more on "Fiscal 2005 spending bill addresses privacy issues"

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Peter Swire <peter () peterswire net>
Date: December 7, 2004 5:10:59 PM EST
To: dave () farber net
Subject: RE: [IP] "Fiscal 2005 spending bill addresses privacy issues"

Dave:

        A few items on the flurry of privacy language late in the Congressional
session:

	(1) The language in the spending bill does not draw distinctions 
between
agencies very involved in privacy, such as Justice or HHS, and other
agencies with very little privacy activity, such as Interior.  If the 
"same"
approach is used in all agencies, there is thus a risk that the level of
activity will be too low (if what is good enough for Interior is good 
enough
for all agencies) or too high (if what is needed for Justice is forced 
onto
Interior as well).  We can hope that there are good management decisions
here, but the statute does not show how that is supposed to be done.

        (2) As Bob Gellman pointed out to me, the spending bill requires
well-established and presumably large consulting firms to do a lot of 
audits
of agency privacy activities.  That may be a boon to the consulting
companies, but may not be the best use of a given amount of privacy and
security dollars.

        (3) The National Intelligence reform bill, now apparently headed to the
President's desk, creates the new Privacy and Civil Liberties 
Commission in
the Executive Office of the President.  I think some sort of EOP office 
on
these issues is badly needed.  Now we should all keep close track to 
make
sure the Commission is created and staffed in an effective way.

	(4) There was a big mess on tax privacy late in the Congressional 
session,
when a House staffer inserted language that would have allowed the 
Chair of
either Appropriations Committee, or any of their agents, free access to 
tax
returns "notwithstanding any other provision of law governing the 
disclosure
of income tax returns."  If a White House office had existed to vet 
privacy
proposals, this could have been fixed quite easily.  One role for the 
new
Commission can be and should be to get involved in the drafting and 
vetting
of this sort of language.

        Thanks,

        Peter

Prof. Peter P. Swire
Moritz College of Law of the
    Ohio State University
John Glenn Scholar in Public Policy Research
(240) 994-4142; www.peterswire.net

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ip () v2 listbox com [mailto:owner-ip () v2 listbox com]On Behalf
Of David Farber
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 4:24 PM
To: Ip
Subject: [IP] "Fiscal 2005 spending bill addresses privacy issues"




http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1204/120604tdpm1.htm

DAILY BRIEFING
December 6, 2004
Image Map, text links are provided

Fiscal 2005 spending bill addresses privacy issues

By Chloe Albanesius, National Journal's Technology Daily
The omnibus spending bill for fiscal 2005 includes privacy provisions
crafted to prevent the unlawful transfer of or access to confidential
information.

The language, which would prohibit federal agencies from monitoring
individuals' Internet use, is included in the part of the bill, H.R.
4818, that would fund the Transportation and Treasury departments. That
section also would fund independent agencies and general government
appropriations.

The government cannot collect information about Web users unless that
information does not identify specific people or those people give
their permission. Exceptions would be made for law enforcement requests
and "system security" incidents required to protect agency networks.

The bill also would require that each government entity hire chief
privacy officers to oversee system privacy, ensure that any data
collection is legal and secure, and evaluate the disclosure of personal
information by the government. To ensure that agencies are complying
with the provisions, the measure would require each agency's inspector
general to hire consultants to evaluate the agencies' use of
identifiable information and its data-protection procedures.

The measure also would provide funding to modernize information
technology infrastructure. The Treasury Department could spend a
maximum of $3 million on its IT modernization plan, while the Internal
Revenue Service would get $205 million to acquire IT systems, pending
the House and Senate Appropriations committees' approval.

The Executive Office of the President, meanwhile, would receive about
$12 million for IT modernization, but $4 million would not be released
until the office submits a plan that is approved by White House Office
of Management and Budget, Government Accountability Office and
appropriations committees.

Lawmakers also appropriated $42 million for the Counterdrug Technology
Assessment Center, $24 million of which would be used to continue the
program that transfers technologies developed with federal funds to
state and local communities.

Meanwhile, the Election Assistance Commission would receive $14 million
to implement the 2002 election overhaul, which included language on
e-voting. Of that sum, $2.8 million would go to the National Institute
of Standards and Technology.

Overall, the Transportation and Treasury departments' share of the
spending bill includes some $59 million for advanced technology
development, an increase over the $42 million suggested by the House
and $57 million offered by the Senate. The bill calls for $1.5 million
worth of appliance-based computer-security technology, $400,000 for
technology frameworks and $500,000 for certificate-based Internet
security. The bill also calls on the departments not to exceed $2.5
million on their e-government initiatives.

The bill would allocate $1.5 million for vertical flight technology, $4
million for "phased array" radar technology and $3 million for
anti-jamming technology for global positioning systems. It also would
appropriate $8 million for research and technology program support,
including $250,000 for the Transportation Research Center at the
Georgia Institute of Technology and $1.5 million for the Oklahoma
Transportation Center.

The bill also would waive "Buy America" provisions requiring federal IT
purchases to include U.S.-made content, and it would allow the Federal
Railroad Administration to reimburse employees for home Internet
connections.
\

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as peter () peterswire net
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: 
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/