Special Tribute:
Thank
you Ed
|
|
|
Plug the Hole An Open Letter Steven Brown, -ACLU Rhode Island Privacy
at the Workplace:
Protecting
Faith Versus Protecting Futures
Privacy
vs. the Public’s Right to Know
Chaplinsky:
Defining Freedom of Expression
Of
Genetics and Privacy
Editorial
|
|
|
|
Notes from the Chair |
ThePSCReportonline!
A Semi-Quarterly Journal for the Alumni of the University
of Rhode Island Political Science Department.
Faculty Editors:
Professor Alfred Killilea
Professor Nicolai Petro
Editor:
Michael D. Fox
Associate Editor:
Sherry Keneson-Hall
Supported by the generous
donations of the University of Rhode Island Political
Science Alumni.
| Privacy vs. the Public’s Right
to Know:
An Essential Balancing Act for Preserving Trust in Government James Langevin, Rhode Island Secretary of State (And RI 2nd District candidate for Congress) |
 |
From its very beginnings, the history of democracy in America has been characterized by an ongoing debate about the very nature of government and the appropriate role it should play in the life of its citizens. There were deep divisions among the Founding Fathers when it came time to translate the lofty ideals of the Declaration of Independence into a working federal government that would unite America’s colonies.
The battles between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists over the ratification of the United States Constitution essentially came down to two different visions of government. Federalists saw the need for a strong central government to bring the new nation together and promote the greater public good over the narrow and suspect interests of individuals. The Anti-Federalists believed in a weaker central government that put fewer restraints on the individual as a means of promoting personal achievement and liberty.
We hear echoes of those same arguments today when politicians talk about the importance of regulating this industry or that, amid cries about the evils of “big government” and the benefits of the free market. And the same issues come to play when we talk about the need to weigh the privacy rights of individuals against the public interest of having free and easy access to government information.
Government is an arena where a range of competing interests come together to formulate policy and enact programs. In a democracy, the process is designed to promote the involvement of individual citizens at every step along the way…from their right to elect the officials who will represent their interests, to their ability to take part in and follow the deliberations of government institutions so that they can hold those officials accountable for their decisions.
As Secretary of State, I have worked tirelessly to transform the office from that of a glorified file clerk to the people’s partner in government. I have sought to make the office the centerpiece of an effort to make basic legislative and government information easily accessible to all citizens so that they can take part in the decision-making process. My goal has been to help rebuild public trust in government by restoring the links between people and their government.
Through it all, I have been fortunate to have the support of a significant number of concerned citizens and good government groups, who have worked tirelessly to improve the quality of government in Rhode Island.
The Open Meetings and the Open Records laws have been two vital tools used by reform advocates in our state. The public policy statement of the Open Meetings Law reads as follows;
“It is essential to the maintenance of a democratic society that public business be performed in an open and public manner and that citizens be advised and aware of the performance of public officials and the deliberations and decisions that go into the making of public policy.”
That is as clear a statement as you will find in state law articulating the importance of the public’s right to know what is being done in their name by government agencies and officials. But when you read the purpose statement of the state’s Open Records law, you get a better sense of the delicate balancing act which often confronts legislators and government officials when the public interest intersects with the privacy rights of individuals.
“The public's right to access public records and the individual's right to dignity and privacy are both recognized to be principles of the utmost importance in a free society. The purpose of this chapter is to facilitate public access to public records. It is also the intent of this chapter to protect from disclosure information about particular individuals maintained in the files of public bodies when disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”
While both laws are designed to promote public access, they include rather broad exemptions which allow for closed meetings and the denial of public access to certain records. Some of the exemptions to the Open Meetings Law include:
? any discussions of job performance, character,
or physical or mental health of a person;
? sessions pertaining to collective bargaining or
litigation;
? any investigative proceedings regarding allegations
of misconduct;
? a matter related to the question of the investment
of public funds where the premature disclosure would adversely affect the
public interest; and
? any executive sessions of a local school committee
exclusively for the purposes of conducting student disciplinary hearings
or reviewing other matters which relate to the privacy of students and
their records.
The Open Records Law contains an even wider range of exemptions, some twenty-three categories or types of records deemed to be excluded from the public domain.
As a staunch advocate of open government, I recognize that there are certain legitimate reasons to have exemptions to these laws. But the key to making those laws work is making sure the exemptions do not grow to such a point that they subvert the intent of providing public access. That requires an engaged and active citizenry which monitors the effectiveness of the law and gauges the necessity of changing it to adopt to new and unforeseen circumstances.
The same is true at the federal level. There are huge issues facing state governments and our elected officials in Washington with regard to privacy. As government records become increasingly computerized, it will become easier than ever to compile basic information about every citizen who has a driver’s license or has filled out a government form. Direct marketers, employers, and law enforcement agencies are finding new ways to use this information and raising serious questions about the wisdom of having basic data so easily available.
At the same time, it’s becoming easier to track down individual medical records and basic information about the purchasing habits of consumers, especially those who engage in on-line commerce.
These privacy issues have not gone unnoticed in Washington.
In November, the Supreme Court ruled that state governments could be prohibited by federal law from selling driver’s license data to businesses looking for a marketing list.
In his State of the Union Address last month, President Clinton spoke of the need to safeguard the privacy of every citizen's medical record and his administration is in the process of developing rules in the regard.
In the coming months, Congress will be tackling the issue of protecting the privacy of bank and credit card records and other financial statements. And they will look at expanding on an Executive Order issued this month by President Clinton which prohibited any federal agency from using genetic information in the process of hiring or promoting personnel. The House and Senate will have to move to extend similar protections to people in the private sector, so employers could not refuse to hire people known to be at-risk for health problems and health insurers could not refuse to give such people coverage.
Add to that the ongoing issue of whether to protect communications over the Internet. With new privacy software, individuals can scramble their digital trail and maintain their on-line anonymity. That creates an excellent shield to protect people from having unwanted personal information fall into the hands of those using it for commercial purposes. Unfortunately, that same software could conceivably allow child predators to freely roam the Internet without any fear of detection by the police.
The wonders of our Information Age create a number of new challenges for government officials who must develop regulations that recognize legitimate privacy concerns while respecting the importance of having certain information easily available for the greater public good.
The one constant in all
of this is the fundamental need for all citizens to play an active role
in the process of making those critical decisions. That means having
an understanding of our rights as patients, consumers, and citizens.
And it also means having a willingness to speak out to our elected officials,
both in the State House and in Washington. Only then can we be sure
that the delicate balance between privacy and the public’s right to know
will continue to be preserved in a manner which promotes a free and truly
democratic society.
Comments? Please contact Professor Al Killilea at: hookshot@uri.edu
The PSC Report invites unsolicited submissions (really, we need the material!!) of essays, articles and editorial comments. Submissions should be sent via e-mail to hookshot@uri.edu or via US Mail on 3 1/2" diskette or CD-ROM with hardcopy to:
The PSC Report
Al Killilea, Faculty Editor
Political Science Department
University of Rhode Island
Washburn Hall
Kingston, RI 02881