Summary

While acknowledging that "there is nothing inherently unfair in trading some measure of privacy for a benefit," the authors of a 1973 report for the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare addressing the then nascent practice of electronic data management noted that "under current law, a person's privacy is poorly protected against arbitrary or abusive record-keeping practices" (Ware, et.al., 1973:xx). Hence they proposed what they called a 'Code of Fair Information Practice'.
The intent of the code is to redress this imbalance and provide some leverage for individuals about whom data is being collected. Hence they argue against secret data collection, stating that individuals should have a way to find out what information about them is in a record and how it is used. They argue that data should only be used for the purposes for which it was collected. And this information, however used, should be accurate; there needs to be a way for individuals to correct or amend a record of identifiable information about themselves, and organizations must assure the reliability of the data and prevent misuse of the data. These, write the authors, "define minimum standards of fair information practice" (Ware, et.al., 1973:xxi).
In a mandated follow-up report Ware and his colleagues reduced this to an even more precise statement of principles. Government policy, they argued, should be designed to limit intrusiveness, to maximize fairness, and to create legitimate and enforceable expectations of confidentiality (Linowes, et.al.,1977: 14-15) At the same time, the authors may have felt the opportunity to establish common practises was slipping away as they reported on widespread and growing data collection practices by the credit industry, the insurance industry, mailing lists, health care providers, and investigation services.

Content

Force:yes