Editorial: Releasing DMV data can harm

President Clinton signed into law Friday legislation that ends a Depression-era prohibition on the merger of banks, securities firms and insurance companies. While it's a great deal for the financial services industry, it could become a nightmare for the privacy rights of consumers. There is nothing in the law to stop these newly affiliated companies from sharing sensitive information, including Social Security numbers and medical records, which will help them market each other's products.

Unfortunately it sometimes takes a tragedy to make Congress act, so it will probably take some scandal or abuse involving the swapping of this personal information to get privacy firewalls enacted. That was exactly the case when Congress in 1994 passed the Driver's Privacy Protection Act that prevented states from releasing personal information collected from driver's licenses, including addresses and phone numbers. One of the reasons Congress did this was because the man who murdered actress Rebecca Schaeffer was able to do so after obtaining her address from Schaeffer's driver's license records.

But South Carolina challenged the law, moving the privacy issue from Congress to the U.S. Supreme Court, which last week heard oral arguments in the case. South Carolina, which wanted to sell the information to businesses as had other states, believes Congress unconstitutionally regulated a power that properly was reserved to the states. U.S. Solicitor General Seth Waxman disagreed and said it was within Congress' purview. Waxman said that allowing a state to sell driver's license information "is the equivalent in terms of personal safety to being required to walk around all day with a sign with my address, age, name, medical record and driving record on it."

In recent years the Supreme Court has tended to side with states' rights proponents. But even Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who in the past has argued forcefully on behalf of states' rights, seemed to acknowledge last week that Congress wasn't placing a huge burden on the states by prohibiting the release of DMV records. "All they're telling you is don't give out information," Scalia told Condon.

This case doesn't meet the test of a legitimate states' rights issue. It is hoped that the Supreme Court resists the urge to overturn Congress' sensible legislation promoting the privacy of DMV records. The law sets a minimum floor that state governments must observe, much in the way there are other basic protections, such as civil rights legislation and child labor laws. The legislation simply sets a benchmark preserving some privacy rights for all Americans.

archive