Urging netizens everywhere to defend their data, in March the ACLU launched a special website to focus public attention on threats to their personal privacy.
"We clearly have our work cut out for us to derail what has been an endless stream of proposals that attack our privacy rights," said ACLU Executive Director Ira Glasser. "And although many believe widespread dissemination of our data is harmless, the ACLU believes that what they do know can hurt us."
ACLU to Congress: Don’t Prostitute Our Privacy
In February, an investigation by The Washington Post revealed that Congress had given $1.5 million to help develop a private company’s national database of driver’s license photographs.
According to the Post, law enforcement agencies planned to use photos and personal information in the database to combat terrorism, immigration abuses and other "identity crimes."
"The biggest ‘identity crime’ taking place right now is the government masquerading as our privacy protectors," said Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU’s Washington National Office. "Not only is the government abusing access to our personal information, but it is funding private efforts to do the same and worse."
Murphy called on Congress to strengthen the loophole-ridden 1994 Drivers’ Privacy Protection Act, which has failed to prevent states from selling or disclosing personal information about drivers without their consent.
Loopholes in the Act became apparent this year after revelations that states including Florida, South Carolina, and Colorado sought to sell 22 million drivers’ photos without their consent.
In Florida, the ACLU prevailed on the governor to cancel the state’s contract with the data collection firm; Colorado’s governor is seeking to do the same.
Noting that state officials sold thousands of driver’s license files for a penny each, Barry Steinhardt, Associate Director of the ACLU, said, "For the government to prostitute our private information is bad enough. To charge only a penny for our privacy adds insult to injury."
The national database plan was thwarted in October, when Congress passed a bill adding new protections for drivers’ privacy under the 1994 Act and revoking a plan to turn licenses to national ID cards (for more on that subject, read on).
Big Brother, the Backseat Driver
Using driver’s license photos as mug shots wasn’t the only Orwellian idea lawmakers promoted this year: in October, Congress rejected a plan to federalize driver’s licenses and turn them into the precursors of a national I.D. card.
The I.D. plan was authorized under a provision of a 1996 immigration law that coerced states into placing every driver’s social security number on licenses and other state-issued identification documents.
But after widespread public opposition led by the ACLU and other privacy advocates, Congress revoked the plan.
"We scored two points for the average American and Big Brother got zero," said ACLU Legislative Counsel Gregory T. Nojeim. "In one fell swoop, drivers gained additional protections for their personal information and the immediate threat of national ID cards — which has long posed one of the greatest risks to personal privacy in this country — was diminished."
Currently, only six states require social security numbers on the driver’s licenses they issue. Most of the large states have moved away from such a requirement in order to protect their drivers’ privacy, reduce fraud, and inhibit I.D. theft.
Privacy Downside to "Intel Inside"
In January, microchip giant Intel Corp. caused a furor when it announced plans to manufacture a new generation of silicon chips with a "unique identifier" that would force consumers to leave an identifying mark wherever they go in cyberspace. Under the plan, users could turn the feature off, but it would reactivate every time a computer was restarted.
In a letter sent to Intel president Craig Barrett, the ACLU and other privacy rights groups warned that the tracking feature "has the potential to transform the World Wide Web from a largely anonymous environment into one where individuals are expected, or even required, to identify themselves in order to participate in online activities, communicate, and make purchases."
In the end, Intel agreed to manufacture the chips with the tracking device switched off, but privacy advocates said the feature should be removed altogether.
Privacy for Transactions? Don’t Bank on It
Prospects for financial privacy seemed bright at the beginning of 1999, when opposition from the public forced federal regulators to withdraw a plan to compel banks to expand their practice of monitoring their customers.
The ACLU applauded the withdrawal of the "Know Your Customer" plan but told The Washington Post that the government needs to pull back even more. "It’s difficult to know the extent to which banks are now spying on their customers," said Gregory T. Nojeim, a Legislative Counsel for the ACLU. "There’s a massive invasion of customer privacy."
 |
| Copies of letters, blacked out to protect privacy, sent to the Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and other agencies by consumers over what they see as banks' invasion of their financial privacy. AP Photo |
But by autumn, a push to overhaul laws regulating the financial services industry dampened prospects for financial privacy. The repeal of regulations preventing banks, insurance companies and mutual funds from affiliating with each other and sharing customers’ private information was opposed by a broad coalition of groups including the ACLU, Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum, the Free Congress Foundation and several consumer and privacy organizations.
Standing with Schlafly and Ralph Nader by her side, ACLU President Nadine Strossen reminded reporters at an October news conference that the legislation would, in effect, require all customers of financial institutions to forfeit their privacy rights.
"We’re not asking for the moon," Strossen said. "Only that the financial services industry honor basic, time-tested principles of fair information practices."
But repeated efforts by the ACLU and its allies to strengthen privacy protections in the bill were rejected, and the promise of spring gave way to disappointment when President Clinton signed the bill into law.
Just Because You’re Paranoid...
In November, the ACLU launched a website designed to shed light on a global electronic surveillance system known by the code name "Echelon" that reportedly allows the United States and other governments to eavesdrop on private citizens.
As described on www.echelonwatch.org, the system attempts to capture all satellite, microwave, cellular and fiber-optic communications worldwide, including communications to and from North America. Computers then sort through conversations, faxes and e-mails searching for keywords or other "flags," and forwards them to the intelligence agency that requested the information.
"Echelon is perhaps the most powerful intelligence gathering network in the world," said Barry Steinhardt, Associate Director of the ACLU. "But it is still very much a black box, which apparently operates without the oversight of Congress or the courts."
The existence of Echelon became an international issue when the European Parliament received two reports detailing its operations and after the Australian government confirmed its participation in the operation. According to those reports, Echelon is led by the U.S. National Security Agency in conjunction with its counterpart agencies in England, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
"Echelon can no longer be dismissed as an X-Files fantasy," Steinhardt said. "The reports to the European Parliament make it quite clear that Echelon exists and that its operation raises profound civil liberties issues."
Angered at the NSA’s refusal to share with Congress and the public the legal guidelines for the project, a Congressional committee will hold hearings on Echelon next year.
