Personal Privacy in an Information Society. Endnotes

07/12/1997

1 Hiller Zobel and Kinvin Wroth (eds.), Legal Papers of John Adams, (Harvard University Press, Cambridge: 1965) Vol. 2, Case No. 44, pp. 106-144.

2 John Eger, "Foreward" 1o Ken1 Greenawalt, Legal Protections of Privacy, Office of Telecommunications Policy (Washington, D.C.: 1976); Thomas I. Emerson, The System of Freedom of Expression, (New York: Vintage, 1970) pp. 544-48.

3 See Note, "Formalism, Legal Realism, and Constitutionally Protected Privacy Under 1he Fourth and Fifth Amendments," 90 Harv. L. Rev. 945 (1977) (hereinafter cited as `Formalism, Legal Realism. ..." ).

4Infra, this Chapter, "Restricting Compulsory Reporting Requirements;" also, Chapter 13.

5 See, e.g., Chapter 2, "Consumer-Credit Relationship."

6 Infra, this Chapter, "The Grand Jury Subpoena."

7 Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886); Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 474 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); infra, this Chapter, note 81.

8 As Representative Patman explained during 1he debates preceding passage of the Bank Secrecy Act, a primary purpose of 1he Act was to "make uniform and adequate the present record-keeping practices, or lack of record-keeping practices, by domestic banks and other financial institutions," (emphasis added) 116 Cong. Rec. 16951 (1970); also, see remarks of Representative Stark, Administrative Summons and Antidisclosure Provisions of the Tax Reform Act of 1976, Hearings before 1he Subcommittee on Oversight of 1he Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives, 95th Congress, 1s1 Session, ser. 95-4, a1 26 (February 24, 1977) (hereinafter cited as "U.S. House of Representatives, Hearings on Administrative Summons").

9 12 U.S.C. 1951 et seq.; 31 C.F.R. 103.

10See, e.g., United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976); Kelley v. United States, 536 F.2d 897 (9th Cir. 1976); compare, Donaldson v. United States, 400 U.S. 517 (1971); also, see infra, note 94.

11Ibid.

12Infra, this Chapter, "Regulating the Compelled Production of Records."

13California Bankers Assn. v. Schultz, 416 U.S. 21, 78 (1975) (Powell, J., concurring).

14 See Chapter 3, "The Depository Relationship," section on "Electronic Funds Transfer Services: An Overview."

15 Written Statemen1 of Hope Eastman, Associate Director, ACLU, Depository and Lending Institutions, Hearings before the Privacy Protection Study Commission, April 22, 1976, p. 5 (hereinafter cited as "Depository and Lending Institutions Hearings").

16 Testimony of 1he Internal Revenue Service, Depository and Lending Institutions Hearings, April 22, 1976, pp. 777-830, and particularly pp. 804-07.

17Testimony of Continental Illinois Bank and Trus1 Company, Depository and Lending Institutions Hearings, April 21, 1976, p. 277.

18 See Chapter 2, "Consumer-Credi1 Relationship," section on `Disclosures to Government Agencies", particularly the discussion of 1he credit-card issuers survey; also, generally, Depository and Lending Institutions Hearings, April 21-22, 1976.

19 Testimony of American Express Company, Credit-Card Issuers, Hearings before the Privacy Protection Study Commission, February 11, 1976 (hereinafter cited as "Credit-Card Issuers Hearings").

20 Infra, this Chapter, "Regulating 1he Compelled Production of Records"; "Formalism, Legal Realism " 90 Harv. L. Rev. 945, 964-85.

21 425 U.S. 435 (1976).

22 The lack of any assertable legal interest in bank notes 1hemselves, no1 to mention records of banking transactions, excep1 a limited protection against theft, is chronicled by Blackstone, Commentaries, Vol. 4, p. 234; also, Ibid., Vol. 3, p. 382; S.F.C. Milsom, Historical Foundations of the Common Law, (London: Butterworth, 1969), p. 372.

23 Burrows v. Superior Court, 13 Cal. 3d 238 (1974).

24 Ibid; also, Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court, 15 Cal. 3d 652 (1975); Carlson v. Superior Court, 58 Cal. App. 3d 13 (1976).

25 Infra, 1his Chapter, "Restricting Compulsory Reporting Requirements." 26 Infra, note 125.

27 Note, "Common Law Crimes in the United State," 47 Colum L Rev. 1332 (1947).

28 See Entick v. Carrington, 19 State Tr. 1407 (1765); also, United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972); Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969); Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964).

29 See I Annals of Congress 424-450, 660-779; also, Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, Julian Boyd (ed.), The Papers of Thomas Jefferson (Princeton: Princeton University Press,1958), Vol. 12, p. 440.

30 See, e.g., the activities chronicled in Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans: Book ll, Report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Activities, S. Rep. No. 755, 94th Congress, 2d Session (1976), particularly at pp. 139, 142, 173-74, 178-79, 184, 197-98, 204,220 (hereinafter cited as "U.S. Senate, Intelligence Activities"); also, the almost inevitable overzealousness of law enforcement investigators has been noted by the Supreme Court frequently, see, e.g., Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 13-14 (1948); Aquilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964).

31 The Privacy Ac1 of 1974 attempts 1o se1 some limits, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(l), (eX2), (eX7), but, in ligh1 of certain exceptions 1o 1hose limits, the requirements of 1he Act place few clear limitations on 1he practices of law enforcement agencies, see 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(7), (j), (k); also, Chapter 13.

32 See Chapters 2, 3, 5, and 7.

33 See Alan F. Westin, Privacy and Freedom, (N.Y.: Atheneum, 1967) p. 330; Commonwealth v. Lovett, 4 Clark 5 (Pa., 1831).

34 Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 (1967); Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967); 18 U.S.C. 2510 et seq.

35 Except in so-called "national security" situations; see Testimony of American Telephone and Telegraph Company, Credit-Card Issuers Hearings, February 12, 1976, pp. 46-50; letter from H.W. William Caming, Attorney, AT&T, to 1he Privacy Protection Study Commission, August 13, 1976, p. 2.

36 Donaldson v. United States, 400 U.S. 517 (1971).

37 Infra, this Chapter, "Regulating the Compelled Production of Records."

38 Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465 (1921).

39 Supra, notes 15-19; Chapter 2, "The Consumer Credit-Relationship"; also, the ease with which government agents gain access to private records held by 1hird parties was confirmed in interviews with officials of Federal investigative agencies conducted by Commission staff.

40 Staff interviews with Special Agents of 1he Federal Bureau of Investigation, at Headquarters, Washington, D.C. on January 6,1977.

41 e.g., 18 U.S.C. 4; also, Tournier v. National Provincial Union Bank (1924), 1 K.B. 461, 473, 481 (C.A.).

42 See Chapter 2, Recommendation (12); Chapter 3, Recommendation (8), Chapter 5, Recommendation (17), Chapter 7, Recommendation (10).

43 EEOC v. University of New Mexico, 504 F.2d 1296, 1301 (10th Cir. 1974).

44 Supra, notes 10, 42.

45 United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976).

46 Couch v. United States, 409 U.S. 322 (1973); Donaldson v. United States, 400 U.S. 517 (1971).

47 26 U.S.C. 7609.

48Against a private party, he may have some interest, in contract or 1hrough certain "common law" expectations; see Milovich v. First Natl Bank, 224 So.2d 759 (Fla. Ct. App. 1969); Sparks v. Union Trust Co., 256 N.C. 478 (1962); Peterson v. Idaho First National Bank, 83 Idaho 578 (1961); also, Brex v. Smith, 104 N.J. Eq. 386 (1929).

49 400 U.S. 517 (1971).

50 Ibid, at 523.

51 Supra, note 5.

52 Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294,304 (1967); Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41(1967); Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967); for the distinction of "records" from "communications," see Couch v. United States, 409 U.S. 322 (1973); United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976); Fischer v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976).

53389 U.S. 347 (1967).

54 Citing Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 (1967).

55 13 Cal.3d 238 (1974).

56 129 Cal. Rptr. 650 (1976).

57Ibid, at 655.

58 The terms "financial service" and "financial institution" should be understood 1o mean those services and institutions covered by 1he recommendations of the Commission in Chapter 2, "Consumer-Credit Relationship," and Chapter 3, "The Depository Relationship."

59 See Chapter 2, Recommendation (12); Chapter 3, Recommendation (8); Chapter 5, Recommendation (17); Chapter 7, Recommendation (10).

60 See Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463 (1976); Beckwith v. United States, 425 U.S. 321 (1976); Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976); United States v. Bisceglia, 420 U.S. 141 (1975); given 1ha1 an individual will have the righ1 to challenge the summons before i1 can be enforced, a relativistic balancing test of government need and individual right will surely emerge, rather than a strict standard such as probable cause being placed on government.

61 If 1he standards of Bisceglia and EEOC v. University of New Mexico are 1o be tightened at all, 1his is 1he minimum tes1 governmen1 would have 1o meet.

62 The right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons and things to be seized. U. S. Coast., amend. IV.

63 See Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961); Bivens v. Six Unknown NamedAgents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971); Oaks, "Studying the Exclusionary Rule in Search and Seizure," 37 U. Chi. L Rev. 665 (1970); also Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967); United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972); see further (re: force and fraud), Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23 (1963).

64 Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961); Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

65 See Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463 (1976); Fischer v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976); Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886); Note, "Formalism, Legal Realism. ..," 90 Harv. L. Rev. 945.

66 See Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886); and Note, "Formalism, Legal Realism..." 90 Harv. L Rev. 945.

69 See e.g., United States Y. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976); Donaldson v. United States, 400 U.S. 517 (1971); United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48 (1964).

70 Theodore F.T. Plucknett, A Concise History of the Common Law, (5th Ed., Boston: 1956), pp. 683-684.

71 California Bankers Assn. v. Schultz, 416 U.S. 21, 53 (1974); United States V. First Nat'l Bank of Mobile, 295 F.142, 142,143 (S.D.Ala. 1924), affd, per curiam, 267 U.S. 576 (1925).

72 See particularly the discussion of the use of the Grand Jury Subpoena infra.

73 Most of the statutes reviewed were the product of a computer search conducted for the Privacy Protection Study Commission by the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress. A few of the statutes examined were obtained through manual research by Commission staff. Throughout this section of the text on Administrative Summons, the statutes cited in notes ordinarily will be examples of statutory structure and language rather than an exhaustive list of all Federal statutes which might illustrate the point at issue.

74 15 U.S.C. 49; 21 U.S.C. 880.

75 The tenuous nature of the relevance which is necessary is illustrated in United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48 (1964); also, FTC v. Texaco, Inc.., 517 F.2d 137, 170 (D. C. Cir., 1975).

76 United States v. Bisceglia, 420 U.S. 141, 154 (1975) (Stewart, J., dissenting).

77 22 U.S.C. 1623; 12 U.S.C. 1464(d)(9); 7 U.S.C. 15, 115, and 136d; 15 U.S.C. 1173; 42 U.S.C. 405.

78 15 U.S.C. 4a.

79 12 U.S.C. 1464(d)(9).

80 Over 20 percent of the statutes reviewed employed that phrase.

81 21 U.S.C. 880.

82 7 U.S.C. 87f; 18 U.S.C. 1968; 21 U.S.C. 374; 29 U.S.C. 161.

83 45 U.S.C. 362.

84 A few statutes do modify this ability by permitting the individual who is compelled to provide information to initiate an agency determination regarding what information may not be disclosed, 1hough ordinarily only in the context of 1rade secret and similar information. See, e.g., 50 U.S.C. App. 6430.

8542U.S.C. 3611.

86 12 U.S.C. 1784; 15 U.S.C. 155.

87 Supra, note 74.

88 Supra, notes 15, 16, 18.

89 Testimony of the Internal Revenue Service, Depository and Lending Institutions Hearings, April 22, 1976, pp. 785-86; The New York Times, April 20, 1975, IV, p. 4:5; June 11, 1975, p. 29:6; June 21, 1975, p. 1:5; also, S. Rep. No. 938, 94th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 368-369 (1976).

90 U.S. Senate, Intelligence Activities, pp. 14-15.

91 Testimony of the Deputy Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, Federal Tax Return Confidentiality, Hearings before the Privacy Protection Study Commission, March 11, 1976, pp. 63-65.

92 California Bankers Assn. v. Schultz, 416 U.S. 21, 78 (1975) (Powell, J., concurring).

93 See, e.g., United States v. Bisceglia, 420 U.S. 141 (1975).

94 Ibid, at 158 (Stewart, J., dissenting); EEOC v. University of New Mexico, 504 F.2d 1296, 1301 (10th Cir. 1974).

95 Testimony of Hon. Griffin Bell, Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, U.S. House of Representatives, Hearings on Administrative Summons, February 24, 1977, pp. 5-6; while the Commission understands the burden argument, i1 does not endorse the argument that an individual be given only one chance in any investigation 1o challenge governmen1 summons for his records, though 1he Commission is not opposed to the individual being required to challenge in the same proceeding a group of summons which were issued at the same time.

96 The recently promulgated Federal Rules of Evidence reflect this need by providing for summaries of extensive business records, Fed. Rules Evid. Rule 1006.

97 See, e.g., Hecht v. Pro-Football, Inc., 46 F.R.D. 605 (D.D.C. 1969); Richards of Rockford Inc. v. Pacific Gas & Electric, 71 F.R.D. 388 (N.D.Calif. 1976).

98 United States v. Mandujano, 425 U.S. 564 (1976).

99 Ibid.; United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (1974); Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359 (1956).

100 United States v. Mandujano, supra; United States v. Calandra, supra; Blair v. United States, 250 U.S. 273 (1919); see also, Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972).

101 United States v. Calandra, supra.

102 See, e.g., Rogers v. United States, 340 U.S. 367 (1951); Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972).

103 United States v. Mandujano, supra .

104 See Wood v. Hughes, 173 N.E.2d 21 (NY 1961); In re Talerico, 309 NYS2d 511 (1970).

105 Supra, notes 98-100, particularly U.S. v. Calandra; People v. Johnson, 203 N.E.2d 399, 401 (Ill. 1965); Fed R. Crim. P., Rule 6(e).

106 The discussion in this and 1he following paragraphs is largely drawn from Blackstone, Commentaries, Vol. 4, pp. 301ff.; Wm. Holdsworth, History of English Law (7th rev. ed. 1956), Vol. 1, pp. 321-323; Kennedy and Briggs, "Historical and Legal Aspects of the California Grand Jury System," 43 Cal. L Rev. 251 (1955); Dession and Cohen, "The Inquisitorial Functions of Grand Juries," 41 Yale L.J. 687 (1932).

107 Much of 1he material in 1his and the following paragraph is based on discussions with attorneys from the Department of Justice and U.S. Attorney's Offices and with Federal Investigative Agents, particularly interviews with Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation at Headquarters, Washington, D.C. on January 6, 1977, and a1 San Francisco Field Office on January 24 and 26, 1977; see also, United States v. Cox, 342 F.2d 167 (5 Cir. 1965); Marston's Inc. v. Strand, 560 P.2d 778 (Ariz. 1977); supra, note 100.

108 Drawn from a variety of interviews with Federal attorneys and investigative agents, particularly an interview with Special Agents of 1he Organized Crime Section, FBI, at Headquarters, Washington, D.C. on January 6, 1977.

109 See, e.g., Granbery v. District Court, 531 P.2d 390 (Colo. 1975), where the Colorado Supreme Cour1 stated 1hat 1he policy of secrecy for Grand Jury proceedings "is intended only to protect agains1 disclosure of wha1 is said and takes place in the Grand Jury room," documents per se do no1 fall under 1he Grand Jury seal; also, Marston's Inc. Y. Strand, 560 P.2d 778 (Ariz. 1977).

110 Fed R Crim. P., Rule 6(e); Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855 (1966); also, California Penal Code §938.1 regarding release of Grand Jury information after indictment.

111 United States Departmen1 of Justice, Memorandum of September 8, 1976 from Assistant Attorney General Richard L. Thornburgh 1o all United States Attorneys and Strike Forces.

112 United States Y. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976); also, see the Court of Appeals opinion, 500 F.2d 751 (5th Cit. 1974).

113 See, e.g., 2 U.S.C. 432 et seq. (regulation of election campaigns); 7 U.S.C. 136a (registration of pesticides); 12 U.S.C. 1749b (regulation of recipients of Federal insurance); 12 U.S.C. 1844 (regulation of bank-holding companies); 21 U.S.C. 355 (Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; licensing of drugs); 29 U.S.C. 431 et seq. (Labor-Management Act; regulation of unions and employers); 29 U.S.C. 626 (enforcemen1 of age discrimination laws); 30 U.S.C. 821 (regulation of coal mine operators); 31 U.S.C. 1051 (Bank Secrecy); 42 U.S.C. 3769 (recipients of LEAA funds); 42 U.S.C. 299i (regulation of recipients of Public Health Service funds); 42 U.S.C. 300e-6 (regulation of recipients for health maintenance organizations); 42 U.S.C. 1786 (regulation of states and localities 1hat accept Federal funds for nutritional assistance programs); 42 U.S.C. 1395mm (regulation of recipients of health maintenance organizations); 42 U.S.C. 2000e-8 (regulation of parties covered by Civil Rights Act); 47 U.S.C. 393 (regulation of recipients of funding for educational 1elevision and radio); Exec. Order No. 11246, 42 U.S.C. 2000e (regulation of parties who contrac1 with 1he Federal government).

114 See e.g., Whalen v. Roe, U.S. , 44 U.S.L.W. 4166 (1977); EEOC v. University of New Mexico, 504 F.2d 1296 (10th Cir. 1974).

115 See, e.g., U.S. Senate, Intelligence Activities, pp. 115-116, 168, 181, 254-260, 280; a particular case in point was 1he ease with which FBI agents gained access 1o other governmen1 agencies' records on the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., U.S. Senate, Intelligence Activities, at p.220.

116 Whalen v. Roe, supra.

117 Roe v. Ingraham, 403 F.Supp. 931 (3 judge Ct.)(S.D.N.Y. 1975).

118 Infra, note 125.

119 Whalen Y. Roe, supra.

120 Ibid, a1 4169-4170; also, see Justice Brennan's concurrence. 121 Ibid, at 4171.

122 See, e.g., "Brief of Appellants Fortney H. Stark, Jr., et al.," California Bankers Assn. v. Schultz, 416 U.S. 21 (1974).

123 390 U.S. 39 (1968).

124 396 U.S. 87 (1969).

125 United States v. Kahriger, 345 U.S. 22 (1953); Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U.S. 506 (1937).

126 United States v. Kahringer, supra.

127 See, e.g., California Bankers Assn. v. Schultz, 416 U.S. 21 (1974).

128 Whalen v. Roe, supra, at 4168.

129 Hearings before the Select Committee on Intelligence, U.S. House of Representatives, 94th Congress, 1st Session, pp. 977-79, 981, 1034-35, 1222-23 (1975); U.S. Senate, Intelligence Activities, pp. 254-262; also, see President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice, The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society, (Washington, D.C.: 1967), pp. 119-120,266-267.

130 Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976).

131 Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Rwy. v. Lopez, 531 P.2d 455,467 (Kan. 1975); Schulman v. N.Y. C. Health and Hospitals Corp., 355 N.Y.S.2d 782 (1975); see also Swan, "Privacy and Record Keeping: Remedies for the Misuse of Accurate Information," 45 N.C.L Rev. 585 (April 1976).

132 On minimization of these dangers, see also Chapter 14, "The Relationship Between Citizen and Government: The Citizen as Taxpayer."

133 See, e.g., Tax Reform Ac1 of 1976, 26 U.S.C. 6103; Census, 13 U.S.C. 9; Drug Abuse Prevention and Treatmen1 Act, 21 U.S.C. 1102-1191; Child Abuse Prevention and Treatmen1 Act, 42 U.S.C. 5101-5106.

134 United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976).

135 EEOC v. University of New Mexico, 504 F.2d 1296 (10th Cir. 1974).

136 21 U.S.C. 880.

137 e.g., 15 U.S.C. 1193; 7 U.S.C. 136f (trade secret); 15 U.S.C. 1944; 42 U.S.C. 1973g; 45 U.S.C. 362 (disclosable if it will aid individual); P.L. 94-106.

138 42U.S.C. 1396(a)(3); 45 C.F.R. 250.90.

139 Testimony of Medical Services Administration, Social and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Medical Records, Hearings before the Privacy Protection Study Commission, July 20, 1976, p. 218 (hereinafter cited as 'Medical Records Hearings").

140 Ibid., pp. 211-12, 222-23; Testimony of the Commission on Professional and Hospital Activities, Medical Records Hearings, July 21, 1976, pp. 462-65.

141 Testimony of the Commission on Professional and Hospital Activities, Medical Records Hearings, July 21, 1976, pp. 462-65, 486-89.

142 U.S. Senate, Intelligence Activities, pp. 95-96.

143 Supra, note 16.

144 Testimony of Hon. Griffin Bell, Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, U.S. House of Representatives, Hearings on Administrative Summons, February 24, 1977, pp. 5-6.