The Privacy Act: Emerging Issues and Related Legislation

The Privacy Act: Emerging Issues and Related Legislation

Order Code RL30824
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
The Privacy Act: Emerging Issues
and Related Legislation
Updated February 26, 2002
Harold C. Relyea
Specialist in American National Government
Government and Finance Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

The Privacy Act:
Emerging Issues and Related Legislation
Summary
The Privacy Act of 1974 represents an attempt by Congress to legislate several
aspects of personal privacy protection as it relates to federal agency operations and
practices. First, it sustains some traditional major privacy principles. Second, it
provides an individual who is a citizen of the United States, or an alien lawfully
admitted for permanent residence, with access and emendation arrangements for
records maintained on him or her by most, but not all, federal agencies. Third, the
statute embodies a number of principles of fair information practice: it sets certain
conditions concerning the disclosure of personally identifiable information; prescribes
requirements for the accounting of certain disclosures of such information; requires
agencies to collect information, to the greatest extent practicable, directly from the
subject individual when the information may result in adverse determinations about
an individual’s rights, benefits, and privileges under federal programs; requires
agencies to specify their authority and purposes for collecting personally identifiable
information from an individual; requires agencies to maintain all records which are
used by the agency in making any determination about any individual with such
accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness as is reasonably necessary to assure
fairness to the individual in the determination; and provides civil and criminal
enforcement arrangements.
Since its enactment, the Privacy Act has been amended on six occasions; actions
in 1988 and 1990 establishing new procedures and data protection boards for
computer matching are generally seen as being the most significant. Of late, new
issues have arisen concerning these matters and some long-prevailing concerns. This
report reviews the background and development of the statute, its current provisions,
and emerging issues pertaining to it. As legislative and other relevant developments
occur, this report will be updated.

Contents
Major Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Emerging Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Better Enforcement or Overhaul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Managing “Cookies” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Oversight and Enforcement Responsibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Broader Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Military Exclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Routine Use Reconsidered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Matching and Sharing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

The Privacy Act: Emerging Issues and
Related Legislation
The Privacy Act of 1974 represents an attempt by Congress to legislate several
aspects of personal privacy protection as it relates to federal agency operations and
practices.1 Its eclectic provisions can be traced to several contemporaneous events
prompting congressional interest in securing personal privacy.
Since the years of the late 19th century, various developments—not the least of
which have been new, intrusive technologies—have contributed to more disparate
understandings of the concept of privacy and infringements upon it.2 Congress made
an initial effort at legislating a new kind of privacy protection in 1970 when enacting
the Fair Credit Reporting Act regulating the collection and dissemination of personal
information by consumer reporting entities.3
With the Crime Control Act of 1973, Congress prohibited federal personnel and
state agencies receiving law enforcement assistance funds pursuant to the statute from
making unauthorized disclosures of personally identifiable criminal history research
or statistical information. It also permitted “an individual who believes that criminal
history information concerning him contained in an automated system is inaccurate,
incomplete, or maintained in violation of this [law] ... to review such information and
to obtain a copy of it for the purpose of challenge or correction.”4
That same year, the Advisory Committee on Automated Personal Data Systems,
established by Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare Elliot L. Richardson in
early 1972, offered an important proposal. The panel’s July 1973 final report
recommended “the enactment of legislation establishing a Code of Fair Information
Practice for all automated personal data systems.” Such a code would: punish unfair
information practice with civil and criminal penalties; provide injunctive relief to
prevent violations of safeguard requirements; empower individuals to bring suits for
unfair information practices to recover actual, liquidated, and punitive damages, in
individual or class actions; and allow the recovery of reasonable attorneys’ fees and
other costs of litigation incurred by individuals who bring successful suits.5
1For the text of the Privacy Act, see 5 U.S.C. 552a.
2See CRS Report RL30671, Personal Privacy Protection: The Legislative Response, by
Harold C. Relyea.
3 84 Stat. 1128; 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.
4 87 Stat. 197, at 215-216; 42 U.S.C. 3789g.
5U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Secretary’s Advisory Committee on
Automated Personal Data Systems, Records, Computers, and the Rights of Citizens
(continued...)

CRS-2
Congressional efforts to legislate notice, access, and emendation arrangements
for individuals concerning personally identifiable records maintained on them by
federal departments and agencies began in the House in June 1972, but did not extend
beyond the subcommittee hearing stage during the 92nd Congress. However, a few
days before these inaugural House hearings on legislation that would evolve into the
Privacy Act, a burglary occurred at Democratic National Committee headquarters.
It was the beginning of the Watergate incident, which would significantly affect
attitudes toward privacy protection legislation and the leadership for such legislation.
Legislation leading to the enactment of the Privacy Act began in the House
largely as an effort to create a procedure whereby individuals could learn if federal
agencies maintained files on them, could review the contents of the records in those
files, could correct inaccuracies they contained, and could know how this information
was being used and by whom. In the Senate, a privacy protection bill sponsored by
Senator Sam Ervin, Jr., initially sought largely to establish a Federal Privacy Board
and to create standards and management systems for handling personally identifiable
information in federal agencies, state and local governments, and other organizations.
Other aspects of privacy policy were added to these bills as they moved through their
respective houses of Congress, and then were reconciled in a somewhat unusual
manner to create an amalgamated bill acceptable to the House, the Senate, and the
President.
House hearings began in mid-February 1974 under Representative William S.
Moorhead, chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations and Government
Information of the Committee on Government Operations (now Government
Reform), and a principal manager of the legislation. The subcommittee held markup
discussions in May, June, and July. These deliberations resulted in a clean bill (H.R.
16373), which was introduced by Representative Moorhead with 13 bipartisan co-
sponsors in mid-August and favorably reported by the Subcommittee without a
dissenting vote. The Committee on Government Operations considered the legislation
in mid-September, substituted revised text for the original language, and favorably
reported it. President Gerald Ford, who had recently succeeded to the Oval Office
after President Richard Nixon’s early August resignation, endorsed the House bill in
an October 9 statement.6 The measure was considered by the House on November
20 and 21, and approved, with amendments, on a 353-1 yea-and-nay vote.7
A somewhat different counterpart privacy proposal emerged in the Senate.
Senator Ervin introduced his bill (S. 3418) on May 1, 1974, with bipartisan
cosponsorship. Hearings on this and related legislation occurred in June. During
June, July, and August, staff of the Senate Committee on Government Operations, its
5(...continued)
(Washington: GPO, 1973), pp. xxiii, 50.
6U.S. General Services Administration, National Archives and Records Service, Office of the
Federal Register, Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Gerald R. Ford, 1974
(Washington: GPO, 1976), pp. 243-244.
7Congressional Record, vol. 120, Nov. 20, 1974, pp. 36643-36660; Ibid., Nov. 21, 1974, pp.
36955-36977.

CRS-3
Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Privacy and Information Systems, and the Subcommittee
on Constitutional Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary—all panels chaired by
Senator Ervin—further refined the language of the bill. In a mid-August committee
mark-up, a staff-developed version of the measure was amended and favorably
reported to the Senate.
The new text of the bill would have established the Privacy Protection
Commission, composed of five members appointed by the President from private life
and subject to Senate approval. It would have been responsible for compiling and
publishing an annual directory of information systems subject to the provisions of the
bill, enforcing the legislation, and developing model guidelines for its implementation,
including the conduct of research in this regard. The bill also would have established
federal agency standards and management systems for handling information relating
to individuals. These included fair information practice principles, disclosure
standards, mailing list restrictions, and civil and criminal penalties.
On November 21, 1974, the Senate considered the Ervin legislation; amendments
developed by committee staff and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) were
adopted, and the resulting version of the legislation was approved.8 The following
day, the Senate took up the House counterpart bill, struck its language and substituted
in lieu there of the language of the Ervin bill, and approved the amended version of
the House bill.9
With only a few weeks remaining before the 93rd Congress would adjourn sine
die, House and Senate managers found they had very little time to reconcile the two
differing bills. There was, however, strong desire for the passage of such legislation,
not only as a so-called Watergate reform, but also as a tribute and memorial to
Senator Ervin, who was retiring from congressional service. Consequently,
Representative Moorhead and Senator Ervin, with the concurrence of their respective
committees, agreed to the rare arrangement of having their committee staffs negotiate
a mutually agreeable legislative measure. After this effort reduced 108 substantive
differences to eight, the leaders of the respective House and Senate committees
brought those to resolution.10 In lieu of a conference committee report, a staff
analysis of the compromise legislation was produced.11 The major concession was the
relegation of the enforcement commission to the status of a temporary national study
commission. Its oversight responsibilities were vested in OMB, but without
enforcement authority.
On December 11, the House adopted the Senate bill as amended with the
language of its own bill.12 The Senate concurred with the House amendment by
passing its own amendment on a 77-8 vote on December 17, clearing the measure for
8Congressional Record, vol. 120, Nov. 21, 1974, pp. 36882-36921.
9Ibid., Nov. 22, 1974, pp. 37064-37069.
10Ibid., Dec. 17, 1974, p. 40400.
11See ibid., pp. 40405-40408.
12Ibid., Dec. 11, 1974, pp. 39200-39204.

CRS-4
further House action.13 The following day, the House agreed to the Senate
amendments with an amendment of its own,14 and the Senate concurred with the
House amendments the same day, clearing the measure for the President’s signature.15
The Privacy Act was signed into law by President Ford on December 31, 1974.16 In
his signing statement, the President said the new law “signified an historic beginning
by codifying fundamental principles to safeguard personal privacy in the collection and
handling of recorded personal information by federal agencies.”17
Major Provisions
The Privacy Act provides privacy protection in several ways. First, it sustains
some traditional major privacy principles. For example, an agency shall “maintain no
record describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First
Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom
the record is maintained or unless pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized
law enforcement activity.”18
Second, similar to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Privacy Act provides an
individual who is a citizen of the United States, or an alien lawfully admitted for
permanent residence, with access and emendation arrangements for records
maintained on him or her by most, but not all, federal agencies. General exemptions
in this regard are provided for systems of records maintained by the Central
Intelligence Agency and federal criminal law enforcement agencies.
Third, the statute embodies a number of principles of fair information practice.
For example, it sets certain conditions concerning the disclosure of personally
identifiable information; prescribes requirements for the accounting of certain
disclosures of such information; requires agencies to “collect information to the
greatest extent practicable directly from the subject individual when the information
may result in adverse determinations about an individual’s rights, benefits, and
privileges under Federal programs”; requires agencies to specify their authority and
purposes for collecting personally identifiable information from an individual; requires
agencies to “maintain all records which are used by the agency in making any
determination about any individual with such accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and
completeness as is reasonably necessary to assure fairness to the individual in the
determination”; and provides civil and criminal enforcement arrangements.
13Ibid., Dec. 17, 1974, pp. 40397-40413.
14Ibid., Dec. 18, 1974, pp. 40879-40886.
15Ibid., pp. 40730-40731.
1688 Stat. 1896; 5 U.S.C. 552a.
17U.S. General Services Administration, National Archives and Records Service, Office of the
Federal Register, Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Gerald R. Ford, 1975
(Washington: GPO, 1977), pp. 1-2.
18 5 U.S.C. 552(e)(7).

CRS-5
Since its enactment, the Privacy Act has been amended on six occasions. In
1982, the Debt Collection Act added a new exception to the disclosure prohibition for
disclosures made to consumer credit reporting agencies.19 That same year, the
Congressional Reports Elimination Act changed the annual report requirement of the
Privacy Act and modified the provision for publication of agency systems of records.20
In 1984, the Central Intelligence Agency Information Act resolved a long-standing
controversy by specifying that the Privacy Act is not authority “to withhold from an
individual any record which is otherwise accessible to the individual under the
provisions of” the Freedom of Information Act.21 Amendments in 198822 and 199023
established new procedures and data protection boards to ensure privacy, integrity,
and verification of data disclosed for computer matching. Recently, the Federal
Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995, as amended by the Miscellaneous
Appropriations Act for FY 2000, repealed the requirement for a biennial Privacy Act
report to Congress.24
Emerging Issues
Better Enforcement or Overhaul. Several issues are before the 107th
Congress regarding the Privacy Act. A September 2000 General Accounting Office
(GAO) report on a survey of online privacy protections at federal Web sites found
that 23 of 70 agencies had disclosed personal information gathered from their Web
sites to third parties, mostly other agencies. However, at least four agencies were
discovered to be sharing such information with private entities—trade organizations,
bilateral development banks, product manufacturers, distributors, and retailers. The
offending agencies were not identified by GAO. Responding to these findings, some
privacy advocates called for updating the Privacy Act to specify privacy protections
for Internet visitors to agency Web sites, while others urged better oversight and
enforcement of the statute.25
Managing “Cookies”. Federal agencies obtained personal information about
visitors to their Web sites through the use of computer software known as “cookies.”
In June 2000, press disclosures revealed that the National Drug Control Policy Office,
an agency within the Executive Office of the President, was secretly tracking visitors
1996 Stat. 1749, adding 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12).
2096 Stat. 1819, at 1821-1822, modifying 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (p).
2196 Stat. 2209, at 2211-2212, adding 5 U.S.C. 552a(q)(2).
22102 Stat. 2507, adding 5 U.S.C. 552a(o),(p),(q), and (u), and amending 5 U.S.C. 552a(a),
(e), and (v).
23104 Stat. 1388-334, modifying 5 U.S.C. 552a(p).
24109 Stat. 707, as amended by section 236 of H.R. 3425, as incorporated, at 113 Stat. 1537-
296, repealing 5 U.S.C. 552a(s).
25Lance Gay, “GAO Finds Agencies Sharing Data of On-line Visitors,” Washington Times,
Sept. 8, 2000, p. A3; U.S. General Accounting Office, Internet Privacy: Agencies’ Efforts
to Implement OMB’s Privacy Policy, GAO Report GAO/GGD-00-191, Sept. 2000.

CRS-6
to its Web site through the use of “cookies.”26 In response, OMB issued a June 22,
2000, memorandum to the heads of all executive departments and agencies indicating
that “‘cookies’ should not be used at Federal web sites, or by contractors when
operating web sites on behalf of agencies, unless, in addition to clear and conspicuous
notice, [certain specified] ... conditions are met.”27
In October 2000, press disclosures revealed that a GAO followup study
contended that 13 federal agencies had ignored the OMB June 22 memorandum
prohibiting the tracking of visitors to government Web sites. An appended letter from
the OMB deputy director for management defended agency use of so-called “session
cookies,”which, the letter said, facilitated transactions at the website and were not
banned by OMB. Session cookies last only as long as one is visiting the website.
Clearly prohibited are “persistent cookies,” which may track web habits for long
periods of time, and the dissemination of a person’s information to a private company.
GAO found seven agencies engaging in one or both of these activities.28
In mid-April 2001, Senator Fred Thompson, chairman of the Senate Committee
on Governmental Affairs, released the preliminary findings of agency Inspectors
General who were required by a provision of the Treasury-Postal title of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001 to report on how their agencies collect and
review personal information on their Web sites.29 Reports on 16 agencies found 64
Web sites making use of “persistent cookies.”30 Shortly thereafter, a GAO senior
attorney criticized OMB’s contradictory guidelines about federal agency use of
“cookies.” OMB, it was observed, had encouraged agencies to comply with the fair
information practice principles of the Federal Trade Commission, which are not
statutorily mandated, and also adhere to the requirements of the Privacy Act.31 The
Privacy Act might be amended to eliminate any such contradiction, to prescribe
conditions when “sessions cookies” may be used, and to outlaw the use of “persistent
cookies.”
26See John F. Harris and John Schwartz, “Anti-Drug Web Site Tracks Visitors,” Washington
Post, June 22, 2000, p. A23; Lance Gay, “White House Uses Drug-Message Site to Track
Inquiries,” Washington Times, June 21, 2000, p. A3.
27The memorandum is available from the OMB Web site at:
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/m00-13.html].
28Associated Press, “U.S. Agencies Ignore Ban, Track Visitors to Web Sites,” Washington
Times, Oct. 22, 2000, p. C3; D. Ian Hopper, “Agencies Track Online Visitors Despite Rules,”
Washington Post, Oct. 22, 2000, p. A13; D. Ian Hopper, “Renewed Ban on U.S. Web
‘Cookies’,” Washington Post, Oct. 24, 2000, p. A25; U.S. General Accounting Office,
Internet Privacy: Federal Agency Use of Cookies, GAO Letter GAO-01-147R, Oct. 20,
2000.
29P.L. 106-554, sec. 646.
30Associated Press, “Federal Web Sites Can Track Visitors,” Washington Times, Apr. 17,
2001, p. A8; Senator Thompson’s release of the preliminary findings may be found at
[http:www.senate.gov/~gov_affairs/041601a_press.htm].
31 Drew Clark, “Conflicting Guidelines on Web ‘Cookies’ Spur Confusion,” GovExec.com
Daily Briefing, Apr. 24, 2001, available at [http://www.govexec.com/].

CRS-7
Oversight and Enforcement Responsibility. Another issue concerns
continued vestment of Privacy Act oversight and enforcement in the director of OMB
or, alternatively, in another entity. Options for consideration in this regard include a
small privacy agency having no regulatory authority over the private sector32 or a
Chief Information Officer of the United States (CIOUS). Such an official had been
proposed in 1995 Senate legislation underlying the Clinger-Cohen Act governing
information technology acquisition and management. A Progressive Policy Institute
report recommended such a position in March 2000,33 and legislation in support of the
concept was offered in the House during the 106th Congress.34 Texas Governor
George W. Bush, the anticipated Republican presidential nominee, endorsed the
CIOUS idea in a June 9, 2000, government reform speech in Philadelphia. During a
September 2000 House subcommittee hearing on the proffered CIOUS bills35 and in
related published views, proponents of the new position contended that many aspects
of information technology (IT) management would benefit from having a IT expert
in charge of this area, that such an official would better facilitate OMB oversight of
IT applications and use, and that efficiencies and economies could well result if this
official could prevent federal agencies from purchasing computer systems that did not
work or otherwise performed poorly in, or failed, security tests. Critics maintained
that the CIOUS would unnecessarily perform a subset of duties currently vested in the
OMB deputy director for management, would seemingly have few immediate
enforcement powers, and, in some versions, might be controlling funds outside the
traditional appropriations process. Members of the CIO Council reportedly are at
odds over the need for the CIOUS.36 In the early weeks of the new administration,
President Bush vacated his earlier endorsement of a CIOUS.
Broader Application. A third issue concerns inclusion of the White House
Office and the Office of the Vice President within the scope of the Privacy Act, and
to what extent, if any, the legislative branch should be subject to the statute or parallel
requirements set by rule or standing order. Disclosures of personally identifiable
32See Robert Gellman, “Taming the Privacy Monster: A Proposal for a Non-Regulatory
Privacy Agency,” Government Information Quarterly, vol. 17, no. 3, 2000, pp. 235-241.
33See Robert D. Atkinson and Jacob Ulevich, Digital Government: The Next Step to
Reengineering the Federal Government (Washington: Progressive Policy Institute, March
2000), p. 13.
34H.R. 4670 was introduced on June 15 by Rep. Jim Turner, and H.R. 5024 was introduced
on July 27 by Rep. Tom Davis; both bills were referred to the Committee on Government
Reform.
35U.S. Congress, House Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on Government
Management, Information, and Technology, Establishing a Federal CIO: Information
Technology Management and Assurance Within the Federal Government, hearing, 106th
Cong., 2nd sess., Sept. 12, 2000 (Washington: transcript awaiting publication).
36See Christopher J. Dorobek, “Experts Debate Need for Federal IT Czar,” Government
Computer News, vol. 19, Mar. 6, 2000, p. 58; Christopher J. Dorobek, “CIO Council on
Track, Members Say,” Government Computer News, vol. 19, May 8, 2000, p. 65;
Christopher J. Dorobek, “What Would Governmentwide CIO Do?,” Government Computer
News, vol. 19, July 10, 2000, p. 74; Joseph J. Petrillo, “David Bill Would Give IT Czar
Carrots, but No Stick,” Government Computer News, vol. 19, Sept. 11, 2000, p. 24.

CRS-8
information by the White House during the Clinton Administration has fueled this
issue. Similarly, although Congress and the legislative support agencies are not
currently subject to the Privacy Act, the issue of legislatively requiring their inclusion
is fueled by considerations of executive and legislative branch parity in this regard, as
well as by the perceived need for more explicit privacy protections within the
legislative branch.37
Military Exclusion. A fourth issue arises from a September 2000 federal
district court ruling that the Feres doctrine, which prohibits military personnel from
suing the government for injuries,38 applies equally to lawsuits brought under the
Privacy Act, resulting in a prohibition on suing not only for damages, but also even
for the correction of records.39 In this case, a U.S. Navy fighter pilot sought damages
for the leaking of her confidential flight evaluation to Robert L. Gandt, an author
researching a book on navy fighter pilots. The evaluation’s recommendation that
Cummings be stripped of her flight status was rejected by the commander of the Naval
Air Force for the Atlantic Fleet. Gandt’s 1997 book, Bogey’s and Bandits: The
Making of a Fighter Pilot, quoted from the evaluation, but assigned Cummings a
pseudonym. A 1988 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, Cummings left the navy
in 1999 and is currently an assistant professor of engineering at Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and Statute University.40
On August 2, 2001, Representative Rick Boucher, with bipartisan
cosponsorship, introduced H.R. 2738 to amend Title 5, United States Code, to clarify
that all of the protections of the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act
apply to members of the armed forces to the same extent and in the same manner as
to any other individual. The bill was referred to the Committee on Government
Reform.
On February 15, 2002, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
reversed the trial court in the navy fighter pilot case seeking Privacy Act relief. The
2-1 ruling said that members of the military can sue the government for invading their
privacy, indicating that the Feres doctrine does not take precedence over the Privacy
37See U.S. Congress, House Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on Criminal
Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources, The Privacy Act and the Presidency, hearing,
106th Cong., 2nd sess., Sept. 8, 2000 (Washington: transcript awaiting publication).
38Feres v. U.S., 340 U.S. 135 (1950). The Feres case involved a liability claim under the
Federal Tort Claims Act by the executor of a soldier who had died in a barracks fire. The
Supreme Court, while continuing to uphold the doctrine, has stressed that it “cannot be
reduced to a few bright-line rules,” but rather “each case must be examined in light of the
[Tort Claims Act] as it has been construed in Feres and subsequent cases.” U.S. v. Shearer,
473 U.S. 52, 105 (1985). The Privacy Act affords liability damages apart from the Tort
Claims Act.
39Mary Louise Cummings v. Department of the Navy, Civil Action No. 98-1183 (D.C. D.C.,
Sept. 6, 2000).
40Steve Vogel, “Navy Pilot Fights Privacy Ruling,” Washington Post, Oct 3, 2000, pp. B1,
B7.

CRS-9
Act.41 Because the decision is binding only on the courts of the circuit, a legislative
clarification may still be sought.
Routine Use Reconsidered. Still another issue concerns the possible
modification of the “routine use” clause of the Privacy Act to improve citizen
awareness of the routine uses that agencies have indicated they will make of
personally identifiable information and to limit the discretion of agency officials to
share personally identifiable information with other agencies. The Privacy Act requires
each agency in possession of systems of records to publish for each system the routine
uses to which the information might be put. Such notices are published in the Federal
Register. Most citizens are unaware of these notices and their implications, with the
result that they have little understanding of how information supplied by or about
them to government agencies might be used. Furthermore, in the view of one policy
analyst examining the situation, “agency officials have interpreted the routine use
clause broadly and have created almost unlimited ability to move data among Federal
agencies.”42
However, from another perspective, the routine use clause may not be quite as
broadly interpreted as has been asserted. A May 1998 report, prepared by a benefit
eligibility verification study committee of the President’s Council on Integrity and
Efficiency, for example, considered it doubtful that, given prevailing judicial
interpretation, “disclosure of information collected by one agency for a specific
program, to another agency for eligibility verification in an unrelated program, would
be considered a routine use.”43
Matching and Sharing. Finally, an issue has arisen regarding the
circumstances, if any, when computer matching of personally identifiable information
in systems of records across government programs and agencies should be permitted.
Agency officials responsible for combating waste, fraud, and abuse in federal benefits
programs urge a reconsideration of the Privacy Act’s strict matching requirements,
while privacy advocates would retain the status quo.44 The case for reconsideration
began to emerge a few years ago, the May 1998 benefit eligibility verification study
report of the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency being exemplary.
Describing the demanding and cumbersome requirements for producing and executing
a computer matching agreement, the report reiterated earlier OMB findings “that the
procedures for renegotiating agreements for recurring matches, such as would be
required for program eligibility verification, require the expenditure of enormous
personnel resources with little substantive benefit, and that “verifying eligibility before
41Mary Louise Cummings v. Department of the Navy, 2002 WL 226134 (D.C. Cir. No. 00-
5348).
42Gloria Cox, “Implementation of the Routine Use Clause of the Privacy Act,” Policy Studies
Review, vol. 10, Winter 1991-1992, p. 43.
43President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency, Ad Hoc Committee on Benefit Eligibility
Verification, Eligibility Verification Needed to Deter and Detect Fraud in Federal
Government Benefit and Credit Programs, May 1998, p. 3.
44See U.S. General Accounting Office, The Challenge of Data Sharing: Results of a GAO-
Sponsored Symposium on Benefit and Loan Programs, GAO Report GAO-01-67, Oct. 2000.

CRS-10
payments are initiated ... would avoid overpayments and allow agencies to ‘ ... move
from a pay and chase mode to one that is far more proactive and efficient’.”45
45President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency, Ad Hoc Committee on Benefit Eligibility
Verification, Eligibility Verification Needed to Deter and Detect Fraud in Federal
Government Benefit and Credit Programs, p. 4.