WASHINGTON -- Politicians of the left and right are finally beginning to pay attention to the ground swell of resentment about invasions of privacy.
In the Senate, Transportation subcommittee chairman Richard Shelby leads the way: The law he sponsored to prevent states from selling to private investigators the information and pictures required from motorists seeking a driver's license was upheld by the Supreme Court. He also led repeal of the ill-advised federal standard for licenses that would have used Social Security numbers to create an Orwellian national identification card.In the House, Texas Rep. Ron Paul's bill to prohibit the use of the Social Security number as an all-purpose identifier is no longer in limbo. Ways and Means subcommittee Chairman Clay Shaw reports that this action to combat widespread identity theft will be taken up this month.
Chairman Dan Burton's Government Reform Committee will move on that privacy bill in June, as well as the bill to create a Privacy Protection Commission pressed by the GOP's Asa Hutchinson and Democrat Jim Moran.
Here's evidence that we're getting traction: President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore have detected the growing political appeal of personal privacy in a time of data rape. To a commencement audience on Sunday, Clinton unveiled his plan to repel the invaders, challenging the Republican Congress to get on with legislation to stem the tide of snooping.
Up to now, the Clinton-Gore record has been troubling to civil libertarians; under the rubric of searching for "deadbeat dads," this administration now forces private employers to inform on workers to federal bureaucrats as never before. But Clinton's belated concern about penetrations of our privacy by marketers and e-snoops, often in support of legislation already in work, is welcome.
In assessing his proposals, keep in mind the key words "consumer consent."
Should banks and credit card companies be able to sell our financial secrets to outside pitchmen? Clinton favors forbidding this practice, so ardently hailed as efficient by believers in "targeted marketing," unless the individual specifically gives an informed consent.
When banks merge with insurance companies or HMOs, should we allow medical records to be passed around within the conglomerate? Clinton says no, unless the patient or consumer affirmatively consents. That's also good; none of this "opt out" trickery, by which marketers piously claim to be sensitive to privacy but put the burden of protecting personal information on the patient.
What about sharing financial data having nothing to do with medical records? Here the Clinton-Gore plan caves in to the secret salesmen. "We will preserve financial firms' ability to share the information that they need," goes the administration proposal, "to develop new products and manage their risks . . . ." No bank is required to obtain depositor's consent; it's up to the individual to "opt out" -- to take the difficult initiative of demanding that the bank not make his life an open book.
Harangues on this issue will continue in this space, while apostles of efficiency, in bureaucracies public and private, try to pooh-pooh concerns of newly energized asserters of privacy.
"Consent!" is our byword. And our first line of defense is the private, personal Social Security number; we won't let anybody coerce us into giving it out.