of computers for the storage and 

analysis of data, the Census Bureau became involved in the national debate, though reluctantly.

The government’s endorsement of the national data center proposal led to public outcry 

and intense congressional scrutiny over the data on individuals maintained by federal agencies, 

potential misuse of such data, and threats to privacy posed by emerging technologies. One key 

lesson of the data center debate is that social scientists and government agencies must consider 

the practical implications of their plans and clearly communicate those plans to the public. 

Although the research community and the government understood the potential benefits of a 

national data center, and agreed that the data would be used only for research, a significant 

portion of the public seemed not to share their enthusiasm for a national data center. Fears of 

“Big Brother” and secret government dossiers swirled around discussions of the national data 

center, and the issue became identified with other concerns about invasions of privacy ranging 

from psychological testing to illegal wire tapping, culminating in the passage of the Privacy Act 

of 1974. 
2

While a national data center ultimately was not created, advances in technology and 

statistical methodology have led to greater data sharing and linkage capabilities. Intense political 

scrutiny of federal statistics has resurfaced occasionally, as have discussions concerning 

centralization of statistical functions. What can we learn from 1965 that can help us form sound 

statistical information policies in the 21st century?

Technological Advancements and Access to Government Data

The national data center proposal came at a time when the Census Bureau was already 

investigating ways to make its data more readily available to outside researchers. In the late 

1950s, the Consultant Committee on Consumer Survey Statistics,1 the Associated University 

Bureaus of Business and Economic Research, and other groups asked the agency to consider 

ways to make more of its data, including data withheld because of disclosure policies, available 

to researchers.2 Around the same time, because of the lack of a congressional appropriation for 

the 1953 Economic Census, the Secretary of Commerce established the Intensive Review 

Committee to determine needs and uses of census data.3

 The committee recommended that the 

Census Bureau continue to consult with its customers to determine user needs. In particular, the 

committee suggested the agency hold informal meetings with data users to discuss their needs for 

data.4 In response, the agency held meetings in several cities beginning in May 1955 to obtain 

researcher input on 1960 censuses of population, housing, and agriculture.5

 1 This committee was organized by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System at the request of the 

Subcommittee on Economic Statistics of the Joint Committee on the Economic Report. 2 U.S. Census Bureau, “Bureau of the Census Statement on Disclosure of Confidential Information: A White Paper 

for the Census Advisory Committee of the American Statistical Association,” draft, Oct. 5, 1956. 3 Robert B. Voight, Bureau of the Census, “Developments in Making Census Data More Useful,” paper given at 

the Federal Statistics User Conference, Washington, DC, Oct. 20, 1967. 4 Appraisal of Census Programs: Report of the Intensive Review Committee to the Secretary of Commerce, 

February 1954, p. 14 (recommendation 43). 5 Howard G. Brunsman, “Federal Statistical Activities: Local Meetings with Users of Census Data,” The 

American Statistician, vol. 9, no. 5 (December 1955), p. 5. The meetings were coordinated with local chapters of 

organizations such as the American Statistical Association and the American Marketing Association. Meetings were 
3

In the late 1950s, the Office of Statistical Standards (OSS) of the Bureau of the Budget 

(BoB) began working with the American Statistical Association (ASA) Advisory Committee to 

the Bureau of the Budget on Statistical Policy to establish principles for access to federal data 

sets by nongovernmental researchers.6

Sometimes, the private research worker needs additional information not available 

in published form, and the Bureau believes that it serves the public interest when 

it makes a special tabulation and provides that information. With the expansion 

of its electronic facilities, it hopes to extend its services and provide more 

information to researcher workers.

 The OSS circulated a draft statement of the principles to 

the statistical agencies for their input. In 1957, the Director of the Census Bureau, Robert W. 

Burgess, commented on the draft policy and provided an overview of the agency’s policy 

concerning providing data to outside researchers, noting that:

 On the other hand, we are just as firm in believing that it is in the public 

interest to protect the rights of respondents and to keep their replies confidential. 

Few research workers would wish to relax the disclosure rules to the extent that 

this would lower the quality of the statistics. In such an event, no one would be 

harmed more than the research people themselves, and many of them, realizing 

this, have urged us to protect information given in confidence.7

The BoB finalized its statement regarding access to federal statistical materials for

nongovernmental researchers in April 1959. The statement reflected much of the Census 

Bureau’s existing policy. In particular, the Budget Bureau noted that requests for data “should 

be met as fully as possible by making special tabulations to the specifications of outside users.”8

 

held in New York City (May 2-3), Baltimore (September 29), Chicago (October 17), St. Louis (October 19), and 

Detroit (November 17).

 

The statement offered alternatives for those requests that could not be adequately met by special 

6 The ASA committee, chaired by Ralph J. Wilkins (who had chaired the Intensive Review Committee of the 

Department of Commerce from 1953 to 1954), assisted the Office of Statistical Standards of the Bureau of the Budget 

in preparing its statement concerning the availability of federal statistical materials to nongovernmental researchers. 

“Recommendations on Availability of Federal Statistical Materials to Nongovernmental Research Workers,” The 

American Statistician, vol. 13, no. 4 (October 1959), p. 15. The BoB is the predecessor of the Office of Management 

and Budget, an agency within the Executive Office of the President. 7 Robert W. Burgess, director, Bureau of the Census, letter to Raymond T. Bowman, assistant director for 

statistical standards, Bureau of the Budget, Executive Office of the President, April 19, 1957, p. 4. 8 Executive Office of the President, Bureau of the Budget, “Availability of Federal Statistical Materials to 

Nongovernmental Research Workers: A Statement of Principles,” April 3, 1959.
4

tabulations, such as permitting the researcher access to certain raw materials within the agency, 

taking “whatever steps are necessary to protect the confidentiality of the data supplied by 

individual respondents.”9

 The BoB urged advance planning by federal agencies to permit 

maximum usage of the data they collected, noting: “any steps to make the survey procedure a 

matter of systematic record, intelligible to other competent research workers, will aid users to 

make valid use of the data.”10

In 1963, the ASA Census Advisory Committee recommended that the Census Bureau 

conduct research to determine the uses of its data products.11 The following year, the Census 

Advisory Committee of the American Economic Association (AEA), noting that the cost of 

special tabulations was often too high for university researchers, recommended that the Census 

Bureau investigate ways of making unpublished data available to outside researchers, such as by 

creating Census data centers at selected universities.12 The Census Bureau responded to such 

recommendations by creating a Task Force on Uses of Census Statistics in 1963. The task force 

was charged with reviewing existing information on the uses of census data and recommending 

additional steps for evaluating the uses of the statistics.13

 9 Ibid., p. 2.

 Over the next several years, the Census 

Bureau examined options for the development of a data user program. For example, the Census 

10 Ibid., pp. 2-3. 11 Richard M. Scammon, director, U.S. Census Bureau, Memorandum to All Divisions and Offices, Re: Task 

Force on Uses of Census Statistics, June 20, 1963; Voight, 1967, p. 1. 12 Solomon Fabricant, “Report of the Census Advisory Committee,” American Economic Review, vol. 55, no. 1/2 

(March 1, 1965), pp. 619-620. The Census Bureau noted that it was already studying the feasibility of creating such 

centers but it still needed to resolve problems with regard to confidentiality and the high costs of providing data tapes 

that were complete and properly formatted. The AEA continued to explore this issue with the Census Bureau over the 

next several years. Solomon Fabricant, “Report of the Census Advisory Committee,” American Economic Review, 

vol. 56, no. 1/2 (March 1, 1966), p. 642; Solomon Fabricant, “Report of the Census Advisory Committee,” American 

Economic Review, vol. 57, no. 2 (May 1967), p. 720; Solomon Fabricant, “Report of the Census Advisory 

Committee,” American Economic Review, vol. 58, no. 2 (May 1968), p. 671; Solomon Fabricant, “Report of the 

Census Advisory Committee,” American Economic Review, vol. 59, no. 2 (May 1969), p. 607. 13 Scammon, 1963; Robert B. Voight, staff assistant, Director’s Office, U.S. Census Bureau, Memorandum to All 

Division Chiefs, Re: Report on plans for the study of the use of Census Bureau statistics, Oct. 16, 1964.
5

Bureau created the Census Use Survey in 1966 and established the Data Access and Use 

Laboratory the following year. 

The increasing number of requests for data reflects the period of rapid growth in social 

science research that occurred in the 1950s and 1960s. In their history of the evolution of federal 

statistics, Joseph W. Duncan and William C. Shelton noted:

The development and widespread use of the electronic digital computer 

unquestionably has been one of the great technological changes in the third 

quarter of the 20th century. One of its effects on statistics has been very large 

reductions in clerical personnel requirements and consequent large reductions in 

total cost. An effect which is probably even more important in the long run is the 

ability to do things which could not be done at all without computers, either 

because they could not be done in time to be useful or because they would have 

cost too much to be practical.14

Their statement echoed the Social Science Research Council’s Committee on the Preservation 

and Use of Economic Data, which noted that “the technological revolution has become so great 

that a re-examination of the organization of the Federal statistical system is urgently needed.” 15 

In particular, with the use of computers, researchers were able to increase efficiency and reduce 

the time required for data processing. Computers also improved data quality and permitted new 

types of data analyses to be conducted. Because computers required less space to store data, it

became feasible to store and maintain more data and larger data sets.

16

These improvements resulted not only in time and space savings, but cost savings as well, 

enabling researchers to do more detailed research and respond more quickly to pressing social 

issues. At the same time, government programs designed to address social issues, such as civil 

rights, housing, employment, welfare, education, and poverty, called for more information and 

 

 14 Joseph W. Duncan and William C. Shelton, Revolution in United States Government Statistics: 1926-1976, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Office of Federal Statistical Policy and Standards, October 1978, p. 116. 15 Social Science Research Council (SSRC), Report of the Committee on the Preservation and Use of Economic 

Data, April 1965, p. 9. 16 SSRC, pp. 8-14.
6

data on those issues. Often, the information needed was not available to researchers.17 As 

research needs grew and research capabilities expanded, the number of market and survey 

research organizations and university research institutions grew, further increasing the demand 

for data.18

The American Economic Association Discusses Access to Data

 These converging forces resulted in a call from the social science community for 

greater access to and greater preservation of socioeconomic data.

At the 1959 annual meeting of the American Economic Association, members of the 

executive committee discussed the need for access to social and economic data for research

purposes. Recognizing that the AEA was not equipped to address the problem, the executive 

committee asked the Social Science Research Council (SSRC) to study the issue.19

Thus, the SSRC set up a committee to examine the problem with regard only to economic 

data. The scope was also limited to information in machine-readable form. The Committee on 

the Preservation and Use of Economic Data conducted a 3-year study of the availability of data 

collected by the federal government and its use in research.

 In December 

1960, the SSRC held a meeting with social scientists both within and outside the federal 

government concerning the preservation and use of data. Although the attendees expressed interest 

in government data, there was no agreement on the best approach for preserving and using the data. 

Deeming the issue to be too broad, the SSRC decided to take a more focused approach.

20

 17 The Coordination and Integration of Government Statistical Programs, hearings before the Subcomm. on 

Economic Statistics, Joint Economic Comm., 90th Cong, 1st Sess., May 17-18, June 7-8, 1967 (statement of John H. 

Aiken), p. 44.

 Between 1962 and 1964, the 

committee met with agencies within the Departments of Commerce, Labor, Treasury, 

18 Ralph L. Bisco, “Social Science Data Archives: Progress and Prospects,” Social Science Information, vol. 6 

(1967), pp. 39-74.

19 SSRC, p. 1; Duncan and Shelton, p. 175. 20 The committee members were Richard Ruggles, Yale University, chairman; Richard Miller, Wesleyan 

University, secretary; Edwin Kuh, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Stanley Lebergott, Wesleyan University; 

Guy Orcutt, University of Wisconsin; and Joseph Pechman, Brookings Institution. 
7

Agriculture, Interior, and Health, Education, and Welfare, as well as the Bureau of the Budget 

and the National Archives.

Recommendation for a National Data Center

In April 1965, the SSRC Committee on the Preservation and Use of Economic Data 

issued their report, known as the Ruggles Report (named after the chairman of the committee, 

Yale economist Richard Ruggles). The report described the decentralized nature of the federal 

statistical system, noting the coordinating role of the Office of Statistical Standards of the BoB

and the records management function of the National Archives and Records Service (now the 

National Archives and Records Administration). With regard to the decentralization of the 

federal statistical system, the committee noted that much of the data collected was required for 

specific, operational purposes.21 The committee noted that 20 federal statistical agencies had 

over 600 major data sets that were stored on approximately 100 million punchcards and 30,000

computer tapes. This vast amount of data spread across many agencies made it difficult for 

researchers to access the data or even know what data existed, despite the fact that it had been 

collected at public expense.

22

To resolve this issue, the committee recommended that the government establish a 

national data center to preserve data collected by its agencies and make the data available to 

researchers both within and outside the government.

 

23

 21 The committee noted that the Census Bureau “performs many of the functions normally undertaken by a central 

statistical office. The Census Bureau is responsible for comprehensive data on population, housing, agriculture, 

manufactures, retail and wholesale trade, transportation, and government bodies. This information provides other 

agencies with basic information about the American economy and its functioning ... Certain tasks formerly 

undertaken by other agencies, such as the collection of foreign trade statistics and labor force surveys, have become a 

regular part of the Census program.” SSRC, pp. 6-7.

 The committee identified several things 

necessary for the data center to function properly, including the authority to work collaboratively 

with other federal agencies, computer capabilities, and new administrative arrangements. The 

22 Ibid., pp. 15, 18. 23 Ibid.
8

purpose of the data center would be to provide user services and basic information about the U.S. 

economy. As such, the center would need to “ensure that the most useful information was 

preserved in a usable form, and that duplicative and unwanted data did not clog the system.”24

In the committee’s view, the federal data center would have the authority to obtain 

computer tapes produced by other agencies; thus, the center would “follow statistical projects 

and ... see that the clean edited tapes are made available within a reasonable period.”

 

25 As part 

of its capabilities, the center would provide aggregate data or results to scholars on a 

reimbursable basis.26 Thus, it also would be necessary for center staff to be subject specialists so 

they could respond to researchers’ questions about the data. Further, because of the 

decentralized nature of the federal statistical system, the committee recommended that a new 

administrative arrangement be developed for the data center. They recommended that the BoB

begin planning and developing the data center immediately, recognizing that there may be a need 

for new legislative authorities.27

 24 Ibid., p. 20. 25 Ibid., p. 19. 26 Recognizing that much of the data collected by the federal government was obtained with a pledge of 

confidentiality, the committee stated providing aggregate data or results would avoid disclosure of confidential data. 

They also noted that “it is often possible to disguise the information in such a way that specific data cannot be traced 

to any individual respondent.” SSRC, p. 17. The report referred to the Census Bureau’s sample data on 100,000 

households as an example of how “the omission of detailed geographic information makes it impossible to trace the 

data to any specific individual.” SSRC, pp. 17-18. 27 SSRC, pp. 21-22. The committee also urged the BoB to place greater emphasis on the systematic preservation 

of data collected by agencies, ensure sufficient funds were budgeted for that function, evaluate existing data 

preservation policies, and determine which data should be preserved and how those data could be put into “a more 

usable form.” SSRC, p. 22. The committee further recommended that the government regularly publish an inventory 

of its machine-readable data. They also offered recommendations for the research community, such as creating an 

organization to coordinate research requests in order to avoid duplication of requests for data. That organization 

would also advise the government on making data available and developing integrated data sets. SSRC, p. 29.
9

The Federal Government’s Response 

In May 1965, Raymond T. Bowman of the Bureau of the Budget hired a consultant to 

review the SSRC recommendations and identify ways of implementing a national data center.28

As assistant director for statistical standards, Bowman was concerned with strengthening the 

federal statistical system and integrating the many statistical programs. He wrote extensively on 

statistical developments and endorsed the concept of a national data center.29

The Dunn Report

 

Bowman’s consultant, Edgar S. Dunn, supported the national data center proposed in the 

Ruggles Report.

30 Between June and November 1965, Dunn studied the use of statistical data in 

policy and decision making and the relationship between the collection of data and its 

preservation and accessibility for further use. In a December 1965 report, Dunn stated: “the 

greatest deficiency of the existing Federal Statistical System is its failure to permit the 

association of the elements of data sets in a way that identifies and measures the interrelationship 

among interdependent activities.”31

 28 Bowman was appointed assistant director for statistical standards in 1955 and remained in that position until his 

retirement in 1969. Previously, Bowman was the chair of the University of Pennsylvania’s department of economics. 

Duncan and Shelton, pp. 100, 154-156. 

 He noted that the many data files were “quite different in 

terms of the organization, the levels of disaggregation required, and, most importantly, in the 

way the file needs to be associated with other records;” in other words, “[r]ecord association is 

29 Ibid., p. 154. For example, at a 1957 meeting of the Washington, DC, ASA chapter, Bowman noted: “the 

statistical program of the United States, although it is recognized as outstanding, nevertheless is not good enough for 

the demands which are being made on it.” Raymond T. Bowman, “Improvement of Federal Statistics,” The American 

Statistician, vol. 11, no. 2 (April 1957), p. 18. 30 Duncan and Shelton, p. 176. Dunn, a research associate with Resources for the Future, Inc., had previously 

served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Affairs of the Department of Commerce. The Coordination 

and Integration of Government Statistical Programs, hearings before the Subcomm. on Economic Statistics of the 

Joint Economic Comm., 90th Cong., 1st Sess., May 17-18; June 7-8, 1967, p. 4. 31 U.S. Bureau of the Budget, Office of Statistical Standards, Review of Proposal for a National Data Center, 

Statistical Evaluation Report No. 6, December 1965, reprinted in Edgar S. Dunn, Jr., Social Information Processing 

and Statistical Systems – Change and Reform (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1974), p. 204. 
10

the paramount need.” 32 Dunn argued that the problem of data access “does not reside in the 

assembly of records in a center but in the capacity to provide certain forms of file management 

and utilization services to the user.”33

Dunn recommended the establishment of a national data center “whose primary mission 

would be to provide service to users of Federal statistical data both inside and outside the 

government.”

In other words, the purpose of the data center would not 

merely be to warehouse data sets, but to make them compatible with one another so that they 

could be used by researchers.

34 The data center would perform the following functions: (1) regulate file storage 

and management of machine-readable archival records, (2) provide a referral and reference 

source for users of federal statistics, and (3) perform services to facilitate the use of federal data, 

such as preparing cross tabulations, matching records as necessary, and performing standard 

statistical routines. Dunn also noted that data center staff would conduct “[d]isclosure bypassing where technical developments would permit generating processed output in disclosurefree form rather than releasing input data in sensitive form.”35

The Kaysen Committee

 

The Director of the Bureau of the Budget next created a task force to examine options for 

improving the storage of and access to federal statistics. President Lyndon B. Johnson announced 

the task force in December 8, 1965, noting, “present methods of storing, indexing and collating 

 32 Ibid., p. 218. 33 Ibid. 34 Ibid., p. 219. 35 Ibid. Dunn briefly addressed the “disclosure problem” in his report, noting that policies limiting the release of 

information were becoming more restrictive. However, he stated, “[i]t is not widely understood that the interest in 

microdata and the existing pressures and constraints do not grow out of an interest in information about the specific 

respondent.” Ibid., p. 210. In addition, a technical appendix to the report, prepared by the National Bureau of 

Standards at the request of the BoB, noted that center staff would perform confidentiality audits before releasing data 

to customers, though “this raises complex and difficult issues which require intensive study;” nonetheless, they were 

certain those issues could be resolved “with the aid of modern tools of the mathematical and computer sciences.” E. 

Glaser, D. Rosenblatt, and M.K. Wood, National Bureau of Standards, “The Design of a Federal Statistical Center,” 

appendix C in U.S. Bureau of the Budget, Office of Statistical Standards, Review of Proposal for a National Data 

Center, reprinted in The American Statistician, vol. 21, no. 1 (February 1967), p. 18. 
11

[government statistics] do not permit maximum use of these data. With new information 

technology now available, it is possible to make these systems both more efficient and, at the same 

time, more useful.”36

In directing the work of the task force, known as the Kaysen Committee, Raymond 

Bowman noted that when considering the creation of a national data center, the group should 

consider the following: the data center should have autonomy, but should work in consultation 

with the statistical agencies, and the center should not be responsible for collecting data directly 

from the public. Bowman also stated that the data center would “need imaginative and energetic 

promotion by a director who is free of current bureaucratic ties to any agency...”

 The members of the task force were: Carl Kaysen of the Institute of 

Advanced Study (chairman), Charles C. Holt of the University of Wisconsin, Richard Holton of 

the University of California at Berkeley, George Kozmetsky of the University of Texas, H. Russell 

Morrison of the Standard Statistics Co., and Richard Ruggles of Yale University.

37 The 

committee quickly determined that they needed to view the issue in a broader context, so they 

decided to study how the federal statistical system could be organized to accomplish the 

following goals: (1) meeting increasing needs for statistical information, (2) developing 

safeguards to protect respondents’ privacy, (3) making the best use of existing information, and 

(4) minimizing the reporting burden on individuals and businesses.38

In its October 1966 report, the committee recommended a national data center be 

established to support the coordination and joint storage of federal statistics. It stressed the 

 36 The White House, press release, Dec. 18, 1965. In a memorandum to the President discussing the need for a 

task force, the BoB director stated that the federal statistical system had problems with regard to archiving data and 

providing access to researchers and administrative records “should be used whenever possible instead of imposing 

additional reporting burden on the public.” Charles L. Schultze, director, Bureau of the Budget, Memorandum for 

President Lyndon B. Johnson, re: Planning for a Federal Data Center, Nov. 3, 1965. Schultze also stated: “A modern 

Federal Data Center would also increase the effectiveness of planning for the Great Society programs.” Ibid. 37 Raymond T. Bowman, “Statement of R.T. Bowman to the Task Force to advise the Bureau of the Budget on 

measures which should be taken to improve the storage of and access to U.S. Government Statistics,” Jan. 1, 1966. 38 Report of the Task Force on the Storage of and Access to Government Statistics, October 1966, p. 11, reprinted 

in The American Statistician, vol. 23, no. 3 (June 1969), pp. 11-19.
12

efficiency and cost-savings of a national data center, noting that it would reduce the collection 

burden on respondents, increase government efficiency, and reduce the costs of processing and 

storing data.39

Specifically, the committee identified eight functions of the data center: (1) establishing 

and maintaining an inventory of all available government data; (2) setting and enforcing uniform 

disclosure standards to meet confidentiality requirements; (3) performing similar tasks for data 

collected by state and local governments; (4) assembling and integrating data from government 

sources and preserving the data “in usable and accessible form;” (5) setting standards for further 

data collection efforts, “so as to make maximum use of administrative information and provide 

maximum cross-linking of different bodies of data;” (6) providing facilities for researchers to 

access the data; (7) developing hardware and software for integrating and accessing the data; and

(8) defining regulations and compensation arrangements to permit access to the data by 

nongovernmental researchers.

 Its purpose would be to assemble the data collected by various sources and 

improve access to the data by making the various data sets compatible with one another and 

providing work space and computer facilities for researchers. 

40

The committee acknowledged that the agencies were working on developing an 

integrated body of federal statistics. In particular, they stated: “[t]he Census has taken a 

commendable lead and already has done a number of useful tasks.”

 

41

 39 Ibid., pp. 16-17. 

 They noted, however, that 

the Census Bureau and other agencies viewed the task as “a second-priority activity, which 

cannot compete for personnel, machine time, or funds with ongoing programs” and that 

40 Ibid. 41 Ibid., p. 14.
13

“[s]imple inter-agency jealousies and rivalries have also created inhibitions on prompt and full 

cooperation.”42

The Kaysen Committee recommended that a new position, the Director of the Federal 

Statistical System, be established within the Executive Office of the President. The national data 

center, the Census Bureau, and the Office of Statistical Standards would report to the Director of 

the Federal Statistical System. The committee placed the Census Bureau in the new organization

because it was “the largest, most widely experienced, most professionally competent, and 

broadest in scope” of all of the federal statistical agencies and, therefore, would be able to 

perform the functions required of a centralized statistical organization.43 The committee further 

noted that the national data center would need the cooperation and support of the Census Bureau 

to function effectively. However, the data center would perform different tasks than the Census 

Bureau and, therefore, would not be subordinate to that agency. Independence from the Census 

Bureau would also result in “smooth working relations between the Center and the other 

elements of the Federal Statistical System.”44

Congress and the Public React 

Hearings on a National Data Center

The reaction of Congress to the national data center concept was swift and strong. The 

proposal came amid congressional hearings and proposed legislation on various aspects of 

privacy during the first half of the 1960s, including the use of lie detectors, psychological testing, 

 42 Ibid. 43 Ibid., p. 16. 44 Ibid., p. 17. Earlier they committee had recommended that the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) be included in 

the new organization; however Raymond Bowman did not agree and told the BoB director he was “particularly

disturbed” with this suggestion because it made “no sense at all to propose a BLS and a Census Bureau in a Central 

Statistical Organization.” Raymond T. Bowman, memorandum for the Director, July 26, 1966. 
14

background investigations of job applicants, and the privacy rights of federal employees.45

At the hearings, advocates for the national data center (including Ruggles, Dunn, and 

Bowman) seemed unable to clearly defend their proposal and appeared largely unconcerned with 

potential invasions of privacy. For example, in testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on 

Administrative Practice and Procedure in June 1966,

 

Particularly concerned with the national data center proposal were the Senate Committee on the 

Judiciary’s Subcommittee on Administrative Practice and Procedure, chaired by Sen. Edward V. 

Long (D-MO), and Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, chaired by Sen. Sam J. Ervin, Jr. (DNC). In addition, the House Government Operations Committee, Special Subcommittee on 

Invasion of Privacy, chaired by Rep. Cornelius E. Gallagher (D-NJ), focused much attention on 

the national data center. 

46 Edgar Dunn minimized the privacy issue 

and instead focused on the public good that would be provided by the national data center.47 

Likewise, at the July 1966 hearings of the House Special Subcommittee on Invasion of 

Privacy,48

 45 See, e.g., William A. Creech, “The Privacy of Government Employees,” Law and Contemporary Problems, vol. 

31, no. 2 (Spring 1966); Psychological Tests and Constitutional Rights, hearings before the Subcomm. on 

Constitutional Rights of the Senate Judiciary Comm., 89th Cong., 1st Sess., June 7-10, 1965; Privacy and the Rights of

Federal Employees, hearings before the Subcomm. on Constitutional Rights of the Senate Judiciary Comm., 89th

Cong., 2nd Sess., October 3-4, 1966; Privacy and the Rights of Federal Employees, hearings before the House Comm. 

on Post Office and Civil Service, 90th Cong., 2nd sess., June 13, 18, 27; July 2, 9-12, 16-17, 1968.

data center proponents were unable to explain the difference between their idea of a 

national data center and the concept for a “total information system” that could be used to 

46 Invasions of Privacy, hearings before the Subcomm. on Administrative Practice and Procedure of the Senate 

Comm. on the Judiciary, 89th Cong., 2nd sess. Mar. 23-30, June 7-16. 1966. 47 Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, Subcomm. on Constitutional Rights, Federal Data Banks and Constitutional 

Rights: A Study of Data Systems on Individuals Maintained By Agencies of the United States Government, 93rd Cong., 

committee print, 1974, p. 8. 48 The Computer and Invasion of Privacy, hearings before the Special Subcomm. on Invasion of Privacy, House 

Comm. on Government Operations, 89th Cong., July 26-28, 1966. The subcommittee members were Rep. Cornelius 

Gallagher (D-NJ), Rep. Benjamin Rosenthal (D-NY), and Rep. Frank Horton (R-NY). 
15

compile “dossier” information on individuals.49 Witnesses at the hearing included Richard 

Ruggles, Edgar Dunn, Raymond Bowman, and several authors and scholars of privacy. One 

witness, author and sociologist Vance Packard, concluded: “My own hunch is that Big Brother, 

if he ever comes to these United States, may turn out to be not a greedy power seeker, but rather 

a relentless bureaucrat obsessed with efficiency.”50

After the hearings, Rep. Gallagher reported to the House Operations Committee that 

although the proposal could improve government efficiency, it also represented a serious threat 

to privacy. Gallagher was concerned with the amount and types of data that could be stored in 

such a center, including tax records, census information, credit records, health data, school 

records, and even police files. Although he acknowledged the BoB’s position that the 

development of personal “dossiers” was not the intent of the proposal, he stated, “our concern is 

what an innocent statistical center could turn into as the years roll by and pressure mounts to 

program into the computers more and more information on individuals.”

 

51 Gallagher concluded 

that greater efficiency “would be paid for at the far greater expense of weakening the right to 

privacy of all American citizens. Surely this is too exorbitant a price to pay for an economized 

filing system.”52

Gallagher identified five potential threats posed by a national data center: (1) errors in 

the data, (2) distortions of information caused by technological malfunctions, (3) misuse of the 

data by persons working with the data, (4) misuse of the data by persons through remote access, 

 49 Julian Nixon, Council of Social Science Data Archives, “Federal Data Centers – Past and Proposed,” undated, 

reprinted in Computer Privacy, hearings before the Subcomm. on Administrative Practice and Procedure of the Senate 

Comm. on the Judiciary, 90th Cong., 1st sess., March 14-15, 1967, pp. 199-204. 50 The Computer and Invasion of Privacy, p. 13 (statement of Vance Packard). 51 Cornelius Gallagher, “Questions of Invasions of Privacy Relating to the Establishment of a National Data 

Center,” 112 Cong. Rec. 19962 (Aug. 18, 1966). 52 Ibid.
16

and (5) violations of confidentiality rules.

53 He was also concerned that proponents of the data 

center had not sufficiently examined the cost effectiveness of the center, and that they had not 

fully examined whether the center would duplicate ongoing efforts of the individual agencies.54 

Gallagher stated that the Kaysen committee report and its predecessors “represented an 

insufficient examination of all the problems and potentialities that would arise from the 

establishment of a National Data Center.” 55 Further, in a letter to the director of the BoB, 

Gallagher commented on the Kaysen Committee report, calling it superficial and a rehash of the 

previous studies. He stated: “I believe that the American people deserved something better from 

the distinguished panel that studied the problem for a period of nearly eleven months at the 

expense of the American taxpayers ...”56

At first, congressional concern was focused on the impact of technological change on 

individual privacy. However, concern soon turned to the extent of information on individuals 

maintained by federal agencies.57 In 1966, the Senate Subcommittee on Administrative Practice 

and Procedure surveyed federal agencies about the amount of personal information they 

collected.58

 53 Cornelius Gallagher, “Privacy and the National Data Center,” speech before the Joint Computer Conference, 

Atlantic City, NJ, April 18, 1967, reprinted in 113 Cong. Rec. 29590, Oct. 20, 1967 (entered into the record by Rep. 

Daniels). 

The study identified more than three billion records on individuals, including names, 

addresses, criminal histories, mental health records, and financial records. The study concluded 

54 “The Federal Data Center and the Invasion of Privacy – A Progress Report,” 113 Cong. Rec. 6747 (March 15, 

1967) (statement of Rep. Gallagher). 55 Ibid. 56 Cornelius Gallagher, letter to Charles L. Schultze, director, Bureau of the Budget, Dec. 1, 1966, p. 1. 57 Priscilla M. Regan, Legislating Privacy (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1995), pp. 72-74. 58 Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, Subcomm. on Administrative Practice and Procedure, Government Dossier: 

Survey of Information Contained in Government Files, 90th Cong., 1st sess., committee print, 1967. 
17

that much of the information collected by the government was irrelevant and in some instances, 

confidentiality provisions were not meaningful or not enforced.59

The only congressional support for a data center came from the Joint Economic 

Committee. In its 1967 hearings on the coordination and integration of government statistical 

programs, the committee examined the efficiency of the federal statistical system and explored 

the possibility of a national data center, including the implications of such a center and the 

“problem of disclosure and of safeguarding the rights of individuals to personal privacy.”

 

60 In a 

companion report, the committee concluded that the information collected by the government did 

not meet the needs of the nation. They recommended that steps be taken to integrate the federal 

statistical programs and establish a national statistical center.61

Nonetheless, in August 1968, the House Special Subcommittee on Invasion of Privacy

strongly recommended that the creation of a national data center be postponed until the technical 

requirements for protecting privacy could be fully explored. The subcommittee stressed that 

privacy needed to be a priority when designing the data center, and recommended that if a data 

center were developed, the data should be kept in aggregate form so that no individuals could be 

 

 59 Ibid., pp. 7-9. Five years later, the Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights launched a four-year study of

data banks maintained by federal agencies. The study uncovered 858 data banks containing more than 1.25 billion 

records on individuals. In addition to the large number, the subcommittee was alarmed by the fact that they “met 

evasion, delay, inadequate and cavalier responses, and all too often laziness born of a resentment that anyone should 

be inquiring about their activities. Some agencies displayed their arrogance by not replying at all. With others, 

extracting information was like pulling teeth.” Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, Subcomm. on Constitutional Rights, 

Federal Data Banks and Constitutional Rights, p. iv (statement of Sen. Sam J. Ervin, Jr., chairman). 60 The Coordination and Integration of Government Statistical Programs, hearings before the Subcomm. on 

Economic Statistics of the Joint Economic Comm., 90th Cong., 1st Sess., May 17-18; June 7-8, 1967, p. 2. In his 

opening remarks, the subcommittee chairman acknowledged, “[t]he statistical needs of the private sector have also 

become increasingly demanding. Examples include data for business planning and for the large number of individuals 

engaged in social science research.” Ibid., p. 1 (statement of Herman E. Talmadge, Chairman). 61 Joint Economic Comm., Subcomm. on Economic Statistics, The Coordination and Integration of Government 

Statistical Programs, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., joint committee report, 1967, p. 9.
18

identified. They also recommended that the data center not be placed in an existing federal 

agency, but in an independent commission.62

Public Reaction to the National Data Center Proposal

Extensive media coverage of the hearings revealed far-reaching concerns over the 

potential invasion of privacy.63 In an era of growing distrust of and frustration with government 

bureaucracy, the media rallied against the national data center proposal. Despite its proposed 

efficiencies, the national data center proposal stirred up thoughts of loss of privacy, infringement 

of rights, and even totalitarianism.64

• “Tyranny of the Statistic,” Christian Science Monitor, July 29, 1966

 While some called for legal checks and balances to be put 

in place to safeguard information in the national data center, such as the ability for an individual 

to review the information maintained about him- or herself, others called for its immediate 

demise. The authors’ sentiments were captured succinctly by the headlines, for example:

• “Computer Abuse Threatens Privacy,” Systems, September 1966

• “Computer as Big Brother,” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, August 1966

• “Big Brother Never Rests,” Indianapolis Star, August 15, 1966

• “A Giant Peeping Tom,” Paterson (NJ) Evening News, August 8, 1966

One paper called the national data center concept “the apex of bureaucracy and entirely 

totalitarian in conception,”65

 62 Luther J. Carter, “National Data Bank: Its Advocates Try to Erase ‘Big Brother’ Image,” Science, vol. 163, no. 

3863 (Jan. 10, 1969), p. 163; Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, Subcomm. on Constitutional Rights, Federal Data 

Banks and Constitutional Rights, p. 10.

while another stated that the “evil potential of a centralized 

63 “Privacy Subcommittee Brings a Sense of Balance to Technological Growth and the Right To Privacy,” 112 

Cong. Rec. 28688-28705 (Oct. 21, 1966) (newspaper articles entered into the record by Rep. Gallagher). 64 See, e.g., “House Panel Opens Hearings on Complex Problems – Will Computer Bank Destroy Privacy?” 

Houston Post, July 27, 1966, reprinted in 112 Cong. Rec. 28689 (Oct. 21, 1966); “Big Brother Wants You,” Arizona 

Republic, Aug. 7, 1966, reprinted in 112 Cong. Rec. 28693 (Oct. 21, 1966); “Punch-Card Dossiers,” Charleston (SC) 

Post, Aug. 1, 1966, reprinted in 112 Cong. Rec. 28694 (Oct. 21, 1966); Erwin Knoll, “Our Fishbowl Society – Prying 

and Privacy,” reprinted in 112 Cong. Rec. 28701 (Oct. 21, 1966). 65 “Computer Abuse Threatens Privacy,” Systems, September 1966, reprinted in 112 Cong. Rec. 28691 (Oct. 21, 

1966).
19

electronic card file for Americans is obvious.”66 The editors of the Christian Science Monitor

stated that they were “frankly repelled by the proposal,” noting that “[i]t would constitute a 

monstrous invasion of privacy and a threat to the liberties of every American.”67

The Wall Street Journal also noted the threat to civil liberties. The paper called attention 

to the potential misuse of the data center and called for its rejection: 

 

We do not suggest that many officials would attempt to abuse the power. Yet the 

fact is that even as it is, Federal agencies have been known to harass individuals 

or businesses, just as some of them have not been above electronic prying and 

other violations of privacy.

 In any event, it is a cardinal requirement for a free society that the people do 

not entrust their liberties to the whims of men in power but rely rather on wise 

laws to protect them from oppression. ... Congress should promptly and 

emphatically dispatch the Budget Bureau’s incipient octopus.68

In a similar vein, an editorial in the New York Times stated, “[t]he Orwellian nightmare” would 

be realized if the national data center were approved.69

We already live with the fact that from birth to grave Federal agencies keep tabs 

on each of us, recording our individual puny existence, monitoring our incomes 

and claimed deductions, noting when we are employed or jobless, and – through 

the F.B.I. and similar agencies – keeping all too close watch on what we think or 

say, what we read and what organizations we belong to. ... Understandably, this 

idea has brought vigorous protest, in which we join.

 The editorial went on to say:

70

While several journalists admitted there were potential efficiencies of a national data 

center and no “Big Brother motivations at the outset,”71

 66 “Computer as Big Brother,” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, August 1966, reprinted in 112 Cong. Rec. 28692 (Oct. 21, 

1966).

others more emphatically sounded the 

warning about the potential misuses of the information and future inclusion of harmful 

67 “Tyranny of the Statistic,” Christian Science Monitor, July 29, 1966, reprinted in 112 Cong. Rec. 28691 (Oct.

21, 1966). 68 “Review and Outlook – Too Personal by Far,” The Wall Street Journal, Aug. 5, 1966, reprinted in 112 Cong. 

Rec. 28690-28691 (Oct. 21, 1966). 69 “To Preserve Privacy,” editorial, New York Times, Aug. 9, 1966, reprinted in 112 Cong. Rec. 19964 (Aug. 18, 

1966). 70 Ibid. 71 Edward P. Morgan and the News, July 26, 1966, reprinted in 112 Cong. Rec. 28697 (Oct. 21, 1966).
20

information.72 One description of the data center forewarned: “[u]ltimately, the computer will 

be expanded to include the life history of every citizen: his schooling, grades, military service, 

personality traits, police record, employment, income, credit rating and every other item of 

information alleged to be pertinent or revealing.”73 Other reporters noted that information 

contained in government files may not be accurate or true, asserting “F.B.I. files are full of 

absolutely unsubstantiated accusations, consisting at least partially of mere gossip, against 

thousands of perfectly good, loyal citizens.”74

Continuing congressional attention kept the national data center proposal in the news for 

several years. National magazines, including Look, The Atlantic, Newsweek, U.S. News & World 

Report, and even Playboy, continued to cover the issue, as well general issues related to privacy 

and advances in computer technology. In November 1967, Arthur Miller wrote in The Atlantic: 

“a Data Center poses a grave threat to individual freedom and privacy. With its insatiable 

appetite for information, its inability to forget anything that has been put into it, a central 

computer might become the heart of a government surveillance system.”75

 72 See, e.g., “National Data Center Has Frightening Implications,” Providence (RI) Journal, Aug. 1, 1966, 

reprinted in 112 Cong. Rec. 28692 (Oct. 21, 1966); “Computer as Big Brother,” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Aug. 1966, 

reprinted in 112 Cong. Rec. 28692 (Oct. 21, 1966).

 The following year, 

Look carried an article that discussed the numerous data banks already in existence at the time 

and the lack of regulation over access to the information they contained. The article noted that 

73 “An All-Knowing Computer,” Winston-Salem (NC) Journal and Sentinel, July 31, 1966, reprinted in 112 Cong. 

Rec. 28694 (Oct. 21, 1966). 74 “Centralized Computer Threat to Freedom?” Benton Harbor News-Palladium, Aug. 1, 1966, reprinted in 112 

Cong. Rec. 28694 (Oct. 21, 1966). See also “Computer Technology Receiving Its First Investigation in Regard to The 

Need for Establishing Ethical and Legal Protection as Well as Technological Safeguards for Certain System 

Applications,” Computing Newsline, July 29, 1966, reprinted in 112 Cong. Rec. 28696 (Oct. 21, 1966); Ernest 

Conine, “A Clear and Future Peril,” Los Angeles Times, July 17, 1966, reprinted in 112 Cong. Rec. 28698 (Oct. 21, 

1966). 75 Arthur R. Miller, “The National Data Center and Personal Privacy,” The Atlantic, November 1967.
21

the ability of federal agencies to match data maintained by other agencies resulted in a de facto 

data center whether or not one was officially established.76

It was not only the media that responded to the national data center proposal. Letters 

from concerned citizens poured in from around the country expressing concern not only to 

members of Congress but to the director of Bureau of the Budget and the President, as well. In 

addition, for example, a nun wrote her representative about the “hazardous project” she referred 

to as the “Computer dossier data bank.”77 Another citizen wrote President Johnson to dismiss 

the “idealistic claims” of the supporters of the data center, noting that the center would “place a 

powerful surveillance instrument in the hands of government officials” and that records that were 

lost or inaccurate “accidentally could have damaging consequences to the person so affected.”78

In a sermon at the Washington Cathedral on September 19, 1966, Canon Michael 

Hamilton discussed the moral issues related to a national data center. He noted that even though 

privacy safeguards could be incorporated into the national data center, “there is no absolute safe 

system, because evil men may gain control of a mechanism and dismantle those safeguards. 

Granted that the present intentions of the Government are benign, and that the advantages of 

such a Center are enormous, what if a tyrant of one kind or another gains power over these files? 

Is the risk worth taking?” 79 However, Hamilton stated that the nation should cautiously 

continue it plans for the data center, “for not to do so would be to lose faith in ourselves as a 

nation and in the flexibility of our political system to adapt creatively to change.”80

 76 Jack Star, “The Computer Data Bank: Will It Kill Your Freedom?” Look, June 1968. 77 Sister Mary Romana, R.S.M, Rogers City, MI, letter to Rep. Philip E. Ruppe, Jan. 27, 1967. 78 Richard A. Nickey, Elmhurst, IL, letter to President Lyndon B. Johnson, June 19, 1967. 79 Michael Hamilton, “The Human Use of Technology,” Sept. 19, 1966, reprinted in 112 Cong. Rec. 24677-24678 

(Sept. 30, 1966) (entered into the record by Sen. Pell). Hamilton noted that the advantages of the national data center 

were that it would show the interrelationships among federal data sets, relieve “some of the repetitive form filing 

involved in working with the Government,” increase government efficiency, and reduce costs. 80 Ibid., p. 24678.
22

In a 1967 article on the fourth amendment and privacy, Rabbi Norman Lamm stated that 

although there was no “technical legal objection to this proposed National Data Center; ... the 

whole sense of Jewish law and universal morality must reject such a plan as abhorrent.”81 Dr. 

Lamm recognized that the proponents of the data center were well-intentioned, but noted: “if the 

mechanism exists, then we may be sure that, by some as yet undiscovered law that issues from 

the depths of human and social perversity, all kinds of information will be forthcoming in an 

attempt to satisfy its insatiable appetite for more and more facts, regardless of their relevance, 

need, or accuracy.”82

The Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR) also addressed the topic. At their 

annual meeting in 1967, the DAR resolved:

Whereas a proposal for a Federal Data Center is being developed to establish a 

single machine-age information reservoir on every American citizen... 

 Whereas this information assembled into a complete dossier can become a 

formidable invasion of personal privacy or even a potential source of blackmail...

 Resolved, That the National Society of the Daughters of the American 

Revolution expose the fallacies and evident dangers to our free society in such a 

central pooling of information on the citizen’s private life and call for the fullest 

open discussion of the wisdom or necessity for such a Federal data bank.83

That same year, another group elevated the issue to an international level. The 

Commission to Study the Organization of Peace84

 81 Norman Lamm, “The Fourth Amendment and Its Equivalent in the Halachah,” Judaism (summer 1967), 

reprinted in 113 Cong. Rec. 30895-30899 (Nov. 2, 1967) (entered into the record by Sen. Long).

made recommendations to the United Nations 

concerning computers and privacy. The commission specifically referred to the national data 

center proposals and the hearings held by the Gallagher committee and stated that it is “doubly 

important to consider the advisability of the whole scheme and, in case of its execution, to 

82 Ibid., p. 30897. 83 Daughters of the American Revolution, “Resolutions of National Society of DAR,” reprinted in 113 Cong. Rec. 

15372-15373 (June 12, 1967) (entered into the record by Sen. Thurmond). 84 The commission was established during World War II by James Shotwell and leaders of the former League of 

Nations. David Cortright, Peace: A History of Movements and Ideas (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge 

University Press, 2008), p. 111; Arthur K. Kuhn, “Editorial Comment: The Organization of Peace,” The American 

Journal of International Law, vol. 35, no. 1 (January 1941), pp. 114-117.
23

provide sufficient safeguards with respect to the maximum accuracy of the data, their 

confidentiality, access to them, and the permissibility of their use in situations involving an 

invasion of individual privacy.”85

Response to the Controversy

The Research Community Chimes In

Amidst the privacy controversy, the research community was discussing matters of 

privacy, confidentiality, and informed consent, often in direct response to the national data center 

proposal. Researchers agreed having more data was desirable, but were less certain about the 

existence of any threat to privacy. Several authors discussed the tension between the need for 

information and the rights of individuals,86 though some seemed rather astonished by the 

concerns over privacy expressed by research subjects.87 Others dismissed the public outcry over 

the data center proposal as fear of the “impersonal nature” of the computer or lack of 

understanding of technology.88 For example, one researcher argued that the 1966 hearings of the 

Gallagher committee were reported “in a biased and distorted way” and noted that while there 

were ethical, legal, and technical issues that needed to be resolved, the government could provide 

less expensive, more efficient services and research could be “more meaningfully pursued” if 

government data were available to social scientists.89

 85 Commission to Study the Organization of Peace, The United Nations and Human Rights, 18th report, reprinted 

in 113 Cong. Rec. 28319-28320 (Oct. 10, 1967) (entered into the record by Sen. Long).

 

86 Chester C. Bennett, “What Price Privacy?” American Psychologist, vol. 22, no. 5 (May 1967), pp. 371-376; 

Dale Tillery, “Seeking a Balance Between the Right of Privacy and the Advancement of Social Research,” Journal of 

Educational Measurement, vol. 4, no. 1 (Spring 1967), pp. 11-16; Jack Sawyer and Howard Schechter, “Computers, 

Privacy, and the National Data Center: The Responsibility of Social Scientists,” American Psychologist, vol. 23, no. 

11 (November 1968), pp. 810-818. 87 For example, in discussing a study of students, Tillery notes “the extent of the concern of the protection of the 

individual student and his home was far greater than had been anticipated.” Tillery, p. 11. 88 Bennett, p. 374. 

89 Ralph L. Bisco, “Social Science Data Archives: Progress and Prospects,” Social Science Information, vol. 6 

(1967), p. 70. Bisco wrote a series of papers describing the technical and functional requirements of data archives, 

and noted the increased demand for access to data collected by the federal government and the lack of policies, 

procedures, and standards for the preservation and use of the data. See also Ralph L. Bisco, “Social Science Data 
24

In 1968, T.J. Vander Noot of the Economic Council of Canada, noted that it was 

“curious” that the proposed national data center had resulted in a national debate because it did 

not present new challenges to privacy and confidentiality, it just concentrated the issue “into one 

large package.”90 He allowed, however, that “perhaps the coupling of disclosure and 

confidentiality considerations with the arcane mysteries of the computer was bound to stimulate 

discussion.”91 That same year, Herman Miller, chief of the Census Bureau’s Population 

Division, suggested that those who oppose the data center “may be grossly underestimating the 

importance of statistics as a tool for public policy.”92 Miller also noted that “[i]t would be a 

mistake to exaggerate the likelihood that census data will be disclosed to unauthorized persons or 

that they will be used to the detriment of individuals.”93

There were some researchers offering dissenting opinions, however. A former federal 

government statistician stated that the proposed national data center plan had “many 

objectionable features” and faulted the Kaysen Committee for failing to address “the particulars” 

of confidentiality.

 

94

 

Archives: Technical Considerations,” Social Science Information, vol. 4 (1965), pp. 129-150; Ralph L. Bisco, “Social 

Science Data Archives: A Review of Developments,” The American Political Science Review, vol. 60, no. 1 (March 

1966), pp. 93-109.

 Similarly, the director of the National Center for Health Statistics criticized 

“the tendency of data bank proponents to neglect basic problems of data collection” and accused 

90 T.J. Vander Noot, “Computers, Social Science Statisticians, and the A.S.A.,” The American Statistician, vol. 22, 

no. 3 (June 1968), p. 21. The Economic Council of Canada was established in 1963 and disbanded in 1993. Funded 

by the government, its purpose was to study economic growth and assess the impact of economic policies. “Economic 

Council of Canada,” The Canadian Encyclopedia, accessed at <http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com.>

91 Vander Noot, p. 21.

92 Herman P. Miller, “Processing Census and Sample Survey Data on Social Change and Regional Disparities in 

the United States,” Social Science Information, vol. 7 (1968), p. 130.

93 Miller, p. 131. To support this argument, Miller cited the fact that “there has not been a single scandal involving 

the misuse of [census] records.” Ibid. 

94 A.C. Rosander, “Analysis of the Kaysen Committee Report,” The American Statistician, vol. 24, no. 1 (February 

1970), pp. 22-25. Rosander worked for BLS, the War Production Board, the IRS, and the Interstate Commerce 

Commission. He also argued that cost reductions and efficiencies projected by the Kaysen Committee were 

unsubstantiated and that the report lacked sufficient detail on costs, staffing, and expertise required by the data center. 
25

them of being “wildly optimistic about what is really available.”95 He noted that linking data on 

individuals from a variety of data sets “raise[d] serious questions of privacy which must be 

answered.”96 Similarly, Ewan Clague, former commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 

informed Congress of his support for a national data center with “certain cautions and 

conditions,” particularly concerning the maintenance of data confidentiality.97 Clague added: “I 

must also express a note of caution against too much optimism as to the usefulness of the raw 

data to the prospective users. ... It just isn’t possible for an outsider without help to make the 

most effective use of raw data unsupported by experienced and informed interpretation.”98

In 1967, the ASA issued a formal statement concerning the national data center proposal. 

They favored a slower, more thoughtful approach to developing the data center. In a letter to the 

director of the BoB, the organization stated it supported the proposal in principle, but cautioned 

that the Kaysen Committee’s recommendations went “‘too far, too fast.’”99

 95 Theodore D. Woolsey, “Data Banks Are Not the Answer: A Statistician’s Viewpoint,” American Journal of 

Public Health, vol. 60, no. 10 (Oct. 1970), pp. 1991, 1994. Woolsey stated he would not take a position on the 

privacy controversy in his paper, although noted that a data bank would be unfair in that not everyone would have 

access to it or know that the data existed. He argued that providing data to the public in published form “so that 

everyone has equal and simultaneous access to it” was more equitable and more efficient. Ibid., pp. 1992-1993.

 In its letter, the ASA 

recognized the public’s concern about privacy and recommended that the government take steps 

to ensure confidential data were safeguarded.

96 Woolsey, p. 1993, note. 97 The Coordination and Integration of Government Statistical Programs, hearings before the Subcomm. on 

Economic Statistics of the Joint Economic Comm., 90th Cong., 1st Sess., May 17-18; June 7-8, 1967, p. 140 (statement 

of Ewan Clague). 

98 Ibid., p. 136 (statement of Ewan Clague). At the hearings, Frederick F. Stephan, social statistics professor, 

Princeton University, also urged caution, noting that several studies had argued against concentrating statistical 

functions into a central agency: “the proposal of a national data center would not appear to be wise if it is to be a 

consolidation of statistical functions that can be done effectively by the separate agencies engaged in the production of 

statistical data.” Ibid., p. 53 (statement of Frederick F. Stephan). He stated that there has not been enough study of 

“precisely what types of information would be consolidated in such a center” and that it could become such a large of 

collection of data “that Congress would be unwilling to pay the cost of collecting it, let alone processing it.” Ibid., p. 

61. Stephan recommended careful study, cost-benefit analyses, and experimentation be conducted in order to 

determine the most appropriate form of interagency sharing of data. 99 Quoted in T.A. Bancroft, “The Statistical Community and the Protection of Privacy,” The American Statistician, 

vol. 26, no. 4 (October 1972), pp. 13-14.
26

Proposal Proponents Respond

After the June 1966 congressional hearings, Edgar Dunn summarized his experiences in a 

memorandum to the assistant director of the Bureau of the Budget, Charles Zwick, and Carl 

Kaysen. He mentioned the “flair-up of concern and controversy surrounding the general notion 

of a data center” and stated that he did not have “the foggiest idea what kicked it off.”100 Later 

that year, Kaysen noted that Gallagher’s criticisms were “really pretty annoying.”101

Nonetheless, the authors of the three original data center proposals responded publicly (or 

at least to their peers) to criticisms that their proposals lacked attention to privacy issues. Dunn 

agreed that his scant discussion of privacy was “a gigantic oversight.”102 He defended this 

oversight, however, in a 1967 article in The American Statistician noting that his report for the 

BoB was addressed to members of the federal statistical system and, thus, “it was assumed that 

the protection of personal privacy was a given condition that was understood by everyone 

concerned.”103

 100 Edgar Dunn, memorandum to Charlie Zwick and Carl Kazen (sic), re: The National Data Service Center and 

the Personal Privacy “Flap,” June 16, 1966. 

 In his article, he reiterated the importance of a national data center, stating: “We 

are engaged in discussing a public issue that is of the greatest importance to the future of our 

society. The emerging prospects of better and more useful information systems hold great 

101 Carl Kaysen, letter to Charles J. Zwick, assistant director, Bureau of the Budget, Dec. 6, 1966. Kaysen had 

written an earlier note to Zwick about the appendix on privacy and confidentiality he added to the committee’s report, 

cautioning that the appendix may need to be toned down because he “kind of got mad at Gallagher.” Carl Kaysen, 

note to Charles J. Zwick, assistant director, Bureau of the Budget, Oct. 21, 1966. In the appendix, the committee 

referred to the Census Bureau’s Title 13 protections and placed the responsibility for privacy with Congress: “the 

problem of the threat to privacy can be met best by congressional action, which defines a general statutory standard 

governing the disclosure of information that is collected on individuals...” Report of the Task Force on the Storage of 

and Access to Government Statistics, October 1966, Annex, p. 18, reprinted in The American Statistician, vol. 23, no. 

3 (June 1969), pp. 11-19. The committee also noted they did not intend for the data bank to create “dossiers” of 

personal information and that it was “clearly within the power of Congress” to differentiate between socioeconomic 

data and “the sort of personal history information on named individuals that is contained in a personnel file or police 

file.” Ibid., p. 19. 102 Edgar S. Dunn, “The Idea of a National Data Center and the Issue of Personal Privacy,” The American 

Statistician, vol. 21, no. 1 (February 1967), p. 23. 103 Dunn, p. 23. Dunn added that he thought this assumption was justified because “legal and procedural 

protections against revealing information about individuals have been a very basic part of the operation of the Federal 

statistical programs for many many years! Furthermore, these protections have been phenomenally successful! ... No 

successful statistical program could exist without full confidence that personal privacy was secured!” Ibid. 
27

promise for human welfare” (emphasis added).104 Dunn further stated that “[i]t is unnecessary 

and unfortunate if we identify the prospects for more rational utilization of existing statistical 

resources with this personal privacy issue in the short-run.”105

In an article in The Public Interest in 1967, Carl Kaysen said that the members of his 

committee “were moved by professional concern for the quality and usability of the enormous 

body of government data to take on what they thought to be a necessary, important, and totally 

unglamorous task. They certainly did not expect it to be controversial.”106 Kaysen concluded his 

article by stating that “the risky potentials which might be inherent in a data center are 

sufficiently unlikely to materialize so that they are outweighed, on balance, by the real 

improvement in understanding of our economic and social processes this enterprise would make 

possible, with all the concomitant gains in intelligent and effective public policy that such 

understanding could lead to.”107

At the 1967 hearings of the Subcommittee on Economics Statistics of the Joint Economic 

Committee of Congress, Dunn and Ruggles tried to dismiss the fears of invasion of privacy. 

Dunn noted that the concern with privacy had been “misplaced.”108

 104 Ibid., p. 27. 

 Making the distinction 

between intelligence systems and statistical systems, Dr. Dunn noted that the latter produces 

aggregate – not individual – information. He further testified that “there will be much less 

temptation to pervert a statistical system for intelligence purposes than is commonly 

105 Ibid. 106 Carl Kaysen, “Data Banks and Dossiers,” The Public Interest, Spring 1967, reprinted in Computer Privacy, 

hearings before the Subcomm. on Administrative Practice and Procedure of the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 90th

Cong., 1st sess., March 14-15, 1967, pp. 265-269. 107 Ibid., p. 269. 108 The Coordination and Integration of Government Statistical Programs, hearings before the Subcomm. on 

Economic Statistics of the Joint Economic Comm., 90th Cong., 1st Sess., May 17-18; June 7-8, 1967, p. 10 (statement 

of Edgar S. Dunn). These hearings examined the efficiency of the federal statistical system and explored the 

possibility of a “National Statistical Center.” As mentioned above, the committee generally supported the data center.
28

supposed.”109 Similarly, Richard Ruggles, noted that there is “more a fear of possible misuse of 

information than an objection to its existence” and that “[a]lthough the emphasis in the privacy 

hearings was mainly on the possible danger of centralizing records, they also brought out that in 

some instances the centralization of files can result in increasing the protection of individual 

privacy in situations where there have been flagrant abuses.”110

The Bureau of the Budget Regroups

 

In February 1967, the director of the BoB, Charles L. Schultze, met with Rep. Cornelius 

Gallagher concerning the national data center proposal. Schultze agreed that the data center, if 

approved, would house only statistical summaries and sample data.111 A few months later at the 

Joint Economic Committee hearings, Raymond Bowman repeated that the purpose of the data 

center would be “making our body of data really serve analytical issues”112 and informed the 

committee “[t]he way we are thinking about it now is that a data center could be organized 

within one of the existing agencies of the Federal Government, that such a center should clearly 

not have in it information whose main use is with respect to individuals.”113 Bowman further 

stated that “no universe data” would be put into the data center. Only sample data would be 

included so that the data center would not contain information on all of the individuals and 

businesses in the United States.

114 He also noted that he expected that Congress would put into 

place statutory safeguards, such as the Census Bureau’s Title 13 confidentiality provisions.115

 109 Ibid. 110 Ibid., p. 27 (statement of Richard Ruggles). 111 Nan Robertson, “Data Bank: A Threat to Your Privacy,” The New York Times, Jan. 7, 1968, reprinted in 114 

Cong. Rec. 25200 (submitted to the record by Rep. Gallagher). 112 The Coordination and Integration of Government Statistical Programs, p. 74 (statement of Raymond T. 

Bowman). 113 Ibid., p. 75 (statement of Raymond T. Bowman). 114 Ibid. 115 Similarly, in an address to the American Bar Association, Charles Zwick, assistant BoB director, defended the 

data center and emphasized that the center would not: be a collection agency, have data on all individuals or firms, or 

include information from investigatory files. Zwick reminded his audience of the now revised functions of the data 
29

In July 1967, the BoB organized the “Task Force on Selection of Statistical Series With 

Recognized Interrelated Uses for Central Storage (or Access), Collation Procedures and 

Retrieval Programming” and asked it to identify the hundred most important statistical series 

maintained by federal agencies.116 The following month, BoB director Charles Schultze 

formally tasked assistant director Zwick with developing a detailed technical plan for developing 

the data center. Schultze also asked Zwick to evaluate whether the BoB should also propose the 

consolidation of the Census Bureau with the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), noting that such a 

consolidation would probably not be advisable since it would be “a good means of killing the 

data center.”117 The request to study the proposal to consolidate the Census Bureau and BLS 

was made by Joseph Califano, special assistant to President Johnson.118

In late 1967, Bowman began drafting legislation concerning the national data center. 

Although he agreed privacy safeguards should be built into the data center’s computer system 

and legislation, he admitted that he was unsure how to do so.119

 

center: (1) maintaining an inventory of data collected by the federal government; (2) maintaining information on only 

a sample of individuals and firms; (3) performing statistical analyses; and (4) providing summary information and 

results of statistical analyses. Charles J. Zwick, “A National Data Center,” presentation before the annual meeting of 

the American Bar Association, Honolulu, HI, Aug. 8, 1967, p. 4, cited by Robert L. Chartrand and Louise Giovane 

Becker, “The Federal Data Center: Proposals and Reactions,” U.S. Library of Congress, Legislative Reference 

Service, reprinted in 114 Cong. Rec. 13285-13289 (submitted to the record by Rep. Donald Rumsfeld).

 The draft “Federal Statistical 

116 David Rosenblatt, National Bureau of Standards, memorandum to H.R.J. Grosch, director, Center for Computer 

Sciences and Technology, July 26, 1967; Raymond T. Bowman, Assistant Director for Statistical Standards, 

memorandum for David Rosenblatt, Bureau of Standards; Ezra Glaser, National Institutes of Health; Vito Natrella, 

IRS; Leon Greenberg, BLS; Joseph Steinberg, SSA; Morris R. Goldman, OBE; and George Sadowsky, Brookings, re: 

Task Force on Selection of Statistical Series With Recognized Interrelated Uses for Central Storage (or Access), 

Collation Procedures and Retrieval Programming, July 11, 1967. Task force members were mainly government 

statisticians, including Joseph Daly, chief mathematical and statistical advisor of the U.S. Census Bureau. 117 Charles L. Schultze, director, Bureau of the Budget, memorandum for Charles J. Zwick, assistant director, 

Bureau of the Budget, Aug. 17, 1967. Zwick’s report noted that the merger “would draw attention away from the 

more important more basic need to improve statistical coordination” and “might jeopardize the establishment of a 

National Statistical Data Center.” Charles J. Zwick, Staff Memorandum, re: Proposed Reorganization of the Bureau 

of Labor Statistics with the Bureau of the Census, undated (ca. 1967). 118 Joseph A. Califano, Jr., special assistant to the President, memorandum for Charles L. Schultze, director, 

Bureau of the Budget, Aug. 14, 1967. Califano asked Schultze to conduct a staff study “concerning the consolidation 

of related functions now split between the Departments of Commerce and Labor.” 

119 Nan Robertson, “Data Bank: A Threat to Your Privacy,” The New York Times, Jan. 7, 1968, reprinted in 114 

Cong. Rec. 25200 (submitted to the record by Rep. Gallagher).
30

Service Center Act” was never introduced in Congress. The bill would have placed the data 

center within the Department of Commerce essentially with the same responsibilities identified 

by the various data center proposals, including assembling and preserving data in a form that 

made it accessible for future use, making data available to outside researchers (with no 

identifiable information), and maintaining an index of data collected by government agencies. In 

addition the data center would analyze the data collected by various agencies and recommend 

means of improving the economy and efficiency of data collection.120

By the spring of 1968, plans for the data center were still developing, though slowly. 

Charles Zwick, now the director of the BoB, reported to Rep. Gallagher that his agency would 

prepare a “specific, concrete plan” that would be vetted by a variety of stakeholders and assured 

the Congressman that “[o]nly after that would we consider we had a ‘proposal’ for appropriate 

consideration by Congress.”121 Zwick further noted that, given other priorities of the Budget 

Bureau, he doubted that the proposal would be completed soon. Gallagher considered this 

“postponement” of the national data center a victory, stating: “I am frankly delighted that a 

National Data Bank will not soon be added to forces already at work in America which tend to 

inhibit personal dignity and individual freedom.”122

In 1970, the Bureau of the Budget was reorganized into the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB).

 

123

 120 Paul F. Krueger, assistant chief, Office of Statistical Standards, Bureau of the Budget, memorandum to 

Raymond T. Bowman, chief, Office of Statistical Standards, re: Proposal to Establish a Federal Statistical Service 

Center, May 16, 1968. A copy of the draft legislation was attached to the memorandum.

 Charles Zwick (who had replaced Charles Schultze as director of the BoB in 

January 1968), was succeeded by President Richard M. Nixon’s appointees, Robert Mayo, who 

served as director from January 1969 to June 1970, and George Schultz, director from July 1970 

121 Quoted in “Budget Bureau Puts Off Data Bank, Gallagher Reveals,” Government Employees’ Exchange, 

reprinted in 114 Cong. Rec. 25201 (Aug. 2, 1968) (submitted to the record by Rep. Gallagher). 122 Ibid. 123 The White House, Executive Order 1151, “Prescribing the Duties of the Office of Management and Budget and 

the Domestic Council in the Executive Office of the President,” July 1, 1970, 35 F.R. 128 (July 2, 1970).
31

to June 1972. In 1969, Julius Shiskin was named assistant director for Statistical Policy, a 

position similar to the one held by Bowman who had retired earlier that year. By 1970, OMB 

was no longer working on plans for a national data center.124

The Census Bureau’s Involvement and Ongoing Work

Despite playing a central role in the Kaysen Committee’s recommendations, the Census 

Bureau itself did not become actively involved in the national data center debate. Nonetheless, 

in the era of government mistrust and concern over privacy, the 1970 census became entangled 

in the issue. The Census Bureau, however, continued to perform its regular functions as 

congressional inquiries and public accusations loomed.

The Bureau of the Budget and its consultants considered placing the proposed federal 

data center in the Census Bureau. Although most felt that the center should be independent from 

existing statistical agencies, placing it in the Census Bureau was considered a logical 

compromise.125 However, an interagency task force assembled at the request of the President to 

discuss the feasibility of the Kaysen committee proposal could not agree on where the data 

center should reside organizationally; some members opposed placing the center in the Census 

Bureau.126

 124 Arnold R. Weber, Office of Management and Budget, draft memorandum to the Director, re: Background on 

Proposal for a National Data Center, Oct. 22, 1970, p. 4. The memorandum states that the President’s Commission on 

Federal Statistics was expected to examine the problems that gave rise to the data center proposal, such as the 

problems of storage of and access to data. Ibid., p. 5. See also Julius Shiskin, assistant director for statistical policy, 

Office of Management and Budget, letter to Hon. Philip A. Hart, U.S. Senate, May 4, 1970. Shiskin’s letter was in 

response to a letter Hart had received from a constituent concerning the status of government data banks. Robert E. 

Marrone, letter to Sen. Philip A. Hart, Jan. 6, 1970. 

 John T. Connor, the Secretary of Commerce at the time, supported the suggestion 

125 See Edgar Dunn, Memorandum to Raymond T. Bowman, re: Progress Report on Assignment, June 8, 1965; 

Milton Moss, Memorandum to Mssrs. Krueger and Bowman, re: Federal Data Center – Notes, July 19, 1965; 

Raymond T. Bowman, Memorandum for the Director, re: Kaysen Draft Report on National Data Center, March 9, 

1966. When asked at the July 1966 Gallagher committee hearings where the data center would be located, Bowman 

responded that it could be in the Census Bureau, the Department of Commerce, or another agency. The Computer and 

Invasion of Privacy, hearings before the Special Subcomm. on Invasion of Privacy, House Comm. on Government 

Operations, 89th Cong., July 26-28, 1966, p. 67 (statement of Raymond T. Bowman). 126 “Report of Task Group on Government Organization for Collection and Analysis of Statistics,” Nov. 23, 1966. 

See also Charles L. Schultze, director, Bureau of the Budget, memorandum for Joseph A. Califano, Jr., special 
32

that the data center be placed within the Department of Commerce, although he did not 

specifically mention placing it in the Census Bureau.

127

However, the Census Bureau itself does not seem to have been greatly involved in these 

discussions. When asked if he favored the establishment of a national bank at hearings in 1967, 

the director of the Census Bureau, Ross Eckler, responded that it was not a matter on which he 

should have an opinion, noting that it was an issue for the executive branch to decide. He did, 

however, say that there would be long-run benefits from the development of a data center, as 

well as legal issues. Eckler also stated: “I would hope that the provisions for the safeguarding of 

individual data would be at least as rigorous as those we ourselves have.”128

Although the Census Bureau made no official statement for or against the national data 

center, it did comment on the methodological and confidentiality implications of a such a center. 

In 1965, Eckler responded to a request from the BoB to review suggestions for improving federal 

statistics on economic growth that had been submitted to the Joint Economic Committee by 

social scientists and statisticians.129

 assistant to the President, re: Organization of Economic Statistics, Dec. 16, 1966. This memorandum confirms the 

President’s request that Schultze head up the in-house task force. Attached to this memorandum was a list of potential 

task force members: Bill Shaw and Ross Eckler, Department of Commerce; William H. Smith, Internal Revenue 

Service; Winn Finner, Department of Agriculture; Art Ross, Department of Labor; Art Okun, Council of Economic 

Advisors. It is unclear if the Census Bureau’s Ross Eckler had any involvement in the task force.

 Eckler recommended a cautious approach to establishing a 

national data center, noting that such a center:

127 John T. Connor, secretary, U.S. Department of Commerce, Memorandum to Hon. Joseph A. Califano, Jr., 

special assistant to the President, re: Reorganization Proposals, Jan. 28, 1966; John T. Connor, secretary, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, letter to Charles L. Schultze, director, Bureau of the Budget, Dec. 22, 1966. Connor 

attached an opinion from the general counsel stating that a legislative proposal would not be necessary to place the 

data center in the Department of Commerce. Robert E. Giles, general counsel, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

memorandum to Secretary Connor, re: Legal Review of Proposed “Federal Statistical Data Center,” Dec. 22, 1966. 128 Computer Privacy, hearings before the Subcomm. on Administrative Practice and Procedure of the Senate 

Comm. on the Judiciary, 90th Cong., 1st sess., March 14-15, 1967, p. 111. 

129Joint Economic Committee, Subcomm. on Economic Statistics, Improved Statistics for Economic Growth; 

comments by government agencies on views submitted to the Subcommittee on Economic Statistics, March 1966. 

The BoB compiled comments by the agencies. In his transmittal letter to Sen. Proxmire, the chairman of the 

Subcommittee on Economic Statistics, Raymond Bowman expressed his concerns about the federal statistical system, 

stating that the overarching theme of the suggestions was the “recognition, implicitly or explicitly, of the need to 

improve the organization of statistical data so that it can be more effectively used in analysis and policy.” Raymond 
33

[a]ssumes that the concepts of information, classification, and indexing have been 

developed to the point at which it is possible to apply them to general statistical 

material and implement automated systems for handling the receipt, classification, 

storage, searching and abstracting, retrieval, and dissemination of such data. 

Although effective systems have been developed in very restricted environments 

(as to content or as to function), we believe that a great deal of definitional and 

developmental research and experimentation will need to be done before a costeffective general-purpose data storage and retrieval system is a practical concept.130

The Census Advisory Committee of the American Economic Association discussed the 

Kaysen Committee’s recommendations at its meeting with the Census Bureau in January 1967. 

The Census Bureau noted that, given the condition of data records and the state of computer 

technology, matching of most government statistical records would not be possible and matching 

other records would be very costly.131

In fact, the Census Bureau indicated that it already did much of what the Kaysen 

Committee recommended.

 The advisory committee acknowledged the technical 

considerations, but recommended that work continue on making government statistics more 

comparable.

132

 T. Bowman, Executive Office of the President, Bureau of the Budget, letter to Hon. William Proxmire, Chairman, 

Subcommittee on Economic Statistics, Joint Economic Committee, U.S. Senate, dated Dec. 8, 1965, reprinted in 

Improved Statistics for Economic Growth, p. 3. Bowman also emphasized the need for a national statistical data 

center as well as other improvements to federal statistical programs. 

 In January 1966, Eckler summarized the data center issue in a letter 

to Andrew Brimmer, the assistant secretary for economic affairs for the Department of Commerce. 

130 A. Ross Eckler, director, Bureau of the Census, letter to Raymond T. Bowman, assistant director for statistical 

standards, Bureau of the Budget, Oct. 19, 1965, reprinted in Improved Statistics for Economic Growth, p. 35. Other 

agencies responding to Bowman’s request were: the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Internal Revenue Service, Department 

of Agriculture, Office of Business Economics of the Department of Commerce, National Center for Health Statistics, 

Office of Education of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and the Federal Reserve System. The only 

other comment on data sharing was from the Council of Economic Advisors which strongly supported efforts to 

coordinate statistical programs including “the coding and storing of data in a manner that facilitates the combined use 

of a range of statistical series in projects requiring their comparability.” Arthur M. Okun, member, Council of 

Economic Advisors, Executive Office of the President, letter to Raymond T. Bowman, assistant director for statistical 

standards, Bureau of the Budget, Nov. 2, 1965, reprinted in Improved Statistics for Economic Growth, pp. 79-81. 131 Solomon Fabricant, “Report of the Census Advisory Committee,” American Economic Review, vol. 58, no. 2 

(May 1968), p. 731. 132 A later review of the Kaysen Committee’s report even noted that the committee’s recommendations were 

“simply a relabeling of the status quo at that time.” Joseph W. Duncan and Theodore Clemence, “Arguments for and 

Against a Decentralized Federal Statistical System,” Statistical Reporter, December 1981, pp. 53-61.
34

Eckler said he supported the objectives of the Kaysen Committee,

133 but emphasized that the 

Census Bureau was already working on similar projects. Eckler said the Census Bureau “should 

intensify its efforts to develop workable programs for the compilation of general-purpose statistics 

from the raw data collected for administrative purposes by other agencies.”134

As inquiry into the national data center proposal waged on, the day-to-day work of the 

agency continued. Indeed, much of the ongoing work of the agency was similar to the goals of 

the national data center; matching data sets and using administrative records was nothing new to 

the Census Bureau. Between 1967 and 1973, the Census Bureau and state agencies formalized 

the Federal-State Cooperative Program for Local Population Estimates, which allows the Census 

Bureau to combine census and administrative records information to produce current population 

estimates consistent with the last decennial census counts.135

In fact, the agency had used administrative records from the Internal Revenue Service 

and Social Security Administration to evaluate the accuracy of the income data collected in the 

1950 census. Since then, the Census Bureau used administrative records to study error and bias 

in census records, and to help compile address lists, improve coverage of hard to count groups, 

 

 133 In announcing the appointment of the Kaysen committee, the White House noted that to make more effective 

use of government data the following areas needed improvement: users should be able to get convenient access to 

publicly available but unpublished data; standards should be established to govern what data should be kept, in what 

form, and for how long; and standard data sets should be produced to meet major needs, stored on tape, and available 

to fill special data requests. Quoted in A. Ross Eckler, director, Bureau of the Census, letter to Dr. Andrew F. 

Brimmer, assistant secretary for economic affairs, U.S. Department of Commerce, Jan. 4, 1966. 134 Ibid. Similarly, a draft statement prepared for Eckler to give to Congress in 1966 observed that the Census 

Bureau was already accomplishing the objectives of the Kaysen committee, “with the full protection of the 

confidentiality of the information.” U.S. Census Bureau, “Notes for Director on Data Center and Invasion of 

Privacy,” draft, Aug. 9, 1966, p. 5. The portions of the draft document pertaining to the national data center proposal 

ultimately were not included in the final draft of the testimony. Eckler appeared before the Subcommittee on Census 

and Statistics of the House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service in August 1966. 135 Under this program, federal agencies provide tax records, Medicare records and some vital statistics 

information, and state agencies supply vital statistics, and information about group quarters such as college dorms or 

prisons. U.S. Census Bureau, “FSCPE Overview,” accessed at <http://www.census.gov/population/www/coop/ 

history.html.> 
35

and check the accuracy of the census.136 The Census Bureau also used administrative records in 

the 1982 economic and agriculture censuses to obtain data on small businesses, saving close to 

$70 million by not mailing out four million questionnaires to obtain the information and 

eliminating the collection burden on those businesses.

137

By the 1980s, the Census Bureau was investigating the use of administrative records to 

conduct the decennial census. An internal working group, however, concluded that there were 

serious issues related to coverage and geocoding, and that basic demographic information, such 

as age, race, and sex, would be difficult to obtain for all persons.

 

138 Similarly, in 1992 the 

General Accounting Office (GAO)139 concluded that conducting an administrative records-based 

census “would need to overcome a variety of formidable technical, policy, and legal obstacles, 

such as identifying and securing access to administrative records that contain data collected in 

the census and matching administrative record sets to each other.”140

 136 The Census Bureau has matched samples of census records to IRS and Medicare data as well as birth, death, 

and employment records. Joseph J. Knott, Bureau of the Census, “Major Administrative Record Files: 

Documentation and Potential Uses,” Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section, American Statistical 

Association, 1979, pp. 67-72, accessed at <http://www.amstat.org/sections/SRMS/Proceedings/papers/ 

1979_008.pdf.;> Edwin D. Goldfield, “Innovations in the Decennial Census of Population and Housing: 1940-1990,” 

paper commissioned for the Year 2000 Census Panel Studies, Committee on National Statistics, National Research 

Council, August 1992, p. 60.

 Thus, GAO concluded that 

it saw “no reason to believe that a census that relies fully or even primarily on administrative 

137 Charles A. Waite, U.S. Census Bureau, “The Future of Administrative Records in the Economic Programs of 

the Census Bureau,” Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section, American Statistical Association, 1984, 

pp. 78-79, accessed at <http://www.amstat.org/sections/SRMS/proceedings/papers/1984_016.pdf.> 138 Thomas B. Jabine, National Academy of Sciences, and Fritz Scheuren, Internal Revenue Service, “Goals for 

Statistical Uses of Administrative Records: The Next Ten Years,” Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods 

Section, American Statistical Association, 1984, pp. 66-75, accessed at <http://www.amstat.org sections/SRMS/ 

proceedings/papers/1984_014.pdf.>

139 The General Accounting Office officially became the Government Accountability Office on July 7, 2004, 

pursuant to the GAO Human Capital Reform Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-271, 118 Stat. 811 (2004)). 140 L. Nye Stevens, director, Planning and Reporting, General Government Division, U.S. General Accounting 

Office, “Census Reform: Major Expansion in Use of Administrative Records for 2000 is Doubtful,” GAO/T-GGD-92-

54, June 26, 1992, p. 1.
36

records for the enumeration is viable for 2000.”141

Outcomes

 GAO recommended, however, that the 

Census Bureau continue to consider the use of administrative records. 

Debate over the 1965 proposal for a national data center led to public concern over the 

existence of data banks and the lack of privacy safeguards and standards.142

Increased Scrutiny of the 1970 Census

 These concerns, in 

turn, resulted in increased scrutiny over the questions asked in the 1970 census and focused 

attention on other data banks. As Congress and the public viewed data banks with increasing 

suspicion, the government established several panels to evaluate privacy issues. Ultimately, this 

attention culminated in the passage of the Privacy Act of 1974. However, debate over a 

centralized or decentralized federal statistical system continued in the decades to follow. These 

outcomes are discussed below.

As Congress continued to study the related issues of data banks, computers, and 

privacy,

143

 141 Ibid., p. 6.

it also focused its attention on the work of the Census Bureau. In 1968, a brief article 

in The American Statistician noted that congressional concern about privacy “has led to the 

introduction of a number of bills designed to limit drastically the Census Bureau’s power to 

require individuals and enterprises to provide information for the Censuses of Population and 

142 For example, as mentioned above, in 1971, the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the Senate Judiciary 

Committee launched a four-year study of government data banks. U.S. Senate, Comm. on the Judiciary, Subcomm. 

on Constitutional Rights, Federal Data Banks and Constitutional Rights: A Study of Data Systems on Individuals 

Maintained by Agencies of the United States Government, 93d Congress, 2nd Sess., 1974. See Priscilla M. Regan, 

Legislating Privacy (Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 1995), pp. 72-74. 143 See Computer Privacy, hearings before the Subcomm. on Administrative Practice and Procedure of the Senate 

Judiciary Comm., 90th Cong., 1st and 2nd sess., Mar. 14-15, 1967, Feb. 6, 1968; Federal Data Banks, Computers and 

the Bill of Rights, hearings before the Subcomm. on Constitutional Rights of the Senate Judiciary Comm., 92nd Cong., 

1st sess., Feb. 23-25; Mar. 2-4, 9-11, 15, 17, 1971; Federal Data Banks and Constitutional Rights, hearings before the 

Subcomm. on Constitutional Rights of the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 93d Congress, 2nd Sess., 1974.
37

Housing and the Census of Agriculture.”144 Congressman Jackson Betts (R-OH) introduced the 

first such bill in 1967. Betts proposed limiting the number of mandatory questions on the census 

to seven: name and address, relation to head of household, sex, date of birth, race or color, 

marital status, and visitors in the home at the time of the census. Additional questions would be 

permitted, as long as they were not mandatory.145 Overall, 44 similar bills were introduced in 

the 90th Congress (1967-1968) and 70 such bills were introduced in the 91st Congress (1969-

1970). Congress took no action on any of these bills.146

For example, in 1969, Sen. Sam Ervin introduced S. 1791 which would have made it 

unlawful for federal agencies to require individuals to disclose information unless the 

information was specifically authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress. It also would 

have removed the penalties for not answering questions on the census “which have nothing to do 

with the purpose of the census.”147

 144 “Census Programs Attacked as Invasions of Privacy,” The American Statistician, vol. 22, no. 2 (April 1968), p. 

12. See John Kanter, “The Census Under Attack,” The American Sociologist, vol. 4, no. 3 (August 1969), p. 256.

 In September 1969, the House of Representatives approved 

145 Ibid. See H.R. 10952 (June 1967); Hearings on H.R. 10952, House Comm. on Post Office and Civil Service, 

90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967). Interestingly, this proposal was not supported by Rep. Cornelius Gallagher, the chairman 

of the House Special Subcommittee on Invasion of Privacy, who stated: “Any voluntariness of census would render 

all information subject to the vagaries of any poll.” Quoted in “Census Programs Attacked as Invasions of Privacy,” 

The American Statistician, p. 13. Gallagher did note, however, that the more important question was “what happens 

to that information after it is collected.” Ibid. 146 Curiously, just a few years earlier, some members of Congress had been calling for more census data. For 

example, hearings were held in 1961 concerning the usefulness of a mid-decade census. Several bills were introduced 

in 1961 and subsequent years calling for a mid-decade census to be conducted every 10 years, such as H.R. 5993

introduced by Rep. Lesinski (D-MI) in the 88th Congress. “Mid-Decade Census in 1965,” 109 Cong. Rec. 7712 (May 

2, 1963) (statement of Rep. Lesinski). Such legislation was supported particularly by state and local governments and 

businesses. Notable opponents included none other than Rep. Gallagher, who warned that the Census Bureau’s 

ongoing efforts to improve data access by providing users with an “information system” would result in “a very 

complete and thorough National Data Bank.” “Gallagher Warns Against Census Bureau Data Bank,” 113 Cong. Rec. 

22336 (Aug. 10, 1967). Gallagher notes that trade associations and industries “have all expressed their sincere and 

profit-promising interest in census data” and social service organizations, planners, and social scientists have also 

“indicated their great enthusiasm for a broader range of census questions and a wider range of data access.” Ibid. 

Proposals for a mid-decade census would continue into the 1970s, and the 1976 amendments to Title 13 included the 

authority to conduct a mid-decade census. Mid-decade Census of Population, P.L. 94-521, 90 Stat. 2464, codified at 

13 U.S.C.§141(d). 147 Sen. Sam J. Ervin, “Announcement of Hearing: Privacy, the Census, and Federal Questionnaires,” 115 Cong. 

Rec. 17719 (June 30, 1969). See Privacy, the Census, and Federal Questionnaires, hearings before the Subcomm. on 

Constitutional Rights, House Comm. on the Judiciary, 91st Cong., 1st sess., April 24-25; May 2; July 1, 1969. Three 

years earlier, the Wall Street Journal had called for congressional review of the “Bureau’s broad power of 
38

H.R. 12884 to give Congress final authority over the questions on the decennial census and 

eliminate penalties for refusing to answer the census. The Senate took no action on the bill.148

In response to congressional concerns about the content of the 1970 census questionnaire, 

the Secretary of Commerce, Maurice Stans, made the following policy changes concerning the 

decennial census: (1) the Census Bureau would submit proposed questions to the appropriate 

congressional committees two years before Census Day, and (2) the agency would appoint more 

members of the general public to census advisory committees. In addition, the Secretary pledged 

to establish a blue-ribbon commission to examine issues related to the Census Bureau, including 

whether or not the census could be conducted on a voluntary basis.

 

149

Concerns over Privacy, Other Federal Data Banks

In the meantime, Rep. Gallagher continued his investigation into invasions of privacy. 

In 1970, he noted that although his subcommittee on invasion of privacy had been successful in 

stopping the creation of the national data center, “many slightly less ambitious versions have 

been proposed and implemented,” such as a nationwide Army data bank on protest activities of 

U.S. organizations.150

 compulsion.” “Census Out of Hand,” The Wall Street Journal, Aug. 29, 1966, reprinted at 112 Cong. Reg. 22709 

(Sept. 15, 1966) (entered into the record by Sen. Long). 

 A year earlier, Rep. Jackson Betts had questioned the national welfare 

data bank and national job bank included in the proposed Family Assistance Act and Manpower 

Training Act. Betts noted that while he supported such concepts, it was important to carefully 

148 Federal Data Banks and Constitutional Rights: A Study of Data Systems on Individuals Maintained by 

Agencies of the United States Government, Subcomm. on Constitutional Rights, Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 

committee report, 93d Congress, 1974, p. 13.

149 Ibid., pp. 13-14. The commitment to submit proposed questions to Congress two years prior to Census Day 

was included in the 1976 amendments to Title 13 and codified at 13 U.S.C.§141(f)(2). 150 Rep. Cornelius E. Gallagher, “Gallagher Continues Computerized Information Systems Investigation with 

Letter to Secretary Resor on Allegations of an Army Domestic Surveillance Data Bank,” 116 Cong. Rec. 1466 (Jan.

27, 1970). 
39

consider issues of privacy and confidentiality to ensure the data collected in government 

computers was not misused.151

In 1974, it was the General Services Administration’s (GSA) turn to be called “Big 

Brother.” Since 1972, the agency had been planning a national computer network it called 

FEDNET. The network would have been expandable in order to provide affordable computing 

facilities for federal agencies.152 Congress and OMB expressed concern with the network, and 

Vice President Gerald R. Ford stated, “I am concerned that Federal protection of individual 

privacy is not yet developed to the degree necessary to prevent FEDNET from being used to 

probe into the lives of individuals.”153 According to the Washington Post, “GSA officials 

profess[ed] astonishment at all the fuss.”154

Ultimately, congressional concern over data banks led to the passage of the Privacy Act. 

The Senate report accompanying S. 3418, which was signed into law as the Privacy Act of 1974, 

stated: 

The Committee affirms that the present statutory division of executive branch 

power among the departments and agencies and bureaus promotes accountability 

and is most conducive to legislative oversight, Presidential management, and 

responsiveness to the public will. We believe that the creation of formal or de 

facto national data banks, or of centralized Federal information systems without 

certain statutory guarantees would tend to defeat these purposes, and threaten the 

observance of the values of privacy and confidentiality in the administrative 

process.155

 151 Rep. Jackson Betts, “National Welfare and Job Data Banks to Be Established in Legislation Before Congress,” 

115 Cong. Rec. 38166 (Dec. 10, 1969). 152 Rep. Moss, “GSA Seeks to Play Big Brother,” 120 Cong. Rec. 15037-15038. 153 Gerald R. Ford, remarks before the National Computer Conference, May 1974, reprinted in 120 Cong. Rec. 

15038-15039 (entered into the record by Rep. Moss). 154 “A Fight Over Data Banks,” The Washington Post, June 18, 1974, reprinted in 120 Cong. Rec. 20821-20822 

(June 24, 1974) (entered into the record be Rep. Edward I. Koch). 155 Protecting Individual Privacy in Federal Gathering, Use and Disclosure of Information, S. Rep. No. 93-1183, 

93rd Cong., 2nd sess., Sept. 26, 1974, reprinted in U.S. Senate Comm. on Government Operations and House Comm. 

on Government Operations, Subcomm. on Government Information and Individual Rights, Legislative History of the 

Privacy Act of 1974, S. 3418 (Public Law 93-579), 94th Cong., 2nd Sess., joint committee print, Sept. 1976, p. 168.
40

In addition, the 1988 amendments to the Privacy Act, the Computer Matching and Privacy 

Protection Act, noted that the law should not be construed to authorize the establishment of “a 

national data bank that combines, merges, or links information on individuals” in systems of 

records maintained by federal agencies.156

Continuing Efforts at Statistical Coordination and Consolidation

Although the national data center proposal faded away in 1969, discussions of how best 

to organize the federal statistical system continued. In August 1970, President Nixon established 

the President’s Commission on Federal Statistics (referred to as the Wallis Commission). The 

Commission, however, stopped short of suggesting any sort of reorganization of the federal 

statistical system. One outcome was the creation of the Committee on National Statistics 

(CNSTAT) of the National Academy of Sciences.157

The Carter administration entered the debate with its own study group, the President’s 

Project for the Federal Statistical System, also known as the Bonnen Commission. The group 

focused on five themes: (1) the perceived lack of relevance of federal statistical data, (2) threats 

to data integrity, (3) data quality, (4) privacy protection, and (5) paperwork burden. The

members recommended the establishment of an enhanced Office of Statistical Policy within the 

Executive Office of the President to coordinate federal data collection. However, the Bonnen 

Commission’s recommendations were not implemented.158

During the Reagan administration, there were several proposals to consolidate statistical 

agencies and improve efficiency of federal agencies. OMB and the departments of Labor and 

Commerce even discussed combining the Bureau of Labor Statistics with the Census Bureau (as 

 156 P.L. 100-503, 102 Stat. 2507 (October 18, 1988), The Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988, 

§ 9 (codified at 5 U.S.C. § 552a, note). 157 See Janet L. Norwood, Organizing to Count (Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press, 1995), pp. 12-24. 158 Ibid., pp. 16-18.
41

had been proposed in the late 1960s). Similarly, in the early 1990s the administration of George 

H.W. Bush established a Working Group on Statistics chaired by Michael Boskin, the chairman 

of the Council of Economic Advisors. This group also examined statistical organization and

considered combining the Census Bureau, BLS, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, and the 

National Agricultural Statistical Service. Ultimately, however, the working group concluded that 

cost savings from consolidation would be minimal.159

The issue of statistical centralization resurfaced again during the Clinton administration. 

For example, in 1995, Rep. Stephen Horn (R-CA) proposed H.R. 2521, the Statistical 

Consolidation Act, which would have combined the Census Bureau, BLS, and the Bureau of 

Economic Analysis. In 1996, recognizing the importance of data sharing, Rep. Horn proposed 

H.R. 3924, the Statistical Confidentiality Act, to provide uniform confidentiality protections 

across eight statistical agencies.

 

160 In 1997, Sen. Daniel “Pat” Moynihan (D-NY) introduced S. 

144 to establish a commission to study the consolidation of statistical agencies and Sen. Sam 

Brownback (R-KS) introduced S. 1404, the Federal Statistical System Act, to establish a 

Commission to Study the Federal Statistical System. In September 1998, the Subcommittee on 

Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring, and the District of Columbia of the 

Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs that bill, considered Brownback’s bill, renamed the

Statistical Consolidation Act of 1998, but the bill did not receive approval from the full 

Senate.

161

By the 2000s, the technological and political landscape had changed. The events of 

September 11, 2001 and the resulting USA PATRIOT Act renewed privacy concerns. Privacy 

 

 159 Ibid., pp. 18-20. 160 Office of Management and Budget, Statistical Programs of the United States Government: Fiscal Year 1997, 

accessed at <http://clinton3.nara.gov/omb/inforeg/stat97.html.> 161 Statistical Consolidation Act of 1998, report of the Senate Comm. on Governmental Affairs to accompany S. 

1404, 105th Cong., 2nd sess., 1998. 
42

proponents decried the monitoring of public library use, while others voiced suspicions that 

enforcement agencies using government databases, such as those of the Social Security 

Administration and the Department of Education, for homeland security investigations.

162 For 

example, a proposed Department of Justice program, Operation TIPS (Terrorism Information 

and Prevention System), which would have created a “national information sharing system for 

specific industry groups to report on publicly observable activity,” was denounced by several 

groups on the grounds of invasion of privacy.163 The program was specifically prohibited by the 

Homeland Security Act of 2002.164

Despite privacy concerns, advances in computing technology continued. Between 1998 

and 2009, the number of federal data computing centers grew from 432 to 1,100. By 2010, with 

the Privacy Act and other privacy protections in place, the government was less concerned with 

the privacy of the data centers (as it had been in the mid-1970s with the failure of FEDNET) than 

it was with efficiency and environmental concerns related to such centers. OMB concluded, 

“[t]his growth in redundant infrastructure investments is costly, inefficient, unsustainable and has 

a significant impact on energy consumption.”165

 162 Joan Starr, “Libraries and National Security: An Historical Review,” First Monday: Peer-Reviewed Journal 

on the Internet, vol. 9, no. 12 (Dec. 6, 2004), accessed at <http://firstmonday.org;> “A Chill in the Library,” editorial, 

St. Petersburg Times, July 23, 2002; Laura Spadanuta, Kathryn Heinz, and Faith Okpotor, “Failed Homeland Security 

Programs,” Aug. 29, 2006, accessed at News 21, A Journalism Initiative of the Carnegie and Knight Foundations, 

<http://newsinitiative.org/story/2006/08/29/ failed_homeland_security_programs.>

OMB directed agencies to conduct an inventory 

of data center assets and develop plans to consolidate data centers by mid-2010. In June 2010, 

163 Spadanuta, et al.; American Civil Liberties Union, “ACLU Says Bush Administration Should Not Allow 

Operations TIPS to Become An End Run Around the Constitution,” press release, July 15, 2002; Jane Black, “Some 

TIPS for John Ashcroft,” Business Week, July 25, 2002, accessed at <http://www.businessweek.com;> “Operation 

Tips Being Modified Following Criticism From Civil Liberties Groups,” Fox News, Aug. 10, 2002, accessed at 

<http://www.foxnews.com;> Jordan Goldman, “Anti-Terror ‘TIPS’ Program On Hold: Privacy Groups Fear It Would 

Prompt Us to Spy on Each Other,” CBS News, Aug. 10, 2002, accessed at <http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/ 

08/08/terror/main518088.shtml.> 164 Homeland Security Act of 2002, P.L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2241 (Nov. 25, 2002), § 880. 165 Vivek Kundra, federal chief information officer, OMB, Memorandum for Chief Information Officers, re: 

Federal Data Center Consolidation Initiative, Feb. 26, 2010. OMB had issued a similar directive in 1995. Office of 

Management and Budget, Bulletin No. 96-02, Consolidation of Agency Data Centers, Oct. 4, 1995. 
43

Government Computer News noted that “[d]ata center consolidation simplifies operations, 

improves management and security issues.”166 At the same time, federal agencies were also 

beginning to use “cloud computing” – services that enable agencies to use the Internet to share 

software, applications, and information – which resulted in renewed privacy concerns.167

In November 2010, OMB issued a memorandum for federal agencies concerning sharing 

data while protecting privacy. OMB strongly encouraged agencies “to engage in coordinated 

efforts to share high-value data for purposes of supporting important Administrative initiatives, 

informing public policy decisions, and improving program implementation while simultaneously 

embracing responsible stewardship.”168 In particular, OMB noted the importance of data sharing 

and the use of data sets maintained by program, administrative, and regulatory offices and 

agencies in enhancing the federal government’s “ability to contain costs and reduce burdens on 

respondents, while increasing the quality and quantity of statistical information...”169 In fact, the 

President’s proposed FY 2011 budget request included $9 million for improving the Census 

Bureau’s administrative records infrastructure and enhancing the federal statistical system’s 

ability to use administrative records.170

 166 Rutrell Yasin, “The Political Hurdle to Data Center Consolidation,” Government Computer News, June 8, 2010, 

accessed at <gcn.com.> 

 

167 Emily Long, “FCC: Agencies Need Common Cloud Computing Vision,” March 3, 22, 2010, accessed at 

<http://www.nextgov.com.> See also Robert Gellman, “Privacy in the Clouds: Risks to Privacy and Confidentiality 

from Cloud Computing,” paper prepared for the World Privacy Forum, Feb. 23, 2009. 168 Jeffrey D. Zients, deputy director for management, Office of Management and Budget, and Cass R. Sunstein, 

administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments 

and Agencies, re: Sharing Data While Protecting Privacy, Nov. 3, 2010, accessed at 

<http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda_default,> p. 1.

169 Ibid., p. 2. 170 Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the U.S. Government: Fiscal Year 2011, appendix, p. 209, 

accessed at < http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Appendix.> See also Population Association of America, 

“Update on President’s FY 2011 Budget,” July 20, 2010, accessed at <http://www.populationassociation.org/2010/

07/20/filesupdatefy2011presidentsbudget-pdf/.>
44

Conclusions

When the national data center proposal first came to the attention of members of 

Congress, their main concern was with potential invasions of privacy. Congress feared that 

combining many data sets into one central computer would make it easier to identify personal 

information about individuals. In addition, some members were worried that the types of data 

collected on individuals would be limitless and could include erroneous or misleading 

information. In fact, one of the key issues of the national data center controversy centered on 

what would and would not be included in the data center. The original proposals contained few 

details on this topic, allowing the public imagination to fill in the blanks.

Congressional concerns were brought to the attention of the public through news reports 

on hearings held by Congress. Soon, others joined the discussion. Among these were social 

scientists who supported the data center proposal and others who urged caution and careful study 

concerning privacy implications. Data center proponents were able neither to quell the fears 

expressed by the various interests nor convince the public of the usefulness of their plan. In fact, 

they seemed to be surprised at the chaos caused by their suggestion to make the federal statistical 

system more efficient. A few years after the uproar subsided, Edgar Dunn noted:

During the period, I felt very much as though I were playing the lead in a 

Chaplinesque movie. Enter the innocent college professor who becomes involved 

in an improbable series of events, bumbling along from one incident to the next, 

never fully comprehending what is going on ... I was caught in a social dynamic 

that made it impossible to reconcile, for the public image, the multiple goals and 

objectives that, in a more dispassionate milieu, could have quite reasonably been 

dealt with. It was a situation in which both the language and intentions of the 

report were widely misconstrued.171 

 171 Edgar S. Dunn, Social Information Processing and Statistical Systems – Change and Reform (New York: John 

Wiley & Sons, 1974), p. 175. In addition, Dunn allowed that “At the same time the threat to personal privacy, 

although distorted and exaggerated, was a legitimate issue.” Ibid.
45

Indeed, Rep. Gallagher, in an address to Congress, noted that the proponents of the 

national data center “seemed unable to comprehend” how a data center could be turned into “a 

personal dossier center” and the power such a center would have.172 He further charged that 

computer scientists, behavioral scientists, and experts in constitutional law and civil liberties did 

not communicate with one another, concluding “[w]e can no longer afford isolated 

contemplation in this area.”173 Similarly, Arthur Miller, who had advocated for privacy 

safeguards at several of the data center hearings stated, “... even when the situation is viewed 

most charitably, it still is shocking that high ranking government officials and prominent 

behavioral scientists were so preoccupied with the quantity of information and the data 

processing capabilities the center would put at their disposal, that they were virtually insensitive 

to the privacy question.”174 Even The New York Times noted: “most Government statisticians 

seemed astonished that anyone might question their motives or doubt that they had the public’s 

interests at heart.”175

Although the national data center was rejected, researchers both within and outside of 

federal statistical agencies continued their work on improving statistical information, integrating 

data sets, and expanding their use for research. Further, during the past four decades, computer 

technology has advanced dramatically. The Internet, cloud computing, wireless 

 172 Cornelius Gallagher, “Questions of Invasion of Privacy Relating to the Establishment of a National Data 

Center,” 112 Cong. Rec. 19963 (Aug. 18, 1966). 173 Ibid. 174 Arthur R. Miller, The Assault on Privacy: Computers, Data Banks, and Dossiers (Ann Arbor, MI: The 

University of Michigan Press, 1971), p. 58. 175 Nan Robertson, “Data Bank: A Threat to Your Privacy?” The New York Times, Jan. 7, 1968, reprinted in 114 

Cong. Rec. 25199-25200 (submitted to the record by Rep. Gallagher). At least some in the statistical community 

acknowledged this conundrum. For example, in his presidential address to the American Statistical Association 

several years later, Lester R. Frankel acknowledged that “[b]ecause of our training to be objective and to think in 

abstract terms, we tend to regard the consequences of our work in an impersonal manner.” Lester R. Frankel, 

“Statistics and the People – The Statistician’s Responsibilities,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol. 

71, no. 353 (March 1976), p. 9. Frankel’s speech focused on statisticians’ responsibilities concerning: proper use of 

statistical methods, such as sampling; confidentiality; and the safety of respondents. He added, “[p]erhaps we are not 

treating the respondent with respect, as a human being. There is a tendency among statisticians to regard the person as 

only incidental to the information about the person. Statisticians are taught to think this way.” Ibid., p. 12. 
46

communications, and social media present new concerns about privacy. The public remains 

wary of government programs, including those of the federal statistical system. But then, not 

even the census of 1790 was free from public scrutiny. Those who opposed to the census argued 

“‘it would excite the jealousy of the people; they would suspect that the Government was too 

particular ... they may refuse to give the officer such a particular account as the law 

requires...’”176

 176 Quoted in David J. Seipp, “The Right to Privacy in American History,” July 1978, publication P-78-3, Program 

on Information Resources Policy, Harvard University, p. 18.

 What would such skeptics say today?