THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents      

Investing in high speed rail is not only good transportation policy, it is good land use policy. Constructing an airport or highway outside of city limits promotes sprawl, robs cities of valuable revenue, and increases the pressure for even more road construction.

[Page: S14535]  GPO's PDF

   Furthermore, passenger rail stations serve as focal points for commercial development, promoting downtown redevelopment and generating increased retail business and tax revenue. Making efficient and cost-effective use of existing infrastructures is an increasingly important goal and one which this legislation will help achieve.

   Mr. President, high-speed rail is already proving itself. In 1999, Amtrak's Metroliner train between Washington and New York set its third consecutive ridership record with over two million passengers, and Amtrak reported the highest total revenues in the corporation's 28-year history. The reason is simple--people are becoming less and less satisfied with traveling by plane. And more and more frustrated with gridlock on our highways.

   You can see why. The summer of 1999 was the most delay-plagued season in history for airlines. And these delays are expensive. In 1998, air traffic control delays cost the airlines and passengers a combined $4.5 billion.

   Unfortunately, this problem is only going to get worse. The number of people flying is increasing significantly. In 1998 there were 643 million airplane boardings in the U.S., up 25 percent from just five years ago. The Federal Aviation Administration estimates that boardings will increase to 917 million by 2008. Our current aviation system can't handle this demand. We need a quality passenger rail system to relieve some of this pressure.

   Passenger rail can make a difference, particularly between cities located on high-speed corridors. I went back and looked at the list of the 31 airports expected to experience more than 20,000 passenger hours of flight delays in 2007. The vast majority of these airports--more than three out of four--are located on a high-speed rail corridor. If the funding envisioned in this legislation were made available to develop these corridors, we could take much of the burden of short flights off our aviation system. That would allow airlines to concentrate their limited slots and resources on longer-distance flights.

   Traffic congestion costs commuters even more--an estimated $74 billion a year in lost productivity and wasted fuel. These commuters, even the ones who continue to drive, will be well served by an investment in high-speed rail corridors. Amtrak takes 18,000 cars a day off the roads between Philadelphia and New York. Without Amtrak, these congested roads would be in far worse shape. Commuters in other parts of the country should be able to benefit from high-quality, fast rail service that takes cars off the road and helps to improve the performance of our overall transportation system.

   This bill does not just benefit those who ride trains. Everyone who drives a car on congested highways or suffers from delays while using our overburdened aviation system will benefit from the rail investment called for in this legislation. I can tell you, as a former businessman who helped run a very profitable company, that high-speed rail is a smart investment. And it's an investment that deserves support from Congress.

   By Mr. KOHL (for himself and Mr. TORRICELLI):

   S. 1901. A bill to establish the Privacy Protection Study Commission to evaluate the efficacy of the Freedom of Information Act and the Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 1996, to determine whether new laws are necessary, and to provide advice and recommendations; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

   THE PRIVACY PROTECTION STUDY COMMISSION ACT OF 1999

   Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Privacy Protection Study Commission Act of 1999 with my colleague Senator TORRICELLI. This legislation addresses privacy protection by creating an expert Commission charged with the duty to explore privacy concerns. We cannot underestimate the importance of this issue. Privacy matters, and it will continue to matter more and more in this information age of high speed data, Internet transactions, and lightning-quick technological advances.

   There exists a massive wealth of information in today's world, which is increasingly stored electronically. In fact, experts estimate that the average American is ``profiled'' in up to 150 commercial electronic databases. That means that there is a great deal of data--in some cases, very detailed and personal --out there and easily accessible courtesy of the Internet revolution. With the click of a button it is possible to examine all sorts of personal information , be it an address, a criminal record, a credit history, a shopping performance, or even a medical file.

   Generally, the uses of this data are benign, even beneficial. Occasionally, however, personal information is obtained surreptitiously, and even peddled to third parties for profit or other uses. This is especially troubling when, in many cases, people do not even know that their own personal information is being ``shopped.''

   Two schools of thought exist on how we should address these privacy concerns. There are some who insist that we must do something and do it quickly. Others urge us to rely entirely on ``self-regulation''--according to them most companies will act reasonably and, if not, consumers will demand privacy protection as a condition for their continued business.

   Both approaches have some merit, but also some problems. For example, even though horror stories abound about violations of privacy , Congress should not act by anecdote or on the basis of a few bad actors. Indeed, enacting ``knee-jerk,'' ``quick-fix'' legislation could very well do more harm than good. By the same token, however, self-regulation alone is unlikely to be the silver bullet that solves all privacy concerns. By itself, we have no assurance that it will bring the actors in line with adequate privacy protection standards.

   Because it is better to do it right--in terms of addressing the myriad of complicated privacy concerns--than to do it fast, perhaps what is needed is a cooling off period. Such a ``breather'' will ensure that our action is based on a comprehensive understanding of the issues, rather than a ``mishmash'' of political pressures and clever soundbites.

   For those reasons, and recognizing that there are no quick and easy answers, I suggest that we step back to consider the issue of privacy more thoughtfully. Let's admit that neither laws nor self-regulation alone may be the solution. Let's also concede that no one is going to divine the right approach overnight. But given the time and resources, a ``Privacy Protection Study Commission'' composed of experts drawn from the fields of law, civil rights and liberties, privacy matters, business, or information technology, may offer insights on how to address and ensure balanced privacy protection into the next millennium.

   The bill I am introducing today would do just that. The Commission would be comprised of nine bright minds equally chosen by the Senate, the House, and the Administration. As drafted, the Commission will be granted the latitude to explore and fully examine the current complexities of privacy protection. After 18 months, the Commission will be required to report back to Congress with its findings and proposals. If legislation is necessary, the Commission will be in the best position to recommend a balanced course of action. And if lawmaking is not warranted, the Commission's recognition of that fact will help persuade a skeptical Congress and public.

   This is not a brand new idea. Twenty-five years ago, Congress created a Privacy Protection Commission to study privacy concerns as they related to government uses of personal information . That Commission's findings were seminal. A quarter of a century later, because so much has changed, it is time to re-examine this issue on a much broader scale. The uses of personal information that concerned the Commission 25 years ago have exploded today, especially in this era of e-commerce, super databases, and mega-mergers. People are genuinely worried--perhaps they shouldn't be--but their concerns are real.

   For example, a Wall Street Journal survey revealed that Americans today are more concerned about invasions of their personal privacy than they are

[Page: S14536]  GPO's PDF

   One final note: given that privacy is not an easy issue and that it appears in so many other contexts, I invite all interested parties to help us improve our legislation to create a Commission. We need to forge a middle ground consensus with our approach, and the door is open to all who share this goal.

   Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the previously cited material be printed in the RECORD.

   There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD as follows:

   The End of Privacy

   Remember, they are always watching you. Use cash when you can. Do not give your phone number, social-security number or address, unless you absolutely have to. Do not fill in questionnaires or respond to telemarketers. Demand that credit and datamarketing firms produce all information they have on you, correct errors and remove you from marketing lists. Check your medical records often. If you suspect a government agency has a file on you, demand to see it. Block caller ID on your phone, and keep your number unlisted. Never use electronic tollbooths on roads. Never leave your mobile phone on--your movements can be traced. Do not use store credit or discount cards. If you must use the Internet, encrypt your e-mail, reject all ``cookies'' and never give your real name when registering at websites. Better still, use somebody else's computer. At work, assume that calls, voice mail, e-mail and computer use are all monitored.

   This sounds like a paranoid ravings of the Unabomber. In fact, it is advice being offered by the more zealous of today's privacy campaigners. In an increasingly wired world, people are continually creating information about themselves that is recorded and often sold or pooled with information from other sources. The goal of privacy advocates is not extreme. Anyone who took these precautions would merely be seeking a level of privacy available to all 20 years ago. And yet such behaviour now would seem obsessive and paranoid indeed.

   That is a clue to how fast things have changed. To try to restore the privacy that was universal in the 1970s is to chase a chimera. Computer technology is developing so rapidly that it is hard to predict how it will be applied. But some trends are unmistakable. The volume of data recorded about people will continue to expand dramatically (see pages 21-23). Disputes about privacy will become more bitter. Attempts to restrain the surveillance society through new laws will intensify. Consumers will pay more for services that offer a privacy pledge. And the market for privacy -protection technology will grow.

   Always observed

   Yet there is a bold prediction: all these efforts to hold back the rising tide of electronic intrusion into privacy will fail. They may offer a brief respite for those determined, whatever the trouble or cost, to protect themselves. But 20 years hence most people will find that the privacy they take for granted today will be just as elusive as the privacy of the 1970s now seems. Some will shrug and say: ``Who cares? I have nothing to hide.'' But many others will be disturbed by the idea that most of their behaviour leaves a permanent and easily traceable record. People will have to start assuming that they simply have no privacy . This will constitute one of the greatest social changes of modern times.

   Privacy is doomed for the same reason that it has been eroded so fast over the past two decades. Presented with the prospect of its loss, many might prefer to eschew even the huge benefits that the new information economy promises. But they will not, in practice, be offered that choice. Instead, each benefit--safer streets, cheaper communications, more entertainment, better government services, more convenient shopping, a wider selection of products--will seem worth the surrender of a bit more personal information . Privacy is a residual value, hard to define or protect in the abstract. The cumulative effect of these bargains--each attractive on their own--will be the end of privacy .

   For a similar reason, attempts to protect privacy through new laws will fail--as they have done in the past. The European Union's data protection directive, the most sweeping recent attempt, gives individuals unprecedented control over information about themselves. This could provide remedies against the most egregious intrusions. But it is doubtful whether the law can be applied in practice, if too many people try to use it. Already the Europeans are hinting that they will not enforce the strict terms of the directive against America, which has less stringent protections.

   Policing the proliferating number of databases and the thriving trade in information would not only be costly in itself, it would also impose huge burdens on the economy. Moreover, such laws are based on a novel concept: that individuals have a property right in information about themselves. Broadly enforced, such a property right would be antithetical to an open society. It would pose a threat not only to commerce, but also to a free press and to much political activity, to say nothing of everyday conversation.

   It is more likely that laws will be used not to obstruct the recording and collection of information , but to catch those who use it to do harm. Fortunately, the same technology that is destroying privacy also makes it easier to trap stalkers, detect fraud, prosecute criminals and hold the government to account. The result could be less privacy , certainly--but also more security for the law-abiding.

   Whatever new legal remedies emerge, opting out of information -gathering is bound to become ever harder and less attractive. If most urban streets are monitored by intelligent video cameras that can identify criminals, who will want to live on a street without one? If most people carry their entire medical history on a plastic card that the emergency services come to rely on, a refusal to carry the card could be life-threatening. To get a foretaste of what is to come, try hiring a car or booking a room at a top hotel without a credit card.

   LEADERS

   In a way, the future may be like the past, when few except the rich enjoyed much privacy . To earlier generations, escaping the claustrophobic all-knowingness of a village for the relative anonymity of the city was one of the more liberating aspects of modern life. But the era of urban anonymity already looks like a mere historical interlude. There is, however one difference between past and future. In the village, everybody knew everybody else's business. In the future, nobody will know for certain who knows what about them. That will be uncomfortable. But the best advice may be: get used to it.

   THE SURVEILLANCE SOCIETY

   New information technology offers huge benefits--higher productivity, better crime prevention, improved medical care, dazzling entertainment, more convenience. But it comes at a price: less and less privacy

   ``The right to be left alone.'' For many this phrase, made famous by Louis Brandeis, an American Supreme Court justice, captures the essence of a notoriously slippery, but crucial concept. Drawing the boundaries of privacy has always been tricky. Most people have long accepted the need to provide some information about themselves in order to vote, work, shop, pursue a business, socialise or even borrow a library book. But exercising control over who knows what about you has also come to be seen as an essential feature of a civilised society.

   Totalitarian excesses have made ``Big Brother'' one of the 20th century's most frightening bogeyman. Some right of privacy , however qualified, has been a major difference between democracies and dictatorships. An explicit right to privacy is now enshrined in scores of national constitutions as well as in international human-rights treaties. Without the ``right to be left alone,'' to shut out on occasion the prying eyes and importunities of both government and society, other political and civil liberties seem fragile. Today most people in rich societies assume that, provided they obey the law, they have a right to enjoy privacy whenever it suits them.

   They are wrong. Despite a raft of laws, treaties and constitutional provisions, privacy has been eroded for decades. This trend is now likely to accelerate sharply. The cause is the same as that which alarmed Brandeis when he first popularized his phrase in an article in 1890; technological change. In his day it was the spread of photography and cheap printing that posed the most immediate threat to privacy . In our day it is the computer. The quantity of information that is now available to governments and companies about individuals would have horrified Brandeis. But the power to gather and disseminate data electronically is growing so fast that it raises an even more unsettling question: in 20 years' time, will there be any privacy left to protect?

   Most privacy debates concern media intrusion, which is also what bothered Brandeis. And yet the greatest threat to privacy today comes not from the media, whose antics affect few people, but from the mundane business of recording and collecting an ever-expanding number of everyday transactions. Most people know that information is collected about them, but are not certain how much. Many are puzzled or annoyed by unsolicited junk mail coming through their letter boxes. And yet junk mail is just the visible tip of an information iceberg. The volume of personal data in both commercial and government databases has grown by leaps and bounds in recent years along with advances in computer technology. The United States, perhaps the most computerized society in the world, is leading the way, but other countries are not far behind.

   Advances in computing are having a twin effect. They are not only making it possible to collect information that once went largely unrecorded, but are also making it relatively easy to store, analyze and retrieve this information in ways which, until quite recently, were impossible.

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents