the efforts of organizations to maximize the scope and effectiveness of mass surveillance, and the efforts of certain subsets of the public to evade organizational intent in these respects. Organizational reliance on bluff and intimidation is part of one side of this dialectic; yet such feints would mean little without the other weighty organizational efforts considered here - particularly the development and exploitation of new sources of data. Countervailing against such forces are individuals' efforts to escape the effects of bad credit records, poor driving histories, ineligibility to enter the United States, and the like. We do not portray this opposition in simplistic terms, as nothing other than efforts by oppressive institutional interests to manipulate innocent individuals. In fact, there is considerable grassroots support and even demand for increased mass surveillance—for example, to keep undocumented aliens out of the labor force, to keep dangerous drivers off the roads, or to keep poor credit risks from spoiling the credit markets enjoyed by others. But whatever the mixture of elite initiatives and popular demand fueling the growth of mass surveillance, there can be no doubt that organizational powers in this respect are in the ascent, and opportunities for individual evasion of mass surveillance increasingly restricted. The key consideration mediating the interests of mass surveillance and those of evasion are the significant costs of the former. While the per-case costs of operating large data systems is ordinarily small, the starting-up costs of creating such systems is great. Thus, even relatively powerful and well-financed organizations such as those considered in this paper cannot extend their sway as rapidly as they might. Paying the armies of clerical staff who must assemble and process personal data is one significant source of these costs; procuring and operating computing systems and other data-management technologies are another. Yet the conspicuous trend in mass surveillance is toward a cumulative decline in such costs. Consider the growing reliance of organizations on direct checking, as distinct from self-identification. At the beginning of the 20th century there were few organizations which could be counted on to generate authoritative personal information on a mass basis. Even birth certification probably covered no more than half of those being born. And without sources of "breeder documents," the bases for generating further documents were weak. As sources of authoritative personal data available for direct checking grow, however, the costs of mass surveillance drop. Indeed, viewing the broad sweep of historical change, we conclude that mass surveillance through personal documentation feeds on itself. The more important events in life entail production or consumption of personal documentation, the more feasible it is to institute effective surveillance through direct checking based on such data. Imaginative administrators of surveillance organizations are constantly seeking new uses for personal data in these ways. This, then, is the special appeal of direct checking, from the standpoint of surveillance interests. When accomplished through computer links, it is relatively inexpensive on a per-case basis, extremely quick, and unobtrusive from the standpoint of the individuals involved. These same qualities both excite the enthusiasm of bureaucratic planners and politicians and spur the anxiety of privacy advocates and civil libertarians. In the last few years, the former have been putting their concerns aggressively into practice, while the latter have mostly been on the defensive. One of the best publicized instances of new forms of mass surveillance through low-cost direct checking have been the programs of "computer matching" sponsored by federal agencies. Here computerized lists of, say, welfare recipients are checked against other computerized data such as payrolls in order to detect fraud. Originally sponsored by Joseph Califano during his tenure as President Jimmy Carter's Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, these efforts have been pursued with increased vigor under the administration of President Ronald Reagan. Proponents of these techniques have lauded them as essential to government efficiency and costcutting opponents have characterized them as violations of due process, privacy, and civil liber ties. Both positions were voiced in the 1982 hearings of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management of the Senate Government Affairs Committee (U.S. Congress: Senate, 1983). The perfection of direct checking within and among organizations is the wave of the future in mass surveillance. By substituting direct checking for self-identification, organizations can transcend the limitations which have beset mass surveillance in the past, and which continue to limit the effectiveness of a number of the processes described above. Instead of relying on individuals to provide information and documents themselves, organizations will increasingly seek personal data directly from other organizations. Such exchanges will increasingly take the form of computers talking to computers. And as data management in all kinds of organizations becomes computerized, the machines will have more and more to talk about. Such exchanges will transcend limitations on mass surveillance and control in the interests of enhanced efficiency. But inefficiency may protect important values. Whatever one thinks of the goals of specific surveillance procedures, few really want to see the ability of organizations to keep track of people grow without limit. At best, such developments would foster a more intrusive, less private world. At worst, they would lower institutional defenses against threats of totalitarianism. Thus, we favor limitations on direct checking in many settings, especially where personal data provided for one purpose are re-used for another purpose unfriendly to the individual (Rule et al., 1980:153). We hope this study helps to show what is at stake in these developments, and what price is paid for making personal documentation and mass surveillance more efficient. REFERENCES American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators 1979 Driver's License, 1978. Statistical Report. Washington, DC.: American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. American Bankers Association 1979 ABA Bank Card Letter, March 1979. Periodical. New York: American Bankers Association. Booth, Philip 1973 Social Security in America. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Institute of Industrial and Labor Relations, University of Michigan and Wayne State University. Curtin, Richard T., and Thomas S. Neubig 1979 Survey of Consumer Finances 1977-78. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Survey Research Center, University of Michigan. Linowes, David 1979 "Privacy in banking." Mimeograph. University of Illinois, 308 Lincoln Hall, Urbana, Illinois. Rubinstein, Walter D. 1975 Confidentiality Under the Social Security Act. Pamphlet. Woodlawn, Maryland: Social Security Administration. Rule, James B. 1974 Private Lives and Public Surveillance. New York: Schocken. Rule, James. Douglas McAdam, Linda Stearns, and David Uglow 1980 The Politics of Privacy. New York: Elsevier. Shils, Edward 1975 Center and Periphery: Essays in Macrosociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. State of Illinois 1983 Report of State Advisory Committee on Distribution of Government Information. Springfield: Tritsch, Arthur. and Albert Kumbar 1977 Comparative Data Analysis of State Motor Vehicle Administration. Washington, DC.: National U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment An Assessment of Alternatives for a National Computerized Criminal History System. Washington, DC.: Office of Technology Assessment. U.S. Congress: Senate 1983 Oversight of Computer Matching to Detect Fraud and Mismanagement in Government Programs. Committee on Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, 97th Congress, 2nd Session. Washington, DC.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 40-209 0 - 85 - 30 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration 1982 Application for a Social Security Number. Flyer. Washington, DC.: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare 1954 1977 Vital Statistics of the United States, 1950, Volume 1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Privacy Act Issuances. Annual Publication, Federal Register. Washington, DC.: U.S. Government U.S. Department of Justice 1976 The Criminal Use of False Identification. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of State, Passport Office 1976 The United States Passport: Past, Present, Future. Washington, DC.: U.S. Government Printing U.S. Privacy Protection Study Commission 1977a Personal Privacy in an Information Society. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 1977b Citizen as Taxpayer. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Westin, Alan 1967 Privacy and Freedom. New York: Atheneum. Westin, Alan, and Michael Baker 1972 Data Banks in a Free Society. New York: Quadrangle Books. Wheeler, Stanton (ed.) 1969 On Record: Files and Dossiers in American Life. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. [From the New York Times, Dec. 8, 1983] PRIVACY THREATS WORRY AMERICANS MANY IN SURVEY BELIEVE DATA ON TAXES AND TELEPHONES ARE NOT KEPT SECRET (By Adam Clymer) WASHINGTON, Dec. 7.-Americans are increasingly concerned about threats to priacy, and about a third of the public believes the Internal Revenue Service, the Fedral Bureau of Investigation and telephone companies "probably share" information n individuals with others, according to a poll conducted by Louis Harris and Assoiates. Results of the Sept. 1-11 survey of 1,256 people, paid for by Southern New Engand Telephone Compnay, were released today as the Smithsonian Institution pened a four-day symposium on "The Road after 1984: High Technology and Iuman Freedom." Participants will examine various aspects of society in light of George Orwell's ovel "1984," which foresaw an almost all-powerful government. The telephone poll found the percentage of Americans who said they were "very oncerned" about threats to personal privacy increased from 31 percent in 1978 to 8 percent in 1983. It found four Americans in five believed it would be easy for ɔmeone to assemble a master file on their lives that would violate their privacy. SHARING OF INFORMATION The poll found that 84 percent of the public thought it would be a serious violaon of privacy if the revenue service did not keep tax returns confidential, and 82 ercent thought it would be serious if the F.B.I. did not keep its data secret. When asked what they thought actually happened to such data, 36 percent of the espondents said they thought the revenue service shared information and 38 perent said they believed the F.B.I. did. Thirty-three percent said they thought phone ɔmpanies shared data, although 25 percent said phone companies did not have any nformation that mattered. Those agencies were trusted more than several other institutions presented. Fifty ercent of the public throught public opinion research concerns shared data, and 51 ercent said the Census Bureau, banks and government welfare agencies did so. ifty-seven percent said they believed insurance companies shared their informaon, 65 percent said this of loan companies and 75 percent said credit bureaus hared information with others. Along with the telephone sample of the 1,256 people, the pollsters also interiewed 100 leaders in each of four categories; members of Congress and their aides, orporate executives, science editors and school superintendents. In general, those roups were less fearful of major invasions of privacy than the public was. LEADERS' OPINIONS DIFFERED For example, 86 percent in the sample of the public thought it was possible that a government in Washington will use confidential information to intimidate indiiduals or groups it feels are its enemies," and 70 percent said that was "likely. All four leadership groups also said such a development was possible, by about the ame percentages as the public. But just 24 percent of the congressional group, 37 ercent of the executives, 56 percent of the editors and 39 percent of the school suerintendents said it was "likely." Mr. Harris, chairman and founder of the polling concern, commenting on the ndings at a news conference, said he believed "the leadership is far less alerted to he dangers than the people are.' "Those at the throttle of our political leadership just haven't given it much hought," he said. [From the New York Times, Dec. 25, 1983] IRS STARTS HUNT FOR TAX EVADERS, USING MAIL-ORDER CONCERNS' LIST (By David Burnham) WASHINGTON, Dec. 24-The Internal Revenue Service has obtained a computerzed mail-order list of the estimated incomes of two million American households and has begun to test whether it can help track down people who fail to pay their taxes. The service is conducting the test despite the refusal of the three major companies that develop such information to provide the Government with a list and over the objections of their trade organization, the Direct Marketing Association. Alexander Hoffman, who is the chairman of the board of the association and a group vice president at Doubleday & Company, said the sale of the list to the I.R.S. violated a provision in the group's code of ethics that lists should be rented only for marketing and could "upset an important segment of the economy." The revenue service said a brokerage firm that provides marketing lists, the Dunhill Company of Washington, D.C., had put together the names the agency sought. The association said the company was not one of its members. Officials at the company did not return several telephone calls, but the revenue service spokesman said the names had been put together from several small concerns. BROOKLYN INCLUDED IN TEST In the test, a commercially prepared list of two million households in Brooklyn, Wisconsin, Indiana, and Nevada will be matched against an I.R.S. list of people living in those areas who filed income tax returns for the tax year 1982. All those whose names appear on the first list, but not the second, will be notified that they are subject to a revenue service inquiry about their tax liability. The notices will start going out next spring. An executive of one of the companies objected to the test on the ground that many people who have not done anything wrong get the notices. If the test identifies individuals who file no taxes at all, the service will then try to determine whether the same technique can be used to track those who underpay their taxes. According to an I.R.S. plan the decision whether to use the technique nationwide will not be made until 1985 or later. A spokesman for the revenue agency said the commercial list is obtained for its test match, after a five-month search, contained the names and addresses of two million households, their estimated incomes, the birthday of the head of each household and the number of people living in each. In the last few years, the tax agency has become concerned about a slow increase in the number of Americans who fail to pay their taxes. Because of this concern, the agency has sought to develop new techniques for identifying tax evaders. A recent I.R.S. report on income tax compliance, for example, estimated that revenue losses caused by people compile national mailing lists, the Donnelly Marketing Service of Stanford, Conn. the R.L. Polk Company of Detroit and Metromail of Lincoln, Neb., decided this fall not to sell their information to the tax agency. In separate interviews officials of the three companies called the project "absolutely ridiculous" and "inappropriate" and indicated it would hurt their business. The revenue service said a brokerage firm provides marketing lists, the Dunhill Company of Washington, D.C., had put together the names the agency sought. Officials at the company did not return several telephone calls, but the revenue service spokesman said the names has been put together from several small concerns. Mr. Hoffman, the current head of the 2,600-member Direct Marketing Association, said in a telephone interview that he understood that the tax agency had a legitimate concern and that he and his organization hesitated about making "a big public pronouncement" that might affect the Government's ability to handle a real problem. "But there are some questions we feel the I.R.S. should consider," he said. "What effect will the I.R.S. use of mailing lists have on the public's perception about this kind of communication? What I am worried about is that if the I.R.S. is able to undertake this effort on a national basis, it may make the public afraid to have their name on any mailing list, afraid to buy anything buy mail, afraid to fill out coupons. By conservative estimates, direct marketing now accounts for sales totaling $140 billion a year.' DIFFERENCE IS NOTED Mr. Hoffman said there was a very real difference between the commercial use of a mailing list and the use being explored by the tax agency. "Strangely enough, a mailing list is essentially anonymous," he said. "A company rents a computer tape, prepares one set of labels and makes a mailing. That's it. If you want to have your name removed from a particular list or all lists, our organization operates the Mail Preference Service at 6 East 43d Street in New York where this can be accomplished. |