Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
PERSONAL PRIVACY IN ACOMPUTER INFORMATION SOCIETY.
Item Type text; Dissertation-Reproduction (electronic)
Authors ESQUERRA, RONALD LEE.
Publisher The University of Arizona.
Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this materialis made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona.Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such aspublic display or performance) of protected items is prohibitedexcept with permission of the author.
Download date 28/07/2018 03:33:26
Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/183859
INFORMATION TO USERS
This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction.
1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages-. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted you will find a target note listing the pages in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photographed the photographer has followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again-beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.
4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services Department.
5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy.
Uni~ MicrOfilms
International 300 N. ZEEB RD., ANN ARBOR, MI 48106
8217495
Esquerra, Ronald Lee
PERSONAL PRIVACY IN A COMPUTER INFORMATION SOCIETY
The University of Arizona PH.D. 1982
University Microfilms
I nternati 0 n al 300 NI Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor. MI 48106
Copyright 1982
by
_squerra, Ronald Lee
All Rights Reserved
PERSONAL PRIVACY
IN A
CO~IPUTER I NFORMATI ON SOC I ETY
by
Ronald Lee Esquerra
A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the
BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
In the Graduate College
THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
1 982
Copyright 1982 Ronald Lee Esquerra
THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA GRADUATE COLLEGE
As members of the Final Examination Committee, we certify that we have read
the dissertation prepared by _R_o_n_a_l_d __ L_e_e __ E_s~q~u~e~r~r~a ________________________ __
entitled PERSONAL PRIVACY IN A COMPUTER INFORMATION SOCIETY
and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement
for the Degree
Date
Date
Date
Final approval and acceptance of this dissertation is contingent upon the candidate's submission of the final copy of the dissertation to the Graduate College.
I hereby certify that I have read this dissertation prepared under my direction and reco end that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation
Q~'l ~e--------------------------
STATEMENT BY AUTHOR
This dissertation has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the University.
Brief quotations from the dissertation are allowab~e without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment bf source is made. Requests for permi?sign for extended quotation from or reproductions of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the copyright holder.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to acknowledge the IBM Corporation whose foresight in
sponsoring a program of Graduate Fellowships for t1inority Students in
Management Information Systems provided me the opportunity to further
my education and complete this research.
Gratitude is expressed to my parents who first instilled in
me the value and worth of educational pursuit, and to my family who
provided support and help in this research. Gloria, Kristy and Marques
provided rel iefing assistance in the tedious tasks of preparing the
mail survey and computer coding the returned survey instruments.
AcknO\vledgment and appreciation are also extended to Lani Durns,
Gloria Valenzuela and Cindy McCormick who assisted in the pilot test
ing of the survey instrument.
My gratitude is also expressed to the members of my committee,
Dr. Jay F. Nunamaker, Chairman; Dr. Benn R. Konsynski and Dr. Lawrence
D. Mann for their assistance tn completing this research and for their
persistence in my strifing for scholarly quality.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES •.•.
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
ABSTRACT
CHAPTER
2
3
4
INTRODUCTION
Purpose of the Study • . . . . . • . . • . Importance of the Study .......• Study Objectives and Research Questions Limitations of the Study ... Review of Previous Research Definition of Terms .... Organization of Remainder of the Report
TilE PRI VACY ISSUE
Defining the Privacy Issue. A Multi-Dimensional Problem Historical Evolution at the National Level The State Level .... The International Level
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY • .
Survey Design Sampling Technique The Questionnaire Statistical Inference
HOW ARIZONA RESIDENTS FEEL AOOUT THEIR OWN PRI VACY • • . • • • • • . . • • • • • • • • •
Level of Overall Concern About Threats to Personal
Page
x
. xvi i i
xix
4 5 7
16 17 18 19
22
22 26 30 43 47
51
51 53 57 60
63
Privacy . . . .. ....••.... 63 Privacy as a Basic Right. ..•.••..... 75 The Personal Relationships of Arizona Residents in
a Privacy Context . . . . . . . . • . . • 78
iv
5
6
TABLE OF CONTENTS--Continued
Privacy in a Moral Context •.........•...• Actual Experiences of Arizona Residents with Improper
Invasion of Privacy •.....• Personal Privacy Relative to Government in the
Future Summary . . . . . . . .
HOItI ARI ZOtJA RES I DENTS FEEL GOVERNMENT AND BUS I NESS H1PACT ON THEIR PE1S0NAL PRIVACY ...•..•.•...
Degree to \1hich Arizona Residents Trust Government to Use Pers,onal Information Properly .•..••.
General Issues Regarding the Collection and Use of Personal Data by Public and Private Institutions ItIhich Concern Arizona Residents ......•.
The Fairness of Required Personal Information on Applications for Employment, Credit ~r Insurance
The Willingness of Arizona Residents to Provide Persona Information in Return for Employment, Credit, or Insurance •.•.•....•...•...
ItIhich GOVE:rnment and Private Sector Organizations are Though by Ar i zona Res i dents to Ask for Too t1uch Personal Information .•...•.•..•..•..
Hhich GovE:rnmental and Private Sector Organizations Do ArizonalResidents Feel Should be Doing Hore to Maintain Confidentiality of Personal Information ...
Summa ry • . . . . • . • . . . . . . • . . .
HO~J ARI ZONA RES I DENTS FEEL ABOUT THE I R EMPLOYER/Et1PLOYEE RELATIONSHIPS RELATIVE TO THEIR PERSONAL PRIVACY ••
What Types of Personal Information are Considered Proper and Improper for Employers to Collect From
v
Page
81
84
88 91
93
93
95
98
100
105 109
111
Job App 1 i can ts . . . • . . . . . . . • . . . . . 111 Should Certain Information Gathering Practices of
Employers be Illegal. . . . . . . • • • • . • . . 115 The Confidence of Arizona Residents in Employers
Treating Personal Information Properly. . . . . . 119 Do Arizona Residents Feel They Have Ever Been Refused
a Job or Promotion Due to Inaccurate, Out-of-Date, or Unfai r Information •. • . . • . . . . . • 122
How Sensitive Are Arizona Residents About Their Salaries and Health Claims in the Employment Setting. • . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Should Employees Have the Right to Review and Question Various Kinds of Information Relative to ~/ork Perform-ance Hh i ch Employers Ma i nta i n on Them . . . . . . • .. 128
7
8
9
TABLE OF CONTENTS--Continued
The Ne~d for Employers to Communicate With Employees and Have a Specific Policy on the Information Management of Employees' Personnel and Medical F i 1 es . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Whether Employers or Law Should Determine Employee Rights of Access to Their Personnel Files.
Summa ry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
HOW ARIZONA RESIDENTS FEEL ABOUT THEIR CREDIT RELATION-SHIPS RELATIVE TO THEIR PERSONAL PRIVACY I
The Intrusiveness of Credit I~stitutions Re1~t:v~ ..• to Other Organizations ...•....•..•
Whether Arizona Residents Feel Improper or Unnecessary Information is Asked for on Credit Applications.
Why Arizona Residents Bel ieve They Are Refused Cred it. . . . . . . . . .. ..... .
Arizona Residents' Awareness of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
Summary .......... .
HOW ARIZONA RESIDENTS FEEL ABOUT THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY RELATIVE TO THEIR PERSONAL PRIVACY ••.••....•
The Perceptions of Arizona Residents Toward Insura ce Companies Collecting and Maintaining the Confidentiality of Personal Information ........•.•
The Types of Information Insurance Companies Should and Should Not Have the Right to Collect .•....
Investigative Activities of Insurance Companies Which Arizona Residents Feel Should or Should Not Be Allowed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Should the Personal Information an Insurance Company Collects Be Determined by Law.
Summary .
HOW ARIZONA RESIDENTS FEEL ABOUT PRIVATE DOCTORS AND HOSPITALS RELATIVE TO THEIR PERSONAL PRIVACY ..•.
Whether Arizona Residents Feel Private Doctors and
vi
Page
130
133 133
137
138
143
147
150 152
154
154
155
160
163 165
167
Hospitals Ask for Too Huch Personal Information. 167 Whether Arizona Residents Feel Pri'vate Doctors and
Hospitals Should be Doing More to Maintain the Confidentiality of Personal Information They Gather on Individuals. . . . . . . • . . • . • . . . . .. 169
10
1 1
12
TABLE OF CONTENTS--Continued
Whether People Should Have the Legal Right of Access to The i r Med i ca 1 Fi 1 es .. .. . •
Summary
HOW ARIZONA RESIDEUTS FEEL ABOUT GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS, PARTICULARLY LAW ENFORCEMENT FORCES, RELATIVE TO THE PROTECTION OF THEIR PERSONAL PRIVACY •.......
Do Arizona Residents Feel Government Organizations and Individuals Ask for Too Much Personal Information
The Balance Between Protecting Individuals' Constitutional Rights and Conducting Surveillance to Protect Society .•.............•..
Whether Police Activities of Surveillance and Information Gathering Should Be Allowed Without Court o rde rs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .
Should Police Have the Right to Demand Identification From Someone Not Doing Anything Illegal ....•..
Whether Government Agencies Should Use Lie Detector Tests to Learn the Source of Information Leaks
Should Government Organizations and Individuals Be Doing More to Maintain the Confidential ity of the Personal Information They ~1aintain ...... .
Should People Have Access to Government Files About Themselves At Cost to Government
Summary
HOW ARIZONA RESIDENTS FEEL COMPUTERS IMPACT ON THEIR PERSONAL PRI VACY . . . . ....
Do Arizona Residents Believe Computers Threaten Pr i 'vacy . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . ••
Some General Views of Arizona Residents About Computers .. . ............. .
Reactions of Arizona Residents Toward Potential Uses of Computers
Summary . . . . . .
HOW ARIZONA RESIDENTS FEEL ABOUT VARIOUS PRIVACY PROTECTION PROPOSALS ...•.••..•...•
What Rights Should People Ha~e On Whom Personal Information Records Are Maintained by Government Business,
vi i
Page
169 171
175
175
178
180
182
182
185
188 189
193
194
207
213 217
219
and Employers . • . . . . • . . . • . • • .. 219 The Level of Agreement of Arizona Residents on Privacy
Protection Proposals Suggested for Government, Business, and Employers Who Maintain Computerized Personal Data Records . . . . . . . . . . • . • . . • . . . .. 220
vi i i
TABLE OF CONTENTS--Continued
Page
Whether the Holder or Subject of Personal Data Records Should Have Property Rights. • . • . 227
Should An Arizona State Privacy Protection Agency Be Created . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . 229
The Importance of an Independent Body or Agency to Handle Privacy Violation Complaints by a Pub1 ic or Private Organization . . . . • . . . . . • . 231
The Importance of Organizations Collecting Only Essential Personal Information • . . . . .. . • . . • . 231
Where Should the Major Responsibility for Protecting Personal Privacy Rest. . . . . . . . . • . . . . .. 233
The Importance of Arizona Having a Privacy Law Designed to Insure That the Personal Data Information in State and Local Governments' Files Are Kept Confidential and Used Properly . . • . . . . • . . . . • . . . 236
The Importance of Arizona Having a Computer Privacy Law Designed to Insure the Computerized Personal Data Records Maintained by Private Business Are I~pt Con-fidential and Used Properly ......•. 242
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . • • 248
13 IN WHICH AREAS DO ARIZONA RESIDENTS FEEL ADDITIONAL PRIVACY
14
15
LEGISLATION IS IMPORTANT . . . •• ......•.•• 251
Areas in Which Arizona Residents Feel Additional Privacy Legislation Should Be Enacted. . . . • • • . 251
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
THE THEORY OF ALIENATION IN PRIVACY.
The Alienation Index Levels of Alienation Correlation Analysis Summa ry
Profile for Respondents
MAJOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS .•
254
255 255 257 271
272
Privacy and the Arizona Resident • . • . . . . . • . 274 The Personal Privacy of Arizona Residents Relative
to Government and Business Institutions in General 276 Privacy and Employer Relations 277 Privacy and Credit Relations • . . . . . . 280 Privacy and Insurance Relations. • . . . . 282 Privacy and Doctor and Hospital Relations 283 Privacy and Relations With Government Organizations
Particularly Law Enforcement 284 Privacy and Computer Views ....•........ 286
16
17
TABLE OF CONTENTS--Continued
Privacy and Views Toward Privacy Protection Proposals .........•
Privacy in the Future .... Privacy and Alienation Theory
FUTURE RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
Recommendations for Further Research to Address the Inherit Deficiencies in Study's Research Methodology and Des i ~lln • . . . . . . . . . . . • • • . • . . . • .
Recommendations for Further Human Behavior Science Resea rch . . • . . . . . . . . . . .
Mi sce 11 anec)us Research Recommendat ions ••...•
THE IMPLICAT~ONS OF THE RESEARCH FINDINGS FOR SELECT PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LEADERS, INTEREST GROUPS, AND POLICY MAKERS •• u • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Individuals, Privacy Advocates, Professional and Trade Associat ons, and Other Interest Groups •...•
Leg is 1 ator~; . . • . . . . . • . • . . Private Sector Pol icy Makers .•.• Admi n i strai:ors Computing Community. Conclusion ..•..
APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRE AND RELATED COVER LETTERS
LIST OF REFERENCES
ix
Page
288 292 292
294
295
297 300
302
304 309 322 327 331 335
338
351
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1. Telephone Directories Selected, Number of Resrdential Telephones in Use, Number of Questionnaires Sent, and Percentage of Residential Telephones Surveyed . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . .
2. Geographical Distribution of Questionnaires Sent and I Returned ..... . • • . . . .
3. Summary of Demographic Data · · · · · 4. The Concern of Arizona Residents About Threats to Personal
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Privacy · · · · · · · · · · · · Concern With Threats to Personal Privacy by Race of
Res ponden ts · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Concern With Threats to Personal Privacy by Sex of
Respondents · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Concern With Threats to Persona 1 Pr i vacy by Age of
Respondents · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Concern With Threats to Personal Privacy by Employment
Outside the Home of Respondents · · · · · Concern With Threats to Personal Pr ivacy by Occupation
of Respondents . . · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Concern With Threats to Personal Privacy by Education of
Respondents · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Concern With Threats to Personal Privacy by Household
Income of Respondents · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Concern With Threats to Personal Privacy by Pol itica1
Affiliation of Respondents · · · · · · · · · · · · Conce rn Hi th Threats to Personal Pri vacy by Po 1 It i ca 1
Ph i losophy of Respondents · · · · · · · · Concern With Threats to Personal Privacy by Size of
Town/City Residing in of Respondents ..•.•
x
·
·
·
· ·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
.
Page
55
56
58
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
LIST OF TABLES--Continued
Table
15. Comparison of National and Arizona Public Concern With Threats to Personal Privacy ....•...•
16. Should Privacy Be a Basic "Right" in This Society
17. How Arizona Residents Feel About Their Ability to Maintain a Balance Between Personal Privacy Needs and Social Contact Needs •......•.•
18. How Arizona Residents Feel About Contemporary Social
xi
Page
76
77
79
Issues Involving Moral and Privacy Implications 82
19. Whether Arizona Residents Feel They Have Been a Victim of an Improper Invasion of Privacy . . . . • • • • . . 85
20. Organization or Authority Involved in Invasion of Privacy 87
21. How Close We Are to a "Big Brother" Society 89
22. Ability of Arizona Residents to Maintain Their Privacy in Relation to the Government 10 Years From Now 90
23.
24.
Whether Arizona Residents Trust Government to Use Personal Information Properly ••..•....
Agreement of Arizona Residents With Various Privacy-Related Statements .•..•..•..
25. The Fairness of Information Being Required on Applicattons
94
96
for Employment, Credit, or Insurance 99
26. Whether Arizona Residents Have Ever Not Applied for Some-thing Due to Required Personal Information 101
27. Which Organizations Ask for too Huch Personal Information 102
28. Which Organizations Should Be Doing More to Maintain Confidentiality of Personal Information .••.•
29. Various Types of Information Considered Improper by
106
Arizona Residents for Employees to Ask Job Applicants. 113
30. Whether Various Information Gathering PractIces Employed by Business and Government Employers Should Be Illegal 116
31. Likelihood of Employer Having Improperly Released Contents of Personnel FIles • . . . • . . . • . . . . • . • . . .• 120
Table
32.
LIST OF TABLES--Continued
Whether Employer Has Ever Used Personal Employee Information Unfairly ....••.....•.
33. Whether Arizona Residents Feel They Have Been Refused a Job or Promotion Due to Inaccurate, Out-of-date, or
xi i
Page
121
Unfair Information ...... . . . . . • . 123
34. Whether Arizona Residents Would Be Upset if Employees' Salaries Were Released . . . • . . . • . . . . • • • 124
35. The Degree of Concern by Arizona Restdents Over Management Seeing Insurance Claims . . • . . . • . . • • . . .. 126
36. Whether Arizona Residents Have Ever Not Submitted An Insurance Claim Because They Wanted the Details to Remain Private. . . • ... • . . . . . . . . . . 127
37. Whether Employees Should Have the Right to Review Various Kinds of Information Which Employers Maintain on Their Work Performance. . . . . . . . • . . . • • . . • . 129
38. The Importance of an Employer Informing an Employee of the Release of Personal Information . . . . . . • . 131
39. Whether Employers Should Have a Policy to Employees' Personnel and Medical Files
40. Whether Employers or Law Should Determine Regarding Access to Personnel Files
41. Credit Institutions Which Ask for too Much Info rma t i on .. . . . . . . . • . • . .
Safeguard . . . .
Employee . . .
Personal
Rights
. . . 42. Credit Institutions Which Should Be Doing More to Maintain
132
134
. 139
Confidential ity of Personal Information . . .. 141
Whether Improper Information is Being Requested When Applying for Credit •....•.•••...
44. The Types of· Information Requested When Applying for Credit
144
Which Arizona Residents Feel Are Improper or Unnecessary. 145
45. Wh.3ther Arizona Residents Have Been ~.efused Credit. . . 148
46. Why Arizona Residents Believe They Are Refused Credit 149
LIST OF TABLES--Continued
Table
47. Arizona Residents' Awareness of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. . . • . . • ...
48. Whether Insurance Companies Ask for too Much Personal
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
Info rma t i on . . . . . . . . . . .
Whether Insurance Companies Should Be Doing More to Ma i nta i n Confi dent i ali ty of Pe rsona 1 I nformat ion
The Types of fnformation Insurance Companies Should and Should II~ot Have the Right to Collect ...•..
Investigative Activities Insurance Companies Should or Shou 1 d Not Be Allowed to Do • . • . • • . . . . .
Whether the Types of Personal Information Collected by Insurance Companies Should Be Determined by Law.
Whether Private Doctors and Hospitals Ask for too Much Personal InFormation . • . . . . ..•
Whether Private Doctors and Hospitals Should Be Doing More to Mai 1tain Confidential ity of Personal Information ..•..•..•........
Whether People Should Have the Right of Access to Their Medical Records . . . ••...•..
Whether Arizona Residents Would Want to Be Told They Are Dying •..••..•••.
Which Government Organizations or Individuals Ask for too Much Personal Information .......•
\~hether Police Forces Have Balanced Respect for Individuals' Rights and Conducting Surveillance to Protect Society •.
Should Police Be Allowed to Engage in Certain Surveillance and Information Gathering Activities Wrthout a Court o rde r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Should Police Have the Right to Demand Identification From a Person Not Doing Anything I 11egal ....•...
Whether Government Agenc i es Shoul d Use Li e Detector Tests to Learn the Source of Information Leaks ...•.
xi i i
Page
151
156
157
158
161
164
168
170
172
173
176
179
181
183
184
Table
62.
LIST OF TABLES--Continued
Which Government Agencies and Individuals Should Be Doing More to Maintain the Confidentiality of the Personal Information They Hold ...•.•....
63. Should People Have Access to Government Files About Themselves at Cost to Government ........ .
64. Do Arizona Residents Feel the Present Use of Computers Threaten Personal Privacy .....•
65. Do the Present Uses of Computers Threaten Personal Privacy by Race of Respondents ••.•••..•
66.
67.
68.
70.
71.
Do the Present Uses of Computers Threaten Personal P r i vacy by Sex of Responden ts .• . . . . . . .
Do the Present Uses of Computers Threaten Personal Privacy by Age of Respondents •...••..•
Do the Present Uses of Computers Threaten Personal Privacy by Household Income of Respondents •..
Do the Present Uses of Computers Threaten Personal Privacy by Political Affiliation of Respondents
Do the Present Uses of Computers Threaten Personal Prtvacy by Po1ittca1 Philosophy of Respondents.
Do the Present Uses of Computers Threaten Personal Privacy by Size of City or Town Lived in of Respondents . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
72. Do the Present Uses of Computers Threaten Personal Privacy by Employment Outside the Home of Respondents
73.
74.
Do the Present Uses of Computers Threaten Personal Privacy by Occupation of Respondents .....
Do the Present Uses of Computers Threaten Personal Privacy by Education of Respondents .••.•.
75. Crosstabu1ation of Concern About Threats to Personal Privacy by Whether Present Uses of Computers are a Threat to
xiv
Page
186
190
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
Personal Privacy . . • • . • . . • . . • . 206
76. Whether Arizona Residents Agree or Disagree With Various Statements About Computers .. . . . . . . . • . • . . 208
LIST OF TABLES--Continued
Table
77. Crosstabulation of Concern About Threats to Personal Privacy With Agreement That the Use of Computers Must Be Sharply
xv
Page
Restricted in the Future if Privacy is to Be Preserved 212
78. \~hether Ar i zona Res i den ts Fee 1 Va ri ous Uses of Computers Are Justified . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
79. The Level of Agreement of Arizona Residents on Rights Which Individuals Should Have When Their Personal Information Records are Maintained by Government, Business, and Employers . . . • • . . . . . . • . . . . 221
80. The Level of Agreement of Arizona Residents on Privacy Protection Proposals Which Have Been Suggested for Government, Business, and Employers Who Maintain Com-puterized Personal Data Records ... . . . . . . . 224
81. Whether the Holder or Subject of Personal Data Records Should Have Property Rights . . . • . . . • .. 228
82. Should An Arizona State Privacy Protection Agency Be Created . . . . . . . • .. . ....
83. The Importance of an Independent Body or Agency to Handle Complaints About Violations of Personal Privacy by a
230
Public or Private Organization. • . . • . • . . . • • •. 232
84. The Importance of Organizations Collecting Only Essential Personal Information . . • . . . • . • . 234
85. Where Should the Major Responsibility for Protecting Personal Privacy Rest ...•..... 235
86. The Importance That Arizona Have a Privacy Law 238
87. Crosstabulation of Concern About Threats to Personal Privacy by Importance That Arizona Have a Privacy Law 239
8S. Crosstabulation of Whether Arizona Residents Trust Government in Its Collection and Proper Use of Personal Information About People by Importance That Arizona Have a Pr i vacy Law . . • • . . • . • • . . • . • . • . • . • •• 2111
89. The Importance That Arizona Have a Computer Privacy Law 243
90. Crosstabulation of Concern About Threats to Personal Privacy by Importance That Arizona Have a Computer Privacy Law.. 245
LIST OF TABLES--Continued
Table
91. Crosstabulations of Whether Present Uses of Computers are a Threat to Personal Privacy by Importance That Arizona
xvi
Page
Have a Computer Privacy Law. . • . . • . . . • • . • . 247
92. Subject Areas in Which Arizona Residents Feel Additional Privacy Legislation Should Be Passed 252
93. Attitudes of Respondents Toward Contemporary Social Performance . . . • • . . •• . 256
94. Levels of Alienation for Respondents 258
95. Crosstabulation of Individuals' Al ienation Level by Their Concern About Threats to Therr Personal Privacy in Today's Society . . • . • . . . . . • • . . • . . 259
96. Crosstabulation of Individuals' Alienation Level by Their Being a Victim of an Improper Invasion of Personal Privacy by a Credit Bureau • . . • . . . • • • . 260
97. Crosstabulation of Individuals' Alienation Level by How Close They Feel We are to George Orwell's "Big Brother" Society as Described in 1984 . . . • . . • . . • 261
98. Crosstabulation of Individuals' Alienation Level by Therr Belief That 10 Years From Now They Will Have Lost Much Privacy or ~nll Be Able to Keep Privacy From Unreasonable I nvas i on by Gove rnmen t . • . • • . . • . . • . . • . . • • . 262
99. Crosstabulation of Individuals' Alienation Level by Their Feel ings As to Whether Present Uses of Computers Are a Threat to Personal Privacy in This Country 264
100. Crosstabulation of Individuals' Alienation Level by Their Agreement That if Privacy is to Be Preserved, the Use of Computers Must Be Sharply Restricted in the Future . • • • 265
101. Crosstabulation of Individuals' Alienation Level by How Important They Feel it is That Arizona Have a Privacy Law Designed to Ensure That the Personal Data Records in State and Loca 1 Governments' Fi 1 es are Kept Confi dent i'a 1 and Used Proper 1 y . . . . . . • . . • • . • . • . • . ..• 266
LIST OF TABLES--Continued
Table
102. Crosstabu1ation of Individuals' A1 ienation Level by How Important They Feel it is That Arizona Have a Computer Privacy Law Designed to Ensure That the Computerized Personal Data Record Systems Matntained by Private
xvi i
Page
Businesses Are Kept Confidential and Used Properly. 267
103. Ali enat i on Level and Attitudes Toward Personal Privacy . 268
104. Ali enat i on Level and Att i tudes Toward Computers . . . . 270
"I
Figure
1.
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
An International Comparison of Data Protection Requirements for Recordkeepers, August, 1979
2. Survey Design Used for the Study
xviii
Page
48
52
ABSTRACT
Americans live in a service-oriented, computer-based society
whose collective market place is fueled by the collection use, ex
change, and storage of information about people by government and
business institutions. Consequently, individuals are having fewer face
to-face contacts in their relationships with these institutions while
more decisions affecting their everyday lives are being made by strangers
based upon information matntained in computer data systems. This being
so, publ ic concern about privacy, specifically the potential abuse and
misuse of personal information by government and business, has increased
substantially in recent years. There also exists the constant threat
of information technology outstripping existing legal framewarks and
outpacing the privacy expectations of citizens.
More than ever, government and business pol icy makers will face
the dilemma of balancing the legitimate needs of institutions for in
formation about people with the privacy standfng of the fndividual.
Knowledge of public views are essential to this task. The purpose of
this opinion research study is to learn the views of Arizona residents
regarding their personal privacy and relationships with select privacy
intensive publ ic and private institutions. The results provide empiri
cal data for the privacy protection deliberations of the government and
business polfcy makers who practice within Arizona.
xix
xx
The results show personal privacy as an issue of serious public
concern, with Arizona residents requesting further government laws and
business policies and practices to protect their privacy. Arizona resi-
dents recognize the legitimate information needs of government and
business institutions, but they expect protections against unwelcome, ,
unfair, improper, and excessive collection and dissemination of personal
information about them. Computers are perceived as threats to personal
privacy, suggesting if institutions expect to be able to continue wide-
spread applications of computers, measures must be taken to assure the
public that the personal information stored in such systems are safe-
guarded from abuse and misuse. The results also show that there is a
direct relationship between the degree of al ienation or estrangement
which individuals feel from government and business institutions and
their attitudes toward privacy issues and perception of computer bene-
fits and dangers. Consequently, to affect such attitudes will require
sound measures.
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Public concern about privacy is a contemporary issue. The
right of privacy did not exist in English common law, and the first
court case which clearl acknowledged a right of privacy in the United
States was deliberated as late as 1965 (Dixon et al., 1971). In recent
years this concern for the right-of personal privacy, specifically the
potential abuse or misuse of personal information by business and by
government, has increased steadily and substantially (Rule et al., 1980,
pp. 66-68; Zientara, 1979a; Westin, 1979). It is a concern largely
created and augmented from the increasingly technological, computer-
oriented nature of our society. Individuals are having fewer and fewer
face-to-face contacts with bankers, insurers, doctors, businessmen and
public officials while more and more decisions affecting them in both
the public and private sectors are being made on the basis of computer-
stored files containing personal data (Schultz, 1981; Carroll, 1975).
Today, it is virtually impossible to gain an education and employment,
own a home, raise a family, drive a car, obtain a loan or credit, enter
a hospital, or apply for any kind of publ ic assistance without constant
relinquishment of some personal information about one's self (Privacy Pro
tection Study Commission,1977a,"p. 5). The proliferation of computers that
store, process, and exchange information about individuals has added to
the growi ng concern over what has been call ed our "dossi er soci ety"
(Koch, 1977a; Packard, 1964; Westin, 1967, pp. 119-132,305-310) and
transformation into an "information culture" (Dooley, 1981a). As
examples, a United States Congressional Study Commission reported in
1977 that each American citizen, on average, had 17 separate files of
personal information stored in various federal agencies and administra-
tions (Marketing News, May 2, 1980, pp. 6-7). In the same year, it was
claimed that a major retail company had credit records on 24 million
individuals, and that the principal firm conducting insurance i~vestigations prepared reports on 35 mi 11 ion individuals each year (Ke)ch,
1977b). Further, it was reported in 1975 that those industries whose
output is in the form of information or the means of handling informa-
tion contributed nearly 50 percent of this country's gross national
product, an increase of 21 percent since 1958, and approximatel~ half
of the working population was wholly engaged in producing infon~tion
(Parkin, 1977, pp. 123~125).
Although federal and state legislation has been enacted in
response to concerns over loss of personal privacy, there inevitably
will be new laws in the near future (Bradley, 1980, p. 57). The
merging of data-processing and communications technologies are accel-
erating at such a rapid pace that there will remain the constant threat
of computerized personal information systems outstripping the existing
legal frameworks and outpacing the traditional norms by which American
2
citizens have come to .live with respect to their expectations of person-
al privacy (Eger, 1981, p. 103). The Computer and Business Equipment
Manufacturers Association, an organization which yearly tracks important
federal and state privacy legislation, reported through April, 1981,
3
that at least 23 federal and 58 state bills had been introduced in their
respective federal and state annual legislative sessions (Computer and
Business Equipment Manufacturers Association, 1981). In 1980, this
organization tracked 111 separate privacy bills in state legislatures
(Computerwor1d, April 13, 1981, p. 34). Spokesmen in the current
Reagan Administration and the Un; ted States Congress have perceived that
people throughout the country are only now beginning to sense the im
portance of information issues and how they affect them, and they are
predicting a growth in government efforts to deal with data-processing
information-related problem areas (Block, 1981). There are also authori
ties sounding warnings that government and business policy makers are
failing to keep pace with the personal privacy issues of our information
society (Beeler, 1981). Rather, they feel that personal privacy infor
mation issues have often received"lip service" and minimal effective
action (Volander, 1981; Hoffman, 1980a, p. 10). It is interesting to
note that of the 111 privacy bills in state legislatures tracked by the
Computer and Business Equipment Manufacturers Association in 1980, only
6 were enacted (Computerwor1d, Apri 1 13, 1981, p. 34). Yet, personal
privacy in our evolving information society and world has been forecast
to be a major public policy issue for government and business policy
makers in the 1980 1 5 (Schultz, 1981; Hoffman, 1980b; Laver, 1980;
O'Brien, 1979).
The continual dilemma which these policy makers will face is
to appropriately balance the legitimate needs of institutions for infor
mation about people with the privacy standing of the individual. The
opinions and attitudes of the people represented by government and served
by business are critical to accomplishing this balancing requirement.
The focus of this study is to survey the opinions and attitudes of
Arizona residents toward privacy in our intensely service-oriented,
technologically computer-based society. The result is empirical
knowledge to serve as a guide to federal, state, and local government
and business policy makers in addressing this inevitable public pol icy
issue.
This introductory chapter provides the purpose and importance
of the study. It defines the specific study objectives and their
relative research questions. It discusses the limitations of the study
and provides a review of previous research. Further, it establishes
definitions for terms used in the study. The chapter concludes by pro
viding an organizational summary of the remainder of the study report.
Purpose of the Study
4
The purpose of this study is to conduct an Arizona opinion
research survey of attitudes toward privacy to learn to'what degree
privacy-can and should be protected in our intensely service-oriented,
technologically computer-based society whose collective "market place ll
is fundamentally driven by the collection, processing, storage and
communicating of the personal information of its citizens. Five general
areas are singled out for exploration. They are:
1. The personal dimensions of privacy are examined to determine
how Arizona residents, as individuals, perceive privacy today and the
degree to which they feel their privacy is being eroded;
5
2. The employee to employer relationship is examined to deter-
mine how Arizona residents assess their privacy at work; what they feel
their employer does not have a right to know about them; what rights of
privacy they feel they should have in the work place; and, what measures
they feel employers should take to better safeguard their privacy;
3. The privacy-intensive industries of insurance, credit,
medicine and computers are examined to determine how Arizona residents
view the degree to WhiCJ such industries have and are invading their
privacy;
4. Government and privacy is examined to determine how Arizona
residents feel about the federal, state, and local government agencies
who collect and use ~nformation about individuals;
5. The area of how to protect privacy is examined to determine
what Arizona residents l~ant protected by law and private enterprise, and
what methods they feel should be imposed to provide protection.
The study provides consensus viewpoints and empirical data which
will be useful to public and private entities in seeking a fair balance
between the public1s desire for privacy and the needs of institutions:
for personal information in providing various services and benefits.
Importance of the Study
Personal privacy in our evolving information society has been
identified as a major policy issue in the 1980 l s for government and
business policy makers. This study is important to these policy makers
addressing this issue.
6
The democratic process of government implies that there are
effective exchanges of information between a government and its subjects.
Although citizens have the ability to impress their views on their
government by refusing to re-elect its representatives, this method is
often deficient due to the infrequency of elections and the staggered
terms of office of elected government representatives. A method of
bridging this gap between elections and terms of office is assessing the
views of the public through surveying representative samples of Ithe
population. This study is important in that it presents the views of
Arizona residents for elected and appointed Arizona state and national
government officials to assess in being responsive to those they repre-
sent and serve.
This study is also important to government in that legi~lation
which is proposed and enacted is often void of much input from the
average citizen. Yet, the viewpoints of the average citizen rna, differ
considerably from those who present testimony. In the case of computer
privacy legislation, for example, the viewpoints of the average citizen
may differ considerably from those presented by elected and appointed
offi~ials, data-processing managers and computer scientists, and other
"expert"witnesses called to either testify at legislative hearings or
to submit written viewpoints. Still, the views expressed or submitted
at such hearings tend to shape and influence the decisions made by
legislators when laws are considered and enacted. Nonetheless, it is
perceived that legislators will give great consideration to any consensus
viewpoints supported by their constituents.
7
This study is equally important to business policy makers in
that the free enterprise system of commer.ce suggests that success is
greatly dependent upon meeting consumer demands. Also, self-imposed
practices and policies of privacy, based upon consumer and public view
points, could negate the need for government regulation, which may not
be to the best liking of business. If government perceives that busi
ness is responding to the concerns of the public, it may feel regulatory
legislation is not required.
Additionally, while there have been national opinion surveys
regarding personal privacy relative to public pol icy, there is also
need for inquiries at the state level. State opinion surveys can refine
the depth of inquiries and provide specific empirical data to government
and business policy makers which represent, serve, and practice within
a state's geographic area.
Study Objectives and Research Questions
This study has eleven objectives. These objectives and their
relative research questions are as follows:
Objective 1: This study focuses on individual privacy relative
to government, to business in general, and to select privacy-fntensive
industries in particular. An initial perspective of these aspects of
privacy is gained by finding how Arizona residents feel about their own
personal privacy.
Research Question 1:1: How concerned are they about threats
to their personal privacy?
Research Question 1:2: Should the right of privacy be
added to the list of rights of life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness?
Research Question 1:3: Is it possible to maintain a
balance between their needs for privacy and their needs
for social contact?
Research Question 1:4: Do they believe that "non-public"
activities of a " mora lll nature should be left to the
individual to decide and not decided by law?
Research Question 1:5: Have they ever been a victim of an
improper invasion of privacy, and if so, what type of
organization or authority was involved?
Research Question 1 :6: How close are we to a "Big
Brother" society?
Research Question 1:7: What will be the ability of
individuals to maintain their privacy in relation to the
government 10 years from now?
Objective 2: To find how Arizona resid~nts feel government and
business impact on their personal privacy, which organizations are
handling the individuals' personal data responsibly, and which are not.
Research Question 2:1: To what degree do they trust how
government and business handles the personal information
they collect about individuals?
8
Research Question 2:2: What general issues regarding the
collection and use of personal data by public and private
institutions are of concern?
Research Question 2:3: To what extent is there a willing
ness to provide personal information in return for employ
ment, credit, or insurance?
9
Research Question 2:4: Which government and private sector
organizatiols are thought to ask for too much personal
information?
Research Question 2:5: Whether government and private
sector organizations are doing enough to maintain the
confidentiality of the personal information they collect?
Objective 3: To find how Arizona residents feel about their
employer to employee re13tionships relative to privacy. In particular,
three areas are explored: (1) the propriety of the personal information
that is collected by employers; (2) the extent to which employers keep
personal information confidential, and; (3) the employees' right to
have access to information about themselves held by their employers.
Research Question 3:1: What types of information are
proper and improper to ask a job applicant?
Research Question 3:2: Should certain information gather
ing practices be illegal?
Research Question 3:3: Is there confidence that employers
treat personal information properly?
10
Research Question 3:4: Whether individuals have been
refused a job or promotion due to inaccurate, out-of-date,
or unfair information?
Research Question 3:5: How sensitive are employees about
their salaries and health claims?
Research Question 3:6: To what degree is there concern
over management seeing insurance claims?
Research Question 3:7: Should employees have the r~ght to
look at information employers maintain on them?
Research Question 3:8: How important is it for employers
to inform employees of the release of personal information?
Research Question 3:9: Should employers have a specific
policy to safeguard employees' personnel and medical files?
Research Question 3:10: Whether employers or law s10uld
determine employee rights regarding access to perso,lal
files?
Objective 4: To find how Arizona residents feel about their
credit relationships relative to privacy. In particular, three areas
are explored: (1) the intrusiveness of credit institutions in gather-
ing information; (2) the degree to which information already collected
by credit institutions is kept confidential, and; (3) the right of the
consumer to have access to his or her credit files.
Research Question 4:1: Whether certain credit organiza-
tions ask for too much personal information?
Research Question 4:2: Whether improper information is
requested when applying for credit?
11
Research Question 4:3: Whether consumers have been refused
credit and believe the decision was based on information
which was inaccurate, unfair, or incomplete?
Research Question 4:4: Is there an awareness of the Fair
Credit Act and the legal right of indivi~uals to see any
credit bureau report that might be used in a decision to
deny one credit, insurance, or employment?
Objective 5: The insurance industry collects detailed informa
tion about millions of people every year who apply for 1 ife insurance,
homeowners insurance, and auto insurance. This objective is to deter
mine to what extent Arizona residents perceive insurance companies as
seeking more information than is necessary or desirable, and the extent
to which the insurance industry is thought to be abusing or misusing
the information they collect.
Research Question 5:1: Whether insurance companies ask
for too much personal information?
Research Question 5:2: What types of information should
insurance companies have or not have the right to collect?
Research Question 5:3: What personal information gathering
activities should insurance companies be al lowed or not
allowed to pursue to evaluate insurability?
Research Question 5:4: Should the personal information an
insurance, company collects be determined by insurance com
panies or by law?
Objective 6: To examine the perceptions of Arizona residents
toward private doctors and hospitals in terms of: (1) the propriety
of the personal information they collect; (2) the extent to which they
keep personal information confidential, and; (3) patients' access to
their medical records.
Research Question 6:1: Whether hospitals and private
doctors ask for too much personal inform~tion?
Research Question 6:2: Whether hospitals and private
doctors should be doing more to maintain confidentiality
of personal information?
Research Question 6:3: Whether people should have access
to their medical records?
Research Question 6:4: Whether people want to be told
they are dying?
12
Objective 7: A philosophical question which government must
address is how to maintain a balance between the need for personal in
formation on its citizens in order to provide services, insure law and
order, and provide for security of the people as a whole on the one
hand, and the obligation to preserve the rights of its citizens and
their personal privacy on the other. This objective is to evaluate the
attitudes of Arizona residents toward government organizations, partic
ularly law enforcement organizations, as they relate to the protection
of personal privacy.
Research Question 7:1: Do government organizations ask
for too much personal information, and if so, which do?
13
Research Question 7:2: Whether the police forces are
balancing their respect for the individuals' constitutional
rights against the need to conduct surveillance to protect
society?
Research Question 7:3: Should pol ice be allowed to take
certain steps of surveillance and information gathering
without a court order?
Research QUe:!,tion 7:4: Should pol ice have the right to
demand identification even if the person is not doing
anything illegal?
Research Question 7:5: Should government agencies use a
lie detector test to learn the source of an information
leak from th~ir files?
Research Que;tion 7:6: Should government be doing more to
maintain confidentiality of personal information, and if
so, which government agencies should be doIng more?
Research Question 7:7: Should people have access to govern-
ment files about themselves at cost to government?
Objective 8: Computers are thought to be at the heart of the
concerns over the loss and potential loss of privacy of personal data.
This objective is to explore attitudes toward computers and the uses
made of them by government and business.
Research Question 8:1: Do people believe the present uses
of computers threaten their personal privacy?
14
Research Question 8:2: Do people agree or disagree with
common general statements about computers and their merits
for personal information record keeping and their potentials
for loss of privacy?
Research Question 8:3: If various uses of computers by
government and business are justified?
Objective 9: A number of privacy principles ~nd protectiol~ pro
posals have been presented by various authorities. This objective is to
evaluate the views of Arizona residents toward these principles and
proposals.
Research Question 9:1: What rights should people have on
whom records containing personally identifiable info mation
are maintained?
Research Question 9:2: Which of a number of protection
proposals regarding computerized personal data banks are
necessary?
Research Question 9:3: Should personal data records be
the exclusive property of the user or compiler of the data
with the subjects having no interest in them, or should
the data in the records be considered owned by the indi-
vidual who can be identified from the data.
Research Question 9:4: Should a new Arizona State Govern-
ment Privacy Protection Agency be established with the
purpose of protecting the privacy of individual citizens?
Research Question 9:5: How important is it that there be
an independent body or agency to handle complaints about
violations of personal privacy by a public or private
organization?
15
Research Question 9:6: How important is it that organiza
tions collect only essential personal information?
Research Question 9:7: Where should the. major responsi
bility for protecting personal privacy rest?
Research Question 9:8: How important is it that Arizona
have a privacy law designed to ensure that the personal
data information in state and local government files are
kept confidential and used properly?
Research Question 9:9: How important is it that Arizona
have a computer privacy law designed to ensure that the
computerized personal data records maintained by private
business are kept confidential and used properly?
Objective 10: The Arizona State Legislature and the United
States Congress will inevitably be considering passing additional
privacy legislation. This objective is to evaluate which areas Arizona
residents consider important for legislative passage.
Research Question 10:1: Which areas are considered
important that the Arizona State Legislature and the
United States Congress pass additional privacy legrslation?
Objective 11: Previous research suggests that a significant
factor in shaping people's attitudes toward privacy, as well as com
puter issues, is the degree of alienation individuals feel from tech
nology and the institutions of government and business. That is, the
more alienated individuals feel, the more likely they are concerned
about threats to their personal privacy. This hypothesis is tested
through an alienation index created by a series of re~earch questions
in which respondents are asked their level of agreement or disagree
ment with the following four statements:
1. Technology has almost gotten out of control.
2. Government can generally be trusted to look after
our interests.
3. The way one votes has no effect on what the govern
ment does.
4. In general, business helps us more than it harms us.
The evaluation index is then correlated with select survey attitudes
toward privacj and computers to evaluate this hypothesis.
Limitations of the Study
The limitations of the study are primarily those deficiencies
inherent in the opinion research methodology which is employed. The
accuracy and reliability of the results may be somewhat biased by
these deficiencies.
Some bias may be inherent in the design of the structured
undisguised survey instrument used (Churchill, 1976, pp. 167-169),
such as the prior definition of the questions and response sets
16
(Dillehay and Jernigan, 1970). Systematic biases may be imposed into
the study in the way in which people respond to questions, such as the
bias between strong and weak statements (Webb et al., 1971, p. 22),
positive and non-positive statements (Jackson and Messick, 1957),
famil iar and unfamiliar statements (Lana, 1961), or even the order in
which the questions and potential answers are presented (Bain and
Hecock, 1957). As much bias as possible was eliminat~d by careful
design and pilot testing ~f the survey instrument.
Nonetheless, the sal ient advantage of opinion research is its
ability to capture people's impressions about themselves, their
environments, and their reaction to changing conditions (Buckley,
Buckley and Chiang, 1976, pp. 35-37). Further, people's beliefs and
expectations have been found to influence their behavior and attitudes
toward the behavior of ot ers (Engel, \~a1es and Warshaw, 1975, pp. 97-
119). Opinion research, 'hrough use of attitude surveys and opinion
polls, is well established as a viable vehicle for politicians and
17
other decision makers to focus on current issues and measure the extent
of public concern with respect to those issues (Buckley et a1., 1976,
pp. 35-37).
Review of Previous Research
In recent years much has been written about privacy in American
life. Articles on the subject of protecting personal privacy are com-
men in current computer and telecommunication periodicals and publ ica-
tions. There have been a number of national privacy studies (U.S.
Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1973; Privacy Protection
18
Study Commission, 1977a, 1977b, 1977c, 1977d, 1977e, 1977f). There have
also been successive national surveys of public attitudes toward privacy
{Rule et al., 1980, pp. 66-68).
However, a literature review disclosed no empirical research on
attitudes toward privacy of Arizona residents. Yet, Arizona law contains
at least 16 statutes pertaining to privacy (Privacy Protection Study
Commission, 1977c, pp. 31-32), and the 1980-81 Arizon~ State Legislature
addressed at least 3 separate privacy ·re1ated bills (Computer and I Business Equipment Manufacturers Association, 1981).
Definition of Terms
It is recognized that certain words or phrases used in this study
may have different meanings for different people. The following ~ords
or phrases are defined here to assist the reader in understanding the
context in which they are used in this research:
1. Adult: An adult is defined as a person 18 years of age or
older.
2. Arizona Resident: An Arizona resident is a person living
in the state of Arizona.
3. Average citizen: An average citizen is a non-existent
person possessing the mental and physical capacities of the majority of
people residing in Arizona.
4. Computer-based information system: A computer-based infor-
mation system is an information system that uses a computer tn the
storing, processing and communicating of information essential to the
performance of the system.
19
5. Computer-oriented system: A computer-oriented system is a
system in which the capabilities of human and computers have been blend
ed to take advantage of the unique capabilities of each.
6. Consensus: A consensus exists when more than 50 percent of
the respondents express a similar viewpoint, and, or when statistical
estimates show that more than 50 percent of the popu1ation.wou1d express
a similar viewpoint.
7. Data bank: A data bank is a collection of data relating
to a given set of subjects.
8. Management information system: A management information
system is the combination of personnel, material, facilities, and
equipment working together to convert information inputs into meaning
ful information outputs for management decision purposes.
9. Personal information/data: Personal information or data
is that information which can be directly related or identified to
an individual.
Organization of the Remainder of the Report
The study is divided into seventeen chapters. Chapter 1 pro
vides an introduction to the study. It presents the purpose of the
study, the importance of the study, the specific study objectives and
research questions, and 1 imitations of the study. Further, this chapter
provides a review of previous research and definitions of terms of the
study.
Chapter 2 serves to identify the privacy issue and its multi
dimensional implications on society. A historical evolutfon of the
privacy. issue from a national perspective is provided, as well as
discussions on how privacy protection is being addressed at state and
international levels.
20
The research methodology and design are presented in Chapter 3.
The survey design, the sampling technique, and questionnaire instrument
used in the research are provided. Additionally, the statistical in
ference standards for data analysis and description are established.
Chapter 4 through 13 provide the results of the survey and pre
sent how Arizona residents feel about: their own personal privacy; the
general impact on their personal privacy of government and business;
their employer to employee relationships relative to their personal
privacy; their credit relationships relative to their personal privacy;
the insurance industry relative to their personal privacy; their private
doctors and hospitals relative to their personal privacy; specific
government organizations, particularly law enforcement forces, relative
to the protection of their personal privacy; how computers impact on
their personal privacy; various privacy protection proposals which have
been put forth by authorities, and; areas where additional privacy legis
lation is important.
Chapter 14 discusses the concept of alienation in privacy and
tests the hypothesis that the level of alienation or estrangement which
people feel toward the insti~.,tions of government and business is a
significant factor in their attitudes toward privacy and computer issues.
This hypothesis is tested through statistical analysis.
Chapter 15 provides a summary of the major findings and conclu
sions of the opinion research survey. Chapter 16 presents recommendatfons
for future research, and Chapter 17 introduces various implications of
the research findings for select public and private leaders, interest
groups, and policy makers.
21
CHAPTER 2
THE PRIVACY ISSUE
This chapter delves into the privacy issue. It addresses the
difficulties that exist in defining the privacy issue, and the multi
dimensional privacy problem developing in our society. An ~istoric1l
evolution of the privacy issue from a national perspective IS pre-
sented. The privacy issue as an active area of concern at the state~
level of government is reviewed. In conclusion, the privacy issue at
an international level of government is reviewed and contrasted with
this country's experience.
Defining the Privacy Issue
The privacy issue can be considered a complex concept involv-
ing the social contract between individuals and the society in which
they reside. Within this concept there are the invitations for clashes
between individuals and institutions, and between privacy protection
measures and free access to personal information (Hoffman, 1980a, p. 3).
The complexities of the privacy issue have resulted in a lack of agree-
ment on a commonly accepted definition of privacy. As a consequence,
the evaluation of arguments for and against privacy proposals have and
continue to remain difficult (American Enterprise Institute, 1979, p. 3).
In an important initial analysis of the concept of privacy,
Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis, in 1980, defined privacy as the
"right to be let alone" (Warren and Brandeis, 1980). They argued that
22
23
common law protected against invasion of privacy in the areas of contract
and industrial property, and that property rights should be expanded to
recognize a man's "spiritual nature." Later as a Supreme Court Asso
ciate Justice, Louis D. Brandeis applied this definition in his dissent
opinion in Olmstead v. United States in 1927 (United States Supreme
Court, 1929, pp. 438-488).
While many have regarded defining privacy as tne "right to be
let alone" as an oversimplification (O'Brien, 1979, p. 5, Konvitz, 1966,
p. 279), the significance of the definition was found "not so much in the
power of its argument as in the social status it gave the tort" (Kalven,
1966, p. 327). Court-made tort law did evolve which recognized a right
to sue for damages resulting from certain intrusions on personal privacy
(American Enterprise Institute, 1979, p. 3). As an example, individuals
have the right to sue in certain circumstances over the use of their
name or picture for the defendant's financial advantage (Prosser, 1960,
pp. 401-407). Similarly, recovery can be sought for publicity which
places the individual in a false light in the public eye (Hill, 1976,
pp. 1270-1275). However, in both these instances the information
disclosed must not have been private or secret to begin with. Two addi
tional categories in which individuals have a right of recovery, where
legislation does not exist, include physical or electronic intrusion
into a person's privacy in a private area and unwanted publicity about
a person's private affairs which, though true, would be offensive to a
person of ordinary sensibilities (Prosser, 1960, pp. 392-398). In the
absence of specific privacy legislation, we can expect court-made tort
law concerning privacy to continue to evolve.
Alan F. Westin, whose works have shaped virtu~l ly all current
thinking about privacy as a public issue, argues that privacy is the
right of the i nd i vi dua 1 to determi ne when, how, and to \'Jhat extent
24
there should be a disclosure of information about himself (Westin, 1967,
p. 7). This definition, however, is much broader than the right of
privacy currently recognized in the courts of law. In fact, such a
definition's interpretations could result in protections specifically
denied by the Supreme Court (American Enterprise Institute, 1979, pp.
3-4).
Although the Bill of Rights to the Constitution does not pro
vide specific language on a right of privacy, the courts have inter
preted the spirit of the language in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth
and Fourteenth Amendments to provide certain protections against govern
ment intrusion into individual privacy (Michigan Law Review, 1975, pp.
1277-1297). The most significant court case to date to contain the
clearest articulation of the constitutional foundation of a right of
privacy is Griswold v. Connecticut (Dixon et a1, 1971, p. 1). In this
1965 case, which concerned the state of Connecticut's attempt to pro
hibit birth control clinics through the utilization of its statute
prohibiting the use of contraceptives, the Supreme Court decided that a
statutory system which operated to make it a crime for married couples
to use contraceptives, and for cl inics to conduct examinations and
prescribe contraceptives, was unconstitutional. In reaching this con
clusion, Chief Justice William O. Douglas, in writing the opinion of the
Court, took a broad view of "standing" to assert third party rights
based broadly on the Bill of Rights and talked loosely about "zones of
25
privacy" directly or peripherally protected by the First, Third, Fourth,
Fifth and Ninth Amendments (Dixon et al., 1971, p. 2). Still, there are
constitutional scholars who assert that the concept of a constitutional
right of privacy is largely undefined. Even in Griswold v. Connecticut,
Justices Hugo Black and Potter Stewart, in their dissent, stated that
they could not find a right of privacy in the Constitution, and that,
"such a broad unbounded construction would result in the Supreme Court
becoming a day-to-day constiltutional convention" (Dixon et al., 1971,
pp. 123-147).
There is a lack of agreement on the meaning of privacy even among
proponents of privacy legislation. It is interesting to note that the
Privacy Protection Study Con~ission reported after two years of intense
study that its members coulc not agree on a definition of privacy.
Rather, it concluded that lI~rivacyli was a poor label for the many issues
i~ investigated, and proposed IIfair informational practices ll as a better
term (Privacy Protection Study Commission, 1977a, pp. 17-21). Ironically,
the lack of a definition has also increased the political appeal of
privacy legfslation, because individuals can see in privacy what they
want to see in it. The conservatives can invoke the right of privacy as
a weapon against the pressures of an arrogant government for more and
more information. The liberals can invoke the right of privacy as a
defense against unwarranted intrusions by police and the intelligence
agencies.
In the interim of a commonly, accepted definition of privacy, the
writings, reports, studies, publ ic controversies and legislative efforts
in this country and others have served to shape public agreement on the
26
requirements of "privacy protection. 11 The result is an emerging consen-
sus on five broad general principles whtch policy makers should be
applying to a wide variety of personal data systems (Rule et al., 1980,
pp. 111-112). They include: (1) the establishment of access to onels
own data; (2) ensur i ng accuracy, comp 1 eteness, and time 1 i ness of recorded
information; (3) the placement of limitations on information which may be
collected; (4) establishing procedures for challenging and correcting
erroneous data, and; (5) protecting data from unnecessary disclosurel.
In light of the foregoing consensus, perhpas the best definition
of privacy yet put forth is offered by Lance J. Hoffman in which he
states:
Privacy is the social expectation that an individual (and by extension, a group of tndividuals, or an institution, or all society) must: (1) be able to participate in determining how information about him is used or communicated to others, and be assured that such information is properly protected against inappropriate use; (2) be assured of openness, forthrightness, and fairness in relations with any record-keeping organization that maintains data about him; and, (3) be protected against unwelcome, unfair, improper, or excessive collection or dissemination of information or data about him (Hoffman, 1980a, p. 10).
A Multi-Dimensional Problem
The preceding section illustrated the difficulties in defining
the privacy issue. One reason for this difficulty is that privacy can
mean different things to different people (Shils, 1966, p. 281). For a
homeowner, it may mean a fenced backyard to restrict the vision of
neighbors. For a child, it may mean a secret hiding place to keep
special toys. For a job applicant, it may mean not having to discuss
certain periods of onels past with the prospective employer. For a
27
lawyer and his client, it may mean restricting what evidence can be con-
sidered in court pr0ceedings. The examples are countless, and present
privacy as a multi-dimensional problem. Possibly the only safe genera1-
ization that can be offered on privacy is that its status is changing in
the modern world, and that the possibilities of preserving personal
privacy in virtually every sense of the term is not what it has been nor
what it will be in the future.
Perhaps the best method to illustrate the privacy problems
developing in our society is by example. The following eleven examples
are but a few which were surfaced by the United States Congressls Privacy
Protection Commission which spent two years investigating personal
privacy, concluding its report to the Congress and President Jimmy Carter
in July, 1977. The examples, as provided by the Commissionls Chairman,
David F. Linowes, are as follows:
1. There are 8,000 different record systems that contain individually identifiable data on Americans in the files of the federal government. Each citizen on average, has 17 files in federal agencies and administrations;
2. Upon purchasing a product from a direct mail marketing firm, an American consumer can expect 25 additional solicitations within a year;
3. There is a rapidly expanding 1 ist compiling industry. These list compilers purchase names from a variety of sources and through computers can rapidly arrange the names and other information in any format desired. For example, a compiler will sell you, for 5¢ a name, lists of names of affluent Cathol ic professionals, black activists, gamblers, or inquisitive kids;
4. There exists in the United States a clandestine organization that identifies citizens who have so-called Ilanti-American and anti-Christian attitudes. 11 The organization has existed for over 20 years and is known to sell names on a subscription basis to colleges, credit companies, and large business employers. Americans possess no legal rights to gain access to this list;
5. Virtually an credit card" companies willingly provide credit file information on their cardholders to anyone posing as a government official. Credentials are not verified and cardholders are rarely notified that their credit history has been revealed;
6. More than 400 million credit cards are in use today. Charge records are stored in computer data banks, and these personal financial diaries are easily available to thtrd parties;
7. There are known organizations, some of which are 25 years old, which specialize in impersonating physicians, clergymen, and other professionals for purposes of obtaining confidential medical records from hospitals, clinics, and doctor's offices without authorization. The data is sold to insurance companies, employers, lawyers or anyone else seeking the information. The fees are nominal;
8. A University of Illinois study found that every bank surveyed said it gave out information in its files to credit investIgators. One-fourth of the banks gave credit information to landlords. Only one-fourth of the banks ask for customer permission before releasing personal information. Eighty percent of the banks collected credit information from third parties. Seventy percent of the banks did not let customers see any of the information collected on them. Eight percent of the banks would not reveal to customers what type of records are maintained on them or how the information is used;
9. In a survey of Fortune 500 companies it was found that 85 percent of them had given information on their employees to creditors and landlords. Sixty-seven percent of the employers do not advise their employees of their disclosure practices;
10. There are large information data bank systems such as QUBE, operated by Warner Communciations Company in Ohio, which never destroy the information stored in their computers, as it is cheaper to store the data than destroy it. Information such as voting records, opinion surveys, television program viewing selections, and more could be retrieved 10 years from now and used in a threatening manner to an individual's privacy. There are no existing laws to protect consumers against this type of privacy invasion;
11. The leading computer scientist of the world testified under oath that they do not have the technology to guarantee against unauthorized intrusions into computer data banks (Marketing News, May 2, 1980, pp. 6-7).
28
29
Recent examples can also be sited which touch closer to home for
Arizona residents and exemplify the alarming consequences which they can
have on the lives of individuals. They include:
A newspaper report about the Arizona Drug Control Districtls computer system known as NINA. This part-state and part-federal agency links criminal intell igence information in Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado and Nevada. It was reported that names of visitors to immates at the Arizona State Prison were entered into the NINA files as, "known associates of major narcotics traffickers." The report goes on to state that, "NINA entered hundreds of people, inclluding ministers, children and relatives, into its criminal intel I igence computer system who had no ties with crime of any sort" (Tucson Citizen, 1981);
A newspaper report of al1 18 year-old murder victim killed by a would-be suitor who boasted that "he had obtained the victimls address from the Arizona Motor Vehicle Division, and there was nothing anybody could do about i t.11 The records showed that using the victimls license plate number he had obtained the victimls name and address by paying a $3.00 fee to the Motor Vehicle Division for the inform tion shortly before murdering the victim (The Arizona Daily Star, 1981).
The foregoing examples demonstrate that the public has grounds
for anxiety about personal rivacy loss and whether laws and business
practices are keeping pace with computer information privacy problems.
Harvard Law School professor Arthur R. Miller has delineated the follow~
ing four main grounds for public anxiety:
1. Too much data collection is going on. This is demonstrated by the constant urge of decision-makers to want more and more information on which to base decision;
2. An increasing number of decisions about how to control people are being made on the basis of computer-stored files. as an example, "an individual can be automatically admitted or automatically rejected from a top u.S. law school on the basis of a single number";
3. The increasing risks of data being interpreted "ou t of context. 11 As an example, "criminal records such as those computer-stored at the Federal Bureau of Investigationls National Crime Information Center sometimes turn out to be incorrect";
4. The increasing prospects of greater government surveillance. As an example, "there have been episodes in American history when the government has violated civil liberties, and the massive and detailed records that agencies 1 ike the Internal Revenue Service store on computers could be used to monitor or constrain the movements of pol icy dissenters" (Schultz, 1981) •
Historical Evolution at the National Level
30
A remarkable thing about the privacy issue before the 1960's was
the lack of any significant publ ic sensitivity to privacy in any gl~bal sense (Rule et al., 1980, p. 52). The treatment of personal data files,
musch less the computerization of such records, were rarely a subject
of public debate prior to the 1960's.
It was during the 1960's that many of the previously unquestioned
prerogatives of established organizations and groups in matters of pri-
vacy in general, and matters in surveillance in particular, became public
points of sharp contention. Two books published ih 1964, The Naked
Society by Vance Packard, and The Privacy Invad~rs by Myron Brenton, were
significant in that they began fusing privacy into a coherent public
issue. Both books, in dramatic fashion, warned that personal privacy in
the United States was rapidly disappearing. Similar in content, they
dealt with such subjects as employment screening, polygraph testing,
electronic snooping, mailing lists, and credit and insurance data systems
(Packard, 1964; Brenton, 1964).
Beginning in 1965, publ ic attention began focusing on government
record keeping on private persons, and privacy became a perennial subject
of Congressional hearings and reports. Perhaps the most significant early
hearing to bring the privacy issue to life in the United States was held
31
in 1966 and 1967 concerning a proposal to establish a National Data
Center (U.S. House of Representatives, 1966). The National Data Center
was to collect and collate personal information on Americans then being
held piecemeal in the separate computer files of various federal agencies
and administrations, such as the Census Bureau, the Internal Revenue
Service, and the Social Security Administration. At the time of the pro-
posal, 600 different repositories of such personal information throughout
the federal government were identified for linkage into a single National
Data Center. Although the data was to be held in individual identifiable
form, its purpose was to be limited to aggregate analysis and not to be
used for individual decision making on the persons concerned (~.S. House
of Representatives, 1966, pp. 92-102). The proponents of the Data Center
argue that their objectives were to improve accuracy, efficiency and
economy, and not to increase surveillance. Still, their protestations
met with skepticism. The sentiments of the hearing officials were best
represented by the statement of Representative Frank Horton of New York,
who stated:
The argument is made that a central data bank would use only the type of information that now exists and since no new principle is involved, existing types of safeguards will be adequate. This is fallacious. Good computermen know that one of the most practical of our present safeguards of privacy is the fragmented nature of present information. It is scattered in little bits and pieces across the geography and years of our life. Retrieval is impractical and often impossible. A central data bank removes completely this safeguard. I have every confidence that ways will be found for all of us to benefi t from the great advances of the computermen, but those benefits must never be purchased at the price of our freedom to live as individuals with private lives (U. S. House of Representat i ves, 1966, p. 6).
32
After lengthy hearings, the proposal for a National Data Bank was put
aside and the effectiveness of the opposition demonstrated that publ ic
anxieties about government use of personal data had reached weighty poli
tical significance by the late 1960 ' s.
Just as the privacy issue was intruding itself into the national
consciousness, Alan F. Westin published Privacy and Freedom in 1967.
Alan F. Hestin's work in general, and Privacy and Freedom in particular,
is credited with'shaping virtually all current thinking about privacy
as a .public issue (Rule et al., 1980, p. 73). In this publication,
Westin presents a sociological analysis in which he sees the privacy
problem arising from intrusions into previously "balanced" sodal rela
tionships (Westin, 1967). The intrusive force is identified as technology
creating a variety of pressures against privacy, causing an imbalance in
which people, at least potentially, are less protected than before
against these pressures. Toward "restoring the balance" Westin suggested
five broad questions whose answers would guide the reform of personal
data management. The questions were: (1) Is the need for this form of
personal information really serious enough to warrant its collection?
(2) Are there not alternative methods of meeting the need? (3) Is the
form of inquiry rel iable, that is, does it really allow the judgments
which the situation required? (4) What form of consent, if any, do the
individuals concerned offer to the collection of the information?
(5) How trustworthy is the agency which administers the information
gathering? Westin felt that these queries could lead to restraints at a
number of points, including: enhancing public consciousnessofthe issues;
scientific countermeasures to foil surveillance technologies; policy
33
decisions within organizations to forego privacy-invading practices;
agreements among organizations, such a~ collective-bargaining agreements
to limit surveillance in the work place; and, the adoption of privacy
protection standards by professional bodies (Westin, 1967, pp. 380-399).
In the area of government action, Westin's recommendations covered a
wide range of possibilities, including: outright curtailment of certain
practices such as polygraph examinations; the creation of government
regulatory bodies; the close/ regulation of such activities as wiretap
ping; and, legislation to control the treatment of personal data files.
Since the publication of Privacy and Freedom, practically all of Westin's
recommendations have been either implemented or actively discussed in
official contexts within the United States and many foreign countries
(Rule et al., 1980, p. 76).
In 1968, a subcommittee of the House of Representative's Govern-
ment Operations Committee began hearings on the information practices
of the commercial credit reporting industry, the increasing centraliza-
tion within this industry, and the impact of the computer on this indus-
try's practices. The tone of these hearings was established by the early
testimony of Alan F. Westin, when he stated:
Whenever any private activity becomes huge in size and financial resources, operates on a national scale, and affects the vital personal interests and civil liberties of millions of American citizens, such activity will come under Federal scrutiny and intervention to protect such citizen rights, especially when there is a vacuum of State and local legislation and court doctrines and an absence of decisive self-regulation within the industry (U.S. House of Representatives, 1968, p. 4).
These hearings led to others in the credit industry, which. two
years later culminated in passage of the Fair Credit Reporting Act in
34
1970. The Fair Credit Reporting Act provided certain significant open-
ings for consumers to exert an influence on the collection and use of
information referring to them. The Act had three basic intents. First,
to create mechanisms for the publ ic to understand credit-reporting prac-
tices and to monitor the effects of these practices on their lives.
Second, to establish ways of resolving differences over credit informa-
tion between consumers, credit bureaus, and buyers of the credit reports
by bureaus. Third, to create legal responsibilities on the part of I credit bureaus to maintain certain minimum standards of care and compe-
tence in their reporting practices. Some of the significant specifica-
tions provided in the Act included: the purposes for which bureaus may
issue reports; setting time limits on reporting; requirements on disclos-
ing information to consumers; requirements for verifying the identit~
of report requesters and certifying authorized use by them; and, pro~i-
sions for consumers to dispute the accuracy or completeness of data eld
in credit bureau files.
The next major publication on the privacy issue occurred in 1971
when The Assault on Privacy, by Arthur R. Miller, was published. Like
Westin in Privacy and Freedom, Miller argued that modern technologies
have led to creation, transmission, and use of information, including
personal information, which gives rise to the privacy issue (~rller,
1971). Miller's book focused its attention on the treatment of data
files by government and private organizattons, and provided detailed
discussion on policy suggestions for the protection of privacy. These
suggestions have had nearly as much impact on the course of subsequent . -
privacy discussions as have Westin's in Privacy and Freedom (Rule et al.,
1980, p. 83). Some of the significant suggestions by Miller includes
the following four:
1. The use of electronic codes for access to computer files and scrambling of computer signals when these transmissions are carried through 1 ines vulnerable to tapping;
2. The maintenance of a log of computer usage, ~nd the designation of a "privacy ombudsman·· to ensure that the system was operating in the safest mode possible and to hear any disputes or complaints involving its practices;
3. Proposed restrictions on personal data actually used to a necessary minimum with computer programming-techniques being employed to prevent the output of data that are incomplete or have not been brought current;
4. The adoption of a forceful code of ethics by computer professionals (Miller, 1971, pp. 239-257).
The widespread public anxieties in the late 1960·s about the
impact of the computer upon personal privacy led the National Academy
of Sciences and the Russ·ell Sage Foundation to commission· Alan F. Westin
35
and Michael Baker to examine the privacy implications of the change from
manual to computerized systems of personal data management in some 55
publ ic and private formal organizations. The results of their work was
published in 1972 and entitled, Databanks in a Free Society. The conclu-
sions of their study can generally be summarized by the following passage
from the text of Databanks in a Free Society:
Going beyond the site visit findings, our forecast of technological trends in the 1970·s indicates there is very little likelihood that new developments wi 11 drastically a1 ter the way in whi·ch organizational goals, institutional 1 imitations, and legal and social constraints shape the reception and use of new computer technology. We anticipate more flexible and reliable computer systems, and greater ease in carrying on data exchanges between computerized systems. It is the increase of feasibility of data sharing, and not any significant changes in either privacy or dueprocess interests, that will be the most important effect of advances in computer technology during the next eight years (Westin and Baker, 1972, p. 342).
Also in 1972, the Congressional threat to mandate universal use
of the social security number as a personal identifier led Elliott
Richardson, then Secretary of the United States Department of Health,
Education~nd Welfare, to appoint a Special Advisory Group to '~nalyze
the consequences of using computers to keep records about people" (U.S.
Department of Health, Educatfon and Welfare, 1973, p. xix). The group1s
report, issued in 1973 under the title, Records, Computers, and the
Rights of Citizens, contributed several important intellectual ideas.
There was the sentiment that privacy was a matter of mutual concern
between record subject and record keeper, and the sentiment that a code
of fair information practices should govern how record keepers would deal
with their information and their subjects. Specifically, the Special
Advisory Group made the following significant recommendatIons:
1. There should be no record system whose existence is secret;
2. Individuals should have access to their files to copy them and correct any misinformation;
3. Individuals should be apprised of reasons behind a denial to an access request;
4. Individuals must be notified that their personal authorization is required to disseminate information to third parties;
5. Individuals must be told of the uses and disclosures that may be made without their express authorization;
6. There should be no adoption of any nationwide, standard, personal identification format, with or without the social security number, that would enhance the likelihood of arbitrary or uncontrolled linkage of records about people, particularly between government or government-supported automated personal data systems;
7. There should be strict. 1 imitations of points where providing the social security number is legally required, and no one should be asked to provide his or her number without being informed of the legal force of the request (U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1973, pp. 122, xxxiixxxv).
37
Records, Computers, and the Rights of Citizens was later to provide the
intellectual foundation for the passage of the Federal Privacy Act of
1974.
By early 1974, the Watergate crisis was reaching its climax and
elevating· the public concern on the privacy issue. In response to a
faltering administration in the eye of the public, President Richard
Nixon on February 23, 1974, djlivered a nationwide radio address entitled,
liThe American Right of Privac'i!11 (Sobel, 1976, pp. 165-167). Ironically,
Nixon was to state:
Here is the heart of the matter. What a person earns, what he owes, what he gives to his church or to his charity is his own personal business and should not be spread around without his consent. When personal information is given or obtained for one purpose such as a loan or credit at a store, it should not be secretly used by anyone fc r any other purpose (Rule, 1980, pp. 67-63).
Nixon went on to announce the establishment of the Domestic Council
Committee on the Right of Privacy, whose purpose was to pursue privacy
issues as they arose within the federal government. This Committee,
headed by the Vice President and composed of Cabinet Members and other
high executive branch officials, was later to have an influence on
passage of eventual privacy legislation.
In 1974, Congress enacted two important privacy protection laws.
The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act provided regulations on
the disclosure and correction of information on students attending educa-
tional insitutions that receive financial assistance from the federal
government. The more significant law passed was the Privacy Act of 1974.
The Privacy Act of 1974 followed closely the recommendations
contained in Records, Computers, and the Rights of Citizens by providing
38
for the comprehensive regulating of the information practices of the
federal government as they affect the privacy of individuals. It was
hoped that this legislation would serve as the model for further legisla-
tion applying to the private sector. Rather than regulating the ktnd of
data that could be collected, the statutes of the Act generally dealt
with the uses to which the information collected by the federal govern-
ment could be put, and the individual's right to inspect and request
correct ions of records affect i ng them (Off i ce of Management and Budget ,I
1978, p. 3472). Exemptions to provisions of the Act were granted in
several areas, including: the Central Intelligence Agency; most law-
enforcement record systems; records kept in connect ton with protection
for the President; and, certain background checks in connection with
military and civilian federal employment. Still, even with these exemp-
tions, a vast majority of federal record keeping is subject to the pro',j-
sions of the Act. Four of the more significant provisions of the Act are:
l. With some exceptions, the Act limits disclosure from personal data files to employees of the agency keeping the record who "have a need for the record in the performance of thei r duties;" to personnel of other agencies in connection with "routine uses" of the record for purposes "compatible with the purposes for whtch it was collected;" and to lawenforcement agencies;
2. Agencies are required to maintain only those records that are "relevant and necessary to accompl ish" their missions. They are to collect personal information "to the greatest extent practicable from the subject individual," and to inform persons of the nature of the authority of which information is demanded of them. The Act requires agencies to maintain all personal records with "accuracy, relevrlnce, timel iness, and completeness as is reasonably necEssary to assure fairness to the individual;"
3. The Act seeks to ensure access to onels own file and to allow a person todispute its contents and request changes. Should the record keeping agency refuse to make changes, the individual can enter a supplementary statement of his own. These statements must be circulated to all users of the file;
4. The Act requires agencies to publ ish annual notice of lithe existence and characterll of each record system. This notification must include information on the coverage and effects of the system, and identify by title and business address the main agency official responsible. The agency must maintain a register of all but routine uses of the file, including the I~ate, nature and purpose of each disclosure to any person or to another agency.11 With some exceptions, these dfsclosures must be made available on request to the subject of the file. The Act requires data keeping agencies to take certain technical and managerial steps to safeguard the "security and confidentialityll of their files. The Act provides for both civil remedies and criminal penalties in the event of violation (United States Congress, 1974).
The Privacy Act of 1974 also established the Privacy Protection
39
Study Commission. This Commission was to examine the information systems
of both government and private organizations and to report on the measures
necessary to protect the privacy of individuals, without defeating the
legitimate needs of government and society for information.
The Privacy Protection Study Commission issued its major report
in 1977, entitled, Personal Privacy in an Information Society. This pub-
lication was followed by a series of specialized reports, including:
Technology and,Privacy; The Privacy Act of 1974: An Assessment; Privacy
Law in the States; Employment Records, and; The Citizen as Taxpayer.
The·work of this commission constituted perhaps the most far-reaching
inquiries into organizational uses of personal data ever assembled.
Personal Privacy in an Information Society contained 162 detailed recom-
mendations, most of which. would require federal legislation for implemen-
tation (Privacy Protection Study Commission, 1977a). The number of
40
recommendations, however, reflects the variety of institutions that were
addressed rather than the mUltiplicity of underlying principles. For
example, 22 recommendations sought to ensure individuals' access to their
own data files. The recommendations of the Commission can be reduced to
nine basic principles:
1. Individuals should have the right to see and copy any information about them in the files of any organization (credit card firms, banks, insurance companies, hospitals, etc.);
2. Individuals should have a right to correct that information or insert their version on any disputed data;
3. In the credit and depository area, individuals must be notified in the beginning that information about them may be made available to others for marketing purposes;
4. Information should be used only for the purpose for which it was collected;
5. Only information relevant to the decision to be made should be collected;
6. Information that has served its purpose and is not needed for research or historical reasons should be periodically destroyed;
7. There should be an uncomplicated and readily available procedure for individuals to keep their names from appearing on mailing lists that are traded, rented, or sold;
8. A "Private Board" in the private sector should be establis.hed to act as an ombudsman so that those who feel their privacy rights have been abused have some place to turn;
9. In privacy abuse cases, the right to sue for actual damages, plus up to $10,000 in punitive damages, from a government agency or private sector company should be granted (Marketing News, 1980, pp. 7-8).
The United States Congress has used the guiding principles set
forth in certain of the Commission's recommendations in subsequent
legislative actions. Perhaps the most notable to date was passage of
the Fair Fund Transfer Act and the Right to Financial Privacy Act as
41
parts of The Financial Institutions Regulatory Act, which provides con-
sumer safeguards for commercial electronic funds transfer systems and
limits access to financial records by federal authorittes without due
process of law. In summary, however, the majority and perhaps the more
significant recommendations of the Commission have yet to result in
legislative action. The most notable is the Commission's recommendation
that Congress establish an independent Federal Privacy Board withtn the
government to monitor the impl~mentation of privacy measures; to inter
vene in agency proceedings that might have a material effect on personal
privacy; to investigate areas ,of privacy concern; to issue rules binding
on other federal agencies as bo both substantive and procedural matters;
to interpret the Privacy Act of 1974, and; to advise the President,
Congress, and others regarding the privacy implications of proposed
federal and state statutes or regulations. This Board would also receive
complaints of citizens and challenge the appropriateness of information
collected or used in the ~ublic and private sectors, if authorized by
Congress to perform that function. Opponents of a Federal Privacy Board
have thus far argued successfully that such a Board would evolve into an
abusive "information czar" which might have veto powers over new informa-
tion systems, rule making authority, and cease and desist powers, and
might attempt to dictate impractical and expensive pol icies (Gregory,
1977, p. 9). Thus, the Board would evolve into another federal bureau-
cracy seen as a multimillion dollar boondoggle which would recommend to
the CC?n.gress the appropr i at ion of more and more doll ars and the enactment
of legislation giving it more and more power.
"
42
Privacy continues to be an active subject in the United States
Congress. Through April, 1981, 23 separate bills on privacy issues have
been introduced (Computer and Business Equipment Manufacturers Associa
tion, 1981, pp. 1-4). There remains, however, many pertinent policy
issues still subject to congressional dabate. Some of the more signifi-
cant of these policy issues include:
1. The issue of Federal versus State regulation remains a prominent issue. Thus far it seems that the sentiments lie with a preference for State and local regulation. The major argument for State and local regulation is more responsiveness to local needs;
2. The burden and cost of regulating privacy remains an issue. opponents of additional privacy legislation are quick to raise the issue of compliance costs. The Office of Management and Budget reported in 1977 that the implementation of the Privacy Act of 1974 resulted in federal start-up costs of $29,459,000, and one year operating costs of $36,599,000 (American Enterprise Institute, 1979, p. 16). Complicance costs are obviously deterrents to the Congress passing privacy legislation that would encompass the private sector. For axample, an American Bankers Association study reported that recommendations made by the Privacy Protection Study Commission would cost the banking industry more than $100 million initially, and at least $50 million annually (Zientara, 1979b, p. 9);
3. The effect of additional privacy protection regulations on fraud and law enforcement is an issue of continual debate. Opponents argue a fear that additional legislation would make the prevention and detection of crime more difficult and individuals and businesses would find it more difficult to protect themselves from those who seek to take advantage of them (Bloustein, 1978). Proponents contend that giving individuals control over discrediting information by not requiring its disclosure promotes liberty and helps people retain their sanity, and law enforcement agenci'es are generally exempted from particular aspects of privacy legislation that would inhibit their duties;
4. The effect of privacy regulation on ~0mpeting values remains constant issue for debate. Opponents of additional privacy protection regulations are concerned that the enjoyment of other important values may be seriously diminished by too much privacy regulation. Examples of such values usually include
such things as media coverage, credit availability, and personalized services dependent upon personal information. Proponents argue that additional privacy protection regulation is necessary to redress the past imbalance In the protection afforded privacy;
5. A remaining issue is whether federal government should regulate privacy in the private sector, and if so, to what extent. Opponents argue that such ,action would have serious consequences on the free enterprise system. They state that fewer and fewer people will be willing to risk competing in the private sector as businesses when less and less control over so much that affects their ability to survive is regulated away. Proponents argue the misuses of information by the private sector. To date it would seem that the Congressional sentiments lie with the private sector pol icing themselves;
6. The issue of omnibus privacy legislation versus the piecemeal approach to privacy protection remains an issue of debate. The pattern in the Congress thus far has been specific legislation for specific privacy needs. Opponents argue the inadequacy of the piecemeal approach with i'ts innumerable inconsistendes at best, and chaotic at worse (Commission on Federal Paperwork, 1977, pp. 6, 9). Proponents favor an individualized approach to particular recommendations arguing that the privacy issue is impossibly complex and each sector has its own peculiarities and privacy problems.
As evident by the nature of these policy issues, perhaps the
only safe generalization that can be made at this point in time is that
they will continue to be debated for long periods of time with, pendulum
43
reactions dependent upon the time and circumstance of their presentation.
The State Level
In addition to the national perspective and the federal legisla-
tive process highlighted in the previous section, the privacy issue is
also an active area of concern at the state level of government. In 1977,
the Privacy Protection Study Commi'ss'ion reported that all 50 states had
taken steps to protect the privacy interest of individuals wi'thin thei r
jurisdictions (Privacy Protection Study Commission, 1977c). It was also
44
r~ported that the actions of the state legislatures, and by the state
courts, more often than not, were more innovative and far-reaching than
similar actions at the Federal level. This section highlights the more
prominent privacy protection actions taken at the state level.
Unl ike the United States Constitution, privacy is delineated as
a state constitutional right in at least 9 states, including: Alaska;
California; Hawaii; Illinois; Louisiana; Montana; South Carolina; Wash-
ington; and, Arizona. Precisely what the privacy right entails differs
from state to state. In some states the constitutional right of privacy
app1 ies only to search and seizures. An example of a far-reaching, much
broader privacy right is found in the State of California. Traditionally,
constitutional protections for personal privacy have been interpreted as
providing safeguards against government intrusions. In California, as
in several states, this distinction has disappeared and their constitu-
tions provide individual privacy protection in both the public and private
sectors.
To date, at least 7 states, including Arkansas, Connecticut,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Ohio, Utah and Virginia, have enacted omnibus
privacy statutes which regulate the collection, maintenance, use and
disclosure of information about individuals by agencies of state govern-
ment. In some cases these statutes extend to encompass local government
(Privacy Protection Study Commission, 1977c, p. 2). The state omnibus
statutes generally have the following five common features:
1. They require publication of system notices descrfbing agency record keep i ng soystems that conta ion i ndi vi dua lly iondenOt i fi abl e information;
2. They prohibit agencies from collecting or maintaining individually identifiable information that is not relevant, accurate, timely, or complete;
3. They restrict use and disclosure of individually identifiable information except under specified conditions;
4. They establish an individual·s rtght to find out whether an agency maintains information about him or her, and to have access to such information;
5. They permit an individual to challenge the relevance, accuracy, and completeness of information in records concerning hi"m or her, and to fi le a staten/lent of di"sagreement i f ~n age~cy refuses to correct or amenc a record he or she believes IS
erroneous (Privacy Protec:tion Study Commission, 1977c, p. 2).
Nearly every state has some form of IIfreedom of information ll or
45
··open publ ic records·· statutes which requi re that state government records
be available for public inspection (Privacy Protection Study Commission,
1977c, p. 5). California and 11 inois have enacted records management
statutes which establish a commi!;sion or committee to oversee and make
recommendations on state information practices. I
At least 16 states have enacted statutes that specifically address
the disclosure of information that banks and similar financial institu-
tions maintain about individuals. The statutes vary widely. Some permtt
banks to share information without specifically limiting disclosure,
while others prohibit disclosure except under specified circumstances
(Privacy Protection Study Commission, 1977c, p. 11).
A number of states have enacted statutes which govern the collec
tion, use, and disclosure of information by private sector employers (Pri
vacy Protection Study Commission, 1977c, p. 17). Here, statutes"vary
widely. Some states restrfct an employer·s collection of certain ktnds
of information, such as psychiatrfc treatment histories and prior arrests
which did not result in convictions, relating to an employee or to an
applicant for employment.
Privacy protection legislation at the state level continues to
be an active issue. In 1979 through 1980, the Computer and Business
Equipment Manufacturers Association, which tracks important privacy
legislation in the state and federal legislatures, tracked 111 bills in
the various state legislatures (Computerwor1d, April 13, 1981, p. 34).
Through April of 1981, this association has identified and tracked
58 privacy bills in the various annual state legislatures (Computer and
Business Equipment Manufacturers Association, 1981).
46
It is also noteworthy to identify several national associations
which have had prominent influence in the passage of privacy legislation
at the state level. The National Association of State Information Sys
tems has been actively seeking the formulation of model legislation in
the privacy area (Burch and Sardinas, 1978, p. 39). In some instances,
the National Association of State Information Systems has reprimanded
certain state legislatures for their failure to provide control and
privacy over their information-processing activities. The Council of
State Governments has suggested model privacy, computer privacy, and
electronic funds transfer systems legislation to state governments (The
Council of State Government, 1978, pp. 36-42, 43-52, 114-124). The
Society of Certified Data Processors has suggested model state legisla
tion which would declare data-processing as lIa learned profession to be
practiced and regulated as such,1I and would 1 icense data-proces.sing
systems and certify their operators (Burch and Sardinas, 1978, pp. 44-46).
47
The International Level
The privacy issue first took root in the United States, and much
of the American experience has had a prominent fnfluence on foreign pri-
vacy protection measures. For example, virtually all foreign writing
on the subject rely heavily, in one way or another, on the work of Alan
F. Westin (Rule et al., 1980, p. 112). However, while the general princi-
pIes of privacy protection in the United States are largely similar to
those being appl ied in Canada and the European countries, there has been
significant differences in their implementation. These implementation
differences can be briefly described as follows:
1. I n the Un i ted States the approach has been to enact a number of specific privacy laws by sector, primarily in the public sector. In contrast, most European countries have taken a comprehensive, "omnibus" approach, with one single privacy law covering the private and the public sector;
2. In many European countries privacy laws apply strictly to automatically processed personal data. In the United States privacy protection legislation, by not specifying the form of processing, included manually processed data. There are, however, countries other than the United States which specify applicability to both manual and automatically processed data. The German Federal Data Protection Law, for example, covers both;
3. In the United States no special machinery in the form of specialized agencies or commissions have been established to monitor and supervise the application of privacy legislation. The courts are given the responsibility of enforcing the laws. In contrast, many foreign countries have established special data-protection boards or commissions with specialized staffs who watchdog, regulate, and supervise the application~, __ , of privacy legislation (Hoffman, 1980a, pp. 109-110).
More specifically, Figure 1 provides a summary of the dat,a pro-,~. ~
:.J- "'-
tection requirements for record keepers by countries which have taken
significant privacy protection measures. Of particular interest in the
figure, are the privacy protection measures which Sweden has taken.
:E: ~: 0 en
-l~ 0 UJ .. :: en 0 (,!J I-(,!J 0 :z :z « a:: z « I--1: .:: -l~ :=l « oJ ~ en « ~ .. :: ~ ~: >- 0 oJ « -l~ -::
:=l « a:: UJ z c:l a:: UJ >- Z 0 0 a:: 0 « u « :E: UJ N « Z UJ UJ UJ
Li cens i ng of I- (,!J « ::!i: :z ::!i: UJ ::I: ~ CI l- I-en oJ z :z « a:: x I- :3 « UJ
Personal Registers :=l UJ « UJ a:: UJ :=l UJ UJ 0 0... :3 :z :z « c:l u C I..L. (,!J oJ :z :z :z en en :=l :=l
Central Government .••.•••.•.•.•••••••.••• Xl X X X Xl Xl X X Provinces, States ••.••.•.•..•....•..••••. Xl
Xl X Xl xl X X Private Sector ....•.•••...•.....••.••.•.. Xl X Xl Xl X X
Reg i s t ra t i on of Personal Register
Central Government ....•••....•••.•.•..••• X Xl X X X X2 X X X X X X X2 Provinces, States .....••...•••.•....•..•• X3
Xl Xl X Xl X X X X X X Private Sector •••..••.....•.•.•••..•.•.•• X Xl X X X X X X X X
Responsible for Persona 1 Register Deve 1 opmen t ...............................• X X X X X X X X
1. Purpose Specification .....••••..••••• X X X X X X X X X X X X X 2. Collection by Fair and
Lawf u 1 Heans ...•.......•••...•.• X X X X X X X 3. Maintenance of Accuracy •••••.•.•.••.• X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 4. Appropriate and Relevant .••.•....•••. X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 5. Confidentiality, Prevent Misuse~ .•... X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 6. Sensitive Data Restricted .•.•••.•.••. X X X X X X X 7. Secondary Use Controlled •.•...•...••• X X X X X X X X X X
Fi gu re l. An International Comparison of Data Protection Requirements for Recordkeepers, August 1979. ~ co
~: V)
t!) C\ 0::: z
-:~ ~: -:: :::l « « ~ -:: ~ -:: >- 0 .-J :::l « 0::: l.1.I :z CO 0:::
0::: C\ « u « ~ l.1.I I-- t!) « ~ z ~ l.1.I :I: V) .-J Z Z « 0::: X I--:::l l.1.I « l.1.I 0::: l.1.I :::l l.1.I « CO u C\ I..L. t!) .-J Z
8. Retent ion Limi ted ......•.•..........•. X X X Xl 9. External Transfer Logged .......•••.... X X X X X
10. Security Measures Needed ...•....•..... X X X X X X X X 11. Penalties for Violation ......•...•..•. X X X X X X X X 12. Transborder Data Flow Rules ......•..•. X X X X X X
* Countries with data protection laws.
Partial, usually according to sensitivity or specified legal provisions. '\
L Subject to Provincial/State law.
3 All organizations processing data other than for their own purposes.
Source: ;,Transnational Data Reporting Service and Link (Pipe, 1980, p. 25).
"
Figure l--Continued.
-:~ C\ Z « .-J « -:: l.1.I >-N « Z
~ ~ « l.1.I 0 a.. Z Z V)
X
X X X X X X
X X
~ 0 C\ t!)
z ~
-.-Z C\ l.1.I l.1.I C\ I--l.1.I ~ z V) :::l
X X X X X X X X
-:~ V)
l.1.I I--« I--V)
C\ l.1.I I--
z :::l
X X X
.t:"' \.D
Sweden, through research studies, has been identified as a "bell
weather ll nation and it is hypothesized that Sweden often precedes the
United States in areas of social pol icy formulation, or at least in
policy acceptance and implementation, including the issue of privacy
(Nisenoff, Bishop and Clayton, 1979, pp. 205-211}.
The differences among countries in implementing privacy protec
tion measures is as characteristic as the terminology they use in
addressing the computer privacy issue. For example, the privacy issue
is generally expressed in the English-speaking countries as, lithe need
50
to protect people's privacy.;" whereas, the Scandinavi'an and German
speaking countries in Europe prefer the terminology of "data protection;"
and, the French think of the issue in terms of, "data processing and
individual freedom" (Hoffman, 1980, p. 109).
The implications of these differences among countries has raised
international data protection and privacy issues concerning the trans
border movement of personal data through international data networks
such as Euronet in Europe, Venus for Japanese international data trans
mission, Nordic Data Network for the Scandinavian countries, and the
Statellite Business Systems originating in the United States (~offman,
1980a, pp. 110-111). This issue is currently being addressed by a
number of international organizations such as the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development, the Council of Europe's Committee
on Legal Affairs, and the International Chamber of Commerce, who are
involved in formulating international treaties on data protection and
privacy (Pipe, 1980, pp. 20-21,25-26).
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN
The research methodology and design of the study are presented
in this chapter. In general, an opinion research strategy using an
attitude survey is employed to solicit the viewpoints of Arizona
residents about privacy in our information society. As previously
stated, this research strategy is well established as a vehicle for
pol iticians, government officials, and business policy makers to focus
on current issues and measure the extent of public concern with
respect to those issues (Buckley, 1976, pp. 35-37; Laver, 1980, pp.
106-107).
Survey Design
Figure 2 provides an overview flow chart of the survey design
used for the study. The study objectives and research questions, as
defined in Chapter 1, were used to develop specific questions for a
mail questionnaire. A mail questionnaire was chosen because of the
wide geographic area covered by the study (Ferber and Verdoorn, 1962,
p. 211). The questionnairel~ contents were pilot tested. From the
research population, the residents of Arizona, a research sample was
randomly selected and mailed questionnaires. The collected data was
then coded from which analysis and description were performed, i.ncluding
statistical analysis. The findings and conclusions are then reported.
The flow chart cycles back to its point of origin as the results
51
Select research sample
52
e Ine Findings put to . study objectives 'IIII ..... i----I use, refine
and research questions future research
Collect data
Refine quest ions &
definitions
re Imlnary validity,
re I i ab iIi ty check
Findings and conclusions
Fi gure 2. Survey Des ign Used for this Study.
53
represent findings only at a point in time, due to the dynamics of
peoplels opinions and attitudes in their ever changing environments.
The results have merit for use in policy making in the current period
of time. They also provide foundations for continued research into
the subject matter. The key elements of this survey design are further
described in the balance of this chapter.
samplin~ Technigue
For the survey to incorporate a comprehensive representation from
the total population of Arizona, all geographical areas would have to be
included. To best meet this requirement it was decided to use telephone
directories for selection of a research sample. Three reasons led to
this decision: (1) over 98 percent of the tota: households in Arizona
have telephone service; 1 (2) the directory allows for indiscriminate
selection of recipients to recei e questionnaires; and, (3) it minimizes
the number of questionnaires set to non-residents and to those under
eighteen years of age. Recognition i's given to the fact that some
qualified individuals are not included fn telephone directory listings. 2
1. The Public Information Office at Mountain Bell Telephone Company in Phoenix, Arizona reported in 1974 that 98.2 percent of households in Arizona have telephone service (Jagolinzer, 1978, p. 11).
2. A Trendex, I.nc. study found that homes with. unlisted numbers lIare more likely to be younger, stngle., blue-collar, modestly educated ••• and have sl ightly lower incomes than the profile found tn 1 tsted homes. 11
(The Wall Street Journal, 1976, p. 1). Other s·tudies have shown that the principal deterrent to telephone installation is sociologfcal rather than economic and that, in the latter respect, few sIgnificant differences are apparent between telephone homes and non-telephone homes. (Ferber and Verdoorn, 1962, p. 211).
54
However, it was concluded that this shortcoming was insignificant rela
tive to the advantages of using the telephone directory to supply a
representative random sample.
A l,500 research sample size was established to meet the study's
accuracy and risk requirements. A random process technique was then
used to select questionnaire recipients. The number of residential
telephones in use in the various communities of Arizona, and their
respective telephone directories, were obtained from their particular
telephone company. Based upon the number of residential telephones in
use in the respective communities, a proportionate sample was drawn from
each directory. A random-number generator of a computer system, pro
grammed such that every element of the population had an equal and
independent chance of selection, was used to identify directory page
number, column number on the page, and position number in the column to
select the name and address of the questionnaire recipient (Extended
Basic User's Manual, 1979, p. 47).
Table 1 provides a 1 ist of the telephone directories used, the
number and percentage of total residential telephones in use, the num
ber of questionnaires sent, and the percentage of residential telephones
surveyed from each directory. Table 2 presents, by county, the number
and percentage of questionnaires sent, the number and percentage of
those returned, and the percentage of population for which valid returns
were received.
The questionnaires were mailed to recipients in late July, 1981.
Of the 1 ,500 questionnaires sent, 382 or 25.5 percent were returned.
Table 1. Telephone Directories Selected, Number of Residential Telephones in Use,a Number of Questionnaires Sent, and Percentage of Residential Telephones Surveyed
Residential Telephones
Number of Percentage of
Directory Number Percentage Questionnaires Residential of Total Telephones Sent Surveyed
Ajo, Gila Bend, etc. 2,366 0.3 5 .211 Arizona City, Casa Grande, etc. 12,525 1.4 21 .167 Buckeye and Harquahala Valley 2,835 0.3 5 • 176 Clifton, Duncan, etc. 8,954 1.0 15 · 168 Cochise County 23,840 2.6 39 · 163 Dudleyville, Hayden, etc. 5,258 0.6 9 • 171 Flagstaff, Ash Fork, etc. 27,810 3.0 45 · 161 Globe, Miami, etc. 8,240 0.9 14 .169 Holbrook, Alpine, etc. 13,317 1.4 21 • 157 Mohave County 15, 128 1.6 24 .158 Nogales, Rio Rico, etc. 6,764 0.7 11 .162 Payson, Pine, etc. 4,174 0.5 8 • 191 Phoenix Metro 560,583 60.5 903 • 161 Prescott, Bagdad, etc. 16,625 1.8 27 .162 Tucson 190,075 20.5 308 .162 Wickenburg, Aguila, etc. 3,199 0.3 5 .156 Winslow, Joseph City 2,820 0.3 5 .177 Yuma, Somerton, etc. 21,902 2.3 35 .159
TOTAL 926 ,41~ 100.0 1,500 · 161 --~
aSources: Mountain Bell Telephone Company; Continental Telephone Company of the West; Citizens Utilities Company; as of 7/15/81. \.n
\.n
Table 2. Geographical Distribution of Questionnaires Sent and Returned
Questionnaires 1980 a No, of Percentage Returns as
Counties Population No. Percentage Va 1 i d of Val i.d Percentage of Distribution Sent Sent Percentage Returns Returns ·Those Sent
Apache 1.9 11 0.7 1 0.3 9. 1 Cochise 3.2 39 2.6 11 3.1 28.2 Coconino 2.8 45 3.0 9 2.5 20.0 Gi 1a 1.4 22 1.5 6 1.7 27.3 Graham 0.8 9 0.6 3 0.8 33.3 Greenlee 0.4 6 0.4 2 0.6 33.3 Mari copa 55.5 916 61.1 209 58.2 22.8 Mohave 2.0 24 1.6 10 2.8 41.7 Navajo 2.5 15 1.0 4 1.1 26.7 Pima 19.6 310 20.7 76 21.1 24.5 Pinal 3.4 30 2.0 8 2.2 26.7 Santa Cruz 0.7 11 0.7 2 0.6 18.2 Yavapai 2.5 27 1.8 8 2,2 29.7 Yuma 3.3 35 2.3 10 2.8 28.6
TOTAL 100.0 1,500 100.0 359 ' 1 00.0 23.9
a Source: 1980 Census.
Note: A valid return is a questionnaire with usable information.
Percentage of Popu1 at ion for
Wh i ch Va 1 i d Returns Received
.00192
.01281
.01198
.01617
.01312
.01750
.01388
.01800
.00594
.01428
.00878
.00976
.01171
.01116
.01322
V1
'"
57
Fourteen responses were received too late for inclusion in the data
processing segment of the research. Of the remaining number, 359 or
23.9 percent were found usable in whole or in part. In a few instances
respondents failed to respond to one or more questions in their ques-
tionnaire. Those questionnaires found usable were rejected because of
being returned blank in whole or in majority such that they were in-
comprehensible. The response considered favorabl e in 1 ight of
the study's subject matter of
ratr was
pri 'lacy, the personal nature of requested
responses, and the length and depth of the questionnaire. 3 Table 3
summarizes the demographic attributes of the respondents to the survey.
The Questionnaire
A mai 1 quest ionnai re was d,:!cided upon in order to cover the wide
geographic area under ,examinati"on. A structured-undi,sguised question-
naire was used due to the length I)f the questionnaire and the nature of
the opinion and attitudinal data being sought. The questionnaire was
structured in the order of successive national public surveys of atti-
tudes toward privacy (Harris, 1979). This consistency of research applf-
cation was considered important for purposes of lessening the built-in
deficiencies of opinion research in terms of the unstableness of people's
3'n a 1978 dissertation at the University of Arizona involving the use of a mail colored questfonnafre and an accompanyi~g University letter of support to survey a random sample of Arizona and Maine residents, the researcher received a response rate of 20.9 percent in Arizona and 18.3 percent fn Maine to a 1,500 mailing in each state (Jagol inzer, 1978, p. 19).
58
Table 3. Summary of Demographic Data
Number Percentage
Race Whi te 308 85.5 Mexican-American 21 5.8 Ameri can Indian 4 1.1 Black 8 2.2 Ori enta 1 2 0.6 Other 2 0.6 No responses 14 3.9
Sex t1a 1 e 167 46.5 Fema le 189 52.6 No responses 3 0.9
Age Les!i~ than 18 years 1 0.3 18 to 29 years 62 17.3 30 to 49 yea rs 144 40.1 50 years and over 147 40.9 No responses 5 1.4
Employed Yes, fu 11 time 220 61.3 Yes, part time 31 8.6 No 105 29.2 No responses 3 0.9
Occupation Professional 39 10.8 Managerial/administrative 71 19.8 Technical trade 30 8.4 Non-supervisory 48 13.4 Secretarial/clerical 25 7.0 Ret ired 39 10.9 Student 6 1.7 Homemaker 25 7.0 Sales 7 1.9 Mil i tary 4 1.1 Self-employed 4 1.1 No responses. 61 16.9
59
Table 3--Continued
Number . Percentage
Level of education Grade school 14 3.9 High School 81 22.6 Vocational or trade ·school 27 7.5 2 years of college 74 20.6 4 years of college 84 23.4 Graduate school 76 21.2 No responses 3 0.8
Household income Less than $5,000 per year 8 2.2 $5,000 to $9,999 per year 25 7.0 $10,000 to $14,999 per year 54 15. 1 $15,000 to $19,999 per year 51 14.2 $20,000 to $24,999 per year 49 13.6 $25,000 to $49,999 per year 121 33.7 Over $50,000 per year 30 8.4 No responses 21 5.8
Political Affiliation Republican 136 37.9 Democrat 133 37.0 Independent 63 17.6 Other 9 2.5 No responses 18 5.0
Political philosophy Li bera 1 58 16. 1 Middle-of-the~road 146 40.7 ConservaHve 130 36.2 Other 6 1.7 No responses 19 5.3
Size of city or town live in Less than 5,000 people 18 5.0 5,000 to 25,000 people 39 10.8 25,000 to 50,000 people 34 9.5 50,000 to 100,000 people 27 7.5 100,000 or more people 239 66.6 No responses 2·· Q.6
opinions over time and its retardation of general theory development.
Appropriate modifications were employed to address the specific objec
tive and research questions of the study.
A pilot study using personal interviewing and observations was
conducted to assure the questionnaire's directions were clear to sub
jects, that people understood the wording of questions, and that ques
tions and answers meant the same thing to the subjects as they did to
the researcher. The pilot study also made it possible to check the
validity and re1iabi1 ity of the questions.
60
To minimize the male bias possibilities in using telephone
directories for sample selection, one-half of the questionnaire recip
ients were asked to have a female member of the family complete the
questionnaire. The other questionnaire recipients were asked to h.ave a
male member of the family respond.
Due to the studyr s subject matter of privacy and the highly
personal nature of requested responses, the questionnaire provided
anonymity to respondents. To increase the response rate, a cover letter
reflecting the University of Arizona sponsorship accompanied each ques
tionnaire mailing (Walizer and Weiner, 1978, p. 283). Self-addressed,
postage-paid return envelopes were provided. The questionnaire and
cover letters are provided in Appendix A.
Statistical Inference
A primary statistical objective in th.e study was: to dete.rmine at
the 99 percent confidence. leve.1 the proportion of all Arizona re.si'dents·
which one could statis·tica11y expect to take an identical view on a
61
particular issue. To do this, given an observed sample proportion, p,
~ fp- Cl-j5) the estimated standard error of the proportion is Sp = Y , with
n
n = sample size (Kazmier, 1976, p. 144). Finally, the confidence inter-
val for the populatfon proportion using the normal distribution is
~ ± ~S- , where ~ = 2.58 or the number of standard deviation units from p
the mean, providing a 99 percent confidence level.
Select research data crosstabulations were subjected to the
statistical capabiliti·es of Statis/tical Package for the Social Sciences
for correlation analysis CNie et al., 1975, pp. 8, 223-224). In partic-
ular, chi-square tests were performed to determine whether systematic
relationship existed between crosstabulated variables. Where the level
of significance was computed to be less than or equal to 0.01 tt was
assumed a relationship existed between variables, provfding a 99 percent
confidence level. In addition, tfe Pearson Correlation Coefficient (R)
was computed to measure the 1 inear relati"onship between crosstabulated
variables. A relationship at the 99 percent confidence level was assumed
to exist between variables where t~e level of significance was cqmputed
to be less than or equal to 0.01. The strength of the relationship was
judged by the Pearson Correlation Coefficient. For this study, coeffi-
cients of less than 0.19 show slight correlation and a relationship so
small as to be negligible; coefficients of 0.19 to 0.39 show low corre-
lation and indicate a deflnfte but small relationship; coefficients of
0.40 to 0.69 show moderate correlation and a substantial relationship;
coefficients of 0.70 to 0.89 show htgh. correlation and marke.d re.lation-
ship, and; coefficients of 0.90 to 1.00 show very high. correlation
and very strong relationship (Connolly and Sluckin, 1971, p. 154).
Thus a 99 percent statistical confidence level is consistently applied
throughout the study.
62
CHAPTER 4
HOW ARIZONA RESIDENTS FEEL ABOUT THEIR OWN PERSONAL PRIVACY
Objectfve 1 of this study is addressed in this chapter. That
is, to find how Arizona residents feel about their own personal privacy.
Each of the sections withtn this chapter addresses a specific research
question delineated to meet this objective.
Level of Overall Concern Abo~t Threatst6Pe~~6na1Pti~~cy
The concern of Arfzona residents about threats to their personal
privacy in today's society is dramatically high. Table 4 shows that
87.4 percent of the respondents are concerned. Of this percentage,
49.9 percent are "very concerned," and 37.5 percent are "somewhat con-
cerned." Less than 1 percent of the respondents were "not concerned
at all;" and 11.8 percent were "only a 1 itt1e concerned." Furthermore,
there was 99 percent confidence that between 82 percent and 92 percent
of all residents of Arizona are concerned about threats to thetr person-
a1 privacy in today's society. These findings clearly demonstrate that
personal privacy is an issue of serious conce~ among Arizona residents.
Tables 5 through 14 present crosstabu1ations of concern with
threats to personal privacy by respective demographic attributes of the
respondents. The tables show that the concern is universally high
throughout each demographic characteristic. the chi-square and Pearson
Correlation Coefficient statistics for each do not suggest any
63
Table 4. The Concern of Arizona Residents About Threats to Personal Pri vacy.
Question: How concerned are you about threats to your personal privacy in todayls society?
RESPONSES Number Percentage
11m very concerned 178 49.9 Somewhat concerned 134 37.5
Total concerned a 312 87.4
Only a 1 i ttle concerned 42 11.8 Not concerned at all _3 0.8
Total not concerned 45 12.6
Total opinions 357 100.0
No responses 2
aNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents concerned is between 82 percent and 92 percent.
64
Table 5. Concern With Threats to Personal Privacy by Race of Respondents
RESPONDENTS
65
Very Somewhat A Li tt 1 e Not Concerned Number Concerned Concerned Concerned at All
Race White 306 Mexican-American 21 American Indian 4 Black 8 Orienta 1 2 Other 2
48.3% 57. 1 I 50.0 87.5
100.0 50.0
37.3% 42.9 50.0 0.0 0.0
50.0
13.4% 0.0 0.0
12.5 0.0 0.0
Raw chi-square = 12.00627 with 15 degrees of freedom. Significance = .6745
Pearson1s R = -.11936. Significance = .0135
1.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Table 6. Concern With Threats to Personal Privacy by Sex of Respondents
RESPONDENTS
66
Very Somewhat A Little Not Concerned Number Concerned Concerned Concerned
Sex Male 167 49.1% 37.7% 11 .4% Female 187 50.3 37.4 12.3
Raw chi-square.= 4.46672 with 6 degrees of freedom. Significance = .6138
Pearson1s R = -.03350. Significance = .2646
at All
1.8% 0.0
Table 7. Concern With Threats to Personal Privacy by Age of Respondents
RESPONDENTS
67
Very Somewhat A Little Not Concerned Number Concerned Concerned Concerned
Age Less than 18 1 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 18 to 29 years 62 45.2 41.9 12.9 30 to 49 years 144 49.3 43.1 7.6 50 years and
over 147 51.7 30.6 15.7
Raw ch1-square = 12.96494 with 9 degrees of freedom. Significance = .1642
Pearson1s R = .02658. Significance = .3091
at All
0.0% 0.0 0.0
2.0
Table 8. Concern With Threats to Personal Privacy by Employment Outside the Home of Respondents
RESPONDENTS
68
Very Somewhat A Little Not Concerned Number Concerned Concerned Concerned at All
Employed Yes, fu 11 time Yes, part time No
218 31
105
47.2% 51.6 54.2
42.7% 25.8 30.5
9.2% 22.6 14.3
Raw chi-square = 10.95278 with 9 degrees of freedom Significance = .2790
Pearson's R = .00945. Significance = .4296
0.9% 0.0 1.0
Table 9. Concern With Threats to Personal Privacy by Occupation of Respondents
RESPONDENTS
Very Somewhat A Li tt le Not Concerned Number Concerned Concerned Concerned at All
Occupation Professional 38 47.4% 36.8% 15.8% 0.0% Managerial/ administrative 70 45.7 47.1 7.2 0.0
Technical trade 30 43.3 53.3 3.4 0.0 Blue co 11 ar 48 47.9 33.3 18.8 0.0 Secretarial/ c 1 er i ca 1 25 56.0 44.0 0.0 0.0
Ret ired 39 59.0 25.6 12.8 2.6 Student 6 83.3 16.7 0.0 0.0 Homemaker 25 48.0 28.0 24.0 0.0 Sales 7 47. 1 35.3 14.7 2.9 Mi 1 ita ry 4 54.2 33.3 12.5 0.0 Self-employed 4 28.6 57.1 14.3 0.0
Raw chi-square = 63.48051 wi th 39 I legrees of freedom. Significance = .0079
Pearson's R = .00945. Significance = .4296
Table 10. Concern With Threats to Personal Privacy by Education of Respondents
RESPONDENTS
70
Very Somewhat A Little Not Concerned Number Concerned Concerned Concerned at All
Educati on Grade School 14 /,3.(,% 14.3% 7.1% 0.0% High School 80 51.3 35.0 13.7 0.0 Vocat i ona 1 or Trade School 27 33.3 63.0 3.7 0.0
2 Years of Co lIege 74 54.1 36.5 8. 1 1.3
4 Years of Co lIege 83 48.2 38.6 13.2 0.0
Grade School 76 46. 1 35.5 15.8 2.6
Raw chi-square = 20.11307 wtth 15 degrees of freedom. Significance = .1676
Pearson IS R = .08345. Significance = .0585
71
Table 11. Concern With Threats to Personal Privacy by Household Income of Respondents
REspaNDENTS
Very Somewhat A Little Not Concerned Number Concerned Concerned Concerned at All
Household Income Less than %5,0.0.0. 8 75.0.% 25.0.% 0..0.% 0..0.% $5,0.0.0. to $9,999 24 70..8 20..8 8.4 0..0. $10.,0.0.0. to
$14,999 54 46.3 37.0. 16.7 0..0. $15,0.0.0. to
$19,999 51 49.0. 41.2 7.8 2.0. $20.,0.0.0. to
$24,999 49 53.1 28.6 18.3 0..0. $25,0.0.0. to
$49,999 120. 45.8 40..0. 12.5 1.7 aver $50.,0.0.0. 30. 36.7 53.3 10..0. 0..0.
Raw chi-square = 17.79176 with 18 degrees of freedom. Signiftcance = .4694
Pearson's R = .10.162. Significance = .0.314
Table 12. Concern With Threats to Personal Privacy by Political Affiliation of Respondents
RESPONDENTS
72
Very Somewhat A Little Not Concerned Number Concerned Concerned Concerned
Pol i ti cal Affiliation Republican 135 51.9% 33.3% 14.1% Democrat 133 47.4 39.8 12.0 Independent 62 50.0 37.1 11.3 Other 9 44.4 55.6 0.0
Raw chi-square = 4.96451 with 12 degrees of freedom. Significance = .9592
Pearson1s R = .01512. Significance = .3906
at All
0.7% 0.8 1.6 0.0
Table 13. Concern With Threats to Personal Privacy by Pol itica1 Philosophy of Respondents
RESPONDENTS
73
Very Somewhat A Little Not Concerned Number Concerned Concerned Concerned
Pol it i ca 1 Philosophy Li bera 1 57 52.6% 33.4% 14.0% Midd1e-of-
the-Road 146 48.6 39.7 11.0 Conservative 129 49.6 36.4 12.4 Other 6 50.0 33.3 16.7
Raw chi-square = 2.36539 with 9 degrees of freedom. Significance = .9843
Pearson's R = .02221. Significance = .3421
at All
0.0%
0.7 1.6 0.0
Table 14. Concern '\n th Threats to Personal Privacy by Size of Town/ City Residing in of Respondents
RESPONDENTS
74
Very Somewhat A Little Not Conce rned Number Concerned Concerned Concerned
Size of Town/City Less than 5,000 18 66.7% 33.3% 0.0% 5,000 to 25,000 39 56.4 33.3 7.7 25,000 to 50,000 34 64.7 20.6 14.7 50,000 to 100,000 27 48.1 44.4 7.5 100,000 or more 237 45.6 40.1 13.5
Raw chi-square = 13.34791 with 13 degrees of freedom. Significance = .3443
Pearson's R = .12541. Significance = .0090
at All
0.0% 2.6 0.0 0.8 0.8
systematic relationships of any degree of significance between the
respective variables.
75
The high level of concern expressed by Arizona residents is not
uncommon to what is a national trend of increasing concern by American
people about threats to their own personal privacy. In January, 1978,
a national Harris poll showed that 47 percent of the public was con
cerned with threats to their personal privacy. Approximately a year
later, in December, 1978, another national Harris poll showed that
the level of concerned had increased to 64 percent (Harris, 1979, p. 12).
Table 15 compares the results of these respective national polls with
this study's finding.
Privacy as a Bastc Right
The right of personal privacy is not specified in the Bill of
Rights of the Constitution of the United States. To gain another dimen
sion to the measure of the concern of Arizona residents for their
privacy, they were asked whether or not the right to privacy should be
added to the list of rights to 1 ife, liberty, and the pursuit of happi
ness. Table 16 shows that by a sizable majority of 73.7 percent to 11
percent, the respondents feel the right to privacy should be added.
Furthermore, it is statistically shown with 99 percent confidence that
between 69 percent and 79 percent of all Arizona residents would agree
that the right to privacy should be added to the Constitution as a basic
right. The results of this finding further validate that personal
privacy is a serious concern among Arizona residents.
Table 15. Comparison of National and Arizona Pub1 ic Concern With Threats to Personal Privacy
76
January, 1978 December, 1978 Arizona 1981 Ha rr i s Po 11 Ha rr i s Po 11 Survey
Ve ry Conce rn ed 25% 31% 49.9% Somewhat Concerned 22 33 37.5
Total Concerned 47 64 87.4
Only a Little Concerned 24 17 11.8 Not Sure 1 1
Table 16. Should Privacy Be a Basic "Right" in This Society
Question: This country was founded on the belief that the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were fundamental for both the individual and a just society. Do you think we should, or should not, add today the right to privacy to this list?
Should add the right to privacya I Should not add the right to privacy Not Sure
Total Opinions
No Responses
RESPONSES Number Pe rcen ta ge s
261 73.7 39 11.0 54 15.3
354 100.0
5
77
aNinety-nine percent confidence tha: the proportion of all Arizona residents agreeing that the right to p-ivacy should be added is between 69 and 79 percent.
The Personal Relationships of Arizona Residents in a Privacy Context
Considering that privacy can be perceived as a complex concept
involving the social contract of relationships between individuals and
the society in which they reside, a serres of questrons were asked to
78
determine if it is possible for Arizona residents to maintain a balance
between their needs for privacy and their needs for social contact.
The study findings suggest that most Arizona residents feel that they
do and can maintain such a balance.
As shown in Table 17, a substantial majority of 88.2 percent of
the respondents feel they are IIgenerally able to be by themselves when
they need to be." Further, 88 percent feel they have "someone they can
share their personal problems with when required," and 79.4 percent feel
they "have contact with people who care about them." A smaller but
still solid majority of 67.3 percent of the respondents do not feel
"there is so much noise in today's world that they have 1 ittle peace
and quiet." A sizable majority of 83.3 percent of the res'pondents do
not feel that IItheir neighbors know too much about thei'r personal lives,"
and 75.3 percent do not feel that "their employers know too many per-
sonal things about them." Also, a 77.9 majority of the respondent do
not feel "sometimes that someone is watching them or recording what they
do."
An interesting observation noted from this series of questions
was the small plurality of 47.1 percent of the respondents who do think
"some decisions are being made wrongly about them on the basis of i'n-
formation that they don't know about." When considering 29 percent
79
Table 17. How Arizona Residents Feel About Their Ability to Maintain a Balance Between Personal Privacy Needs and Social Contact Needs
Question: For each of the fol lowing statements please indicate if it expresses the way you yourself feel, or not.
I have someone I can share my personal problems with when I need to. a
I am generally able to be by myself b when I need to be.
There is so much noise in today's world that I have 1 ittle peace and quiet. c
I think some decisions are being made wrongly about me on the basis of information that I don't knowabout. d
I don't have much contact with people who care about me. e
I sometimes feel someone is watching me or reco rd i ng what I do. f
My employer knows too many personal things about me.g
RESPONSES
Expresses the. Does Not Express Not Number Way I Feel the \~ay I Feel Sure
358 88.0% 8.4% 3.6%
356 88.2 10. 1 1.7
355 26.2 67.3 6.5
355 29.0 47.1 23.9
355 16.9 79.4 3.7
353 13.9 77.9 8.2
332 14.2 75.3 10.5
Table 17--Continued
My neighbors know too much about my pe rsona 1 1 i fe . h
RESPONSES
Expresses the Numbe r Way I Fee 1
354 8.8%
Does not Express the Way I Feel
83.3%
80
Not Sure
7.9%
aNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents that would agree this statement expresses the way they feel is between 84 percent and 92 percent.
bNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents that would agree this statement expresses the way they feel i"s between 84 percent and 92 percent.
cNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents thQt would agree this statement does not express the way they feel is between 61 percent and 73 percent.
dNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents that would agree this statement does not express the way they feel is between 40 percent and 54 percent.
eNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents that would agree this statement does not express the way they feel is between 73 percent and 87 percent.
fNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents that would agree this statement does not express the way they feel is between 72 percent and 84 percent.
gNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents that would agree this statement does not express the way they feel is between 69 percent and 81 percent.
hNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents that would agree this statement does not express the way they feel is between 78 percent and 88 percent.
81
responded positively and 23.9 percent were not sure, there is reason
to suggest some degree of uncertainty amongst many Arizona residents
in this regard.
Still, the overall results indicate that Arizona restdents, as
a whole, do not feel paranotd about their personal privacy. They
generally feel they have privacy when they want it, and social contact
when they want it. On the basis of t,hiS finding, it would appear that
the concern of Arizona residents about threats to their personal privacy
is primarily institution based.
Privacy tna Moral Context
Social issues with moral and .privacy implicatlons are a continual
part of an evolving society. To gain a perspective on how Ari.zona resi-
dents feel about such issues, they were provided a list of activities
identifiable with contemporary moral and privacy implicati'ons and asked
if they should be matters of private choice, or regulated by law, or
totally forbidden by law. The results indicate that, for the most part,
Arizona residents believe that "non-public" activities of a "moral"
nature should be left to the individual to decide, and should not be
decided by law. Table 18 shows a large majority of 85.2 percent of the
respondents bel ieve that "heterosexual relations in private between con-
senting adults" is an area of private choice and should be left to the
individual to decide. Similarly, a 71.9 percent majority feel that
"homosexual relations in private between consenting adults" should be a
matter of private choice as opposed to being regulated or forbidden by
law. A smaller but still sizable majority of 63.6 percent feel a
Table 18. How Arizona Residents Feel About Contemporary Social Issues Involving Moral and Privacy Imp1 ications
,Question: The following list includes activities which some people feel are matters of private choice or consent that ought
82
to be left to the individual. Other people feel they should be regulated by law, and others reel they should be forbidden by law altogether. As you read each activity please indicate the phrase which best describes how you feel the activity should be treated--shou1d it be left to the individual, should it be allowed but regulated by law, or should it be totally forbidden by law?
Riding a motorcycle without a protective he1meta
Engag!ng !n b prostitution
Smoking marijuana in a private residencec
Heterosexual relations in private between consenting adu1tsd
Homosexual relations in private between consenting adu1tse
H • b· f aVlng an a ortlon
Number
356
356
357
358
356
355
Left to the Individual
44.6%
31.8
46.8
85.2
71.9
63.6
RESPONSES
Allowed but Regulated
by Law
22.5%
39.3
17.3
1.7
3.1
19.2
Tota 11 y Forbi dden
by Law
31.2%
24.7
31.1
8.9
20.8
14.7
Not Sure
1. 7%
4.2
4.8
4.2
4.2
2.5
83
Table l8--Continued
RESPONSES
A 1 lowed but Totally Left to the Regulated Forbidden Not
Number I nd i vi dua I by Law .. by Law Sure
Sel ling pornographic magazines and films in book storesg 358 24.0% 35.5% 37.7% 2.8%
aNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents which feel this activity should be left to the individual is between 38 percent and 25 percent.
bNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents which feel this activi·ty should be allowed but regulated by law is between 32 percent and 46 percent.
cNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents which feel this activity should be left to the tndividual is between 40 percent and 54 percent.
dNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents which feel this activity should be left to the individual is between 80 percent and 90 percent.
eNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents which feel this activity should be left to the individual is between 66 percent and 78 percent.
fNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents which feel this activity should be left to the individual is between 57 percent and 71 percent.
gNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents which feel this activity should be totally forbidden by law is between 31 percent and 45 percent.
84
decision on "having an abortion" should be left to the indi.vidua1. A
plural ity of 46.8 percent feel "smoking marijuana in a private resi-
dence ll should be left to the individual, whi 1e 31.1 percent feel it
should be totally forbidden by law, and 17.3 percent feel it s:hou1d be
allowed but regulated by law.
In contrast, there is disagreement as to private individual
decisions versus decisions by law on activities that have a public
dimension. On "riding a motorcycle without a protective helmet," 44.6
percent feel the decision should be left to the individual, 31.2 percent
feel this activity should be totally forbidden by law, and 22.5 percent
feel this activity should be allowed but regulated by law. A plurality
of 39.3 percent of the respondents feel lIengaging in prostitution"
should be allowed but regulated by law, while 31.8 percent feel th.is
activity should be left to the indfvidua1, and 24.7 percent feel thi.s
activity should be totally forbidden by law. Also, a plurality of 37.7
percent feel "se 11 ing pornographi"c magazines and fi 1ms in book stores"
should be totally forbidden by law, while 35.5 percent feel this activi
ty should be allowed but regulated by law, and 24 percent feel this
activity should be left to the individual to decide.
Actual Experiences of Arizona Residents With Improper Invasions 6f Privacy
Arizona residents were asked if they personally have ever felt
they were a victim of an improper invasion of privacy. As shown in
Table 19, a majority of 56.3 percent of the respondents believe they
have been a victim of an improper invasion of privacy. Through statis-
tical inference, it is found with 99 percent confidence that between 49
85
Table 19. Whether Arizona Residents Feel They Have Been a Victim of an Improper Invasion of Privacy
Question: Have you personally ever been the victim of what you felt was an improper invasion of privacy?
RESPONSES
Number Percentage
Yes, Have been a victim a 203 56.5 No, never have been a victim 113 31.5 Not sure ~ 12.0
Total opinions 359 100.0
No responses 0
aNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of a11 Arizona residents who feel they have been a victim of improper invasion of privacy is between 49 percent and 65 percent.
percent and 65 percent of all Arizona residents would agree to being
a victim of an improper invasion of privacy.
86
The respondents were also asked to identify the type of organi
zation or authority which was involved in their invasion of privacy.
Table 20 provides the results to this question. By far, "te1ephone/
door-to-door sales pitches" and "junk mail/mail order" were listed more
than any other responses. Over 56 percent of those responding to this
question identified "te1ephone/door-to-door sales pitches" as an inva
sion of privacy. Over 38 percent identified "Junk mail/mail order" as
an invasior of privacy.
Of the government institutions, the Internal Revenue Service was
most i dent i fi ed as an invader, by 11.6 percent of the res.pondents. The
federal government was identified by 10.2 percent of the respondents,
followed by state government by 6 percent, and county/city government
by 4 percent. Interestingly, the "pol ice department/search without
warrants" was identi'fied as a privacy invader by only 4.8 percent of the
respondents.
Of those industries identified in this study as privacy inten
sive, insurance companies were identified as an invader by 14.8 percent
of respondents, followed closely by credit bureaus at 13.4 percent. The
place of "employment/employer" was identified by 8.2 percent of the
respondents as a privacy invader. Collection agencies were identified
as an invader by 7.4 percent of the respondents.
Other privacy invaders included "burglary" cited by 19.4 percent
of the respondents; "personal gossip" cited by 16.5 percent of the
Table 20.. Drganization or Authority Involved in Invasion of Privacy
Question: If you have been a victim, what type of organization or authority was involved?
(number of respondents = 352)
Telephone/door-to-door sales pitches Junk mail/mail order Burglary Personal gossip Insurance company Credit bureau Reta i 1 company I've purchased goods or
services from Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Invasion of home by various people Federal government Place of employment/employer Collection agencies State government Police department/search wtthout warrants School Hospital Church County/city government The press/media Any other answer Not sure
Percentage of Responses
56.5 38.6 19.4 16.5 14.8 13.5
12.2 11.6 11.4 10..2 8.2 7.4 6.0. 4.8 4.5 4.3 4.0. 4.0. 2.8 5.4 1.7
87
88
respondents, and " re tai1 company lIve purchas,ed goods or services from"
cited by 12.2 percent of the respondents.
Personal Privacy Relative to Government in the Future
This section addresses Research Question 1:6 and 1:7. That is,
how close to a "Big Brother" society do Arizona residents feel we are,
and what will be the ability of individuals to maintain their privacy
in relation to the government 10 years from now. These questions were
asked to determine what Arizona residents feel their privacy situation
relative to government will be like in the future. The results show
that Arizona residents are pessimistic about'their ability to maintain
their personal privacy from government in the near future.
Table 21 shows that 43.5 percent of the respondents feel we are
"somewhat c1ose" to a "Big Brother Society;" 26.9 percent feel we are
livery c1ose," and; 9.3 percent feel "we are there a1ready." A mere 15.2
percent feel we are "not at all c1ose." Further, there Is 99 percent
confidence that between 64 percent and 76 percent of all Arizona resi-
dents feel we are either livery c1ose" or "somewhat c1ose. 1I
Table 22 shows that 51.7 percent of the respondents feel they
wi 11 have lost much of their privacy relative to unreasonable government
invasion 10 years hence. There is 99 percent confidence that the pro
portion of all Arizona residents that would agree is between 44 percent
and 60 percent.
Table 21. How Close He Are to a "Big Brother" Society
Question: In a book entitled 1984 by George Orwell, virtually all personal privacy had been lost and the government, called IIBig Brother,11 knew almost everythin..9 that everyone was doing. Whether or not you have read the book, which of the following expressions best describe how close you think we are to that kind of society?
We are there already Very close Somewhat closea
Not at all close Not sure
Total opinions
No responses
RESPONSES
Number Percentage
33 9.3 96 26.9
155 43.5 54 15.2 18 5. 1 --
356 100.0
3
89
aNinety-nine percent confidence that t1e proportion of all Arizona residents who feel we are somewhat close to a "Big Brother" society is between 36 percent and 52 percent. F~rther, there is 99 percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents who feel we are either very close or somewhat close is between 64 percent and 76 percent.
Table 22. Abil ity of Arizona Residents to Maintain Their Privacy in Relation to the Government 10 Years From Now
Question: When you think about what life in the U.S. and Arizona will be like 10 years from now, do you believe we will still be able to keep our privacy free from unreasonable invasion by government?
Will have lost much privacya Will still be able to keep privacy Not sure
Total opinions
No responses
RESPONSES
Number Percentages
185 51.7 121 33.8 52 14.5
358 100.0
90
aNinety-nine percent confidence that the protection of all Arizona residents who feel they will have lost much privacy is between 44 percent and 60 percent.
Summary
An overwhelming majority of Arizona residents are concerned
about threats to their personal privacy. There is evidence to suggest
that personal privacy is an issue of serious concern among Arizona
residents. A large majority of Arizona residents feel that the right
91
of privacy should be added to the list of rights provided in the
Constitution. Arizona residents, as a wbole, do not feel paranoid about
their personal privacy. They are generally able to maintain a balance
between their needs for privacy and their needs for social contact. It
appears that the concern of Arizona residents about threats to their
personal privacy is primarily institution based. For the most part,
Arizona residents believe that "non-public" activities of a "moral"
nature should be left to the individual to decide, and should not be
determined by law. A majority of Arizona residents believe they have,
at one time or another, been a victim of an improper invasion of privacy.
The most often cited invader was telephone and door-to-door sales pitches,
followed by junk mail and mail order activities. The most often cited
private institution invaders were insurance companies, the credit
bureau, and retail companies that residents have purchased goods or
services from. The most often cited publ ic institution invaders were
the Internal Revenue Service, and the federal government as a whole.
Arizona residents are pessimistic about their ability to maintain their
privacy from government in the near future. A sizable majority of
Arizona residents feel we are relatively close to a "Big Brother"
society, and a close to slight majority believe we will have lost much
of our ability to keep our privacy free from unreasonable invasion by
government ten years hence.
92
CHAPTER 5
HOW ARIZONA RESIDENTS FEEL GOVERNMENT AND BUSINESS IMPACT
ON THEIR PERSONAL PRIVACY
The second objective of this study was to find how Arizona
residents feel
which of these
government and business limpact
organizations are handling the
on their privacy, and
individua1's data re-
sponsib1y, and which are not. Each of the preceding sections addresses
the specific research questions delineated for this objective.
Degree to which Arizon, Residents Trust Government to Use Personal Information Properly
Arizona residents are genera11~ worried about how government
will use the personal information they collect on its citizens. Table
23 shows that only 30.2 percent of the respondents IIpretty much trust"
government, as opposed to 50.8 percent who feel "I am worried." There
is 99 percent confidence that between 44 percent and 58 percent of all
Arizona residents are worried about governments' improper use of the
personal information they collect on people. Over 12 percent of the
respondents were "not sure," and 6.4 percent feel their trust "depends."
Those that chose the "it depends" response primarily stated such depen-
dence factors as: what government agency was involved; the nature of
the information and why and how it is to be used, and; waht safeguards
exist to assure proper use of the information. Thus, it would appear
that Arizona residents have a low degree of trust toward governments'
proper use of the personal information they gather on people.
93
Table 23. Whether Arizona Residents Trust Government to Use Personal Information Properly
Question: On the whole, when it comes to our government--federal state~ county, and city--collecting personal information about you, would you say you pretty much trust them to use it properly, or that you are worried about how they will use it?
Pretty much trust them I am worrieda Not sure It depends
Total opinions
No responses
RESPONSES
Number Percentage
108 30.2 182 50.8 45 12.6
..1l 6.4
358 100.0
94
aNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents who are worried is between 44 percent and 58 percent.
General Issues Regarding the Collection and Use of Personal Data by Public and Private
Institutions Which Concern Arizona Residents
To ascertain which general issues regarding the collection and
use of personal data by public and private institutions are of concern
to Arizona residents, respondents w~re presented a series of privacy-
related statements and questioned on agreement. Table 24 provides the
results of this questioning. As shown, the respondents agree by a
69.2 percent to 16.2 percent margin that "most organizations collect
more sensitive information than is necessary." They also feel, by a
71.2 percent to 13.4 percent margin, that "some people are prevented
from getting fair treatment because of past mistakes kept too long on
the i r records. II
It is also apparent that the respondents are not convinced, by
a 76.4 percent to 18.3 percent margin, that "it is proper to collect a
great deal of sensitive personal information about people in order to
provide credit, insurance, or employment. 1I The respondents do not
feel, by a 68.5 percent to 16.2 percent margin that, "most people who
complain about their privacy being invaded are engaged in illegal or
immoral activities."
95
The respondents do agree by a sl immer margin of 47.7 percent to
40.2 percent that, "in order to have effective law enforcement, every-
one should be prepared to accept some intrusion into their personal
1 ives. " They also are convinced, by a 77.9 percent to 15.1 percent
margin, that "Americans begin surrendering their personal privacy the
day they open their first charge account, take out a loan, buy something
on an installment plan, or apply for a credit card.
Table 24. Agreement of Arizona Residents With Various Privacy-Related Statements
Question: As you read each of the following statements, please indicate whether you agree or disagree with them.
RESPONSES
96
Number Agree Disagree Not Sure
Some people are prevented from
I
getting fair treatment because of past mistakes kept too long on their records. a
Americans begin surrendering their personal privacy the day they open their first charge account, take out a loan, buy something on an installment plan, or apply for a credit ca rd. b
Most organizations that collect information about people ask for more sensitive information than is necessary.c
In order to have effective law enforcement, everyone should be prepared to accept some intru- d sion into their personal 1 ives.
In order to provide credit, insurance, or employment, it is proper to collect a great deal of sensitive personal information about people.e
Most organizations that use information about people have enough checks and safeguards against the misuse of personal information. f
357
357
357
356
356
354
71.2% 13.4% 15.4%
77.9 15. 1 7.0
69.2 16.2 14.6
47.7 40.2 12. 1
18.3 76.4 5.3
19.2 55. 1 25.7
97
Table 24--Continued
RESPONSES
Number Agree Oi sagree Not Sure
Most people who complain about their privacy being invaded are engaged in illegal qr immora 1 activities.g 356 16.2% 68.5% 15.2%
aNinety-nine percent confidence that thel proportion of all Arizona residents which agree with this statement is between 65 percent and 77 percent.
bNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents which agree with this statement is between 72 percent and 84 percent.
cNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents which agree with this statement is between 63 percent and 75 percent.
dNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents which agree with this statement is between 41 percent and 55 percent.
eNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents which disagree with this statement is between 70 percent and 82 percent.
fNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents which disagree with this statement is between 48 percent and 62 percent.
gNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents which disagree with this statement is between 63 percent and 75 percent.
98
Thus it would appear that Arizona residents, in general, have
an inferior level of trust toward government and business in their
collection and use of personal data about people. They are will ing to
accept some intrusion into their personal 1 ives in order to have effec-
t i ve 1 aw enforcement. Yet, it appears that Ar i zona res i dents fee I the
intrusions of government and business into their personal privacy has
gone beyond that which they feel is reasonable.
The Fairness of Required Personal Information on Appli:cations for Employment, Credit or Insurance
The dissatisfaction which Arizona residents feel toward the
collection and use of personal data by public and private institutions
is further evident in Table 25 in which a significant percentage of
respondents felt, at one time or another when they had applied for
employment, credit, or insurance, that the inf0rmation being required
on applications was unfair. Nearly 44 percent of the respondents felt
the information being required was unfair. There is 99 percent confi-
dence that between 37 percent and 51 percent of all Arizona resi"dents
would agree. Certainly these figures reinforce the need for government
and business to re-evaluate the propriety of such applications.
The Willingness of Arizona Residents to Provide Personal Information in Return for
Employment, Credit, or Insurance
It is recognized that much of personal privacy is concerned with
"trade-offs." That is, people are wi 11 ing to give up personal informa-
tion in order to gain a particular benefit or service. To generally
learn to what extent Arizona residents are willing to make this
Table 25. The Fairness of Information Being Required on App1 ications for Employment, Credit, or Insurance
Question: In the past when you applied for employment, credit, or insurance, have you every felt the information being required on the applications was fair or unfair?
Fe 1 tin fo rmat i on was fa i r Felt information was unfaira
Not sure
Total opinions
No responses
RESPONSES
Number Percentage
165 46.4 156 43.8 -.l2. 9.8
356 100.0
3
aNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents who feel information was ·unfair is between 37 percent and 51 percent.
99
100
"trade-off," respondents were asked if they "have ever not appl ied for
something, like a job, credit, or insurance because they did not want
to provide certain kinds of information about themselves." Table 26
shows that 23.6 percent of the respondents had on occasion not made
such an application for this reason. There is 99 percent confidence
that between 19 percent to 29 percent of all Arizona residents have done
thusly. Although a minority, clearly the high probability of one of
fl:lur foregoing applications is a significant enough figure to serve as
an early warning signal to government and business that other methods
should be considered to qualify people for jobs or evaluate them for
credit or insurance.
Which Governmental and Private Sector Organizations are Thought by Arizona
Residents to Ask for too Much Personal Information
It was earlier noted that 69.2 percent of the respondents feel
that most organizations which collect information about people ask for
more sensitive information than is necessary. To learn which govern-
mental and private sector organizations are thought to ask for too much
personal information, respondents were provided a list of such organiza-
tions and asked if they felt they asked for too much or limited their
personal information gathering to what is necessary. Table 27 shows
that media sources was the most listed as asking for too much personal
information. By a majority margin of 52.7 percent to 18.6 percent, the
respondents feel media sources ask for too much personal information.
This may reflect that citizens, in general, feel that the reporting of
personal aspects in the lives of those in the news has exceeded fair
bounds.
101
Table 26. Whether Arizona Residents Have Ever Not Applied for Something Due to Required Personal Information
Question: Have you ever decided not to apply for something, like a job, credit, or insurance, because you did not want to provide certain kinds of information about yourself?
a Yes, has happended No, has not happened Can1t remember/not sure
Total opinions
No responses
RESPONSES
Number Percentage
84 23.6 245 68.8 .Il. 7.6
356 100.0
3
aNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents who have had this happen is between 19 percent and 29 percent.
102
Table 27. Which Organizations Ask For too Much Personal Information
Question: The following is a list of organizations or individuals which sometimes collect or use information about people. For each of these please i nd i cate if you feel they 1 imit their personal information gathering about individuals to what is really necessary, or whether they ask for too much personal information?
Med i a sou rces (i. e • , newspapers, magazines, radio, television)
Credit bureaus
In te rna 1 Revenue Service
Finance companies
Census bu reau
Insurance companies
Credit card companies
Hospitals
State government regulatory agencies (i .e., Corporation Commission, Department of Revenue, Department of Health Servi ces)
Law enforcement agencies (i . e., 1 oca 1 po 1 ice, state police, federal pol ice)
Ask for too Much Personal
Numbe r Info rmat ion
349
351
354
353
354
335
355
355
351
354
52.7%
45.0
43.8
43.3
41.0
34.9
33.8
30.2
29.1
29. 1
RESPONSES
Li mi t Personal I nformat i on
Gathering to Not What is Necessary Sure
18.6%
36.5
43.5
38.3
50.2
55.5
55.8
56.6
35.0
43.5
28.7%
18.5
12.7
18.4
8.8
9.6
10.4
13 .2
35.9
27.4
103
Table 27--Continued
RESPONSES
Limit Personal Ask for too Information
Much Personal Gathering to Not Number I n format ion What is Necessary Sure
Employers 353 28.6% 58.9% 12.5%
Government welfare agencies 350 26.3 31.4 42.3
Banks 354 26.0 65.0 9.0
Schools 352 21.6 63.1 15.3
Social Security Admi n i strat ion 353 20.4 56.4 23.2
The telephone company 353 18.4 68.6 13.0
Elected state/county city officials (i . e. , Senators, Representa-tives, Supervisors, Council Members) 351 18.2 39.0 42.8
Pr i vate doc to rs 354 15.3 75.7 9.0
l04
Among the credit industry, credit bureaus and finance companies
received plurality measures as asking for too much personal information.
Credit bureaus were cited by 45 percent of the respondents, and finance
companies by 43.5 percent. Credit card companies were cited by 33.8
percent of respondents as too demanding. Banks were cited by one in
four respondents, 26 percent, as asking for too much personal informa-
The insurance industry also received a fair degree of criticism.
Although a majority of 55.5 percent feel that insurance companies limit
thei r personal information gathering to what is really necessary, a
sizable 34.9 percent of the respondents feel that they ask for too much
p"rsonal information.
Government institutions received varying degress of criticism.
A plurality of respondents, 43.8 percent, feel that the Internal Revenue
Service asks for too much personal information. Forty-one percent of
respondents feel the Census Bureau is too demanding for personal infor
mation. There were large percentages of respondents who are uncertain
if the state government regulatory agencies, government welfare agencies,
and elected state, county, and city officials ask for too much personal
information or not. The Social Security Administration received the
least criticism among government agencies. A majority of 56.4 percent
of the respondents feel that the Social Security Administration limits
their personal information gathering to what is necessary.
Employers received some critlcsm. Over 28 percent of the
respondents feel that employers ask for too much personal information.
105
Private doctors received the least criticism of all those listed.
Only 15.3 percent of the respondents feel that private doctors ask for
too much personal information. However, hospitals received a much
greater amount of criticism with 30.2 percent of the respondents feeling
they ask for too much personal information.
Which Governmental and Private Sector Organizations Do Arizona Residents Feel Should Be Doing More to Maintain Confidential ity of perlsonal Information
The same 1 ist of government and private sector organizations
used to ask respondents which organizations ask for too much personal
information was used in asking respondents which of such organizations
are doing enough or should be doing more to maintain the confidential ity
of· the personal information they maintain on individuals. With minor
differences, as illustrated in Table 28, the extent to which the respon-
dents feel government and business collect too much personal informaI
tion, as shown in Table 27, is the extent to which they feel those
organizations should be doing more to protect the confidentiality of
this information. However, the respondents feel much stronger about
the protection of this information than the collection of too much
personal information.
By the largest majority margin of 56 percent to 15.5 percent,
the respondents feel media sources should be doing more to keep the
personal information they have on individuals confidential. By a
majority margin of 52.7 percent to 20.2 percent, they feel credit
bureaus should also be doing more. By large plural ity margins the
respondents feel the following should be doing more: credit card
Table 28. Which Organizations Should Be Doing More to Maintain Confidential ity of Personal Information
Question: For the same list would you please indicate whether you feel each is currently doing enough to keep the personal information they have on fndividuals confidential, or should they be doing more?
RESPONSES
Should Be Doing
106
Number Doing More Enough Not Sure
Media sources (i .e., newspapers, magazines, radio, television)
Cred it bu reaus
Credit card companies
Finance companies
Law enforcement agencies ( i . e ., 1 oca 1 po 1 i ce , state police, federal po 1 ice)
Insurance companies
Internal Revenue Service
Government welfare agencies
Employers
Census Bureau
Banks
Hospitals
State government regulatory agencies (i .e., Corporation Commission, Department of Revenue, Department of Health Services)
348
351
352
352
349
351
353
349
351
351
351
350
351
56.0%
52.7
48.9
48.9
40.7
40.2
39.4
37.3
36.8
33.9
33.1
32.3
31.1
15.5%
20.2
24.7
19.8
29.2
29.9
30.6
22.9
39.6
35.3
39.3
37.7
26.5
28.5%
27.1
26.4
31.3
30.1
29.9
30.0
39.8
23.6
30.8
27.6
30.0
42.4
107
Table 28--Continued
RESPONSES
Should be Doing Number Doing More Enough Not Sure
The telephone company 351 29.9% 41 .0% 29.1%
Social Security Administra-tion 352 29.8 34.4 35.8
Schools 351 28.5 39.6 31.9
Elected state/county/city officials ( i . e ., Sena to rs , Representatives, Supervi sors, Council Members) 349 27.2 27.5 45.3
Private doctors 352 23.0 52.3 24.7
108
companies by a 48.9 percent to 24.7 percent margin; finance companies
by a 48.9 percent to 19.8 percent margin; law enforcement agencies by
a 40.7 percent to 29.2 percent margin; insurance companies by a 40.2
percent to 29.9 percent margin; the Internal Revenue Service by a 39.4
percent to 30.6 percent margin; government welfare agencies by a 37.3
percent to 22.9 percent margin, and; state government regulatory agen-
ci1es by a 31.1 percent to 26.5 pervent margin.
By a majority margin of 52.3 percent to 23 percent, the re-
spondents feel private doctors are doing enough to keep the personal
information they have on individuals confidential. By plurality margins,
most of which were slim margins, the respondents feel the following are
doing enough: employers by a 39.6 percent to 36.8 percent margin; the
Census Bureau by a 35.3 percent to 33.9 percent margin; banks by a 39.3
percent to 33.1 percent margin; hospitals by a 37.7 percent to 32.3
percent margin; the telephone company by a 41 percent to 29.9 percent
margin; the Social Security Administration by a 34.4 percent to 29.8
percent margin; schools by a 39.6 percent to 28.5 percent margin, and;
elected state, county, and city officials by a 27.5 percent to 27.2
percent margin.
The data also reflects that there is a great deal of uncertainty
among Arizona residents as to what government and business are doing
to maintain the confidentiality of personal information they maintain.
This would suggest that government and business should consider com-
municating with the public as to what safeguards they employ to secure
the confidentiality of personal information, particularly in light of
109
the public's high level of concern for personal privacy and low level
of trust for government and business information management.
Summary
Arizona residents are generally worried about how government
will use the personal information they collect on people. They bel ieve
that they begin surrendering their personal privacy the day they open
their first charge account, take out a loa~, buy something on an
installment plan, or apply for a credit card. In general, Arizona
residents have an inferior level of trust toward government and bustness
in their collection and use of personal data about people. They are
will ing to accept some intrusion into their lives in exchange for effec-
tive law enforcement, but there is indication that Arizona residents
feel the degree of intrusion by government and business has gone beyond
that which is considered reasonable.
A significant proportion of Arizona residents have one time or
another felt the personal information being required on employment,
credit, or insurance applications was unfair. As a result, between 19
percent and 29 percent of all Arizona residents have, one time or
another, foregone making such applications because they did not want
to provide certain kinds of information about themselves. This would
suggest that government and business should consider new methods to
qual ify people for jobs or evaluate them for credit or insurance.
Arizona residents feel that most organizations which collect
information about people ask for more sensitive information than is
necessary. Those organizations most criticized for asking for too
110
much personal information include media sources, credit bureaus,
Internal Revenue Service, and finance companies. Those organizations
which Arizona residents feel should be doing more to keep the personal
information they have on individuals confidential include: media
sources; credit bureaus; credit card companies; finance companies;
law enforcement agencies; insurance companies; the Internal Revenue
Service; government welfare agencies, and; state government regulatory
agencies. It is also apparent that Arizona residents are generally
not knowledgeable as to what government and business are doing to
maintain the confidentiality of the personal information they mai"ntain
on individuals. This suggests that government and business should con
sider communicating to the publ ic what safeguards they do employ.
Such action could be instrumental in raising the inferior level of trust
which Arizona residents have toward government and business information
management of personal data.
CHAPTER 6
HOW ARIZONA RESIDENTS FEEL ABOUT THEIR EMPLOYER/EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP RELATIVE TO
THEIR PERSONAL PRIVACY
The third objective of the study was to find how Arizona
residents feel about their employer to employee relationship relative
to their personal privacy. Three dimensions of this relationship are
explored from the perspectives of Arizona residents. The propriety of
the personal information being collected by employers is explored.
Secondly, the extent to which employers are thought to keep personal
information confidential is examined. Thirdly, the employees' rights
to have access to information about themselves held by their employers
is investigated. Each of the ensuing sections addressed one or more
of the specific research questions outlined in response to this
objective.
What Types of Personal Information Are Considered Proper and Improper For Employers
to Collect From Job Applicants
In the previous chapter it was shown that 28.6 percent of the
respondents feel that employers ask for too much personal information.
To explore this area further, respondents were asked to judge various
types of information requests on job applications as being proper or
improper for employers to ask.
111
112
As shown in Table 29, Arizona residents are adamant that
employers should not ask job applicants or seek the following types of
information: the type of neighborhood in which the applicant lives
was found improper by 85.4 percent of respondents; what kind of
friends the applicant has was found improper by 81.8 percent of re-
spondents; race was found improper by 74.1 percent of respondents;
ifformation about the applicant's spouse was found improper by 65.4
pl~rcent of respondents, and; memberships in political and community
organizations were considered an improper information request by 65
percent of respondents. By strong majorities, the respondents also
f(~el that the following types of information requests by employers are
i Inproper: records of arrests wi thout conv i ct ions were cons i dered
ilnproper by 59.6 percent of respondents; whether the appl icant owns or
mnts his residence was considered improper by 58.8 percent of re-
spondents; whether the applicant has ever received psychiatric or
psychological counseling was considered improper by 54.2 percent of
respondents; general credit-worthiness and ability to pay bills was
considered improper by 51.4 percent of respondents, and; the results
of psychological tests were considered improper by 51 percent of
respondents. By pluralities, the respondents feel it improper for
employers to request or seek information on an applicant's alcohol
drinking habits by a 49.2 percent to 46.3 percent margin, and evalu
ations of an applicant's mental stability by a 47.2 percent to 41.8
percent margin.
113
Table 29. Various Types of Information Considered Improper by Arizona Residents for Employers to Ask Job Applicants
Question: When someone applies for a job in business or government, do you think it is proper or improper for an employer to ask for the following types of information?
The type of neighborhood in which the applicant 1ivesa
What kind of friends the app 1 i cant hasa
Racea
Information about the a app1icant 1 s spouse
Memberships in politfcal and community organizationsa
Records of arrest wi thout . . a conviction
Whether the applicant owns or rents his or her residencea
Whether the applicant has even received psychiatric or psychological counsel ing
General credit-worthiness and ability to pay bills
The results of psychological tests
Drinking (alcohol) habits
Evaluations of mental stability
Whether the applicant is pregnant or not
Number
356
356
355
357
354
354
354
356
354
353
354
352
356
RESPONSES
Improp'er Proper Not Sure
85.4%
81.8
74. 1
65.4
65.0
59.6
58.8
54.2
51.4
51.0
49.2
47.2
43.5
11 .8%
12.9
23.1
27.0
30.0
32.8
37.5
34.0
42.4
35.4
46.3
41.8
5Q.0
2.8%
5.3
2.8
7.6
5.0
7.6
3.7
11.8
6.2
13 .6
4.5
11.0
6.5
Table 29--Continued
Whether the applicant uses illegal drugs
Height and weightb
b Mari tal status
b Age
b Sex
The applicant's military discharge statusb
Medical reports on current physical condition and past medical historyb
The results of tests whfch measure the ability of peop1eb to do different types of jobs
References from the applicant's former employers b
Employment historyb
b Educational background
Number
354
355
356
354
354
354
354
354
354
353
355
114
RESPONSES
Improper Proper Not Sure
41.5%
38.9
38.5
33.3
31.3
30.2
28.6
14.4
9.9
5.4
3.9
54.2%
56. 1
59.3
63.6
66.9
63.0
61.8
80.2
85.6
91.2
94.9
4.3%
5.0
7.2
3. 1
2.0
6.8
9.6
5.4
4.5
3.4
1.2
aNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Ari"zona residents which would consider this type of information improper to ask a job applicant is 50 percent or more.
bNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents which would consider this type of fnformation proper to ask a job appl icant is 50 percent or more.
115
Arizona residents do recognize the employer's need, from job
applicants, for the following types of information: educational
background; employment history; references from the applicant's former
employer; the results of tests which measure the ability of people to
do different types of jobs; medical reports on current physical con-
dition and past medical history; the applicant's military discharge
status; sex; age; marital status, and; height and weight.
An interesting observation of this question was that a slight
majority of 50 percent, as opposed to 43.5 percent, of respondents
feel it proper to seek information as to whether the applicant is
pregnant or not. Also, a majority of 54.2 percent of the respondents,
as opposed to 41.5 percent, feel it proper for the employer to seek
information as to whether an applicant uses illegal drugs.
At a minimum, the results of this questioning suggest that
employers should be more sensitive to what information they are
seeking from job applicants. Further, the results provide reason for
employers to seek other than the traditional ways to determine whether
or not an applicant would make a good employee.
Should Certain Information Gathering Practices of Employers Be Illegal
The respondents were provided a list of controversial prac-
tices that have been used by business and government to gain infor-
mation on and from employees, and asked if these practices should
or should not be forbidden by law. Table 30 shows that the respon-
dents, by a substantial majority of 89.4 percent to 7 percent, feel
116
Table 30. Whether Various Information Gathering Practices Employed by Business and Government Employers Should Be 11 legal
Question: The following is a list of some practices that have been used by business and government agencies for dtfferent reasons. For each, please indIcate if you feel they should, or should not, be forbidden by law?
RESPONSES
Should be Should Not Not Sure
I Number Forbidden be Forbidden
---------Listening tn on the conversations of employees to find out what they think about their supervisors and managersa
Askrng a job applicant tOb take a psychological test
Askirg a job applicant to take a polygraph/Ire detec.tor testC
Keep iing a closed c ircu it television watch on the work or sales floor to prevent theft and pilfering by employeesd
Installing closed circuit television to obtain continuous checks on how fast workers performe
357 89.4%
354 39.3
355 45.6
355 26.7
356 59.3
7.Q% 3.6%
40. 1 20.6
33.0 21.4
62.0 11.3
27.5 13.2
Table 30--Continued
Number
RESPONSES
Should be Forbidden
Should Hot be Forbidden
117
Not Sure
Requiring an employee to take a lie detector test when there is suspicion of theft in his or her depart-
_m_en_t_f _________________________ 3_56 ______ 3_2_,6_%_I ______ 5_0_,O_~_o ______ 1_7_,_4_%_
aNinety-nine percent confidence the proportion of all Arizona residents which feel this activity should be forbidden is between 85 percent and 93 percent,
bNinety-nine percent confidence the proportion of all Arizona residents which feel this activity should not be forbidden is between· 33 percent and 47 percent,
cNinety-nine percent confidence the proportior of all Arizona residents which feel this activity should be forbidden is between 39 percent and 53 percent.
dN
, , Inety-nlne dents which percent and
percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona resifeel this activity should not be forbidden is between 55 69 percent,
eNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents which feel this activity should be forbidden is between 52 and 66 percent.
fN' , Inety-nlne dents which percent and
percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona resifeel this activity should not be forbidden is between 43 57 percent,
118
that the practice of listening in on the conversations of employees to
find out what they think about their supervisors and managers should be
forbidden by law. By a smaller but still solid majority margin of
59.3 percent to 27.5 percent, they believe a law should be enacted
which would forbid the installing of closed circuit television to
obtain continuous checks on how fast workers perform. In contrast,
the respondents, by a stornger majority margin of 62 percent to 26.7
percent, feel keeping a closed circuit television watch on the work
or sales floor to prevent theft and pilfering by employees should not
be forbidden. Likewise, they feel, by a 50 percent to 32.6 percent
margin, that requiring an employee to take a lie detector test when
there is suspicion" of theft in the employee's department should not be
forbidden. However, they do feel by a plurality margin of 45.6 percent
to 33 percent that asking a job applicant to take a lie detector test
should be forbidden. There was uncertainty among respondents as to
whether asking a job applicant to take a psychological test should or
should not be forbidden by law. Forty percent feel it should not be
forbidden, 39 percent feel it should be forbidden, and over 20 percent
are not sure.
The results suggest that employers should seek to improve
face-to-face techniques for taking issue with employees on unaccept
able productivity and behavior as opposed to covert practi~es or
dependence on electronic devices, which are perceived by employees as
being intrusive. It is interesting to note, however, that the re-
spondents, as employees, do not feel these electronic devices should
be forbidden when their use is to verify their honesty.
The Confidence of Arizona Residents in Employers Treating Personal Information Properly
To learn how much confidence Arizona residents have in
employers to properly treat the personal information they maintain on
their employees, respondents were asked two questions. First, they
were asked how likely it was that their employer had ever improperly
119
released information from their personnel file. As shown in Table 31,
54.1 percent of the respondents feel it is not at all likely. that this
had occurred. There is 99 percent confidence that between 47 percent
and 61 percent of all residents agree with this finding. Secondly,
the respondents were asked if they knew of any occasion when their
employer had unfairly used personal information about employees.
Table 32 shows that 71 percent of the respondents did not know of an
occasion. Further, there is 99 percent confidence that between 66
percent and 76 percent of all Arizona residents would not know of such
an occasion.
The results indicate that Arizona residents do have confidence
that their employers will use the personal information they have on
their employees fairly. There is less confidence, however, in
employers not making improper releases of information from their
personnel files.
Table 31. Ltkelihood of Employer Having Improperly Released Contents of Personnel Files
Question: How 1 ikely do you think it is that your employer has ever released any information from your personnel ftle improperly?
Very likelY Somewhat likely Not a'· all 1 ikel/ Not sure
Total opinions'
No responses
RESPONSES
Number
28 72
191 62
353
Percentage
7.9 20.4 54. 1 17.6
100.0
aNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents who feel it ·is not at all likely Is between 47 percent and 61 p ~rcent.
120
121
Table 32. Whether Employer Has Ever Used Personal Employee Information Unfa i r ly
Question: Do you know of any occasion when your employer used personal information about employees unfairly?
Yes, know of occasion No, don't know of occasiona
Not sure
Total opinions
No responses
RESPONSES
Number
61 250
1
41
352
7
Percentage
17.3 71.0 11.7
100.0
aNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents who don't know of an occasion is between 66 percent and 76 per~ cent.
Do Arizona Residents Feel They Have' Ever Been Refused a Job or Promotion Due to
Inaccurate, Out-of-Date, or Unfair Information
To gain a further dimension of the confidence Arizona resi-
dents have in their employers to use the personal information they
have on their employees fairly, respondents were asked whether they
have ever been turned down for a job or for a promotion because of
information about them which they felt was inaccurate, out-of-date,
122
or unfair. Table 33 shows that the majority of Arizona residents feel
that the information maintained by employers on employees is accurate,
up-to-date, and fair.
How Sensitive Are Arizona Residents About Their Salaries and Health Claims in the Employment Setting
To learn how sensitive Arizona res·idents are about their
salaries in an employment setting, respondents were asked how upset
they would be if employees' salaries were released. Table 34 shows
that 49.3 percent of the respondents would not be upset. In contrast,
20.6 percent would be very upset, and 24.8 percent would be somewhat
upset. Further, there is 99 percent confidence that between 42 per-
cent and 56 percent of all Arizona residents would not be upset. The
results suggest that salary disclosure at the work place can be a
sensitive issue with a significant percentage of Arizona residents.
In fact, there is 99 percent confidence that between 38 percent and 52
percent of all Arizona residents would either be very upset or some-
what upset.
123
Table 33. Whether Arizona Residents Feel They Have Been Refused a Job or Promotion Due to Inaccurate,Out-of-Date, or Unfair I nformat i on
Question: Have you ever been turned down for a job or for a promotion because of information about you wh.ich you felt was inaccurate, out-of-date, or unfair?
RESPONSES
Number Yes No Not Sure
Because of inaccurate i nformati'on a 348 12.6% 72.1% 15.3%
Because of out-of-date in format ion a 345 7.8 76.5 15.7
Because of unfair information a 349 15.5 70.2 14.3
aNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents which feel they have not been refused a job or promotion due to this type of information is 64 percent or more.
Table 34. Whether Arizona Residents Would Be Upset if Employees' Salaries Were Released
Question: How upset would you be if everybody at work knew how much you and all the other employees were paid?
RESPONSES
Number Percentage
Very uret 73 20.6 SomewhClt upset a 88 24.8 Not at a 11 upset 175 49.3 Not sure 19 5.3
Total opinions 355 100.0
No responses 4
124
aNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents who would not at all be upset ts between 42 percent and 56 percent. Further, there is 99 percent confidence that between 38 percent and 5:~ percent of all Arizona residents would express some level of being upset, either very upset or somewhat upset.
125
To learn how sensitive Arizona residents are about their
health insurance claims in a work setting, respondents were asked how
concerned they would be if their supervisor or some other member of
management saw such claims prior to being sent to the insurance com-
pany. Table 35 shows that there is sensitivity about supervisors or
management members seeing the health insurance claims of employees
prior to their being submitted to the insurance" company. The degree
of concern, however, appears to be low. A plurality of 34.5 percent of
the respondents reported they would be "not toe) concerned." Sti 11,
there is 99 percent confidence that between 64 percent and 76 percent
of all Arizona residents would feel some level of concern.
Although the concern exists, it is not of a high enough degree
to cause Arizona residents, as employees, to not submit claims for
wanting to keep the details of the claims private. Table 36 shows
that a vast majority of respondents have never not submitted a health
insurance claim to avoid disclosure of information about the claim to
management. There is 99 percent confidence that between 91 percent
and 97 percnet of all Arizona residents have not ever refused to sub-
mit such a claim under these circumstances.
Table 35. The Degree of Concern by Arizona Residents Over Management Seeing Insurance Claims
Question: How concerned are you that your supervisor or some other member of management at your place of work will see your health and medical insurance clai"ms before they are sent to the insurance company?
Very concerned Somewhat concerned Not too concerneda Not at all concerned Not sure
Total opinions
No responses
RESPONSES
Number
52 72
122 97 11
354 5
Percentage
14.7 20.2 34.5 27.4 3. I
100.0
126
aNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents who are not too concerned is between 28 percent and 42 percent. Further, there is 99 percent confidence that between 64 percent and 76 percent of all Arizona residents would express some level of concern, either very concerned, somewhat concerned, or not too concerned.
Table 36. Whether Arizona Residents Have Ever Not Submitted an Insurance Claim Because They Wanted the Details to Remain Private
Question: Have you ever not submitted a health insurance claim at your work place because you did not want your employer or other employees to know the details of the claim and treatment you received?
Yes, has happened a No, has not happened Not sure
Total opinions
No responses
RESPONSES
Number
13 331
7
351
8
Percentage
3.7 94.3 2.0
100.Q
127
aNinety-nine percent condidence that the proportion of all Arizoha residents who have not had this happen is between 91 percent and'97 percent.
Should Employees Have the Right to Review and Question Various Kinds of Information Relative to Work Performance Which
Employers Maintain on Them
Although Arizona residents are relatively confident that
their employers will treat the personal information they maintain on
employees responsibly, and they generally feel that the information
128
maintained by employers is accurate, up-to-date, and fair, they never-
the1ess
l strongly believe that they should have the right to review and
questiol various kinds of information used to evaluate their work
performance. Table 37 shows that 86.1 percent of the respondents feel
they should have the right to review and question supervisor's reports
to management as to whether they are suitable for promotion. There
is 99 percent confidence that between 81 percent and 91 percent of all
Arizona residents would agree employees should have this right. A
larger ~ajority of 92.6 percent of the respondents feel they should
have the right to review and question the employer's formal job per-
formance review of the employee. There is 99 percent confidence that
between 89 percent and 97 percent of all Arizona residents would agree
that employees should have this right. By a much smaller majority of
53.4 percent, the respondents feel that employees should also have the
right to review and question the personal notes a supervisor keeps
about the employee's performance. There is 99 percent confidence that
between 46 percent and 60 percent of all Arizona residents would agree
employees should have this right.
129
Table 37. Whether Employees Should Have the Right to Review Various Kinds of Information Which Employers Maintain on Their Work Performance
Question: The following is a 1 ist of kinds of fnformation that employers keep on their employees. For each, please indicate whether you feel an employee should, or should not, have a right to look at and question each kfnd of information?
RESPONSES
Should Have Shoul d Not Number the Right IHave the Right Not Sure
Supervisor's reports to management as to whether the employee is suitable for promotiona 352 86.1% 11 • 1 % 2.8%
Employer's formal job performance review of the employeeb 351 92.6 4.8 2.6
The pe rsona 1 notes a supervisor keeps about the employee's perfor-manceC 352 53.4 37.8 8.8
aNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of Arizona residents feel they should have the right to review and question supervisor's reports is between 81 percent and 91 percent.
bNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of Arizona residents that feel they should have the right to review and question employer's formal job performance review of the employee is between 89 percent and 97 percent.
cNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of Arizona residents that feel they should have the right to review and question the personal notes of a supervisor is between 46 percent and 60 percent.
130
Giving employees the right to review and question the
personal notes which supervisors keep about employees' performance
could be considered infringing upon management's prerogatives. Still,
the results of these questions clearly demonstrate the need for
employers to use direct and face-to-face methods for evaluating
employee work performance.
The Need For Employers to Communicate With Employees and Have a Specific Policy on the Information Management of Employees' Personnel and Medical Files
In a preceding section it was noted that 28.3 percent of the
respondents feel that it is either very likely or somewhat likely that
their employer had made an improper release of information from their
personnel file. It was also noted with 99 percent confidence that
between 47 percent and 61 percent of all Arizona residents feel that
it is not likely such an improper release had occurred. Thus, there
is a significant percentage of Arizona residents who are not convinced
that this practice has not occurred. A possible consequence of this
uncertainty is reflected in Table 38 where 89.3 percent of the re-
spondents feel it is very important for an employer to inform employees
before releasing any personal information from employment files.
There is 99 percent confidence that between 85 percent and 93 percent
of all Arizona residents would agree that such communication is very
important. This feeling amongst respondents is further evident in
Table 39 which sh9wS that 96.3 percent of the respondents feel
employers should have a specific company policy designed to safeguard
that information contained in employees' personnel and medical files.
Table 38. The Importance of an Employer Informing an Employee of the Release of Personal Information
131
Question: How important do you think it is that an employer should inform employees before releasing any personal information from employment files, except the regular reporting required by law?
V . a ery Important Somewhat important Not at all important Not sure
Total responses
No responses
RESPONSES
Number Percentage
317 89.3 31 8.7 4 1.1
_3 .9
355 100.0
4 ---
aNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents that would feel it is very important is between 85 percent and 93 percent.
132
Table 39. Whether Employers Should Have a Policy to Safeguard Employees' Personnel and Medical Files
Question: Do you think that all employers should have a specific" compan'y policy designed to safeguard that information contained in their employees' personnel and medical files?
Should 11ave policya Should Ilot have policy Not sur,
Tota 1 op iOn i"ons
No responses
RESPONSES
Number
340 4
_9
353 6
Percentages
96.3 1.1 2.6
100.0
aNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents who feel employers should have a pol icy is between 93 percent and 99 per ,ent.
133
Further, there is 99 percent confidence that between 93 percent and 99
percent of all Arizona residents would feel employers should have such
a company policy.
Whether Employers or Law Should Determine Employee Rights of Access to"Their Personnel Files
Table 40 shows that a majority of 59.3 percent of the respond-
ents feel that a law should be passed to specify employees' rights of
access to their personnel files maintained by emJlOyers. Only 28.1
percent of the respondents feel that employers should decide what
rights of access employees should have to their personnel records.
There is 99 percent confidence that between 52 pE~rcent and 66 percent
of all Arizona residents would agree that such a law should be passed.
This finding suggests that what confidence exist!. among Arizona
residents toward their employers' properly manag ng and safeguarding
the information contained in employer personnel files is relatively
soft. It further suggests that employers should begin pursuing prac-
tices which would solidify the confidence that does exist, plus in-
crease overall confidence.
Summary
Arizona residents recognize employer's needs for information
from job applicants. They generally feel the types of information
which are proper to request are those fundamental to the ability of
the applicant to perform the job, such as the following: educational
background; employment history; references from former employers;
skills tests, and; physical condition. They also feel it proper for
Table 40. Whether Employers or Law Should Determine Employee Rights Regarding Access to Personnel File
Question: Do you think employers should decide what rights employees have regarding access to their own personnel files or do you think a law should be passed.to specify theserights7
a A law should be passed Left up to employers Not sure
Total opinions
No responses
RESPONSES
Number
207 98 44
349 10
Percentages
59.3 28. 1 12.6
100.0
134
aNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents who feel a law should be passed is between 52 percent and 66 percent.
employers to request the standards of sex, age, marital status, and
height and weight. However, Arizona residents generally do not feel
it proper for employ~rs to request types of information from job
applicants which are not directly related to the applicant's ability
to perform the job, such as the following: the type of neighborhood
lived in; the kinds of friends the applicant has; race; information
about the applicant's spouse, and; membership in political and commu
nity organizations.
135
Arizona residents favor direct, face-to-face methods for
employers to gather information from employees. They feel covert
methods or dependence on electronic devices such as polygraph and
closed circuit television to monitor work performance should be
forbidden. They do not, however, feel these electronic devices should
be forbidden in determining any dishonest acts by employees.
Arizona residents generally have confidence that their'
employers will treat the personal information they maintain on em
ployees properly. They feel that the information maintained by em
ployers on employees is accurate, up-to-date, and fair. They are less
confident, however, that their employer has never improperly released
contents of their personnel file.
The disclosure of employees I salaries can be a sensitive
issue with a large percentage of Arizona residents. There is also con
cern about supervisors and members of management seeing employees I
health and medical claims prior to submission to the insurance company.
136
The level of this concern, however, is not strong enough to have
caused Arizona residents to not submit such claims at their place of
employment.
Arizona residents feel strongly that employees should have
the right to review and question the various kinds of information which
employers use to evaluate employee job performance. They feel it very
importalt that employers inform employees before releasing any per
sonal irlformation from their personnel or employment files. Likewise
they feE~l it paramount that employers should have specific company
policies to safeguard that information contained in their employees'
personnel and medical files.
Arizona, residents generally feel that law should determine
an employee's access right to his own personnel files as opposed to
employers deciding. This suggests that much of the confidence which
exists among Arizona residents toward their employers' properly man-
aging and safeguarding the information contained in employee personnel
files is rather superficial. It further suggests that employers
should communicate more with their employees about their information
management practices concerning personal employee information, and
what measures are being taken to provtde safeguards from misuse or
abuse of such information.
CHAPTER 7
HOW ARIZONA RESIDENTS FEEL ABOUT THEIR CREDIT RELATIONSHIPS RELATIVE TO THEIR PERSONAL PRIVACY
This chapter responds to the fourth objective of the study.
That is, to find how Arizona residents feel about their credit rela
tionships relative to their personal privacy. lit was noted in Chapter
5 that 77.9 percent of the respondents feel that Amertcans begin sur-
rendering their personal privacy the day they open their first charge
account, take out a loan, buy something on an installment plan, or
apply for a credit card. There is 99 percent confidence that a major-
ity between 72 percent and 84 percent of all Arizona residents would
agree with the respondents on this issue. Thus, the credit industry
is important for exploration. The intrusiveness of information gath-
ering by credit institutions is examined through the opinions of
Arizona residents, as is the degree to which credit institutions are
thought to keep collected information confidential. Further, the right
of the consumer to have access to his or her credit files is examined.
Each of the following sections addresses a specific research question
delineated for this objective.
137
The Intrusiveness of Credit Institutions Relative to Other Organizations
In Chapter 5 it was shown that credit institutions were
among the most highly criticized organizations by Arizona residents
for their intrusiveness and for their improper sharing of the infor-
mation they collect. As earlier shown in Table 27, the respondents
were provided a list of eighteen organizations or individuals whose
operations are greatly dependent upon the collection and use of
information about people. For each, the respondents were then asked
if the organization or individual limits their personal information
gathering about individuals to what is really necessary, or whether
they ask for too much personal information. Table 41 provides a
summary of the respondents' feelings toward the credit institutions
138
included in the list of organizations or individuals. As shown, credit
bureaus were the second most criticized organizations for asking for
too much personal information, with a plurality of 45 percent of the
respondents feeling thusly. There is 99 percent confidence that
between 38 percent and 52 percent of all Arizona residents would feel
that credit bureaus ask for too much personal information. Finance
companies were fourth on the criticism list, with a plurality of 43.3
percent of the respondents feeling they ask for too much personal
information. There is 99 percent confidence that between 36 percent
and 50 percent of all Arizona residents would agree with the respond-
ents. Credit card companies were seventh on the criticism list.
However, a majority of 55.8 percent of the respondents feel that
Table 41. Credit Institutions Which Ask for too Much Personal Information
Question: The following is a list of organizations or individuals which sometimes collect or use information about people. For each of these please indicate if you feel they limit their personal information gathering about individuals to what is really necessarY,or whether they ask for too much personal information?
Number Percentage Rank Among
139
of Respondents of Respondents 18 Organizations
Credit bureaus 351 2 a 45.0 Ask for too much Limit their demands 36.5 Not sure 18.5
Finance companies b 353 4 Ask for too much 43.3 Limit their demands 38.3 Not sure 18.4
Credit card companies 355 7 Ask for too muchc 33.8 Limit their demands 55.8 Not sure 10.4
Banks d 354 13 Ask for too much 26.0 Limit their demands 65.0 Not sure 9.0
aNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents who feel credit bureaus ask for too much personal information is between 38 percent and 52 percent.
bNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents who feel finance companies ask for too much personal information is between 36 percent and 50 percent.
cNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents who feel credit card companies 1 imit their personal information demands is between 49 percent and 63 percent.
dNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents who feel banks limit their personal information demands is between 58 percent and 72 percent.
140
credit card companies limit their personal information gathering
to what is really necessary. There is 99 percent confidence that
between 49 percent and 63 percent of all Arizona residents would feel
that credit card companies limit their personal information demands.
Banks were the least criticized of the credit institutions, ranking
thirteen, with a majority of 65 percent of the respondents feeling
they limit their personal information gathering about individuals to
what is ~eallY necessary. Further, there is 99 percent confidence that
between 58 percent and 72 percent of all Arizona residents would agree
with the respondents.
Using the same list, respondents were also asked to indicate
whether they feel the organization or individual is currently doing
enough tJ keep the personal information they have on individuals con-
fidential, or should they be doing more. Table 42 shows credit in-
stitutions were even more criticized for not doing enough to maintain
the confidentiality of the personal information they maintain on people.
Ranked in order of those organizations that should be doing more to
maintain confidentiality of personal information, credit bureaus were
second, credit card companies were third, finance companies were
fourth, and banks were eleventh in the list of eighteen •
. A majority of 52.7 percent of the respondents feel credit
bureaus should be doing more. There is 99 percent confidence that
between 46 percent and 60 percent of all Arizona residents would agree
that credit bureaus should be doing more to keep the personal infor-
mation they have on individuals confidential.
Table 42. Credit Institutions Which Should Be Doing More to Maintain Confidential ity of Personal Information
Question: For the same list would you please ind'icate whether you feel each is currently doing enough to keep the personal information they have on individuals confidential, or should they be doing more?
Number Rank Among
141
of Respondents Percentage
of Respondents 18 Organizations
Credit bureaus Should be doing Doing enough Not sure
a more
Credit card companies b Should be doing more Doing enough Not sure
Finance companies Should be doing Doing enough Not sure
Banks Should be doing Doing enough Not sure
c more
d more
348
352
352
351
52 .71 20.2 27. 1
48.9 24.7 26.4
48.9 19.8 31.3
33. 1 39.3 27.6
2
3
4:
11
aNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents that feel credit bureaus should be doing more is between 46 percent and 60 percent.
bNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents that feel credit card companies should be doing more is between 42 percent and 56 percent.
cNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents that feel finance companies should be doing more is between 42 per-ent and 56 percent.
dNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents that feel banks are doing enough is between 32 percent and 46 percent.
A plurality of 48.9 percent of the respondents feel credit
card companies and finance companies should be doing more to maintain
the confidentiality of the personal information they collect on indi
viduals. There is 99 percent confidence that between 42 percent and
56 percent of all Arizona residents would agree that credit card com
panies and finance companies should be doing more.
Again, banks were the least criticized credit institution
142
with a plurality of 39.3 percent of the respondents feeling banks are
doing enough to maintain the confidentiality of the personal informa
tion they maintain on individuals. Further, there is 99 percent con
fidence that between 32 percent and 46 percent of all Arizona residents
would agree that banks are doing enough.
An additional indicator which Table 42 presents is that
there is a great deal of uncertainty among Arizona residents as to
what credit institutions do, or do not do, to maintain the confiden
tiality of the personal information they collect on individuals. For
each credit institution, there were significant percentages of respond
ents who feel they are not sure if the institution should be doing
more or is doing enough. More than 27.1 percent of the respondents
were not sure about credit bureaus; 26.4 percent were not sure about
credit card companies; 31.3 percent were not sure about finance com
panies, and; 27.6 percent were not sure about banks. These figures
suggest that credit institutions do not, whether by design or neglect,
effectively communicate with the public on their personal information
management practices.
Whether Arizona Residents Feel Improper or Unnessary Information is Asked For On Credit Applications
Respondents were asked if they had ever been required to
supply information that they felt was improper or unnecesiary when
applying for credit. Table 43 shows that a majority of 51.6 percent
of the respondents replied yes, as opposed to 36.8 percent who re-
sponded no, with 11.6 percent not sure. There is 99 percent confid-
ence that between 45 percent and 59 percent of all Arizona residents
would agree that yes they had been asked to supply improper or un-
necessary information on credit applications. To gain a further per-
spective of this issue, respondents were provided a list of nineteen
kinds of information asked for by credit institutions, and asked to
indicate if the information was improper or unnecessary. Table 44
shows that the ten most frequently cited kinds of information con-
sidered improper or unnecessary are: questions about personal life
not related to credit rating, by 86 percent of the respondents;
information about relatives' financial and credit status, by 84.3
percent of the respondents; family life and home environment, by 80.1
percent of the respondents; race, by 72.6 percent of the respondents;
questions regarding women obtaining credit, by 59 percent of resond-
ents; sex, by 58.1 percent of respondents; whether you have been in
jailor arrested, by 53.4 percent of respondents; marital status, by
143
49.9 percent of respondents, and; age, by 44.7 percent of respondents.
On the opposite side of' the scale, the kinds of information least cited
as improper or unnecessary are: questions about job and employment,
by 9.1 percent of respondents; income, salary and earnings, by 9.4
144
Table 43. Whether Improper Information is Being Requested When Applying for Credit
Question: When you have personally dealt with different types of institutions that give people credit, such as banks, credit card companies, and stores, have you ever been asked to supply information that you felt was improper or unnecessary when applying for any type of credit?
Yes a
No Not sure
Total opinions
No responses
RESPONSES
Number Percentage
181 51.6 129 36.8
41 11.6
351 100.0
8
aNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents who would say yes, they have been asked to supply improper or unncessary information when applying for credit, is between 45 percent and 53 percent.
145
Table 44. The Types of Information Requested When Applying for Credit which Arizona Residents Feel are Improper or Unnecessary
Question: Which of the following kinds of information asked by institutions that give people credit do you feel are improper or unnecessary?
(number of respondents = 357)
Questions about personal life not related to credit rating (i .e., drinking habits,
Percentage of Responses
politics, friends)a 86.0
Information about relatives' financial and credit statusa 84.3
Family life/home environments a 80.1
Racea 72.6
Questions relative to spousea 64.4
Questions regarding women obtaining credita 59.0
Sexa 58.1
Whether you have been in jailor arrested 53.4
Marital status 49.9
Age 44.7
Whether you rent or own home 32.8
Where you live and for how long 29.1
Finances/money in bank or ~avings account 27.1
Value of assets/property 25.9
Other sources of income 24.8
References/cosigners 18.8
Table 44--Continued
(number of respondents = 357)
Credit references/credit rating/ outstanding bills
Income/salary/earnings
Questions about job/employment
Percentage of Responses
12.5
9.4
9.1
146
aNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents which feel this type of information is improper or unnecessary to ask a credit applicant is 50 percent or more.
147
percent of respondents; credit references, credit ratings, and out-
standing bills, by 12.5 percent of respondents; references and cosign-
ers, by 18.8 percent of respondents; other sources of income, by 24.8
percent of respondents; value of assets and property, by 25.9 percent
of respondents; finances and money in bank or savings account, by
27.1 percent of respondents; where you live and for how long, by 29.1
percent of respondents, and; whether you rent or own home, by 32.8
percent of respondents.
The results indicate that significant, and possibly a
majority, percentage of Arizona residents feel that credit institutions
ask for improper or unnecessary information on their credit applica-
tions. Generally, Arizona residents feel that information requests
which are not st~ictly related to the financial capabilities of the
applicant to assume credit are improper or unnecessary, such as ques-
tions about one's personal life, questions about relatives' financial
and credit status, and questions about one's family life or home
environment.
Why Arizona Residents Believe They Are Refused Credit
Respondents were asked if they had ever been refused credit,
and if so, did they believe the decision was based on information
which was inaccurate, or unfair, or incomplete. Table 45 shows that
37.6 percent of the respondents had been refused credit at one time
or another. Table 46 shows the predominate reason Arizona residents
Table 45. Whether Arizona Residents Have Been Refused Credit
Question: Have you ever been refused credit?
RESPONSES
Number Percentage
Have been refused credita
Have not ever been refused credit Not sure
I Total opinions
No respbnses
132 207
12
351
8
37.6 59.0 3.4
100.0
148
aNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents who have been refused credit is between 31 percent and 45 percent.
Table 46. Why Arizona Residents Believe They Are Refused Credit
Question: If you have ever been refused credit, do you believe the decision to refuse you credit was based on information which was inaccurate, unfair, and/or incomplete?
RESPONSES
149
Number Believe Do Not Bel ieve Not Sure
Because of inaccurate information 130 44.6% 39.2% 16.2?6
Because of unfair information 137 42.3 41.6 16. 1
Because of incomplete info rmat ion a 131 61.1 28.2 10.7
aNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents which have been refused credit who feel it was because of incomplete information is between 50 percent and 72 percent.
150
believe they have been refused credit is because of incomplete infor-
mation. A majority of 61.1 percent of respondents believe their credit
refusal was due to incomplete information, while slim pluralities of
44.6 percent believe it was due to inaccurate information, and 42.3
percent believe it was due to unfair information.
Arizona Residents· Awareness of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
The Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970 gives the individual
the right to see any credit bureau report that may have been used in
a decision to deny him or her credit. To receive an indication if
Arizona residents are aware of this Act, respondents were asked if
they knew whether they have or do not have the legal right to see any
credit bureau report that might be used in a decision to deny them
credit, insurance, or employment. Table 47 shows that 58.3 percent of
the respondents feel they do have the right. There is 99 percent con-
fidence that between 51 percent and 65 percent of all Arizona residents
would agree that they have such a right. While a majority of Arizona
residents acknowledge they have this right, there is still a signifi-
cant percentage who are uncertain. This is reflected by 37.7 percent
of the respondents indicating they are not sure. Considering the
significance which credit plays in the lives of most Arizona residents,
there is not the level of awareness of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
which one would expect.
Table 47. Arizona Residents' Awareness of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
Question: Do you know whether you have, or do not have, the legal right to see any credit bureau report that might be used in a decision to deny you credit, insurance or employment?
Do have a righta
Do not have a right Not sure
Total opinions
No responses
RESPONSES
Number
204 14
132
350
9
Percentage
58.3 4.0
37.7
100.0
151
aNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents who feel they do have a right is between 51 percent and 65 percent.
Summary
Credit institutions are among the most highly criticized
organizations by Arizona residents for their intrusiveness and for
their improper sharing of the personal information they collect on
individuals. Credit bureaus and finance companies are the most crit-
icized credit institutions for asking for too much personal informa-
tion. They also are, with the addition of credit card companies, the
most criJicized for not doing enough to maintain the confidentiality
of the personal information they have on individuals. Banks are the
least criticized in these two areas. There is also a great deal of
152
uncertainty among Arizona residents as to what credit institutions do,
or do not do, to maintain the confidentiality of their collected
personal information.
In addition to asking for too much personal information,
significant percentages of Arizona residents feel that credit insti-
tutions ask for improper or unnecessary information on credit appli-
cations. Those kinds of information which are not narrowly appli-
cable to an individual's financial capability to assume credit are
considered improper or unnecessary, such as questions about one's
personal life, one's home environment, or one's relatives' financial
status.
The predominate reason which Arizona residents believe they
have been refused credit is because of incomplete information, as com-
pared to inaccurate or unfair information. There also is a significant
percentage of Arizona residents who are not aware of their right
under the Fair Credit Reporting Act to see any credit bureau report
that might be used in a decision to deny them credit, insurance, or
employment.
153
CHAPTER 8
HOW ARIZONA RESIDENTS FEEL ABOUT THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY RELATIVE TO THEIR
PERSONAL PRIVACY
The insurance industry collects detailed personal infor-
mation about millions of people every year who apply for life and
health insurance, homeowners insurance, and auto insurance. The fifth
objective of the study was to determine to what extent Arizona resi-
dents perceive insurance companies as seeking more personal information
than is necessary or desirable, and the extent to which the insurance
industry is thought to be abusing or misusing the information they
collect. Each of the following sections addresses a specific research
question delineated for this objective.
The Perceptions of Arizona Residents Toward Insurance Companies Collecting and Maintaining
the Confidentiality of Personal Information
In Chapter 5, Table 27, it was shown that insurance com-
panies were ranked sixth as asking for too much personal information
among a list of eighteen organizations or individuals whose operations
are greatly dependent upon the collection and use of information about
people. However, a majority of 55.5 percent of the respondents feel
that insurance companies limit their personal information gathering
to what is really necessary, as opposed to 34.9 percent who feel they
ask for too much personal information, and 9.6 percent who are not sure.
154
155
There is 99 percent confidence that between 49 percent and 63 percent
of all Arizona residents would feel that insurance companies limit
their information gathering to what is really necessary. Table 48
reflects these findings.
Table 49 shows that a plurality of 40.2 percent of the re-
spondents feel insurance companies should be doing more to maintain
the confidentiality of the personal information they collect on people.
There is 99 percent confidence that between 33 percent and 47 percent
of all Arizona residents would agree that insurance companies should
be doing more. Table 49 also shows that there is a large percentage
of Arizona residents who are not sure what insurance companies are
doing to maintain confidentiality of the personal information they
collect.
The Types of Information Insurance Companies Should and Should Not Have the Right to Collect
Table 50 shows that a majority of Arizona residents feel that
insurance companies should not have the right to require the following
types of personal information: the applicant's moral character; the
applicant's income; what other health or life insurance the applicant
already has; information relating to claims the applicant has made to
other insurance companies; information on the applicant's life style,
and; the applicant's criminal record, if any. A slight majority of
51 percent of the respondents also feel it improper for insurance com-
panies to seek information on whether the applicant has ever been
turned down or rated a bad risk for health or life insurance.
156
Table 48. Whether Insurance Companies Ask for too Much Personal Informat ion
Question: The following is a list of organizations or individuals which sometimes collect or use information about people. For each of these please indicate if you feel they limit their personal information gathering about individuals to what is really necessary, or whether they ask for too much personal information?
Insurance companies Ask for tlDO much personal information
Limit personal information gathering to what is r,eally necessary,a
Not sure
Total opinions
No responses
Number of Respondents
124
197
~ 355
4
Percentage of Respondents
34.9
55.5
9.6 100.0
Rank Among 18 Organizations
aNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents who feel insurance companies limit their personal information gathering to what is really necessary is between 49 percent and 63 percent.
157
Table 49. Whether Insurance Companies Should Be Doing More to Maintain Confidentiality of Personal Information.
Question: For the same list would you please indicate whether you feel each is currently doing enough to keep the personal information they have on individuals confidential, or should they be doing more?
Number of Respondents
Insurance companies a Should be doing more Doing enough Not sure
Total opinions
No responses
141 105 105
351
8
Percentage of Respondents
40.2 29.9 29.9
100.0
Rank Among 18 Organizations
6
aNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents who feel insurance companies should be doing more to keep the personal information they have on individuals confidential is between 33 percent and 47 percent.
Table 50. The Types of Information Insurance Companies Should and Should Not Have the Right to Collect
158
Question: The following is a list of the types of information which insurance companies may use to decide whether or not to give people life insurance or health and medical insurance, and what premiums to charge. Please indicate for each of the following types of information whether you think insurance companies should or should not have the right to obtain this information?
The applicant's moral cha ractera
The applicant's incomea
What othe~ health or life insurance the appl icant already hasa
Information relating to claims the applicant has made to other insurance companiesa
Information on the applicant's lifestylea
The applicant's criminal record, if anya
Whether the applicant has been turned down or rated a bad risk for health or 1 i fe i nsu rance
The applicant's drinking (alcohol) habits b
Whether the a~plicant smokes or not
RESPONSES
Should Not Should Number Have Right Have Right Not Sure
333
350
350
352
351
351
351
347
350
77 .3%
74.0
68.6
64.2
62.4
60.4
51.0
35.2
26.9
17.8%
20.9
27.1
29.5
30.2
31.1
40.5
57.9
66.9
4.9%
5. 1
4.3
6.3
7.4
8.5
8.5
6.9
6.2
159
Table 50--Continued
RESPONSES
shoufd Not Should Number Have Right Have Right Not Sure
The applicant's type of emp10yment b 349 26.4 70.2 3.4
Whether or not the appli-cant engages in sports activities which invo1v6 some real physical risk 351 23.9 70.1 6.0
The applicant's b 350 21.4 74.6 4.0 sex
The a p p 1 i ca nt's b 354 4.2 94.4 1.4 age
The applicant's health and medical historyb 352 3.7 93.5 2.8
aNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents which feel insurance companies should not have the right to obtain these types of information is 53 percent or more.
bNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents which feel insurance companies should have the right to obtain these types of information is 50 percent or more.
A majority of Arizona residents do, however, feel that
insurance companies should be able to collect many other types of
information. They include: the applicant's health and medical
history; the applicant's age and sex; whether or not the applicant
engages in sport activities which involve some real physical risk;
the applicant's type of employment; whether the applicant smokes or
not, and; fhe applicant's alcohol drinking habits.
Whlile this study did not explore the reasons why Arizona
residents oppose the collection of certain information, it seems
likely that many people do not understand the reasons insurance com-
panies ask for them. A tentative conclusion could be that the in-
surance in ustry has room for doing a better job of communicating the
reasons whf various types of information are collected if they are to
avoid greater criticisms in the future.
Investigative Activities of Insurance Companies Which Arizona Residents Feel Should or Should Not
Be Allowed
Insurance companies are known for taking broad investigative
liberties. To learn what Arizona residents feel about some of these
160
activities, they were provided a list of four such activities and asked
if they should or should not be allowed. Table 51 shows that a majority
of Arizona residents feel that insurance companies should not be allowed
to investigate an applicant's personal life to see if she or he is fre-
quenting dangerous bars or sections of town, nor should they be allowed
to have someone go through an applicant's home and check through its
161
Table 51. Investigative Activities Insurance Companies Should or Should Not Be Allowed to Do
Question: The following is a list of four things insurance companies do or have done to find out whether or not someone is a good risk for insurance. Please indicate for each whether you feel it should, or should not be allowed.
RESPONSES
Should Not Should be Number be Allowed Allowed Not Sure
Investigates an applicant1s I personal life to see if she or he is frequenting danger-ous bars or sections of towna 351 76. 1% 18.8% 5.1 %
Use a central computer file to find out if an app 1 icant was every turned down for life or health insuranceb 351 53.8 37.9 8.3
Have someone go through an applicant1s home and check through its contents to see what would be covered by a homeowners policyC 354 80.2 15.3 4.5
Table 51--Continued
Request an appl icant's doctor or hospital personnel to verify medical history recordsd
RESPONSES
Should Not Number be Allowed
354 26.3%
Should be Allowed Not Sure
66.9% 6.8%
162
aNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents who would agree insurance companies should not be allowed to investigate an applicant's personal life to see if she or he is frequenting dangerous bars or sections of town is between 71 percent and 82 percent:
bNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents who would agree insurance companies should not be allowed to use a central computer file to find out if an appl icant was ever turned down for 1 ife or health insurance is bet~een 47 percent and 61 percent.
cNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents who would agree insurance companies should not be allowed to have someone go through an appl icant's home and check through its ~ontents to see what would be covered by a homeowners policy is between 75 percent and 85 percent.
dNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents who would agree that insurance companies should be allowed to request an applicant's doctor or hospital personnel to verify medical history records is between 61 percent and 73 percent.
163
contents to see what would be covered by a homeowners policy. One
can also statistically expect that between 47 percent and 61 percent
of all Arizona residents feel insurance companies should not be
allowed to use a central computer file to find out if an applicant was
ever turned down for 1 ife or health insurance. In contrast, a major-
ity of Arizona residents feel insurance companies should be allowed to
request an applicant's doctor or hospital personnel to verify medical
history records.
Should the Personal Information An Insurance Company Collects Be Determined By Law
The respondents were asked whether insurance companies ought
to be allowed to determine what types of personal information they can
gather on people in order to decide whether they will give them in-
surance and what premiums they will charge, or should the type of infor-
mation they can gather be determined by law. Table 52 shows that 65
percent feel the types of information should be determined by law, as
opposed to 19.5 percent who feel insurance companies should be allowed
to determine the types of information. There is 99 percent confidence
that between 58 percent and 72 percent of all Arizona residents would
agree that law should determine the types of information gathered by
insurance companies.
Table 52. Whether the Types of Personal Information Collected by Insurance Companies Should be Determined by Law
Question: Do you think that insurance companies ought to be allowed to determine what types of personal information they can gather on people in order to decide whether they will give them insurance and what premiums they will charge, or should the type of information they can gather be determined by law?
Should be dlatermined by lawa
Insurance companies allowed to determine
Not sure
Total opinions
No responses
RESPONSES
Nuinber Percentage
230 65.0
69 19.5 .2i 15.5
354 100.0
5
164
aNinety-nin~ percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents who ,",ould agrc,:' r.hr.t la .... 1 should determine the types of personal informatiol is between 58 percent and 72 percent.
165
Summary
Arizona residents generally feel that insurance companies
limit their personal information gathering on individuals to what is
necessary for determining insurability. There is, however, a signifi-
cant percentage of Arizona residents who feel insurance companies
should be doing more to keep the personal information they collect on
people confidential. It is also apparent that many trizona residents
are uncertain about what insurance companies do, or 10 not do, to
maintain the confidentiality of the personal information they've
collected.
Arizona residents recognize the need for insurance companies
to collect many types of information. Some of the t'rpes of information
which they feel insurance companies should be allowed to collect are
the applicant's health and medical history; the appl cant's age, sex
and type of employment; the applicant's alcohol drinking habits and
whether the applicant smokes, and; whether the applicant engages in
sports activities which involve some real physical risk. There are,
however, other types of information which Arizona residents feel in-
surance companies should not have the right to gather. Some of these
types of information are the applicant's moral character and life
style; the applicant's income and other health or life insurance
policies; and, information relating to claims the applicant has made
to other insurance companies.
166
There are several personal information gathering activities
of insurance companies which Arizona residents feel should not be
allowed. One such activity is having someone go though an applicant's
home and check through its contents to see what would be covered by a
homeowners pol icy. Arizona residents do, however, feel insurance
companies should be allowed to request an applicant's doctor or hos
pital personnel to verify medical history records. Arizona residents
also feel that the types of personal information that insurance com
panies can gather on people in order to decide insurability should be
determined by law as opposed to allowing insurance companies to
decide.
CHAPTER 9
HOW ARIZONA RESIDENTS FEEL ABOUT PRIVATE DOCTORS AND HOSPITALS RELATIVE
TO THEIR PERSONAL PRIVACY
A sixth objective of the study was to explore the percep-
tions of Arizona residents toward private doctors and hospitals in
terms of the propriety of the personal information they collect; the
extent to which they keep the personal information theY've gathered
confidential; and, what should be the patients' access to their medical
records. Each of the following sections addresses one or more re-
search question applying to this objective.
Whether Arizona Residents Feel Private Doctors And Hospitals Ask For Too Much Personal
Information
In Chapter 5 it was shown that private doctors were the
least criticized for asking for too much personal information among
a list of eighteen organizations or individuals whose activities are
greatly dependent upon the collection and use of personal information
about people. Hospitals, although not faring nearly as well as private
doctors, also received minimum criticism. Table 53 draws from the
earlier finding to show that 75.5 percent of the respondents feel that
private doctors limit their personal information gathering about indi-
viduals to what is really necessary. Further, there is 99 percent con-
fidence that between 71 percent and 82 percent of all Arizona residents
167
Table 53. Whether Private Doctors and Hospitals Ask for too Much Personal Information
Question: The following is a list of organizations or indivi"duals which sometimes collect or use information about people. For each of these indicate if you feel they limit thetr personal fnformation gathering about individuals to what is really necessary, or whether they ask for too much personal information?
168
Number Percentage Rank Among 18
Private doctlrs
of Respondents of Respondents Organizations
354 18 Ask for too much 15.3 Limit their demandsa
75.7 Not sure 9.0
Hospitals 355 8 Ask for too much b 30.2 Li mi t the i r demands 56.6 Not sure 13.2
aNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents that would feel privqte doctors limit their demands is between 71 percent ~nd 82 percent.
bNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents that would feel that hospitals limit their demands is between 50 percent and 64 percent.
169
would feel similarly. The table also shows that 56.6 percent of the
respondents feel that hospitals limit their personal information gath-
ering about individuals to what is really necessary. There is 99
percent confidence that between 50 percent and 64 percent of all
Arizona residents would agree with the respondents.
Whether Arizona Residents Feel Private Doctors and Hospitals Should Be Doing More to Maintain The Confidentiality of Personal Information They
Gather on Individuals
Private doctors were also the least often cited as not doing
enough to maintain the confidentiality of the personal information they
have on individuals. As shown in Table 54, a majority of 52.3 percent
of the respondents feel that private doctors are doing enough. There
is 99 percent confidence that between 45 percent and 59 percent of all
Arizona residents would feel this way. A lesser plurality of 37.7 per-
cent of the respondents feel hospitals are doing eno gh to maintain
the confidentiality of their personal information on people. There is
99 percent confidence that between 31 percent and 45 percent of all
Arizona residents would agree that hospitals are doing enough. However,
Table 54 also shows that there are significant percentages of Arizona
residents who are uncertain if doctors and hospitals are doing enough
or should be doing more.
Whether People Should Have The Legal Right of Access to Their Medical Records
There is an overwhelming consensus among Arizona residents
that people should have legal right to see their medical records,
Table 54. Whether Private Doctors and Hospitals Should be Doing More to HaintainConfidential ity of Personal Information
Question: For the same list would you please indicate whether you feel each is currently doing enough. to keep the personal information they have on individuals confidential, or should they be doing more?
170
Number Percentage Rank Among 18 of Respondents of Respondents Organ i za·t ions
Private doctors 352 18 Should be doing more 23.0 Doing enougha 52.3 Not sure 24.7
Hospitals 350 12 Should be doing more 32.3 Do i ng enoughb 37.7 Not sure 30.0
aNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents that feel private doctors are doing enough is between 45 percent and 59 percent.
bNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents that feel hospitals are doing enough is between 31 percent and 45 percent.
171
whether held by their personal doctors or a hospital or clinic. Table
55 shows that 92.7 percent of the respondents feel people should have
a legal right to see all their medical records held by their personal
doctors. Further, there is 99 percent confidence that between 90 per
cent and 96 percent of all Arizona residents feel people should have
this right. A slightly higher majority of 93.5 percent of the respond
ents feel people should have legal right to see all their medical re
cords held by clinics or hospitals. There is 99 percent confidence
that between 91 percent and 97 percent of all Arizona residents feel
people should have this right.
A large majority of the respondents also indicated that if
they were being treated by a doctor they would want to be told all the
relevant information about their illness, even though they may be told
they are dying. Table 56 shows that 93.5 percent of the respondents
would want to be told. There is 99 percent confidence that between 91
percent and 97 percent of all Arizona residents would want to be told.
Thus, any arguments against people seeing their medical records because
it may be psychologically harming to those involved appear to lack
great merit. People want to be told the consequences of their ill
nesses.
Summary
Arizona residents feel that private doctors limit their
personal information demands to what is necessary, and generally feel
they are doing enough to protect the confidentiality of the personal
information on people they maintain. There is, however, some
172
Table 55. Whether People Should Have the Right of Access to Their Medical Records.
Question: Do you think people who want to should have, or should not have, legal right to see all their medical records held by their personal doctor, or a clinic or hospital?
Medical reco~ds from the i r person.]11 doctorsa
Medical records from a clinic or hospital b
Number
354
353
Should Have the Right
92.7%
93.5
RESPONSE
Should Not Have the Right
5.9%
4.5
Not Sure
1.4%
2.0
aNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents who f«!el they should have access to their medical records from their persollal doctors is between 90 percent and 96 percent.
bNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents who feel they should have access to their medical records from their clinic or hospital is between 91 percent and 97 percent.
Table 56. Whether Arizona Residents Would \1ant to Be Told They are Dying
Question: If you were being treated by a doctor, would you want your doctor to tell you all the relevant information about your illness even though you might be told that you are dying?
Would want to be tolda
Would not want to be told Not sure
Total opinions
No responses
RESPONSES
Number
331 7
16
354 5
Percentage
93.5 2.0 4.5
100.0
173
aNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents that would It'/ant to be told is between 91 percent and 97 percent.
174
uncertainty as to whether private doctors should be doing more to
improve their protection of personal information. Hospitals received
slightly greater criticisms than doctors. Still, Arizona residents
feel hospitals limit their personal information demands. There is,
however, a greater uncertainty among Arizona residents as to whether
hospitals are doing enough or should be doing more to protect the con
fidentiality of the personal information they maintain.
Arizona residents overwhelmingly feel that people should
have a legal right to see all their medical records whether they be
held by their personal doctor or a hospital or clinic. They also pre
fer to be told all the relevant information concerning any illness,
even if they might be told they are dying. Thus, even though Arizona
residents are not generally critical of the personal information man
agement practices of their private doctors and medical facilities,
they nevertheless desire a fail-safe legal right of access to all
their medical records.
CHAPTER 10
HOW ARIZONA RESIDENTS FEEL ABOUT GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS, PARTICULARLY LAW ENFORCEMENT FORCES,
RELATIVE TO THE PROTECTION OF THEIR PERSONAL PRIVACY
A philosophical question which democratic governments must
continually address is how to maintain a balance between the need for
personal information on its citizens in order to provide services,
insure law and order, and provide for society's security on the one
hand, and the obligation to preserve the rights of its citizens and
their personal privacy on the other. The seventh objective of the
study was to learn the attitudes of Arizona residents toward govern-
ment organizations, particularly law enforcement organizations, as
they relate to the protection of their personal privacy. Each of the
ensuing sections addresses a specific research question delineated for
this objective.
Do Arizona Residents Feel Government Organizations and Individuals Ask For Too Much Personal Information
As reported in Chapter 5, Table 27, the respondents were
provided a list of eighteen organizations or individuals whose activ-
ities are greatly dependent upon the collection and use of information
about people, and asked to indicate for each if they ask for too much
personal information or limit their personal information gathering to
what is really necessary. Table 57 provides a summary of the opinions
of Arizona residents toward the government organizations or individuals
175
Table 57. Which Government Organizations or Individuals Ask for too Much Personal Information.
176
Question: The following is a list of organizations or individuals which sometimes collect or use information about people. For each of these please indicate if you feel they limit their personal information gathering about individuals to what is really necessary, or whether they ask for too much personal information?
Number Percentage Rank Among 18
I of Respondents of Respondents Organizations
--------Internal Revenue Service 354 Ask for too much a Limit their demands Not sure
Census Burec3U Ask for too much b Limit their demands Not sure
State govertlment regulatory agencies
Ask for tOI) much Limit their demandsc
Not sure
Law enforcement agencies Ask for too much d Limit their demands Not sure
Government welfare agencies Ask for too much Limit their demandse
Not sure
Social Security Administration Ask for too much f Limit their demands Not sure
354
351
354
350
353
43.8 43.5 12.7
41.0 50.2 8.8
29.1 35.0 35.9
29.1 35.0 35.9
26.3 31.4 42.3
20.4 56.4 23.2
3
5
9
10
12
15
Table 57--Continued
Elected state/county/ city officials
Ask for too much Limit their demandsg
Not sure
Number of Respondents
351
Percentage of Respondents
18.2 39.0 42.8
177
Rank Among 18 Organizations
17
aNinety-nine percent confiden~e that the proportionjof all Arizona residents who feel the Internal Revenue Service asks f ,r too much is between 37 percent and 51 percent.
bNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents who feel the Census Bureau 1 imits their demands is between 43 percent and 57 percent.
cNinety-nine percent conffdence that the proportion of all Arizona residents who feel that state regulatory agencies li"mit their demands is between 28 percent and 42 percent.
dNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents who feel that law enforcement agencies I imit their demands is between 28 percent and 42 percent.
e~linety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents who feel that government welfare agencies limit their demands is between 25 percent and 37 percent.
fNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arfzona residents who feel the Social Security Administration limits thefr demands is between 49 percent and 63 percent.
gNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents who feel that elected state, county, and city official~ limit their demands is between 32 percent and 46 percent.
178
contained in this list. Despite all the news coverage of alleged
violations committed by various law enforcement agencies in the past
decade, Arizona residents appear more concerned about the Internal
Revenue Service and the Census Bureau asking for too much personal
information than they are about law enforcement agencies. The Internal
Revenue Service was the only organization which the respondents feel,
by a plurality of 43.8 percent, ask for too much personal information.
By plurality percentages the respondents feel that the Census Bureau
and the Social Security Administration limit their personal information
gathering to what is really necessary. The results also reflects that
Arizona residents are generally not knowledgeable about the personal
information gathering practices of most government organizations. For
the following organizations or individuals the respondents, by plurality
percentages, were not sure if they ask for too much or lfmit their
personal information demands: state governmer:-ttregulatoryagencies; law
enforcement agencies; government welfare agencies, and; elected state,
county, and city officials.
The Balance Between Protecting Individuals' Constitutional Rights and Conducting Surveillance to Protect Society
A constant dilemma which police forces address is the attempt
to balance their respect for the fndividuals' constitutional rights
against the need to conduct surveillance to protect soctety. Table
58 shows the respondents do not feel that police forces are maintaining
this balance. By a plurality of 34.5 percent, the respondents feel
that police forces are not doing enough to protect society. In con-
trast, 23.5 percent feel pol ice forces have the balance about right,
179
Table 58. Whether Police Forces Have Balanced Respect for Individuals' Rights and Conducting Surveillance to Protect Society
Question: The pol ice forces have to try to balance its respect for the individual's constitutional rights against the need to conduct surveillance to protect society. Would you say that they have the balance about right, or that they are not doing enough to protect individuals' constitutional rights, or that they are not doing enough to protect society?
Not doing enough to protect societya Have the balance about right Not doing enough to protect
individuals' rights Not sure
Total opinions
No responses
RESPo.NSES
Number
123 84
78 ...1l:.. 357
2
Percentage
34.5 23.5
21.8 20..2
10.0..0.
aNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents that feel police forces are not doing enough to protect society is between 28 percent and 42 percent.
180
and 21.8 percent feel they are not doing enough to protect individuals'
rights. A significant percentage of 20.2 were not sure. There is 99
percent confidence that between 28 percent and 42 percent of all
Arizona residents would feel that police forces are not doing enough
to protect society.
Whether Police Activities of Surveillance and Information ratherin9 Should Be Allowed Without Court Orders
One of the leading legal debates of the past decade has cen-
tered on the conditions under which a law enforcement agency should
require a court order when it is obtaining information in a covert
manner about individuals, alone or as members of an organization, who
are suspect but have never been convicted of a crime. In this regard,
Table 59 shows that Arizona residents overwhelmingly feel that a law
enforcement agency should not be able to open the suspect's mail, tap
his or her telephone, or examine bank records without a court order.
In contrast, but by a smaller majority, Arizona residents feel law
enforcement agencies should be allowed to keep the movements of the
suspect under surveillance without a court order. Also, one could
statistically expect between 45 percent and 59 percent of all Arizona
residents to feel police forces should be able to infiltrate, without
a court order, an organization suspected of engaging in illegal
activities.
Table 59. Should Police be Allowed to Engage in Certain Surveil lance and Information Gathering Activities Without a Court Order
Question: When police believe that an individual, either alone or as a member of an organization, never convicted of a crime, might engage in illegal acts tn the future, do you think they should, or should not, be able to take the following steps without obtaining a court order?
RESPONSES
Should Should Not
181
Number be Able I be. Abl e .. .Not Sure
Keeping their movements under surveillancea 355 56.9% 35.8% 7.3%
Putting undercover agents into the organizationb 354 51.7 38. 1 10.2
Looking into their bank recordsc 354 12. 1 77.7 10.2
Tapping their telephones d 354 9.3 82.8 7.9
Opening their mane 353 .4.8 .90.7 4.5
aNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents which feel police forces should be able to conduct this activity without a court order fs between 50 percent and 64 percent.
bNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Adzona residents which feel police forces should be able to conduct this activity without a court order is between 45 percent and 59 percent.
cNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona resi-dents which feel police forces should not be able to conduct this activity without a court order is between 72 percent and 84 percent.
dNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents which feel police forces should not be able to conduct this activity without a court order is between 78 percent and 88 percent.
eNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona resi-dents which feel police forces should not be able to conduct this activity without a court order is between 87 percent and 95 percent.
Should Police Have The Right to Demand Identification From Someone Not Doing Anything Illegal
Respondents were asked if police should have, or should not
have, the right to stop anyone on the street and demand to see some
identification, even if the person is not doing anything illegal.
l~
Table 60 shows that a majority of 72.6 percent of the respondents feel
police should not have this right, while 19 percent feel they should,
and 8.4 percent are not sure. Further, there is 99 percent confidence
that between 67 percent and 79 percent of all Arizona residents would
feel that police should not have the right to demand identification
under these circumstances.
Whether Government Agencies Should Use Lie Detector Tests to Learn the Source of Information Leaks
Respondents were asked if someone works in a government agency
that uses classified information and there is a leak to the press, did
they feel it is or is not all right for the government agency to re-
quire all employees who handle the information to take a lie detector
test to learn who leaked the information. Table 61 shows that a major-
ity of 50.1 percent of the respondents feel it is all right for the
government agency to require lie detector tests under this circumstance.
In contrast, 28.5 percent feel it is not all right, 14.6 percent are
not sure, and 6.8 percent feel it depends. Those feeling it depends
most often stated dependence upon the seriousness of the leak. There
is 99 percent confidence that between 43 percent and 57 percent of all
Table 60. Should Pol ice Have the Right to Demand Identification from a Person Not Doing Anything Illegal
Question: Do you think pol ice should have, or should not have, the right to stop anyone on the street and demand to see some identification even if the person ts not doing anythfng illegal?
Should have the right Should not have the righta
Not sure
Total opinions
No responses
RESPONSES
Number Percentage
68 19.0 260 72 .6 ..E..- 8.4 358 100.0
1
aNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Ari"zona restdents who feel polrce should not have the right is between 67 percent and 79 percent.
Table 61. Whether Government Agencies Should Use Lie Detector Tests to Learn the Source of Information Leaks
184
Question: If someone works in a government agency that uses classified information and there is a leak to the press, do you think it is, or is not, all right to make all those employees who handle the information take a 1fe detector test to learn who leaked the information?
Yes, it is lall righta No, i tis not all r i gh.t Not sure It depends
Total opinions
No responses
RESPONSES
Number Percentage
178 50. 1 101 28.5 52 14.6 24 6.8 --
355 100.0
4
aNinety-nire percent corifidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents that would feel it is all right is between 43 percent and 57 percent.
Arizona residents would feel it is all right for the government
agency to require employees to take a lie detector test to determine
who leaked the information.
Should Government Organizations and Individuals Be Doing More to Maintain the Confidentiality of the
Personal Information They Maintain
185
As reported in Chapter 5, Table 27, the respondents were
provided a list of eighteen organizations or individtals whose activ
ities are greatly dependent upon the collection and IJse of information
about people, and asked to indicate for each if they currently do
enough to keep the personal information they have on individuals con-
fidential, or should they be doing more. Table 62 provides a summary
on the government organizations or individuals incluied in this list.
Law enforcement agencies and the Internal Revenue Se"vice are the most
cited government institutions that should be doing ml)re to maintain the I
confidentiality of the personal information they maintain. A plurality
of 40.7 percent of the respondents feel law enforcement agencies should
be doing more, and a plurality of 39.4 percent feel the Internal Revenue
Service should be doing more. There is 99 percent confidence that
between 34 percent and 48 percent of all Arizona residents feel that
law enforcement agencies should be doing more, and between 32 percent
and 46 percent feel that the Internal Revenue Service should be doing
more.
There is mixed feelings among respondents concerning govern-
ment welfare agencies. Although 37.3. percent of the respondents feel
Table 62. Which Government Organizations and Individuals Should be Doing More to Maintain the Confidentiality of the Personal Information They Hold.
186
Question: For the same 1 ist would you please indicate whether you feel each is currently doing enough to keep the pers'onal information they have on individuals confidential, or should they be doing more?
Law enforcement agencies Should be doing morea Doing enough Not sure
Number of Respondents
Internal Revenue Service 353 Should be doing moreb Doing enough Not sure
Government welfare agencies 349 Should be doing morec Doing enough Not sure
State government regulatory agencies 351 Should be doing more Doing enoughd Not sure
Social Security Admi n i strat ion
Should be doing more Doing enoughe Not sure
352
. Pe rcen ta ge of Respondents
40.7 29.2 30. 1
39.4 30.6 30.0
37.3 22.9 39.8
31.1 37.7 30.0
29.8 34.4 35.8
Rank Among 18 Organizations
5
7
8
13
15
Table 62--Continued
Elected state/county/ city officials
Should be doing more Doing enough f Not sure
Number of Respondents
Percentage of Respondents
27.2 27.5 45.3
187
Rank Among 18 Organizations
17
aNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arfzona residents that feel law enforcement agencies should be doing more is between 34 percent and 48 percent.
bNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents that feel the Internal Revenue Service should be doing more is between 32 percent and 46 percent.
cNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents that feel government welfare agencies should be doing more is between 30 percent and 44 percent.
dNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents that feel state government regulatory agencies are doing enough is between 31 percent and 45 percent.
eNinety-nine percent conffdence that the proportion of all Arizona residents that feel the Social Security Administration is doing enough fs between 27 percent and 41 percent.
fNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents that feel elected state, county, and city officials are doing enough is between 22 percent and 34 percent.
188
they should be doing more, there is 39.8 percent of the respondents
who are not sure.
State government regulatory agencies were found by a plurality
of 37.7 percent of the respondents to be doing enough to maintain the
confidential ity of the personal information they hold. In contrast,
31.1 percent feel they should be doing more, and 30 percent are not
sure. There1is 99 percent confidence that between 31 percent and 45
percent of a1 1 Arizona residents would feel state government regulatory
agencies are doing enough.
There was also uncertainty among respondents as to what the
Social Security Administration and elected state, county, and city
officials do or do not do, to maintain the confidentiality of the
personal information they hold. Although 34.4 percent of the respond-
ents feel thE~ Social Security Administration is doing enough, there is
35.8 percent of the respondents who are not sure. The uncertainty
among respondents was even greater in the case of elected state, county,
and city officials. A plurality of 43.5 percent of the respondents
are not sure if these officials should be doing more, or are doing
enough.
Should People Have Access to Government Files About Themselves At Cost To Government
The Freedom of Information Act of 1966 enables individuals
to obtain access to personal files as well as any records maintained
by the federal government, with some exemptions. Since the Act1s
enactment a number of federal agencies have complained that answering
these requests is time-consuming, exceedingly costly, and restrictive
to their operations. 4 As a consequence, much legislation has been
189
enacted, and more is proposed, that would restrict the kind and amount
of government records applicable to the Freedom of Information Act.
To learn how Arizona residents feel about the issue of people having
access to government files about themselves at cost to government,
they were asked if people should or should not have this access.
Table 63 shows that a strong majority of 89.1 percen' of the respond-
ents feel people should have access. Further, there is 99 percent
confidence that between 85 percent and 93 percent of all Arizona
residents feel that people should have access to government files
about themselves at cost to government.
Summary
Although it was shown in Chapter 5 that a si~nificant per-
centage of Arizona residents are worried about government using the
personal information they collect on people properly, it does not
appear they are overly concerned about various government agencies
collecting too much personal information. The Internal Revenue Service
was the single government agency to receive a plurality measure from
the survey respondents as collecting too much personal information.
There were strong indicators, however, that Arizona residents are not
4. Some put the cost of finding, censoring, and copying documents to be as much as $57 million a year (Gartner, 1981).
Table 63. Should People Have Access to Government Files About Themselves at Cost to Government
Question: For some years now the law has allowed people access to federal government files about themselves. Some government agencies complain that answering these requests is time-consuming and expensive. Do you feel that people should have access to their records even if it is costly for the government to provide them, or shouldn't they?
a Should have access Should not have access Not s'ure
Total opinions
No responses
RESPONSES
Number Percentage
318 89.1 20 5.6 19 5.3
357 100.0
190
aNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents that feel people should have access is between 85 percent and 93 percent.
generally knowledgeable about the personal information gathering
practices of a number of federal and state government agencies.
A significant percentage of Arizona residents do not feel
191
that the police forces are maintaining a balance between their respect
for individuals' co~stitutional rights and the need to conduct surveil
lance to protect society. Greater numbers of Arizona residents feel
the police forces are not doing enough to protect society as compared
to not doing enough to protect individuals' rights. Still, Arizona
residents are not prepared to give police carte blanche to take cer
tain surveillance and information gathering activities without a court
order. They do not believe that a law enforcement agency should be
allowed to open the mail, tap the telephone, or examine the bank
records of a suspect without a court order. However they do feel a
law enforcement agency should be able to keep a suspect's movement
under surveillance wi,thout a court order. A strong majority of
Arizona residents also feel that police should not have the right to
stop anyone indiscriminantly, who is not doing anything illegal, and
demand personal identification.
A significant percentage of Arizona residents feel it is all
right for a government agency to require all handlers of classified
information to take a lie detector test when such information is leaked
to the press. Significant percentages of Arizona residents also feel
that law enforcement agencies, the Internal Revenue Service, and
government welfare agencies should be doing more to maintain the con
fidentiality of the personal information on people that they hold.
192
In contrast they generally feel that state government regulatory
agencies, the Social Security Administration, and elected state,
county, and city officials are doing enough to maintain the confiden-
tia1ity of their personal information. There is evidence, however,
that significant percentages of Arizona residents are not knowledgeable
about what various government organizations or individuals do, or do
not do, to mai1ntain the confidentiality of the personal information
they have.
Arizona residents are adamant that people should have access
to government files about themselves at cost to government. This
suggests that Arizona residents would not generally favor further
legislative acts to repeal or constrict the Freedom of Information Act,
particularly any actions that would restrict their access to government
files about themselves.
CHAPTER 11
HOW ARIZONA RESIDENTS FEEL COMPUTERS IMPACT ON THEIR PERSONAL PRIVACY
The computer, as a device in the service of the information
process, is thought to be at the heart of the public's concern about
privacy. It enables enormous increases over the capac ty of manual
systems in the quantities of data that can be gathered, processed,
stored, and retrieved. It centralizes this information in databanks
which can be linked to permit instantaneous retrieval of countless
diverse facts. Telecommunication technological innova':ions are ex-
tending the power of computers through communication networks and
user-oriented terminals. The development of computeri::ed information
systems of unparalleled speed and efficiency is expected to continue
in geometric measures. Obviously there are great benefits to be
derived from these computerized information systems, in terms of
effective planning, resource allocation, and greater efficiency in
various types of human activity. However, they also raise threats to
important human values, such as privacy. This chapter addresses the
eighth objective of the study, to explore the attitudes of Arizona
residents toward computers and the uses made of them by government and
business. Each of the following sections addresses a specific re-
search question delineated for this objective.
193
Do Arizona Residents Believe Computers Threaten Privacy
The respondents were asked if they feel that the present uses
of computers are, or are not, an actual threat to personal privacy in
194
this country. Table 64 shows that 62.6 percent of the respondents feel
that present uses of computers are a threat, only 11.9 percent feel they
are not a threat, and 20.5 percent of the respondents are not sure.
Further, there is 99 percent confidence that between 56 percent and 60
percent of all Arizona residents feel that the present uses of computers
are a threat to personal privacy in this country.
Crosstabulations were performed on the demographic attributes
of the respondents by whether they feel the present use of computers
are, or are not, a threat to personal privacy. Tables 65 through 74
present these crosstabulations. The tables show that the feeling that
present uses of computers are a threat to personal privacy is univer-
sally high throughout all demographic characteristics. The statistical
tests of dependence and correlation between each demographic attribute
and the feeling of threat did not suggest any significant relationships.
The level of concern about threats to the respondents' per~
sonal privacy in today's society was also crosstabulated with the re-
spondents' feelings on whether the present uses of computers are, or
are not, an actual threat to personal privacy in this country. It was
hypothesized that if in fact computers are at the heart of the public
concern over the loss of personal privacy a systemmatic relationship
would exist between these two variables. Table 75 shows that of those
respondents who feel that the present uses of computers are a threat to
Table 64. Do Arizona Residents Feel the Present Uses of Computers Threaten Personal Privacy
Question: Do you feel that the present uses of computers are, or are not, an actual threat to personal privacy in this country?
RESPONSES
Number Percentage
Present uses are a threata 223 62.6 Present uses are not a threat 60 16.9 Not sure ...Jl. 20.5
Total opinions 356 100.0
No responses 3
195
aN' . Inety-nlne percent dents that feel the and 60 percent.
confidence that the proportion of all Arizona resipresent uses are a threat is between 56 percent
196
Table 65. Do the Present Uses of Computers Threaten Personal Privacy by Race of Respondents
RESPONSES
Present Uses Present Uses Are Number Are a Threat Not a Threat Not Sure
Race White Mexican-American Amer i can I nd ilan Black Ori enta 1 Other
308 21
4 8 2 2
62.4% 76.2 25.0 50.0 0.0
50.0
18.0% 0.0
25.0 12.5 50.0 50.0
Raw chi square = 13.77270 with 10 degrees of freedom. Significance • .1836
Pearson's R = .08227. Significance = .0642
19.6% 23.8 50.0 37.5 50.0 0.0
197
Table 66. Do the Present Uses of Computers Threaten Personal Privacy by Sex of Respondents
RESPONSES
Present Uses Present Uses Are Number Are a Threat Not a Threat
Sex ~1a 1 e 167 60.5% 20.4% Female 187 64.2 13.9
Raw chi-square = 2.68838 with 2 degrees of freedom. Significance = .2606
Pearson's R = .00572. Significance = .4573.
Not Sure
19.1 % 21.9
198
Table 67. Do the Present Uses of Computers Threaten Personal Privacy by Age of Respondents.
RESPONSES
Present Uses Present Uses Are Number Are a Threat Not a Threat
Age Less than 18 years 1 0.0% 100.0% 18 to 29 years 62 67.7 12.9 30 to 49 years 145 67.6 15.2 50 years and over 146 55.5 19.9
Raw chi-square = 10.53269 with 6 degrees of freedom. Significance = .1039
Pearson1s R = .09110. Signiftcance = .0435
Not Sure
0.0% 19.4 17.2 24.6
199
Table 68. Do the Present Uses of Computers Threaten Personal Privacy by Household Income of Respondents
RESPONSES
Present Uses Present Uses Are Number Are a Threat Not a Threat
Household income Less than $5,000 7 85.7% 0.0% $5,000 to $9,999 24 58.3 12.5 $10,000 to $14,999 54 55.6 16.7 $15,000 to $19,999 51 60.8 15.7 $20,000 to $24,999 49 77.6 12.2 $25,000 to $49,999 121 59.5 19.0 Over $50,000 29 62.1 24. 1
Raw chi-square = 12.17244 with 12 degrees of freedom. Significance = .431~
Pearson's R = -.04054. Significance = .2298
Not Sure
14.3% 29.2 27.7 23.5 10.2 21.5 13.8
" '
200
Table 69. Do the Present Uses of Computers Threaten Personal Privacy by Pol itica1 Affiliation of Respondents
RESPONSES
Present Uses Present Uses Are Number Are a Threat Not a Threat Not Sure
Political affiliation Republican Democrat Independent Other
134 133 63 9
65.7% 60.9 57.1 44.4
Raw chi-square = 9.54981 with 6 degrees of freedom. Significance = .1449.
Pearson1s R = .10445. Significance = .0273.
19.4% 13.5 22.2 11.2
14.9% 25.6 20.7 44.4
201
Table 70. Do the Present Uses of Computers Threat Personal Privacy by Political Philosophy of Respondents
RESPONSES
Present Uses Present Uses Are Number Are a Tnreat Not a Threat Not Sure
Pol itica1 philosophy Liberal Middle-of-the-road Conservative Other
58 145 129
6
67.2% 60.0 63.6 50.0
Raw chi-square = 8.79636 with 6 degrees of freedom. Significance = .1854.
Pearson's R = -.00551. Significance = .4598
10.3% 17.2 20.91 0.0
22.5% 22.8 15.5 50.0
202
Table 71. Do the Present Uses of Computers Threaten Personal Privacy by Size of City or Town Lived in of Respondents
RESPONSES Present Uses Present Uses Are
Number Are a Threat Not a Threat Not Sure
Size of city/town Less than 5,000 5,000 to 25,000 25,000 to 50,000 50,000 to 100,000 100,000 or more
17 39 34 27
237
58.8% 56.4 64.7 70.4 62.4
Raw chi-square = 7.68792 with 8 degrees of freedom. Significance = .4645
Pearson1s R = -.04161. Significance = .2176
23.5% 17.9 8.8 3.7
19.0
17.7% 25.7 26.5 25.9 18.6
203
Table 72. Do the Present Uses of Computers Threaten Personal Privacy by Employment Outside the Home of Respondents
RESPONSES
Present Uses Are Present Uses' Number Are a Threat Not a Threat Not Sure
Employed Yes, full time Yes, part time No
218 31
104
63.8% 58. 1 60.6
15.6% 19.4 19.2
Raw chi-square = 19.11145 with 6 degrees of freedom. Significance = .0040.
Pearson1s R = .06373. Significance = .1155
--.--- ------_.
20.6% 22.5 20.2
Table 73. Do the Present Uses of Computers Threaten Personal Privacy by Occupation of Respondents
RESPONSES
Present Uses Present Uses Are
204
Number Are a Threat Not a Threat Not Sure
Occupation Professional 39 53.8% 25.6% 20.6% Managerial/ Administrativ
r 70 68.6 10.0 21.4
Techn i ca 1 t rad,~ 30 63.3 20.0 16.7 Blue co 11 ar 48 56.3 18.7 25.0 Secretarial/ clerical 25 72.0 0.0 28.0
Retired 38 55.3 15.8 23.9 Student 6 50.0 50.0 0.0 Homemaker 25 56.0 16.0 28.0 Sales 7 42.9 42.9 14.2 t~ilitary 4 75.0 25.0 0.0 Self-employed 4 75.0 0.0 25.0
Raw ch.i -squa re = 27.98632 with 24 degrees of freedom. Significance = .2607.
Pearson's R = -.04759. Significance = .1860.
205
Table 74. Do the Present Uses of Computers Threaten Personal Privacy by Education of Respondents
RESPONSES
Present Uses Present Uses Are Number Are a Threat Not a Threat
Educat ion Grade school 13 76.9% 23.1% High school 81 58.0 14.8 Vocational/trade 27 66.7 14.8
1
2 years of college 74 62.2 16.2 4 years of col lege 83 69.9 14.5 Graduate school 76 55.2 22.4
Raw chi-square = 9.90966 with 10 degrees of freedom. Significance = .4485
Pearson's R = .00208. Significance = .4844
Not.Sure
0.0% 27.2 18.5 21.6 15.6 22.4
Table 75. Crosstabulation of Concern About Threats to Personal Privacy by Whether Present Uses of Computers Are a Threat to Personal Privacy
Question 1: How concerned are you about threats to your personal privacy in today's society?
Question 2: Do you feel that the present uses of computers are, or are not, an actual threat to personal privacy in this country?
QUESTION 2 RESPONSES
Present uses are a threat Present uses are not a threat Not sure
Number of Respondents
221 60 73
Very Concerned
59.3% 31.7 35.6
QUESTION 1 RESPONSES
Somewhat Concerned
34.8% 35.0 47.9
Only A Litt 1 e Concerned
5.9% 30.0 15. 1
Raw chi-square = 43.96137 with 6 degrees of freedom. Significance = .0000
Pearson's R = .24932. Significance = .0000
Not Concerned At All
0.0% 3.3 1.4
N o 0'
207
their personal privacy, 59.3 percent are very concerned about threats
to their personal privacy in today's society, 34.8 percent are somewhat
concerned, 5.9 percent are only a little concerned and none are not
concerned at all. In contrast, of those respondents who do not feel
present uses of computers are a threat, 31.7 percent are very concerned
about threats to their personal privacy in today's society, 35 percent
are somewhat concerned, 30 percent are only a little concerned and 3.3
percent are not concerned at all. Thus it would appear that those who
are very concerned about threats to their personal privacy are also
most likely to feel the present uses of computers represent a threat
to personal privacy. There is relatively equal distributions of the
level of concern about threats to personal privacy among the respond-
ents who do not feel the present uses of computers are a threat to
personal privacy. The chi-square is statistically significant at the
.0001 level, leading to the conclusion that a systemmatic relationship
does exist between the two variables. The low Pearson's Correlation
Coefficient of .24932 suggests that although there is a definite
relationship, the strength of the relationship is small.
Some General Views ot Arizona Residents About Computers
To further explore the attitudes of Arizona residents toward
computers, the respondents were asked to agree or disagree with a
series of common general statements about the merits of computer per-
sona1 information record keeping and their potentials for contributing
to the loss of personal privacy. Table 76 shows that the respondents
Table 76. Whether Arizona Residents Agree or Disagree with Various Statements About Computers
Question: The following are statements which some people have made about computers. Please indicate for each whether you agree, or disagree, with each statement.
RESPONSES
208
Number Agree Disagree Not Sure
Computers have Inade it much easier for someone to improperly obtain confidential personal information about individualsa
In general, the privacy of personal information in com- b puters is adequately safeguarded
Because computers can make use of personal details about people, companies can provide customers with more individualized servicesc
Computers have improved the quality of life in our societyd
356
356
354
355
84.8% 4.4% 11 .0%
18.3 54.7 27.0
54.0 25.4 20.6
56.3 20.6 23. I
209
Table 76--Continued
RESPONSES
Number Agree Oi sagree Not Sure
If privacy is to be preserved, the use of computers must be sharply restricted in the future. e 353 43.3% 28.9% 27.8%
aNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion oflall Arizona residents that agree with this statement is between 80 pe~cent and 90 percent.
bNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents that disagree with this statement is between 48 percent and 62 percent.
cNinety-nine percent ~onfidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents that agree with this statement is between 47 pe cent and 61 percent.
dNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents that agree with this statement is between 49 pe cent and 63 percent.
eNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents that agree with this statement is between 36 percent and 50 percent.
210
agree by a 56.3 percent ot 20.6 percent majority that computers have
improved the quality of life in our society. There is 99 percent con
fidence that between 49 percent and 63 percent of all Arizona residents
would feel the same. The respondents also agree by a 54 percent to
25.4 percent majority that because computers can make use of personal
details about people, companies ·can provide customers with more indi
vidualized services. Further, there is 99 percent confidence that
between 47 percent and 61 percent of all Arizona residents would feel
computers have enabled companies to provide more individualized services.
Thus, it is apparent that Arizona residents are knowledgeable about
what are commonly considered to be the merits of computers. They also
are quite clear about their fears of computers as threats to their per
sonal privacy. By a sizable majority of 84.6 percent to 4.4 percent,
the respondents feel that computers have made it much easier for someone
to improperly obtain confidential personal information about individuals.
There is also 99 percent confidence that between 80 percent and 90 per
cent of all Arizona residents feel computers have made it easier for
this to occur. Also, by a majority of 54.7 percent as opposed to 18.3
percent, the respondents feel that the privacy of personal information
in computers is not adequately safeguarded. Further, there is 99 per
cent confidence that between 48 percent and 62 percent of all Arizona
residents feel such safeguards are inadequate. Surprisingly the respond
ents also feel, by a 43.3 percent to 28.9 percent plurality, that if
privacy is to be preserved the use of computers must be sharply re
stricted in the future. There is 99 percent confidence that between
36 percent and 50 percent of all Arizona residents agree that the
use of computers must be restricted to preserve personal privacy.
Statistical correlation analyses were performed on the views
211
of the respondents to each of the five statements about computers dis
cussed in this section, and shown in Table 76, compared with the level
of concern respondents have about threats to their personal privacy in
today's society as shown in Table 4. Systemmatic relationships were
noted, where chi-square statistics were sufficiently high with a level
of significance of less than or equal to 0.01, between the individuals'
concern about threats to their privacy and their agreement or disagree
ment with the following statements: computers have made it much easier
for someone to improperly obtain confidential personal information about
individuals; in general, the privacy of personal information in com
puters is adequately safeguarded, and; computers have improved the
quality of life in our society. In only one of these correlations,
however, was the statistical significance within the statistical infer
ence standards established for the study. This one positive system
matic relationship, occurring at the 99 percent confidence level, was
between the respondents' agreement on the statement that the use of
computers must be sharply restricted in the future if privacy is to be
preserved and their level of concern about threats to their personal
privacy in today's society. Table 77 shows that those individuals who
are very concerned about threats to their personal privacy are also
those who would most likely agree that if privacy is to be preserved,
the use of computers must be sharply restricted in the future.
Table 77. Crosstabulation of Concern About Threats to Personal Privacy with Agreement that the Use of Computers Must be Sharply Restricted in the Future if Privacy is to Be Preserved
Question 1: How concerned are you about threats to your personal pdvacy in today's society?
Question 2: Do you agree, or disagree, with the statement that if privacy is to be preserved, the use of computers must be sharply restricted in the future?
QUESTION 2 RESPONSES
Agree Di sagree Not sure
Number of Respondents
152 101 98
Very Concerned
65.1% 37.6 36.7
QUESTION 1 RESPONSES
Somewhat Concerned
32.9% 39.6 43.9
Only A Little Concerned
2.0% 21.8 17.3
Raw chi-square = 41.79094 with 6 degrees of freedom. Significance = .0000
Pearson's R = .29412. Significance = .0000
Not Concerned At All
0.0% 1.0 2.1
N
N
213
The chi-square is statistically significant at the .0001 level
indicating a systemmatic relationship does exist between these two
variables. The Pearson's Coefficient of .29412 is statistically sig-
nificant at the .0001 level which distinguishes the definite relation-
ship and suggests the strength of the relationship is small.
The opinions expressed by Arizona residents to the statements
in this section reflect that business and government srould have reason
for concern if they expect to continue making widesprebd use of com-
puters. Clearly some attention must be turned toward convincing
Arizona residents that the personal information stored in computers is
adequately safeguarded.
Reactions of Arizona Residents Toward Potential Uses of Computers
To gain an additional perspective of the concern of Arizona
residents about the threats to personal privacy posed by computers,
respondents were given a list of seven different circumstances in which
computers could be used and asked whether they considered each use
justified or not. Table 78 presents the results of this questioning.
By an overwhelming majority of 95.8 percent to 1.7 percent,
the respondents believe it is justifiable for government agencies to
use computers to check welfare rolls against employment records to
identify people claiming benefits they are not entitled to. 5 There is
5. Although a 1978 computer income cross-check bill designed to caich welfare cheats in the 1978 Ohio State Legislature failed to pass with individual's privacy rights being the issue of debate, a new computer cross-check bill was introduced in the 1978 Ohio State Legislative Session and was expected to pass (Laberis, 1981, p. 34).
214
Table 78. Whether Arizona Residents Feel Various Uses of Computers are Justified
Question: The following is a list of different ways that computers could be used today. Please indicate whether you feel each type of use is, or is not, justified.
Government agencies checking welfare rolls against employment records to identify people claiming benefits they are not entitled toa
Maintaining a central computer file containing the names of all individuals who have been treated for mental health b problems for use by employers
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) using computers to check tax returns against credit card recordsc
State Agencies maintaining a central computer file containing a record of the names of individuals who have been given a prescription for a d dangerous or addictive drug
The insurance industry maintaining a central computer file containing details of anyone who is suspected of making a fraudulent claim in any insurance pol icye
RESPONSES
Is Number Justified
356 95.8%
356 14.0
356 42. 1
356 27.0
356 55.9
Is Not Justified
1. 7%
77.0
44.4
60.4
31.5
Not Sure
2.5%
9.0
13.5
12.6
12.6
215
Table 78--Continued
RESPONSES
Is Is Not Number Justified Justified Not Sure
Law enforcement agencies maintaining a central com-puter file containing a record of the names and addresses of all individuals who visit an inmate at state or federal prison f 356 21 .3% 68.3% 10.4%
Law enforcement agencies main-taining a central computer file containing a record of names and addresses of individ-uals who purchase munitionsg 355 44.2 41.7 14. 1
aNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents that feel this use is justified is between 93 percent and 99 percent.
bNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents that feel this use is not justified is between 71 percent and 83 percent.
cNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents that feel this use is not justified is between 37 percent and 51 -percen t.
dNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents that feel this use is not justified is between 53 percent and 67 percent.
eNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents that feel this use is justified is between 49 percent and 63 percent.
fNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents that feel this use is not justified is between 62 percent and 74 percent.
gNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents that feel this is justified is between 37 percent and 51 percent.
216
99 percent confidence that between 93 percent and 99 percent of all Ari-
zona residents feel that such use of computers by government isjustified.
The respondents also believe, by a 55.9 percent to 31.5 percent majority,
that it is justified for the insurance industry to maintain a central
computer file containing details of anyone who is suspected of making
a fraudulent claim in any insurance policy. There is 99 percent confi-
dence that between 49 percent and 63 percent of all Arizona residents
feel such use IOf computers by the insurance industry is justified.
In contrast, the respondents feel by a solid majority of 77
percent to 14 percent that it is not justifiable for employers to
maintain and use a central computer file containing the names of all
individuals who have been treated for mental health problems. There is
99 percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents which
feel this is an unjustified use of computers is between 71 percent and
83 percent. Likewise, by a majority of 68.3 percent to 21.3 percent,
the respondents do not feel it is justifiable for law enforcement
agencies to maintain a central computer file containing a record of
the names and addresses of all individuals who visit an inmate at a
state or federal prison. 6 There is 99 percent confidence that between
62 percent and 74 percent of all Arizona residents feel this use of
computers by law enforcement agencies is not justified. A majority of
60.4 percent to 27 percent of the respondents also do not feel it
justified for state government agencies to maintain a central computer
6. This practice was reported to have taken pl~ce by the Arizona Drug Control District (Tucson Citizen, 1981).
217
file containing a record of the names of individuals who have been
given a prescription for a dangerous or addictive drug. There is 99
percent confidence that between 53 percent and 67 percent of all
Arizona residents feel this potential use of computers is not justified.
The respondents showed uncertainty in evaluating the justifi-
cation of computer use in the two remaining areas considered. By a
slim plurality of 44.2 percent to 41.7 percent, with 11.1 percent being
unsure, the respondents feel it is justified for law erllforcement agencies
to maintain a central computer file containing a record of names and
addresses of individuals who purchase munitions. In this instance,
there is 99 percent confidence that between 37 percent and 51 percent of
all Arizona residents feel this is a justified use of computers by law
enforcement agencies. Also, by a slim plurality of 44 4 percent to 42.1
percent, with 13.5 percent being unsure, the respondenl:s feel it is not
justifiable for the Internal Revenue Service to use computers to check
tax returns against credit card records. There is 99 percent confidence
that between 37 percent and 51 percent of all Arizona residents agree
this is an unjustified use of computers by the Internal Revenue Service.
Summary
Arizona residents feel that the present uses of computers are
a threat to their personal privacy. They agree that computers have
improved the quality of life in our society and they have enabled more
individualized consumer services from business. At the same time,
Arizona residents are quite clear about their fears of computers as
threats to their personal privacy. They feel computers have made it
much easier for someone to improperly obtain confidential personal
218
i nformat i on about i nd i vi dua 1 s, and they a re not convi nced that there a re ade
quate safeguards in computer systems to protect the privacy of computerized
persona 1 i nformat i on. As a resu 1 t, a sign i fi cant percentage of Ari zona res i
dents, bordering on a majority, feel that the use of computers must be sharply
restricted in the future if personal privacy is to be preserved. The views of
the respondents demonstrate the need for business:and government to not only
develop and implement privacy safeguards into computerized information sys
terns, but to also convi nce the pub 1 i c that such safegua rds exi st, part i cu la rl y
if they expect to continue making widespread use of computers.
Arizona residents have differingopinions as towhat are justifiable
uses of computers by government and bus i ness. They fi rmly feel that govern
ment use of computers to detect weI fare fraud is justi fied. They also feel
it is a jus t if i ed use of computers by the insurance tndust ry to rna i nta i n reco rds
of suspected i nd i vi dua 1 s who have made fraudu 1 ent insurance cIa i ms. I n con
trast, as examples, they do not feel it justifi"ed for state agencies to keep
compute ri zed f i 1 es on i nd i vi dua 1 s given prescr i pt ions for dangerous drugs,
or emp loye rs keep i ng and us i ng compute ri zed f i 1 es on i nd i vi dua 1 s who have
been treated for mental heal th problems. There are mixed feel ings among
Arizona residents as to whether the Internal Revenue Service using computers
to check tax returns aga ins t cred it ca rd records is a jus t i fi ab Ie use of com
puters, as are there mi xed react ions to 1 aw enforcement agenc i es rna i nta i n i ng
computeri zed records on those i nd i vi dua 1 s pu rchas i ng mun it ions. The res ul ts
suggest that the op i n ions of Ar i zona res i dents as to what is just i f i ed use of
computers by government and bus i ness wi 11 va ry dependent upon the issue at
hand.
CHAPTER 12
HOW ARIZONA RESIDENTS FEEL ABOUT VARIOUS PRIVACY PROTECTION PROPOSALS
Throughout this study it is evident that Arizona residents
are greatly concerned about the potential for future loss of their
personal privacy. Further, it appears that Arizona residents are
asking, if not demanding, that government and business take effective
measures to assure against furt8er loss of personal privacy. This
chapter addresses the ninth objective of the study. That is, to
evaluate the views of Arizona residents toward a number of privacy
principles and protection proposals which have been presented by
various authorities in current times. Each of the research questions
delineated for this objective is addressed in the following sections
of this chapter.
What Rights Should People Have On Whom Personal Information Records Are Maintained by Government,
Business,and Employers
In Chapter 2 it was reported that an emerging consensus was
evolving on five broad general principles which policy makers should
be applying to a wide variety of personal data systems. They include:
(1) the establishment of access to one1s own data; (2) ensuing accuracy,
completeness, and timeliness of recorded information; (3) the placement
of limits on information which may be collected; (4) establishing
procedures for challenging and correcting erroneous data, and;
219
220
(5) protecting data from unnecessary disclosure. From these principles,
a number of rights have been suggested which individuals should have
when personal information records are maintained on them by government,
businesses, and employers. The respondents were provided a list of
such rights and asked for each the extent to which they agree or dis-
agree on an attitude scale. As shown in Table 79, Arizona residents
strongly agree IbY large consensus margins that individuals should have
the following six rights: (1) the right to be informed of the existence
of such records when started; (2) the right to review on demand the
contents of records concerning them; (3) the right to correct, rebut,
update, and expunge incorrect or obsolete information concerning them;
(4) the right to learn the source of information concerning them;
(5) the right to be informed just how information collected on them will
be used, and; (6) the right to require an individual IS agreement before
information from his or her files is given out to other organizations
for purposes other than what it was collected for.
The Level of Agreement of Arizona Residents on Privacy Protection Proposals Suggested For Government, Business, and
Employers Who Maintain Computerized Personal Data Records
The survey instrument also contained a series of attitudinal
questions in the form of statements enunciating five privacy protection
proposals which have been suggested for government, business, and
private employers who maintain computerized personal data records on
individuals. For each proposal, respondents were asked whether they
strongly agree, agree, were neutral, disagree, or strongly disagree.
221
Table 79. The Level of Agreement of Arizona Residents on Rights Which Individuals Should Have When Their Personal Information Records are Maintained by Government, Business, and Employers
Question: Various people have suggested a number of rights which individuals should have when personal information records are maintained on them by government, businesses, and employers. Please indicate the extent to which you agree, or disagree, with each of the following suggested rights for individuals.
The right to be informed of the existence of such records when starteda
The right to review on demand the contents of records concerning themb
The right to correct, rebut, update, and expunge incorrect or obsolete information concerning themc
The right to learn the source of information concerning themd
The right to be informed just how information collected on them will be usede
RESPONSES
Number Strongly
Agree Strongly
Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree
356 73.6% 19.9% 4.8% 1.4% 0.3%
355 72.4 23~9 2.3 1.1 0.3
356 78.7 18.3 2.2 0.8 0.0
356 71.4 20.2 6.7 1.7 0.0
356 77.0 19.7 2.5 0.5 0.3
Table 79--Continued
The right to require an individual IS agreement before information from his or her files is given out to other organizations for purposes other than what it was collected for. f
Number
357
Strongly Agree
222
RESPONSES
Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree
83.7% 14.3% 1.4% 0.6% 0.0%
aNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents that strongly agree on this right is between 68 percent and 80 pe rcent.
bN• • Inety-nlne percent dents that strongly percent.
confidence that the proportion of all Arizona resiagree on this right is between 66 percent and 78
cNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents that strongly agree on this right is between 73 percent and 85 percent.
dN· . Inety-nlne percent dents that strongly percent.
confidence that the proportion of all Arizona resiagree on this right is between 65 percent and 77
eNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents that strongly agree on this right is between 71 percent and 83 percent.
f N• t . Ine y-nlne percent dents that strongly 89 percent.
confidence that the proportion of all Arizona resiagree on this right is between 79 percent and
223
Table 80 shows that a majority of Arizona residents feel each
of the five privacy protection proposals should be implemented. They
also feel more strongly about certain proposals than others. An oVer
whelming majority of 96.6 percent of the respondents agree professional
standards concerning how personal information is acquired and dissem
inated should be established. Of this total, 64.1 percent strongly
agree. There is 99 percent confidence that between 95 percent and 99
percent of all Arizona residents would agree that such professional
standards should be established. Further, there is 99 percent confid
ence that between 57 percent and 71 percent of all Arizona residents
would strongly agree on this proposal.
There was 93 percent of the respondents who agree security
standards for computer equipment and the programs that run them should
be established. Of this total, 62.3 percent are in strong agreement.
There is 99 percent confidence that between 90 percent and 96 percent
of all Arizona residents agree these security standards should be
extablished. Further, there is 99 percent confidence that between
55 percent and 69 percent of all Arizona residents strongly agree on
this proposal.
There was 88.7 percent of the respondents who agree all com
puterized personal data record systems should undergo periodic site
inspections to assure compliance as to their purpose, contents, use,
and security. Of this total, 60.1 percent are in strong agreement.
There is 99 percent confidence that between 85 percent and 93 percent
of all Arizona residents agree that these inspections should be
224
Table 80. The Level of Agreement of Arizona Residents on Privacy Protection Proposals Which Have Been Suggested for Government, Business, and Employers Who Maintain Computerized Personal Data Records
Question: A number of privacy protection proposals have been suggested for government, business, and private employers who maintain computerized personal data records on individuals. Please indicate the extent to which you agree, or disagree, with each of the following proposals.
Number
All computerized record systems should be registered by law as to purpose and contentsa
Security staniards for computer equi )ment and the programs that run them should b,~ estab-1ishedb
Professional standards concerning how person-al information is acquired and disseminated
355
355
should be estab1ished c 351
All computerized per-sonal data record sys-tems should under periodic site inspections to assure comp1icance as to their purpose, con- d tent, use, and security 353
Strongly Agree
54.4%
62.3
64. 1
60.1
RESPONSES
Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree
25.4% 10.1% 7.3% 2.8%
30.7 4.2 2.0 0.8
32.5 2.8 2.2 0.0
28.6 0.5 1.4 1.4
225
Table 80--Continued
RESPONSES
Strongly Strongly Number Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree
The people who work as data processors on computerized person-al data record systems should be certified and
I 1 icensed by a govern-ment agencye 355 47.3% 18.9% 15.5% 14.1% 4.2%
aNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents that strongly agree on this proposal is between 47 percent and 61 percent; that agree is between 75 percent and 85 percent.
bNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents that strongly agree on this proposal is between 55 percent and 69 percent; that agree is between 90 percent and 96 p~rcent.
cNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona resi-dents that strongly agree on this proposal is between 57 percent and 71 percent; that agree is between 95 percent and 99 perc~nt.
dNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents that strongly agree on this proposal is between 53 percent and 67 percent; that agree is between 85 percent and 93 percent.
eNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Ariozna residents that strongly agree on this proposal is between 40 percent and
·54 percent; that agree is between 60 percent and 72 percent.
226
undertaken. Further, there is 99 percent confidence that between 53
percent and 67 percent of all Arizona residents strongly agree on this
proposal.
A majority of 79.8 percent of the respondents agree that all
computerized record systems should be registered by law as to purpose
and contents. Of this total, 54.4 percent strongly agree. There is
99 percent confidence that between 75 percent and 85 percent of all
Arizona residents agree that all computerized record systems should be
registered by law. Further, there is 99 percent confidence that
between 47 percent and 61 percent of all Arizona residents strongly
agree on this privacy protection proposal.
A majority of 66.2 percent of the respondents agree that the
people who work as data processors on computerized personal data record
systems should be certified and licensed by a government agency. Of
this total, 47.3 percent strongly agree. There is 99 percent confid
ence that between 60 percent and 72 percent of all Arizona residents
would agree, and between 40 percent and 54 percent would strongly
agree on this proposal.
The results of this questioning suggest, as a minimum, that
Arizona residents are indeed demanding that government, businesses, and
employers take effective measures to assure the confidentiality and
proper use of the personal information records they maintain.
Whether the Holder or Subject of Personal Data Records Should Have Property Rights
It was noted in Chapter 2 that there have been interpre-
tations of law which recognized certain zones of privacy in relation
227
to a person's property and to his or her physical person. These phys-
ical or territorial zones of privacy have historically been defined in
terms of real property laws. Consequently, one expedient method to
legally establish the right to privacy of personal data, by using the
protections provided by real property laws, is to establish the owner-
ship of the information in personal data records as resting with the
individual, with the holder of the records maintaining them in trust
for the individual. To gain public reaction to this legal concept,
the respondents were provided two contrasting points of view and asked
which they believe or prefer. The first point of view was that per-
sonal data records maintained by government, businesses, and private
employers are their exclusive property and the individuals on whom the
records are kept have no interest in them. The second point of view
was that the information in these records should be considered owned by
the individual, and that the government, business, or private employer
only maintains them in trust for the individual.
Table 81 shows that Arizona residents overwhelmingly prefer
the second point of view. A solid 82.2 percent majority of the re-
spondents prefer the records to be considered owned by the individual
and held in trust by the holder of the records. Only 3.7 percent of
the respondents prefer the holder to have exclusive property rights to
the records, and 14.1 percent were not sure. Further, there is 99
228
Table 81. Whether the Holder or Subject of Personal Data Records Should Have Property Rights
Question: Some people bel ieve that personal data records maintained by government, business, and private employers are their exclusive property, and the individual on whom the records are kept have no interest in them. Others feel that the information in these records should be considered owned by the individual, and that the government, business, or private employer only maintains them "in trust" for the individual. Which of these two points of view do you believe or prefer? --I
The personal data records are the exclusive property of the holder of the information and individuals have no interest in them
The personal data records should be considered ownad by the individual, and the holder of the information should maintai them "in trust" for the individua13
Not sure
Total opinions
No responses
RESPONSES
Number
13
291
.2Q.
354
5
Percentage
3.7
82.2
14. 1
100.0
aNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents which feel personal data should be considered owned by the individual and held lIin trust ll by the holder of the information is between 77 percent and 87 percent.
229
percent confidence that between 77 percent and 87 percent of all
Arizona residents prefer that personal data records be considered
owned by the individual with the holder of the information maintaining
them in trust for the individual.
Should An Arizona State Privacy Protection Agency Be Created
On a national level there have been advocates fl~ the
creation of a national Privacy Protection Agency. To gJlln a per-
spective of how Arizona residents feel toward a state government agency
of similar nature, respondents were asked if they favor or oppose the
creation of an Arizona State Privacy Protection Agency. In asking the
respondents, they were provided with two contrasting points of view.
The first point of view stated that some people believe such an agency
should be set up if the privacy of individual citizens is to be pro-
tected in Arizona. The second point of view stated that other people
believe that such an agency would merely lead to more intrusion into
individuals' personal privacy. Table 82 shows that the plurality of
the respondents, 39.3 percent, are not sure, while 34.6 percent of the
respondents are in opposition, and 26.1 percent are in favor of the
creation of an Arizona State Privacy Protection Agency. The respond-
ents who chose to write personal comments in further response to this
question primarily stated that they would need to know more about such
an agency, particularly its purpose and powers, prior to either favor-
ing or opposing its creation.
The results of this question suggest that Arizona residents
230
Table 82. Should an Arizona State Privacy Protection Agency Be Created
Question: Some people bel ieve that a new Arizona State Government Privacy Protection Agency should be set up if the privacy of individual citizens is to be protected in this state. Other people believe that such a state agency would merely lead to more intrusions into our personal privacy. Would you favor, or oppose, the creation of an Arizona State Privacy Protection Agency?
Favor Oppose
a Not sure
Total opinions
No responses
RESPONSES
Number
93 123 140
356
3
Percentage
26. 1 34.6 39.3
100.0
aNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents not sure is between 32 percent and 46 percent.
want laws and business policies to protect their future privacy, but
they are not convinced that a new government agency can do the job.
The Importance of an Independent Body or Agency to Handle Privacy Violation Complaints
By a Public or Private Organization
To gain a further perspective on the privacy protection
measures which Arizona residents desire, the respondents were asked
how important it is that there be an independent body or agency to
handle complaints about violations of personal privacy by a public or
231
private organization. Table 83 shows that 47.8 percent of the respond-
ents feel it is very important, and 32.6 percent feel it is somewhat
important. Only 8.4 percent of the respondents feel it is not impor-
tant, while 11.2 percent were not sure. There is 99 percent confidence
that between 75 percent and 85 percent of all Arizona residents feel
some measure of importance for such an independent body or agency, and
between 41 percent and 55 percent feel it very important.
The Importance of Organizations Collecting Only Essential Personal Information
In Chapter 5 it was noted that 69.2 percent of the respond-
ents feel most organizations that collect information about people ask
for more sensitive information than is necessary. It was also noted
that 76.4 percent of the respondents did not feel it necessary for
organizations to collect a great deal of sensitive personal information
in order to provide such services as credit, insurance, or employment.
To further validate that people have a concern about the collection,
use, and exchange of personal information about them by private and
232
Table 83. The Importance of an Independent Body or Agency to Handle Complaints About Violations of Personal Privacy by a Public or Private Organization
Question: Thinking of organizations such as government agencies, and businesses such as banks, insurance companies, credit card companies, and private employers, how important is it that there should be an independent body or agency to handle complaints about violations of personal privacy by an organ i zaton?
V• a ery Important
Somewhat important Not important at all Not sure
Total opinions
No responses
RESPONSES
Number Percentage
170 47.8 116 32.6
30 8.4 40 11.2 --
356 100.0
3
aNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents that feel it very important there be an independent body or agency is between 41 percent and 55 percent, and between 75 percent and 85 percent 'that feel it is either very or somewhat important.
233
public organizations, the respondents were asked how important is it
that organizations such as government agencies and businesses such as
banks, insurance companies, credit card companies, and private employ-
ers, collect only the personal information on individuals which is
essential to make a proper decision. As expected and shown in Table
84, a large majority of 85.1 percent of the respondents feel it is very
important that only the personal information on indiVidUaj~S which is
essential to making a proper decision be collected. Furtler, there
is 99 percent confidence that between 80 percent and 90 percent of all
Arizona residents feel it very important that only essential personal
information be collected from individuals. Although the issue of what
is essential information to make a proper decision is subject to con-
tinual debate, the results nonetheless argue for an organi~ation to
communicate more effectively with the individuals on whom it is gath-
ering information as to why specific personal information is needed
and how it will be used and safeguarded.
Where Should The Major Responsibility For Protecting Personal Privacy Rest
To learn where Arizona residents feel the major responsibility
lies for protecting the privacy of individual citizens, the respondents
were asked to select from a list including: the u.S. Congress; the
Arizona State Legislature; employers; the people themselves; the
President; the Governor, and; the courts. Table 85 shows that the re-
sponse most elected, by 39.5 percent of the respondents, is the u.S.
Congress. The people themselves and the courts followed with 35.6
Table 84. The Importance of Organizations Collecting Only Essential Personal Information
Question: Thinking of organizations such as government agencies, and businesses such as banks, insurance companies, credit card companies, and private employers, how important is it that they collect only the personal information on individuals which is essential to make a proper decision?
V• a ery Important
Somewhat important Not important at all Not sure
Total opinions
No responses
RESPONSES
Number Percentage
303 85.1 45 12.6
3 0.9 _5 1.4
356 100.0
3
234
aNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents that feel this is very important is between 80 percent and 90 pe rcen t.
235
Table 85. Where Should the Major Responsibility for Protecting Personal Privacy Rest
Question: Which of the following do you think should have the major responsibil ity for protecting the privacy of individual citizens?
(Number of respondents = 357)
The U.S. Congress The people themselves The courts The Arizona State Legislature Employers The President The Governor
Not sure
Percentage of Respondents
39.5 35.6 31.4 23.2 13.7 6.7 6.4
17 .6
236
percent and 31.4 percent of the respondents citing them respectively.
A total of 23.2 percent of the respondents cited the Arizona State
Legislature as having the major responsibility. Employers were selected
by 13.7 percent of the respondents. The President and the Governor were
cited by 6.7 percent and 6.4 percent respectively. The results suggest
that there is no consensus among Arizona residents as to who should have
the major respons1ibility for protecting the privacy of individuals.
Perhaps this is 01e reason why more public pressures have not been
brought to bear upon both government and private industry on the matter
of protecting personal privacy.
The Importance of Arizona Having A Privacy Law Designed-t Insure That the Personal Data Information in
State and Local Governments' Files Are Kept Confidential and Used Properly
A number )f states, including Arkansas, Connecticut, Massa-
chusetts, Minnesota, Ohio, Utah, and Virginia have enacted omnibus
privacy statutes. Usually referred to as "privacy acts" or IIfair
information practices acts," these statutes regulate the collection,
maintenance, use, and disclosure of information about individuals by
agencies of state government, and in some local county and city govern-
ments. For some ~ears the National Association of State Information
Systems and the Council of State Governments have been advocating pas-
sage of similar legislation in other states. Arizona does not have
omnibus privacy legislation. Rather, the Arizona State Legislature,
to date, has chosen the piecemeal approach to privacy protection by
enacting specific legislation for specific privacy needs. The
237
opponents of this piecemeal approach have argued that it results in
innumerable inconsistencies and is chaotic. The proponents of this
piecemeal approach argue that the complexities of the privacy issue
require specific legislation for specific privacy needs. To learn
to what extent Arizona residents would favor an omnibus privacy act,
the respondents were asked how important it is that Arizona have a
privacy law designed to ensure that the personal data records in state
and local governments' files are kept confidential and use~ properly.
Table 86 shows that 92.4 percent of the respondents feel it is important
that Arizona have such a privacy law. Of this total, 67.5 percent feel
it is very important and 24.9 percent feel it is somewhat important.
Only 2.3 percent of the respondents feel an Arizona privacy law is not
important, while 5.3 percent are not sure. There is 99 percent confid-
ence that between 88 percent and 96 percent of all Arizona residents
feel it is important that Arizona have a privacy law. Further, there
is 99 percent confidence that between 62 percent and 74 percent of all
Arizona residents feel it is very important that such B law be enacted.
The hypothesis was tested that there is a relationship between
an individual's concern about threats to his or her personal privacy
and the importance he or she places on having a privacy law. That is,
the more one is concerned, the more tmportance they would place on
having such a law. Table 87 shows that of the respondents who feel a
privacy law is very important, 59.6 percent are very concerned about
threats to their personal privacy, 35.4 percent are somewhat concerned
and 5 percent are only a little concerned. No respondent who feels a
Table 86 The Importance That Arizona Have A Privacy Law
Question: How important is it that a privacy law designed to ensure that the personal data records in state and local governments' (county/city/town) files are kept confidential and used properly?
V . a ery Important Somewhat important Not important Not sure
Total opinions
No responses
RESPONSES
Number Percentage
241 67.5 89 24.9
8 2.3 ~ 5.3 357 100.0
2
238
aNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents who feel it very important is between 62 percent and 74 percent; 99 percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents who feel it either very or somewhat important is between 88 percent and 96 percent.
Table 87. Crosstabulation of Concern About Threats to Personal Privacy by Importance That Arizona Have a Privacy Law
Question 1: How concerned are you about threats to your personal privacy in today's society?
Question 2: How important is it that a privacy law designed to ensure that the personal data records in state and local governments' (county/city/town) files are kept confidential and used properly?
QUESTION 2 RESPONSES
Very important Somewhat important Not important Not sure
Number of Respondents
240 88 8
19
Very Concerned
59.6% 31.8 0.0
26.3
QUESTION 1 RESPONSES
Somewhat Concerned
35.4% 37.5 75.0 52.6
Only A Little Concerned
5.0% 29.5 0.0
21.1
Raw chi-square = 113.51814with 9 degrees of freedom. Significance = .0000
Pearson's R = .31496. Significance = .0000
Not Concerned At All
0.0% 1.2
25.0 0.0
N W \.D
240
privacy law is very important is not concerned at all about threats to
their privacy. In contrast, of those respondents who feel a privacy
law is not important, there are no respondents who are very concerned
about threats to their personal privacy, 75 percent are somewhat con-
cerned, none are only a little concerned, and 25 percent are not con-
cerned at all. The chi-square is large and statistically significant
at the .0001 level.1 Thus it is concluded that a systemmatic relation
ship does exist. 1he Pearson1s Correlation Coefficient of .31496 is
statistically significant at the .0001 level which verifies that a
definite relationship exists and suggests the strength of the relation-
ship is small. The hypothesis is thus accepted.
An additioral hypothesis was established that one1s trust
of government to properly use the personal information they collect on
people would direct.ly relate to the importance he or she places on a
privacy bill to insure government uses such data properly. Table 88
shows that, indeed, of those respondents who are worried about how
government will use personal information about people, 80.2 percent
feel a privacy law is very important, 15.4 percent feel it is somewhat
important, 1.6 percent feel it is not important, and 2.8 percent are
not sure. In contrast, of those who pretty much trust government,
52.8 percent feel a privacy law is very important, 35.8 percent feel
it is somewhat important, 3.8 percent feel it is not important, and
7.6 percent are not sure. The chi-square is statistically significant
at the .0002 level suggesting that the variables are related. However,
the Pearson1s Correlation Coefficient of -.02250 shows only slight
241
Table 88. Crosstabulation of Whether Arizona Residents Trust Government in its Collection and Proper Use of Personal Information About People by Importance That Arizona Have A Privacy Law
Question 1: How important is it that a privacy law designed-to ensure that the personal data records in state and local governments' (county/city/town) files are kept confidential and used properly?
Question 2: On the whole, when it comes to our government--federal, state, county, and city--collecting personal information about you, would you say you pretty much truslt them to use it properly, or that you are worried about how they will use it?
QUESTION I RESPONSES
Number of Very Somewhat Not Respondents Important Important Important
QUESTION 2 RESPONSES
Pretty much trust them 106 52.8% 35.8% I am worried 182 80.2 15.4 Not sure 45 53.3 37.8 It depends 23 60.9 26. 1
Raw chi-square = 31.78407 with 9 degrees of freedom. Significance = .0002.
Pearson's R = -.02250. Significance = .3361.
3.8% 1.6 2.2 0.0
Not Sure
7.6% 2.8 6.7
13.0
242
correlation and the significance level of .3361 is beyond the standards
established for this study. Thus it is concluded that the relation-
ship that does exist is so small as to be negligible, and the hypoth-
esis is rejected.
The Importance of Arizona Having a Computer Privacy Law Designed to Insure the Computerized Personal
Data Records Maintained by Private Business Are Kept Confidential and Used Properly
The Council of State Governments has also advocated for the
passage of state computer privacy legislation which would have the
effect of statutorily implementing the right of privacy with regard to
automated personal information management systems maintained by private
business entities, in addition to those of state and local governmental
agencies. California, motivated by its citizens voting in 1972 to amend
their State Constitution to include a specific protection for the
"inalienable right" to personal privacy, is an example of a state which
has enacted such statutes to protect the records about individuals main-
tained by private record keepers. In contrast, Arizona does not have
such a computer privacy law, nor has it chosen to enact significant
privacy protection statutes applicable to the private sector. To learn
to what extent Arizona residents would favor a computer privacy act,
the respondents were asked how important is it that Arizona have a com-
puter privacy law designed to ensure that the computerized personal
data records systems maintained by private businesses are kept confi-
dential and used properly. Table 89 shows that 92.2 percent of the
respondents feel such a computer privacy law is important. Of this
Table 89. The Importance That Arizona Have A Computer Privacy Law
Question: How important is it that Arizona have a computer privacy law designed to ensure that the computerized personal data records systems maintained by private businesses are kept confidential and used properly?
V• a ery Important
Somewhat important Not important Not sure
Total opinions
No responses
RESPONSES
Number Percentage
249 70. 1 75 21.1 14 3.9
.IL 4.9
355 100.0
4
243
aNinety-nine percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents who feel it very important is between 64 percent and 76 percent; 99 percent confidence that the proportion of all Arizona residents who feel it very or somewhat important is between 76 percent and 86 percen t.
244
total, 70.1 percent feel it is very important and 21.1 percent feel
it is somewhat important. By contrast, only 3.9 percent of the respond-
ents feel a computer privacy bill is not important, while 4.9 percent
are not sure. There is 99 percent confidence that between 76 percent
and 84 percent of all Arizona residents feel that a computer privacy
law is important. Further, there is 99 percent confidence that be-
tween 64 percent 21nd 76 percent of all Arizona residents feel a com
puter privacy law is very important.
Correlations were performed on the respondents' feelings on
the importance of Arizona having a computer privacy law with their
feelings of concern about threats to their personal privacy, and
whether they feel current uses of computers are a threat to personal
privacy. It was ~ypothesized that those who feel it important to have
a computer privac) law would be more concerned about threats to their
personal privacy, and would feel more threatened by current uses of
computers.
Table 90 shows that of those respondents who feel a computer
privacy law is very important, 57.3 percent are very concerned about
threats to their personal privacy, 34.7 percent are somewhat concerned,
8 percent are only a little concerned, and none are not concerned at
all. The level of concern about threats to one's personal privacy is
less among those who do not feel a computer privacy law is important.
Of those respondents who feel a computer privacy bill is not important,
23.1 percent are very concerned about threats to their personal privacy,
46.1 percent are somewhat concerned, 15.4 percent are only a little
Table 90. Crosstabulation of Concern About Threats to Personal Privacy by Importance That Arizona Have a Computer Privacy Law
Question 1: How concerned are you about threats to your personal privacy in today's society?
Question 2: How important is it that Arizona have a computer privacy law designed to ensure that the computerized personal data records systems maintained by private business are kept confidential and used properly?
QUESTION 2 RESPONSES
Very important Somewhat important Not Important Not sure
Number of Respondents
248 75 13 17
Very Concerned
57.3% 32.0 23. 1 35.3
QUESTION 1 RESPONSES
Somewhat Concerned
34.7% 42.7 46.1 52.9
Only A Little Concerned
8.0% 24.0 15.4 11.8
Raw chi-square = 59.75584 with 9 degrees of freedom. Significance = .0000
Pearson's R = .22533. Significance = .0000
Not Concerned At All
0.0% 1.3
15.4 0.0
N J:\J'1
concerned, and 15.4 percent are not concerned at all. The chi-square
is statistically significant at the .0001 level determining that a
systemmatic relationship exists between these two variables. The
Pearson's Correlation Coefficient indicates that a definite relation
ship exists, but suggests that the strength of the relationship is
small. Thus this part of the hypothesis is proven val ide
Table 91 shows that those respondents who feel a computer
privacy law is very important are also most likely to feel that the
current uses of computers are a threat to personal privacy. Of those
respondents who feel a computer privacy law is important, 70 percent
feel the present uses of computers are a threat to personal privacy,
as compared to 12.1 percent who feel present uses are not a threat,
246
and 17.9 percent who are not sure. In comparison, of those respondents
who feel a computer privacy law is not important, 28.6 percent feel
present uses of computers are a threat to personal privacy, 50 percent
feel present uses are not a threat, and 21.4 percent are not sure.
The chi-square statistic is sufficiently high and statistically sig
nificant at the .0001 level, concluding that a relationship does exist
between the two variables. However, the Pearson's Correlation Coef
ficient shows only slight correlation, suggesting that the relationship
which exists is negligible. Thus, this part of the hypothesis is re
jected by virtue of the statistical inference standards established for
this study.
Table 91. Crosstabulation of Whether Present Uses of Computers are a Threat to Personal Privacy by Importance That Arizona Have a Computer Privacy Law
Question 1: Do you feel the present uses of computers are, or are not, an actual threat to personal privacy in this coun try? -
Question 2: How important is it that Arizona have a computer privacy law designed to ensure that the computerized personal data records systems maintained by private business are kept confidential and used properly?
QUESTION 1 RESPONSES
247
Number Present Uses Present_Uses Are Not of Respondents Are A Threat
QUESTION 2 RESPONSES
Very important 247 70.0% Somewhat important 75 48.0 Not important 14 28.6 Not sure 17 47.1
Raw chi-square = 28.06545 with 6 degrees of freedom. Significance = .0001
Pearson1s R = .17909. Significance = .0004
Not a Threat Sure
12.1% 17.9% 26.7 25.3 50.0 21.4 17.6 35.3
248
Summary
Arizona residents strongly agree that they should have a
number of rights relative to the personal information maintained on
them by government agencies, businesses, and employers. At a minimum,
they feel they should have the following rights: (1) the right to be
informed of the existence of such records when started; (2) the right
to review on demajd the contents of records concerning them; (3) the
right to correct, rebut, update, and expunge incorrect or obsolete
information concerning them; (4) the right to learn the source of
information concerning them; (5) the right to be informed just how
information collected on them will be used, and; (6) the right to
require an individual IS agreement before information from his or her
files is given ou': to other organizations for purposes other than what
it was collected ·:or. They also agree that a number of privacy pro-
tection measures should be imposed on the computerized personal data
record systems maintained by government, businesses, and employers.
These include: (1) all computerized personal record systems being
registered by law as to purpose and contents; (2) establishing security
standards for computer equipment and the programs that run them; (3)
establishing professional standards concerning how personal information
is acquired and disseminated; (4) periodic site inspections of all com-
puterized personal data record systems to assure compliance as to their
purpose, content, use, and security, and; (5) government certifying and
licensing of the people who work as data processors on computerized
personal data record systems. Arizona residents also strongly feel that
249
they should have property rights to their personal information and
that the government, business, or private employers who maintain these
records do so "in trust" for the individual.
Although Arizona residents are requesting that government,
businesses, and employers take effective measures to assure the con-
fidentiality and proper use of the personal information records they
maintain, they are not on the surface convinced that still another
government agency can do the job of protecting the privacJ of individual
citizens. A significant number of Arizona residents oppose the creation
of an Arizona State Privacy Protection Agency, while an even higher per-
centage are not sure such an agency should be created. The results sug-
gest that Arizona residents are suspicious of growth in government with-
out knowing more as to the purpose and authorities that would accompany
such growth. Still, Arizona residents do feel it is important that an
independent body or agency exist to handle complaints about violations
of personal privacy by public and private sector organizations.
Arizona residents are adamant that public and private sector
organizations, whose activities are greatly dependent upon the collec-
tion and use of personal information about people, should collect only
that information essential to making the respective proper decision.
The results of the survey emphasize the importance for more effective
communications between those organizations gathering the information
and the public as to why specific personal information is required and
how it will be used and safeguarded.
250
No consensus exists among Arizona residents as to who should
assume the major responsibility for protecting the privacy of indivd
uals. The general feeling among Arizona residents is that this respon
sibility lies primarily with the United States Congress, the people
themselves, and the courts.
Arizona residents feel it is very important that Arizona
should have a privacy law designed to ensure that the personal data
records in state and local government files are kept confidential and
used properly. Further, they feel it is even more important that
Arizona have a computer privacy law to ensure the computerized per
sonal data record systems maintained in the private sector are kept
confidential and used properly.
The results of this part of the survey clearly demonstrate
that Arizona residents are asking, if not demanding, that government
and business take effective measures to assure against further loss of
personal privacy. The results also reflect the need for these insti
tutions to more effectively communicate with the public on their
personal information management practices and the privacy protections
provided therein.
CHAPTER 13
IN WHICH AREAS DO ARIZONA RESIDENTS FEEL ADDITIONAL PRIVACY LEGISLATION IS IMPORTANT
The Arizona State Legislature and the United States Congress
will inevitably be considering passing additional privacy legislation.
As reported in Chapter 1, the Computer and Equipment Manufacturers
Association tracked 111 separate privacy bills in respective state
legislatures in 1980, and through April, 1981 was tracking 23 federal
and 58 separate state bills in their respective legislative sessions.
It was also pointed out that government officials were predicting a
growth in government activities to deal with-data processing
inf0rmation-re1ated problem areas. Accordingly, a tenth objective
of this study was to evaluate which areas Arizona residents consider
important for future privacy legislative passage.
Areas In Which Arizona Residents Feel Additional Privacy Legislation Should Be Enacted
The respondents were provided a list of subject areas and
asked in which they think it is important that state and federal leg-
islatures pass privacy legislation. Table 92 shows that all of the
areas listed receive positive expression of importance. Mailing lists
is the area which Arizona residents feel is of greatest importance for
future privacy legislation. Of the respondents, 73.8 percent feel it
important to pass privacy legislation relative to mailing lists. The
251
Table 92. Subject Areas in Which Arizona Residents Feel Additional Privacy Legislation Should ee Passed
Question: Although there are already some laws which regulate what information private organizations can collect about individuals, state and federal legislatures are continuing to consider passing additional privacy legislation. In which of each of the following areas do you think it is important that these legislatures pass legislation?
RESPONSES
Not Number Important Important
Ma i 1 i n g 1 i s t s ; 347 73.8% 18.2% Tax records ..
338 72.5 11.8 Cred i t ca rds 341 69.8 18.5 Employment 335 67.2 18.8 Property records 341 66.0 16.7 Public Assistance (we 1 fare)
records 342 64.9 16.7 Medicine and healt~ 344 63.7 18.6 Insurance 342 62.9 20.8 Telephone company c all records 342 61.7 20.5
252
Not Sure
8.0% 15.7 11.7 14.0 17.3
18.4 17.7 16.3 17.8
area to receive the least, but still a majority expression of
importance for future privacy legislation passage, was telephone com-
pany call records. In this area, 61.7 percent of the respondents feel
it is important. The remaining results show few distinctions between
areas of importance for further privacy legislative passage.
Summary
The results reflect the general sentiments of Ariz1na
dents as to how important their personal privacy is and their
resi-
concern
over its further erosion. Clearly the majority of all Arizona resi-
dents feel further privacy legislation should be passed in all the
areas 1 isted. It is not surprising that mailing lists received the
highest measure of importance for legislation. As was pointed out in
Chapter 2, an American citizen, who purchasing a product from a direct
mail marketing firm, can expect 25 additional solicitations within a
year. In addition, the proliferation in the list compiling industry
suggests that mailing lists would increase as an area of concern by
the public over loss of privacy. Again, the overall results suggest
that Arizona residents are requesting that government and business
take effective measures to assure against further loss of individual
personal privacy.
253
CHAPTER 14
THE THEORY OF ALIENATION IN PRIVACY
Researchers, involved in a 1979 national Harris poll on
attitudes toward privacy, hypothesized that a significant factor i.n
shaping people's attitudes toward privacy and computer issues is the
degree of alienation or estrangement that the individual feels from
the institutions of government and business (Harris, 1979, p. 100).
To test this hypothesis, a methodology was devised· which included:
the creation of an alienation index involving a series of questions
designed to measure people's rejection or acceptance of contemporary
social performance; the scaling of resondents' alienated or negative
responses for placement into a profile of alienation levels, and;
correlation analysis of individuals' alienation level with their re
sponses to questions contained in the poll's survey instrument (Westin,
1979a, p. 193). From this test, the researchers reported that, "there
was direct relation between the degree of alienation and the individ
ual 's concern about current invasions of privacy, desire for strong
privacy protection, and fears about the future of privacy (Westin,
1979, pp. 193-194). The eleventh objective of this study was to apply
this basic methodology to determine if, in fact, the degree of alien
ation which Arizona residents feel from the institutions of government
and business is a significant factor in shaping their attitudes toward
privacy and computer issues.
254
255
The Alienation Index
The alienation index was established by asking respondents
four questions designed to measure their rejection or acceptance of
contemporary social performance. The respondents were asked to agree,
disagree, or state they were not sure to the following four questions:
(1) government can generally be trusted to look after our interests;
(2) the way that one votes has no effect on what the government does;
(3) technology has almost gotten out of hand, and; (4) in general,
business helps us more than it harms us. Table 93 shows the responses
of the Arizona residents surveyed to these four questions.
Levels of Alienation Profile For Respondents
Each respondent was scored based upon the number of alienation
or negative responses they gave to the four questions of the alienation
index. An agree response to questions two and three or a disagree re
sponse to questions one and four were considered alienated answers.
Based upon the number of alienated answers from each respondent, each
was placed into one of the following five levels of al ienation: (1)
those respondents who gave alienated answers to four questions were
categorized as having livery high" alienation; (2) those respondents who
gave alienated answers to three of the four questions were categorized
as having Ilhigh" al ienation; (3) those respondents who gave al ienated
answers to two of the four questions were categorized as having
"moderatell alienation; (4) those respondents who gave alienated an
swers to one of the four questions were categorized as having Illowll
alienation, and; (5) those respondents who did not give an alienated
256
Table 93. Attitudes of Respondents Toward Contemporary Social Performance
RESPONSES
QUESTION Number Percent . Percent Percent of Respondents Agree Disagree Not Sure
1. Government can gener-ally be trusted to look after our interests 356 21.9 60.7 17.4
2. The way that 0lne votes has no effect on what the government does 357 26.6 63.0 10.4
3. Technology has almost gotten out of control 355 33.2 49.0 17.8
4. In general, business helps us more than it harms us 356 59.6 21.1 19.3
257
answer to any of the four questions were categorized as IIno t alienated. 1I
Table 94 shows that 4.3 percent of the respondents were found to have
very high alienation from the institutions of government and business.
Another 11.9 percent have high alienation, and 26.9 percent have moder
ate alienation. Further, 34.8 percent were found to have low alien
ation, and 22.1 percent have no alienation.
Correlation Analysis
Each individual's response to the entire survey was cross
tabulated with his or her alienation level and subjected to chi-square
testing at the .01 significance level to provide 99 percent confidence
as to whether systemmatic relationships existed between the two re
spective variables. Correlation analysis using Pearson's Correlation
Coefficient, again at the .01 significance level, was then used to
determine the strength of the relationship.
The results of this statistical analysis revealed definitive
systemmatic relationships existing between the individual's alienation
level and the following: the individual's concern about threats to
his or her personal privacy in today's society, as shown in Table 95;
the individual's feeling that they have been a fictim of an improper
invasion of personal privacy by a credit bureau, as shown in Table 96;
how close the individual feels we are to the IIBig Brother ll society
described in George Orwell's 1984, as shown in Table 97; the extent to
which the individual feels we will lose or retain privacy from unrea
sonable invasion by government ten years from now, as shown in Table 98;
Table 94. Levels of Alienation for Respondents.
LEVELS
Very high (4 of 4 alienated answers) High (3 of 4 alienated answers) Moderate (2 of 4 alienated answers) Low (1 of 4 alienated answers) Not alienated (0 of 4 al ienated answers)
RESPONSES
Number
15 112
95 123 78
Percentage
4.3 11.9 26.9 34.8 22.1
258
Table 95. Crosstabulation of Individuals' Alientation Level by Thei.r Concern About Threats to Their Personal Privacy in Today's Society
LEVEL OF CONCERN ABOUT THREATS TO PERSONAL PRIVACY
Number of Respondents
Very Somewhat Only A Not Concerned Level of Alienation
Very high High Moderate Low None
15 42 95
123 78
Raw chi-square = 33.99572 with 12 degrees of
Pearson's R = .26060. Significance = .0000
Concerned Concerned Little Concerned At All
53.3% 46.7% 0.0% 0.0% 69.0 26.2 4.8 0.0 62. 1 30.5 7.4 0.0 43.9 43.9 10.6 1.6 33.3 41.0 24.4 1.3
freedom. Significance = .0007
N \.n \.D
Table 96. Crosstabu1ation of Individuals' A1 ienation Level by Their Being a Victim of an Improper Invasion of Personal Privacy by a Credit Bureau
Victim of Improper Invasion of Privacy by Credit Bureau
Level of Alienation
Very high High Moderate Low None
Number of Respondents
14 42 94
122 76
Yes
42.9% 23.8 12.8 1 3. 1 3.9
Raw chi-square = 20.14585 with 4 degrees of freedom. Significance = .0005
Pearson's R = .2148B. Significance = .0000
No
57.1 % 75.2 87.2 86.9 96.1
260
Table 97. Crosstabu1ation of Individual IS Alienation Level by How Close They Feel We Are to George Orwe 111 s liB i g Brother" Soc i ety
CLOSENESS TO liB I G BROTtlER" SOC I ETY
Level of Alienation
Very high High Moderate Low None
Number of Responden ts
14 42 96
121 79
We Are The re Already
14.3% 28.6 12.5 3.3 3.8
Very Close
57.1% 31.0 32.3 24.8 16.5
Somewhat Close
28.6% 28.6 45.8 50.4 39.2
Raw chi-square = 66.24306 with 16 degrees of freedom. Significance = .0000
Pearsonls R = .35694. Significance = .0000
. Not At All Close
0.0% 7. 1 7.3
17.4 29.1
Not Sure
0.0% 4.7 2. 1 4. 1
11.4
N 0'
262
Table 98. Crosstabulation of Individuals' Al ienation Level by Their Belief That 10 Years From Now They Will Have Lost Much Privacy or Will be Able to Keep Privacy From Unreasonable Invasion by Government
B'EL I EF
Number Will Still Be of Wi 11 Have Lost Able to Not
Level of Alienation Respondents Much Pri vacy Keep Pr i vacy Sure
Very high High Moderate Low None
15 42 96
122 79
86.7% 78.6 71.9 38.5 27.8
Raw chi-square = 64.32513 with 8 degrees of freedom. Significance= .0000
Pearson's R = .34581. Significance = .0000
6.7% 19.0 15.6 44.3 51.9
6.6% 2.4
12.5 17.2 20.3
263
the individual's feeling as to whether or not the present uses of
computers are a threat to personal privacy in this country, as shown
in Table 99; the individual's feelings as to whether the uses of com
puters must be sharply restricted in the future if privacy is to be
preserved, as shown in Table 100; the importance the individual feels
for Arizona to have a privacy law as shown in Table 101, and; the
importance the individual feels for Arizona to have a computer privacy
law, as shown in Table 102. The size of the correlation in each of
the preceding relationships is categorized as low by the standards
established for this study. However, the correlations are significant
statistically at the .01 or less level verifying the existence of
dependent relationships between the respective variables at a 99 per
cent or greater confidence. It is further noted that a significant
number of additional relationships between the individual's alienation
level and their feelings about privacy and computer issues were found
to exist at the .05 or less level of statistical significance.
These relationships are particularly noticeable when the
individuals' responses are scaled along an alienation level continuum
and compared with the entire survey average. Table 103 presents a
sample of this effect relative to privacy questions contained in the
survey. As shown, the more alienated individuals feel they are from
the institutions of government and business, the more likely they are
concerned about threats to their personal privacy. This effect was
also evident for most of the questions about computers, as shown in
Table 104.
264 ,
Table 99. Crosstabulation of Individuals' Alienation Level by Their Feel ings As to Whether Present Uses of Computers Are a Threat to Personal Privacy in This Country
COMPUTERS AS A THREAT TO PERSONAL PRIVACY
Number Present Uses of Are A
Level of Ali ena t i on Respondents Threat
Very high 15 86.7% High 42 90.5 Moderate 95 75.8 Low 122 52.5 None 79 43.0
Raw chi-square = 44.86431 with 8 degrees of freedom. Significance = .0000
Pearson's R = .3155JI. Significance = .0000
Present Uses Are Not A Not
Threat Sure
0.0% 13.3% 9.5 0.0
10.5 13.7 21.3 26.7 25.3 31.7
Table 100. Crosstabu1ation of Individuals' Alienation Level by Their Agreement That if Privacy is to Be Preserved, the Use of Computers Must Be Sharply Restricted in the Future.
TO PRESERVE PRIVACY RESTRICT USES OF COMPUTERS
Number of
265
Level of Ali ena t i on Respondents Agree Disagree Not Sure
Very high 15 80.0% High 42 76.2 Moderate 94 57.4 Low 122 26.2 None 77 28.6
Raw chi-square = 56.08764 with 8 degrees of freedom. Significance = .0000
Pearson's R = .32981. Significance = .0000
13.3% 6.7% 14.3 9.5 20.2 22.4 38.5 35.3 36.4 35.0
266
Table 101. Crosstabu1ation of Individuals' Al ienation Level,by How Important They Feel it is That Arizona Have a Privacy Law Designed to Ensure That the Personal Data Records in State and Local Governments' Files Are Kept Confidential and Used Properly
IMPORTANCE OF HAVING A PRIVACY LAW
Number of Very Somewhat Level of A1 ienation Respondents Important Important
Very high 15 93.3% 0.0% High 42 83.3 14.3 Moderate 95 75.8 17.9 Low 123 64.2 26.0 None 79 49.4 41.8
Raw chi-square = 32.68662 with 12 degrees of freedom. Significance = .0011
Pearson's R = .19546. Significance = .0001
Not Important
6.7% 0.0 0.0 4.1 2.5
Not Sure
0.0% 2.4 6.3 5.7 6.3
267
Table 102. Crosstabu1ation of Individuals' Alienation Level by How Important They Feel it is That Arizona Have a Computer Privacy Law Designed to Ensure That the Computerized Personal Data Record Systems Maintained by ~rivate Businesses are Kept Confidential and Used Properly
IMPORTANCE OF HAVING A COMPUTER PRIVACY LAW
Number of Very Somewhat Not Level of Ali enat ion Respondents Important Important Important
Very high 15 93.3% 6.7% High 42 85.7 11.9 Moderate 95 80.0 12.6 Low 122 65.6 22.1 None 78 52.6 37.2
Raw chi-square = 33.34196 with 12 degrees of freedom. Significance = .0009
Pearson's R = .20160. Significance = .0001
0.0% 0.0 1.1 6.6 6.4
Not Sure
0.0% 2.4 6.3 5.7 3.8
268
Table 103. Alienation Level and Attitudes Toward Personal Privacy
Question
Very or somewhat concerned about threats to personal privacy
Should add the right tlo privacy to the list of rights in the Bill of Rights
Very close to a "Big Brother" society or already there
Will have lost much privacy from unreasonable invasion by gove nment 10 years from no~
Finance companies ask for too much personal information
Insurance companies ask for too much personal information
Finance companies should be doing more to keep the personal information they have on individuals confidential
Insurance companies should be doing more to keep the personal information they have on individuals confidential
Percent Respondents
87.6
73.7
36.4
52.0
43.7
40.2
PERCENT ALtEtiATION LEVEL
Very High High Moderate Low Not
100 95.2 92.6 87.7 74.3
100 88.1 78.9 68.9 61.8
71.4 59.6 44.8 28.1 20.3
86.7 78.6 71.9 38.5 27.8
73.3 59.5 47.4 40.2 30.3
53.3 40.5 37.9 34.1 26.0
71.4 65.9 61.1 45.128.6
71 .4 56. 1 48.9 35.5 23.1
269
Table 103--Continued
PERCENT ALIENATION LEVEL
Percent Very Question Respondents High High Moderate Low Not
Employees should have a specific company policy designed to safe-guard that information contained in thei r employ-
JS.9 ees' personal and medical files 96.3 100.0 100.0 96.8 93.5
Have been asked to supply improper or unnecessary information when applying for credit 51.6 78.6 64.3 54.3 S2.1 35.5
Very or somewhat important that there be an independent body or agency to handle complaints about violations of persona 1 pri vacy in public and private sectors 80.2 93.0 88. I 81.0 ~'6. 2 62.0
Very important that Arizona have a privacy law 67.5 93.3 83.3 75.8 64.2 49.4
270
Table 104. Alienation Level and Attitudes Toward Computers
PERCENT ALIENATION LEVEL
Percent Very Question Respondents High High Moderate Low Not
Present uses of computers are a threat to personal privacy 62.6 86.7 90.5 75.8 52.5 43.0
The privacy of persona 1 information in computers is not adequate safe-guarded 55.0 86.7 71.4 65.6 52.0 31.2
Computers have not im-proved the quality of 1 i fe in our soci ety 20.7 60.0 42.9 24.2 11.5 11.5
Computers have made it easier to obtain con-fidential information improperly 84.4 100.0 88. 1 89.6 82.9 75.3
To protect privacy, the use of computers must be sharply restricted in the
26.6 28.6 future 43.4 80.0 76.2 57.4
Agree that all computer i zed record systems should be registered by law as to purpose and contents 79.8 93.4 95.2 82.1 74.8 74.1
Strongly agree that all computertzed personal data record systems should undergo periodic stte inspections to assure compliance as to purpose, contents, use and security 60.3 86.7 83.3 56.8 56.2· 53.2
Very important that Arizona have a computer privacy law 70.2 93.3 85.7 80.0 65.6 52.6
271
Summary
The statistical tests of dependence between variables and
correlation analysis show there is a definite relationship between the
degree of alienation an Arizona resident feels from government and
business institutions and processes and his or her attitude toward
issues of privacy and perceptions of computer benefits and dangers.
These findings suggest that the sources of Arizona residents' atti
tudes toward privacy and computers are deep-rooted in their percep
tions of how well or badly each feels the institutions of government
and business are performing. As a result, the feelings of Arizona
residents toward privacy and computer uses will not be easily changed
by patchwork compaigns of better communications or "band-aid" privacy
laws. Rather, it shall require depth actions which seek to remedy the
sources of these negative feelings within people.
CHAPTER 15
MAJOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
We live in an intensely service-oriented, techonologically
computer-based society whose collective "market place" is fundamentally
driven by the cOllectiot, processing, storage, and communicating of the
personal information of its citizens. Because of size, and in part from
complexity, the institutions of government and business are required to
collect and deal with considerable amounts of information about people.
The pressures of growth in the number and complexity of internal oper-
ations performed and services offered by government and business has
encouraged new and expallded personal information management applications
of computers and telecorlmunication technologies. For an individual to
exist, function, and participate in today's information oriented society,
he or she must interact with a multitude of institutional record systems.
These interactions commonly result in the individual relinquishing per-
sonal information about one1s self. The consequence of the variety and
concentration of these institutional relationships with individuals is
that record keeping about individuals virtually covers everyone and
everything about one1s life. Records are increasingly being substituted
for face-to-face contact, while more and more decisions affecting the
individual in both the public and private sectors are being made on the
basis of the records existing in a variety of computerized personal
information systems maintained by the institutions of our society.
272
273
This environment has given rise to the privacy issue, which is
characterized as representing the social thrust of seeking an appropri-
ate balance between the legitimate needs of institutions for information
about people against the privacy standing and due process rights of the
individual. An imbalance invites clashes between individuals and the
institutions of society, and between privacy protection measures and
free access to personal information.
A decade ago this balance was weighted heavily in favorlof
the institutional record keepers. Individuals had I imited standing to
contest what information was being collected, how it would be used, and
with whom it would be shared. Rising public concern about privacy and
a sprinkling of legislative actions in the 1970 1s, such as the Fair
Credit Reporting Act of 1970 and the Privacy Act of 1974, have <:aused
some shift back toward the individual. Most authorities feel, however,
that an appropriate balance has yet to be reached, and that law and
technology, by and large, have failed to provide the individual with
the ability to protect one1s self from the undesirable consequences
that recorded information can create in today1s society.
Hence, personal privacy in our evolving information society
and world has been forecast to be a major public policy issue for
government and business policy makers in the 1980 1s. The continual
dilemma which these policy makers will face is how to appropriately
balance the legitimate needs of institutions for information about
people with the privacy standing of the individual in a dynamic en-
vironment of interrelated and changing social values, economic
pressures, and technological advances. The opinions and attitudes of
the people represented by government and served by business are per
ceived as being critical in pursuit of this balancing requirement.
274
Thus, the purpose of this study was to survey the opinions and attitudes
of Arizona residents on the subject of privacy, with the results con
tributing empirical knowledge to guide the privacy issue deliberations
of Arizona's government and business policy makers.
This chapter presents the major findings and conclusions of
the survey. It highlights the principal opinions and attitudes of
Arizona residents concerning various aspects of the privacy subject
as reported in detail in Chapter 4 through Chapter 14.
Privacy and the Arizona Resident
Personal privacy was found to be an issue of major concern
to Arizona residents. This was evident by 87.4 percent of the respond
ents expressing some level of concern about threats to their personal
privacy in today's society. Also, 73.7 percent of the respondents ex
pressed the opinion that privacy should be added to the inalienable
American rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It
should be noted that less than 1 percent of the respondents were not
concerned at all about threats to their personal privacy, and only 11
percent of the respondents did not feel privacy should be added as an
inalienable right. Further, this strong expression of concern was
persistent throughout the demographic attributes of the respondents.
The research findings also show that Arizona residents, as a
whole, are not paranoid about their personal privacy. For example,
275
over 77 percent of the respondents did not feel they were under sur
veillance of any kind, and over 75 percent did not feel their employer
or neighbors knew too much about their personal lives. Rather, Arizona
residents feel they are generally able to maintain a balance between
their needs for privacy and their needs for social contact. For
example, over 88 percent of the respondents expressed the feeling that
they had someone to share their personal problems with when needed, and
were generally able to be alone when they wanted.
It was also evident in the study results that the strong
concerns of Arizona residents about threats to their personal privacy
are primarily institution based. A finding that serves to illustrate
this point was that over 51 percent of the respondents were either not
sure or thought decisions were being made wrongly about them on the
basis of information they did not know about. Results to be presented
later regarding attitudes toward the privacy intensive industries of
our society will also serve to demonstrate this premise.
Further, the findings show that Arizona residents, for the
most part, believe that non-public activities of a moral nature should
be matters of private choice and not decided by law. As an example,
over 85 percent of the respondents felt that heterosexual relations in
private between consenting adults should be a matter of individual
decision and not regulated or forbidded by law. Over 71 percent of the
respondents felt similarly about homosexual relations. In contrast,
for activities which have a public dimension, Arizona residents are
less likely to consider them matters of private choice. For example,
276
over 73 percent of the respondents expressed the opinion that the
selling of pornographic magazines and films in book stores should either
be regulated or totally forbidden by law. Over 53 percent of the re-
spondents felt similarly about riding a motorcycle without a protective
helmet.
The results also show that over 56 percent of the respondents
feel they have at one t1lme or another been a victim of an improper in
vasion of their personal privacy. The intrusive acts most often re-
ported were telephone or door-to-door sales pitches, and junk or mail
order intrusions.
The Personal Privacy of Arizona Residents Relative to Government and Business Institution In General
Although Arizon,3 residents do not appear to have an extensive
knowledge about the perional information management practices of many
government and business institutions, they nevertheless possess a
general sense of distrust toward such practices in these institutions.
As example, only 30.2 percent of the respondents trust government, at
the federal, state, county, and city levels, to properly use the per-
sonal information they collect on people. By comparison, 50.8 percent
of the respondents expressed the opinion that they are worried about
how government will use the personal information they collect about
them, and 12.6 percent were not sure. Further, a sizable majority of
71.2 percent of the respondents felt that some people are prevented
from getting fair treatment because of past mistakes kept too long
on their records. By an even greater majority the respondents be-
lieve that Americans begin surrending their personal privacy the
the day they open their first charge account, take out a loan, buy
something on an installment plan, or apply for a credit card. They
also felt, by a 69.2 percent majority, that most organizations that
collect information about people ask for more sensitive information
than is necessary, and they are not convinced that such organizations
have enough checks and safeguards against possible misuse or abuse of
their personal information. Nor do they accept the argument thalt
those who complain about privacy invasion are most likely involved in
illegal or immoral activities.
The dissatisfaction which the respondents expressed over
277
excessive personal information collection by public and private insti-
tutions was further evident by the finding that 43.8 percent had on
occasion when applying for employment, credit, or insurance felt the
information being requested was unfair. In addition, 23.6 percent of
the respondents, at one time or another, had foregone making such ap-
plications to avoid providing certain kinds of information about
themselves.
Privacy and Employer Relations
The research findings reveal that Arizona residents have
strong opinions about the personal information gathering practices of
employers. A significant proportion, 28.6 percent, of the respondents
felt that employers generally ask for too much personal information
from people, as opposed to limiting their personal information gath-
ering to what is necessary. Another 12.5 percent were not sure.
278
Thus, over 41 percent of the respondents are not convinced that employ-
ers limit their personal information gathering to that which is neces
sary.
The findings suggest that Arizona residents recognize that
employers need certain types of information from job applicants.
However, they feel strongly that the proper types of information which
employers require should be those directly associated with the appli
cant1s ability to perform the job in issue, such as: education;
employment history; former employer references; the results of skill
tests to measure abilities to perform relevant tasks, and; physical
condition requirements of the job. In contrast, the respondents felt
it was improper for employers to request those types of information
normally considered indirect to specific work performance, such as:
the type of neighborhood the applicant lives in and whether he or she
owns or rents their residence; information about one1s spouse and
friends; race; political and community organization memberships, and;
arrest records without convictions.
The findings also show that Arizona residents favor direct,
face-to-face methods for employers to gather information from employees.
For example, a solid 89.4 percent of the respondents felt that employers
should be forbidden from monitoring the conversations of employees to
learn their feeling toward supervisors and managers, and 59.3 percent
felt employers should be forbidden from installing closed circuit tele
vision to monitor the work rate of employees. There was indecision
among the respondents as to whether job applicants should be required
279
to take psychological or polygraph tests. However, it was interesting
to note in the findings that the respondents did not feel that elec
tronic devices should be forbidden in preventing or detecting dis
honest acts by employees. For example, 62 percent of the respondents
felt that empluyers should not be forbidden from keeping a closed
circuit television watch on work or sales floors to prevent employee
theft or pilfering, and 50 percent felt employers should not be for
bidden from requiring employees to take a polygraph test when there is
suspicion of theft in one1s work area.
The research findings also suggest that there are significant
proportions of Arizona residents who are not convinced that employers
have never improperly released information about employees from their
personal files. Over 20 percent of the respondents felt it was some
what likely that this had occurred, and over 8 percent felt it was very
likely. In addition, over 17 percent of the respondents were not sure.
The importance which Arizona residents attach to the confidentiality of
their employee files was further evident by the finding that 89.3 per
cent of the respondents felt it very important that an employer inform
an employee prior to releasing any personal information from employment
files, except that regularly reported as required by law. Also, 96.3
percent of the respondents felt it very important that employers should
have specific company policies designed to safeguard that information
contained in employee files.
The study findings also show that salary and health or medical
insurance claims can be sensitive matters to employees. Over 45 percent
280
of the respondents reported that they would be upset to some degree
over disclosure of employees' salaries, and over 69 percent would feel
some level of concern over supervisors or management members seeing
health and medical insurance claims before they are sent to the
insurance company.
Privacy and Credit Relations
Credit institutitns were among the most criticized organ
ization, by the respondents, for their intrusiveness and improper shar-
ing of the personal information they collect on people. Credit bureaus
and finance companies were criticized by a plurality of the respondents
for asking people for too much personal information as opposed to
limiting their informatic)n requests to what is necessary. Credit card
companies, along with crl~dit bureaus and finance companies, were also
highly criticized for no; doing enough to maintain the confidentiality
of the personal information they maintain on individuals.
Banks received the least criticism of the credit institutions.
Sixty-five percent of the respondents felt that banks limit their per-
sonal information gathering about individuals to what is necessary.
However, although a plurality, only 39.3 percent of the respondents
felt that banks are doing enough to protect the confidentiality of the
personal information they have on people. By comparison, 33.1 percent
thought that banks should be doing more, and 27.6 percent were not sure.
The overall findings in the study suggest that Arizona
residents are generally not aware of what credit institutions do, or do
not do, to maintain the confidentiality of the personal information they
281
maintaintain on individuals. Still, they remain very concerned and
suspicious that not enough is being done to protect their personal
information.
The findings also show tbata significant proportion of Arizona
residents are critical of the kinds of information being requested by
credit institutions. For example, 51.6 percent of the respondents ex-
pressed the opinion that in their personal dealings with credit i1nsti
tutions, including retail outlets, they had one time or another teen
asked to supply information which they considered improper or unneces-
sary. Further, it was found that the respondents considered those kinds
of information which are not narrowly applicable to an individual's
financial capability to assume credit to be improper or unnecess ry.
For example, questions about one's personal life, one's home environ-
ment, or the financial status of relatives, were considered imprcper or
unnecessary by a majority of the respondents.
For those respondents who had ever been refused credit, the
majority felt the decision had been based on incomplete information,
as opposed to inaccurate or unfair information. The results also
indicate that a significant proportion of Arizona residents are un-
aware of their legal right under the Fair Credit Reporting Act to see
any credit bureau report that might be used in a decision to deny them
credit, insurance, or employment. For example, 37 percent of the re-
spondents were not sure they had this right, and 4 percent specifically
reported that they did not have this right.
282
Privacy and Insurance Relations
The research findings indicate a great deal of uncertainty
exists among Arizona residents about the personal information manage
ment practices of the insurance industry. Although a majority of 55.5
percent of the respondents felt that insurance companies limit their
personal information gathering to what is necessary, there remains a
significant 34.9 percent who feel insurance companies ask for too much
personal information, and 9.6 percent who are not sure. There was
also a plurality of 40.2 percent of the respondents who felt insurance
companies should be doing more to keep the personal information they
have on individuals confidential. In comparison, 29.9 percent of the
respondents felt insurance companies were doing enough to maintain the
confidentiality of the personal information they maintain on people,
and 29.9 percent were not sure.
Arizona residents acknowledge that insurance companies
require certain types of personal information to determine insurability
and premium charges. Typically, they feel insurance companies should
have the right to collect personal information such as the applicant's
health and medical history; sex and age; employment and participation
in activities involving physical risk, and; smoking and alcohol habits.
However, the findings also show that Arizona residents feel insurance
companies should not have the right to collect other types of personal
information, such as the applicant's moral character and life style;
criminal record, if any; income; what other health or life insurance
policies are in effect, and; information relating to claims made on
other insurance companies. Also, a solid 65 percent of the respond
ents expressed the opinion that the types of information which insur
ance companies should be allowed to gather on people should be deter
mined by law, as opposed to leaving the decision to the insurance
companies.
283
The results also reflect that Arizona residents are opinion
ated on what investigative activities insurance companies should or
should not be allowed to conduct. For example, the respondents felt
strongly that insurance companies should not be allow ~o engage some
one to go through an applicant's home to verify its contents for home
owners insurance coverage, but they considered it allowable for insur
ance companies to request an applicant's doctor or hospital personnel
to verify medical history records.
Privacy and Doctor and Hospital Relations
The research findings show that Arizona residents generally
feel that private doctors limit their personal information gathering
on people to what is necessary. However, they are less convinced that
hospitals do the same, as demonstrated by over 30 percent of the re
spondents expressing the opinion that hospitals ask for too much per
sonal information, and over 13 percent not being sure if hospitals ask
for too much or 1 imit their demands for personal information to what
is necessary.
The findings also indicate that Arizona residents are not
generally knowledgeable as to what private doctors and hospitals do,
284
or do not do, to maintain the confidentiality of the personal infor-
mation they maintain on people. Although 52.3 percent of the respond-
ents felt that private doctors were doing enough to maintain the con-
fidentialityof individuals' personal information, 23 percent felt they
should be doing more, and 24.7 percent were not sure. Hospitals again
received greater criticism. Although a purality of 37.7 percent of the
respondents felt that hOSP['tals were doing enough to maintain the con
fidentialityof individual.)' personal information, a significant per-
centage of 32.3 percent felt they should be doing more, and 30 percent
were not sure.
The findings also show that Arizona residents overwhelmingly
feel they should have a lellal right of access to all their medical
records held by their personal doctor, hospital, or clinic. Further,
they want to be told all the relevant information concerning any
illness, even if they may be told they are dying.
Privacy and Relations With Government Organizations, ParticularilyLaw Enforcement
Although it was noted earlier that over 50 percent of the
respondents are worried that government will improperly use the per-
sonal information they collect on people, the respondents were not
overly concerned about various government agencies, particularly
Arizona State government agencies, collecting too much personal infor-
mation. The Internal Revenue Service was the only government agency
to which a plurality of the respondents felt asked for too much per-
sonal information. However, the respondents expressed somewhat higher
285
levels of concern about government agencies being required to do more
to protect the confidentiality of the personal information on people
which they maintain in their files. In particular, plural ities of the
respondents felt that law enforcement forces, the Internal Revenue
Service, and government welfare agencies should be doing more to main-
tain the confidentiality of the personal information they maintain.
There were, however, significant percentages of the respondents whj
were not sure if select government agencies ask for too much or lillnit
their personal information demands to wha~ is necessary, and whethl~r
such agencies are doing enough or should be doing more to protect the
confidentiality of the personal information they maintain on people.
The overall findings suggest that Arizona residents are not generally
knowledgeable about the personal information management practices of
federal and state government agencies. Nevertheless they remain g~eatly
concerned that their personal information being collected by government
agencies is used properly and kept confidential.
Regarding law enforcement responsibilities to maintain a
balance between protecting society on the one hand, and protecting
individual's rights on the other hand, the findings show that a pural-
ity of 34 percent of the respondents felt that police forces were not
doing enough to protect society, as opposed to 21.8 percent who felt
they were not doing enought to protect individual's rights. Addition-
ally, 23.5 percent felt that the police forces had the balance about
right, and 20.2 percent were not sure. The findings also show,
however, that Arizona residents are not prepared to give carte blanche
286
powers of surveillance and personal information gathering authorities
to pol ice forces in the cause of protecting society. For example, the
respondents strongly rejected the belief that law enforcement agencies
should be allowed to open the mail, tap the telephone, or examine the
bank records of a suspect without a court order. Further, they felt
strongly that police should not have the authority to indiscriminately
demand identification from someone without specific legal cause.
An interesting finding in the study was th~t 50.1 percent of
the respondents felt it was all right for a government agency to re
quire all handlers of classified information to take a lie detector
test when such information has been leaked to the press. This compares
to 28.5 percent who felt it was not all right, and 21.4 percent who
either were not sure or felt it depended on the circumstance.
The study findings also show that Arizona residents feel
strongly that they should have access to their records held by govern
ment agencies. They further feel that this access should be at cost
to the government, even though such agencies may complain of expense
and time required to meet such requests.
Privacy and Computer Views
The research findings show that a majority of Arizona
residents believe that the present uses of computers are a threat to
privacy in this country. This belief was found to be pervasive
throughout the demographic attributes of the respondents. Because com
puter usage is thought to be at the heart of the public's concern about
privacy, it was hypothesized that a systematic relationship should exist
287
between one's level of concern about threats to personal privacy in
today's society and one's belief that present uses of computers threat
en personal privacy. Through chi-square and linear correlation statis
tical analysis, it was found that a direct positive relationship did
exist between these two variables.
Although the respondents generally agreed that computers
have improved the quality of life in our society, and they've enabled
more individualized consumer services, their fears of computers as
threats to their personal privacy was equally clear. For example, over
84 percent of the respondents agreed, as opposed to disagreeing or not
being sure, that computers have made it easier for someone to improp
erly obtain confidential personal information about individuals. The
respondents also disagreed by a 54.7 percent majority, with 27 percent
being unsure, that the privacy of personal information in computers is
adequately safeguarded. In comparison, only 18.3 percent of the re
spondents felt that adequate safeguards existed in computers. As a
possible consequence, 43.3 percent of the respondents expressed the
opinion that if privacy is to be preserved, the use of computers must
be sharply restricted in the future. This compares to 28.9 percent who
disagreed that this action is necessary, and 27.8 percent who were not
sure. The research also showed that there existed a direct positive
relationship between one's level of concern about threats to their
personal privacy in today's society and their degree of agreement that
the use of computers must be sharply restricted in the future if
privacy is to be preserved.
288
The opinions of Arizona residents as to what is a justifiable
use of computers by government and business was found to vary with the
issue in question. For example, an overwhelming majority of respond-
ents felt it was justifiable for government agencies to use computers
to detect welfare fraud. Also, the respondents generally felt it was
justifiable for the insurance industry to use computers to monitor sus-
pects of fraudulent ins'IJrance claims. However, the respondents showed
mixed feel ings toward the Internal Revenue Service using cO,mputers to
check tax returns against credit card record, and law enforcement agen-
cies using computers to monitor purchasers of munitions. In contrast,
the respondents felt strongly that employers were not justified in
using computers to moni :or individuals who had ever been treated for
mental health problems, and state government agencies were not just-
ified in using computer'; to monitor individuals who had been given
prescriptions for dangerous or addictive drugs.
Privacy and Views Toward Privacy Protection Proposals
The research findings clearly show that Arizona residents
strongly feel they should have number of rights with respect to their
personal information being maintained by government, business, and
private employers. These rights include: (1) the right to be informed
of the existence of such records when started; (2) the right to review
on demand the contents of records concerning them; (3) the right to
289
correct, rebut, update, and expunge incorrect or obsolete information
concerning them; (4) the right to learn 'the source of information con-
cerning them; (5) the right to be informed just how information col-
lected on them will be used, and; (6) the right to require an individ-
ual IS agreement before information from their files is given out to
other organizations for purposes other than what it was collected for.
The research findings also indicate that there would be l majority agreement among Arizona residents for a number of priva y
protection proposals being imposed on the computerized personal data
record systems maintained by government, business, and employers~
These include: (1) all computerized record systems being registered
by law as to purpose and content; (2) the establishment of security
standards for computer equipment and the programs which run them;
(3) the establishment of professional standards concerning how p~r-
sonal information is acquired and disseminated; (4) all computerized
personal data record systems should undergo periodic site inspections
to assure compliance as to their purpose, content, use, and security,
and; (5) the people who work as data processors on computerized per-
sonal data record systems should be certified and licensed by a
government agency.
It was also found that Arizona residents strongly agree with
the legal concept that their personal data records held by government,
business, and private employers should be considered owned by the
individual, and the holder of the information should maintain them
"in trust" for the individual. They do not feel their personal
290
information, held by these institutions, should be considered the
exclusive property of the holder with their having no interest in them.
The research findings also show that a strong majority of
Arizona residents exists which feel it important that an independent
agency or body be established to handle complaints about violations
of personal privacy by public and private sector organizations.
However, the findings also show that Arizona residents are not con
vinced that still another State government agency should be created
to serve this purpose. A plurality of 39.3 percent of the respondents
reported that they were not sure an Arizona State Privacy Protection
Agency should be created to protect the personal privacy of Arizona
citizens. Those respondents who chose to comment further on this
issue generally stated they would need to know more about the purpose,
activities to be undertaken, and authorities of such an agency prior
to either favoring or opposing its creation.
It was also found that no clear consensus exists among
Arizona residents as to who should assume the major responsibility
for protecting the privacy of individuals. Generally the respondents
felt this responsibility lies with the United States Congress, the
people themselves, the courts, and the Arizona State Legislature.
Further, the findings suggest that a sizable majority of
Arizona residents feel it important that Arizoria have a privacy law
designed to ensure that the personal data records in state and local
government files are kept confidential and used properly. There was
also found to be a direct positive relationship between an individual's
291
level of concern about threats to their personal privacy in today's
society and the degree of importance they attach to Arizona having a
privacy law. The findings also reveal that an even greater majority
of Arizona residents exists who feel it important that Arizona have a
computer privacy law designed to ensure that the computerized per
sonal data record systems maintained by private businesses are kept
confidential and used properly. It was also found that a direct
positive relationship exists between the level of concern one has
about threats to their personal privacy in today's society and the
degree of importance which they attach to Arizona having a computer
privacy law. A similar direct positive relationship was found to
exist between one's degree of agreement that present uses of computers
are a threat to personal privacy in this country and the level of
importance he or she places on Arizona having a computer privacy law.
Also, it was found that by majority expressions Arizona
residents favor the enactment of additional privacy legislation in a
number of broad subject areas, from mailing lists to employment records
to insurance records, and even telephone call records. The respondents'
expressions of unanimous importance for additonal privacy legislation
in a broad range of subject areas reflects the general sentiments of
importance which Arizona residents attach to their personal privacy
and their great concern about its protection from future erosion.
292
Privacy In the Future
The research findings reflect that Arizona residents are
pessimistic about their future ability to maintain their personal
privacy from unreasonable intrusion by government. For example, three
out of four respondents felt we are somewhat close to or have already
reached a "Big Brother" society as described by George Orwell in his
book, 1984. Also, one lout of two of the respondents felt that ten
years from now we will have lost much of our ability to keep personal
privacy free from unreasonable invasion by government.
Privacy and Alienation'Theory
An important objective in the research was to test the theory
that a significant factor in shaping the attitudes of Arizona residents
toward privacy and com~luter issues is the degree of al ienation or
estrangement which indi:viduals feel toward the institutions of govern-
ment and business and their processes. Through statistical tests of
dependence between select variables and correlation analysis, the
results show that there are definite systematic relationships between
the degree of al ienation an Arizona resident feels and his or her
attitude toward issues of privacy and perceptions of computer benefits
and dangers. In particular, it was found that the higher the alien-
ation people feel, the more apt they are: to be concerned about
threats to their personal privacy; to feel they have been a victim of
an improper invasion of privacy; to feel we are relatively close to a
"Big Brother" society; to believe ten years from now we will have lost
293
much of our privacy and abil ity to prevent unreasonable invasion by
government, and; to feel it is very important that Arizona have a
privacy law. With regard to computer issues, the higher the alien-
ation people feel the more apt they are to feel the present uses of
computers are a threat to personal privacy; that the uses of computers
must be sharply restricted in the future if privacy is to be preserved,
and; that it is very important that Arizona have a computer prij,aCy
law. These findings suggest that the sources of Arizona reside~ts'
attitudes toward privacy and computers are deep-rooted in their per-
ceptions of how well or badly they feel the institutions of government
and business are performing. This being so, the feelings of Arizona
residents toward privacy invasion and misuse of computers will ot be
easily changed by "band-aid" privacy laws or patchwork campaign:; of
better public communications. Rather, such an objective shall re-
quire depth actions which seek to remedy the sources of these negative
feelings within people.
CHAPTER 16
FUTURE RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
This study presents the most comprehensive state-wide opinion
research survey on privacy conducted to date in Arizona. As such, it
is hoped that the results of this study will inspire still further
research into the many dimensions of privacy in our increasingly infor-
mation oriented society. Certainly, the findings of this study reveal
personal privacy in an information society as an issue of important
public concern to the residents of Arizona, and as a subject area
deserving further attention by the research community.
The complex, multi-dimensional character of the privacy issue,
compounded by the dynamics of people's opinions and values, creates a
state in which innumerable research agendas could be identified. It is
also acknowledged that any research agenda to be suggested cannot per-
manently resolve the constant dilemma policy makers must face to appro-
priately balance the legitimate needs of institutions for information
about people against the rights, privileges, concerns, and privacy
standing of the individual. This results from the social, economic,
and technological pressures which impact on this delicate balance
being constantly in flux, and certainly they will differ across socie-
ties and across historical time periods. Nevertheless, research agendas
are a necessity to contribute a comprehensive dialogue which can lead
to reasonable solutions of the current period conflicts between
294
295
institutional information demands about people and the individuals' pri-
vacy standing, plus establish the foundations for resolving future
inevitable conflicts. Accordingly, the following recommendations for
future research are but a few which can build upon the findings in this
study.
Recommendations for Further Research to Address the Inherit Deficiencies in Study's
Research Methodology and Design
Further research is recommended which will serve to overcome the
limitations inherit in the research methodology and design used in this
study, and which will serve to add clarity to the findings recorded.
It was acknowledged in Chapter 3 that the use of telephone directories
to supply a representative sample of Arizona residents was not without
shortcomings. Obviously, there are qualified individuals who are not
listed in telephone directories. Also, there are population pockets,
such as on Indian Reservations, which did not have the opportunity for
representation in the study due to directories not providing mailing
addresses. Nevertheless, it was concluded for this study that the
advantages of using telephone directories to supply a random sample of
Arizona residents exceeded the shortcomings inherit in this sampling
technique. Further, as shown in Chapter 3, with the possible exception
of Apache and Navajo Counties, the geographic distribution of valid
questionnaires returned by county as a percentage of state population
indicates reasonably good state-wide representation of the findings.
This, however, does not relieve the need for employing alternative
296
research methodologies which would provide further assurances of com-
prehensive state-wide representation, and acknowledgment of the
representation deficiencies which may exist in this study.
Another sampling deficiency inherit in the research methodology
of this study was the inability to assure that the demographic attri-
butes of those who responded to the mail questionnaire are representa-
tive of the demographics of the entire state population. Additional
research is needed tollearn to what extent the demographs of those who
chose to participate in this study are reflective of the state popula-
tion as a whole. These results can then be applied to a variety of
statistical procedures to determine what, if any, effect they bear on
the findings as repre~entative of the state's populace. The results
can also outline in which demographic areas further research may be
needed to clarify state-wide representation of the findings.
It was also noted in Chapter I that there are inherit deficien-
cies in any opinion research methodology, and there exists the potential
for some systematic biases in the research findings. For example,
there is the potential of bias in that those who are concerned about
privacy are more apt to raspond to a questionnaire on the subject.
Also, there is the potential of biases being imposed into the study
findings by the way people respond to questions, such as their bias
between strong and weak statements, familiar and unfamiliar questions,
or even the order in which questions and potential answers are pre-
sented. Still opinion research using attitude surveys, as done in this
study, is recognized as a viable vehicle for focusing on current publ ic
issues and measuring the extent of publ ic concern with respect to these
297
issures. There is still the need for further research, using alterna-
tive research methodologies, whose results can mesh with this study's
findings so as to eliminate as much bias as possible in learning the
opinions and attitudes of Arizona residents on the subject of privacy.
Recommendations for Further Human Behavior Science Research
The data generated in this study provides innumerable opportun
ities for further human behavior science research relative to Individ
uals' attitudes and opinions toward privacy issues. This study, for
example, was aimed at learning "what" the attitudes of Arizona residents
are toward various aspects of personal privacy in an information
society. The strength of the attitudes discovered support the need for
further research directed at learning "why" the attitudes exis·:. One
recommended method of doing such is the use of depth personal :nterview-
ing techniques to learn the reasons why people feel as they do about
specific privacy issues. The results of this research would add con-
siderably to the knowledge base which public and private sector pol icy
maker.smustdraw upon in addressing the privacy concerns of the public.
An interesting finding in the study which offers another area
for further research using the depth interview technique, or perhaps
an experimental research design using control groups, was a noticeable
distrust or suspicion of inadequacy which Arizona residents have toward
the personal information management practices of government and business
overall. These feelings of distrust and suspicion existed to the extent
they preferred laws to dictate much of these practices. Yet, the
findings also suggest that Arizona residents generally do not have much
298
knowledge about the actual personal information management practices
of various government agencies and business institutions. Further
research is needed to learn why these feelings of distrust and suspi
cion exist to the extent they do, and if the injection of different
information treatments about the actual personal information management
practices of various government and business institutions would affect
their feelings, and how so. In addition, there is the need to explore
what actions short of law, if any, would satisfy their concerns.
Another interesting finding in the research was the apparent
greater concern of Arizona residents over the need for institutions of
government and business to properly use and assure the confidentiality
of the personal information they maintain, as compared to a lesser
level of concern over these institutions collecting too much and impro
per or unnecessary personal information about people. Since it has be
come virtually commonplace in our society for individuals to be asked
to divulge information, much of it personal, about themselves in their
relationships with the institutions that provide necessary goods and
services, and much of this information is subjected to unseen third
party decision making which affects them, it would be interesting to
research the extent to which people may have resigned themselves to
institutional information demands, even though they consider them
unnecessary or improper. The differential in the concern levels found
in this study may be an indicator that such resignatton has occurred,
and as a result people are more concerned over the use and confiden
tiality of their personal information than over its collection. This
same ecological trend of analysis can be extended to a variety of human
299
behavior research questions. As an example, the more that data of past
conduct is used by third parties to make decisions concerning individ
uals, to what extent will there be the tendency of the individual to
act not from volition but for the record, and what would be the overall
consequences on the individual and society as a whole as a result of
such tendencies?
Still another human behavior area worthy of further research is
the need to learn more of the cause and effect of the alienation factor
in determining the attitudes of people toward privacy and computer
issues. The systematic relationships discovered in this study between
the individual IS level of alienation and their attitudes on various
privacy and computer issues provide an information base from which fur
ther research exploration and knowledge can and must be gained if this
phenomenon is to impact on publ ic policy development.
The data collected in this study should also be exposed to fur
ther statistical procedures, particularly multtvariate statistical
techniques aimed at unraveling a variety of apparent relationships
between variables used in the study and explaining the complex phenomena
suggested in many of the results. For example, the data suggests that
minority races have a tendency to be more concerned about threats to
their personal privacy in ~odayls society than the white race. The data
also appears to refute some of the myths surrounding the privacy issue,
such as privacy is primarily a concern of the affluent and educated.
There are countless other human behavior phenomena suggested in the
data worthy of further research evaluation using stat.istical procedures
beyond that appl ied in this beginning study.
300
Miscellaneous Research Recommendations
Other research recommendations deserving consideration include
the need to duplicate this survey among Arizona government, business,
and employer leadership groups. The results of such a survey could
then be compared to this study's findings to learn the degree to which
policy makers are "in tune" with the public.
Certainly the strong expressions of Arizona residents for pri
vacy related laws andl administrative procedures, as shown in this study,
provide reason for assessing the results to date of the federal and
state privacy legislation that has been enacted. There is need to
examine the experience of those government and private organizations
that have had to comply with these privacy statutes, and to study the
effects which this legislation has had on their system development and
information management practices.
Also deserving of important research attention are the pub 1 i c
pol icy implications of the vari ous privacy protection laws and proposals
shown to be favored by a consensus of Arizona residents in this study.
Such impl ications will undoubtedly be diverse and complex, and requ ire
substantial study.
Thre results of this research also suggest there is need for
policy makers to begin an area by area .analysis of laws and regulations
relating to specific functional areas such as credit, insurance, finan-
cial, employment, medicine, taxation, research, social service, educa-
tion, vital statistfcs, and law enforcement or criminal justice. This
analysis should be in the context of operational needs weighed ~gainst
individual privacy requirements and publ ic policy considerations.
Analyses in this context would greatly improve the insight of those
policy makers who inevitably will be addressing privacy issues in our
evolving information society.
301
CHAPTER 17
THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE RESEARCH FINDINGS FOR SELECT PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LEADERS,
INTEREST GROUPS, AND POLICY MAKERS
Privacy has yet to share the visibility or receive the attention
of other contemporary social issues 1 ike energy or pollution. Like
most situations which involve information, its flow, use, control, or
management, the privacy issue is characterized by a lack of visibil ity
and effects which are largely pervasive and subtle in nature. As a
result, there remains many organizations and leadership groups who have
yet to accurately comprehend with full insight the role of information
and the effects of advancing information technology on society. Conse-
quently, to date privacy issues have tended to receive more "lip
service" than appropriate action. However, this situation is forecast
to change with the growth of pub 1 ic awareness and consciousness of
their eroding personal privacy in an increasingly computer information
oriented society, thereby focusing attention and increasing public
demand for protection measures. As shown in Chapter 4, previous na-
tional opinion surveys and the findings in this research study show
public concern over threats to their personal privacy to be growing at
a' consistently high rate and reaching perilous heights.
The findings in this research clearly identify personal privacy
in an information society as an issue of important concern to Arizona
residents. In brief, Arizona residents were found to want and expect
302
303
to be able to participate in determining how and what information is
collected about them, and how it will be used and communicated to
others. They expect open, forthright, and fair relationships with any
institution which maintains data about them. They want assurances that
their personal information not in their possession is properly used and
protected against misuse and abuse. Further, they want protection
against unwelcome, unfair, improper, or excessive collection or dissem
ination of information or data about them.
Equally clear, the findings of this research study reveal that
Arizona residents want and expect government and business to institute
safeguards to address their privacy concerns. Arizona residents want
laws, policies, technical and administrative measures which will provide
protection for, control access to, and prevent misuse or abuse of their
personal information.
Thus, privacy in an increasingly computer information society
is an issue which warrants, if not demands, the attention of public and
private policy makers and others. The research findings in this study
can have many and interrelated implications for a variety of public
and private leaders, interest groups, and policy makers. This chapter
presents a select sampling of perceived significant impl fcations for
important categorical private and public leaders, interest groups, and
pol icy makers.
Individuals, Privacy Advocates, Professional and Trade Associations,
and Other Interest Groups
304
For the concerned individual, the research findings contribute
the knowledge that he or she shares their concern about threats to per-
sonal privacy with a majority of the public. Where a majority exists,
there is the potential of collective common cause in promoting privacy
protection measures as1voters, employees, and consumers. The findings
in this research study could be used to identify a number of privacy
protection causes. One potential cause which stands out is the desire
of Arizona residents for establishing privacy as an inalienable consti-
tutional right. In Chapter 4 it was shown that one could statistically
expect a strong consensus of between 69 percent and 79 percent of
Arizona residents to ~~vor such an act. The Arizona Constitution now
provides a right to privacy defined as, "no person shall be disturbed
in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of the
law" (Privacy Protection Study Commission, 1977c, p. 31). This right
has been interpreted in the traditional constitutional concept of pri-
vacy as relating to protection against intrusions by government, such
as limitations on surveillance and on unreasonable searches and seizures
of information in an individual IS personal possession. Thus the scope
of the interpretation is restrictive in application and does not pro-
vide for the variety and complexity of the privacy problems evolving
in our information society. The findings in this research provide
strong reason to believe that Arizona citizens, if given the oppor-
tunity, would favor a broader constitutional right to privacy which
would not only provide greater protections in the public sector, but
305
would also encompass protections in the pri'vate sector. Either through
an Arizona initiative or referendum, the citizens of Arizona could
choose to follow the example of California citizens who in 1972 voted
to amend the California Constitution so that it specified protection
for the inalienable right to personal privacy. In the years since adop-
tion of this amendment, the California courts have articulated the
scope of the privacy right to include protections for individuals in
both the public and private sectors (Privacy Protection Study c~mmission, 1977c, p. 33).
A number of other causes for legislation promotion are identi-
fied in the research findings. The more significant causes are presented
later in this chapter when discussing the implications of the findings
for legislators.
As employees the research findings identify a number of areas
for collective cause, such as demands for company personal info'rmation
management policies and practices which specify employee rights of
access and due process relative to their personal information maintained
and used by their employer. Further, these company policies should
provide specific administrative and technical safeguards to prevent
misuse or abuse of employees' personal information.
As consumers the research findings contribute knowledge for
collective argument for business to adjust their operations to meet the
personal privacy expectations of their customers. In addition to the
broad argument for privacy protection, the findings can provide a
variety of specific argumentative points. For example, the finding
that a majority of Arizona residents can be expected to consider
telephone and door-to-door sol icitations as privacy invasions, may
provide an argument for some businesses to refrain from this market-
306
ing practice. The finding that one out of four of the respondents on
occasion did not make appl ication for employment, credit or insurance
because they felt the information being required was improper or
unnecessary, contribute to the argument that some businesses should
review their methods of qualifying individuals for employment or con
sumer services in the context of public personal privacy concerns. This
argument is amplified by the finding that nearly 44 percent of the
respondents felt on occasion that the information being required on
employment, credit, or insurance applications was unfair. Still another
area singled out in the research findings for collective consumer argu
ment is the proliferation and use of mailing 1 ists. The findings sug
gest that those institutions which produce or use mailing lists should
examine their practices in the context of the personal privacy concerns
of the public.
The research findings can have even greater importance for
those organizations already formed to pursue special interest causes
which may include aspects of personal privacy advocacy in an informa
tion society. For example, the results of this research can contribute
strong empirical data to the American Civil Liberties Union, as well
as other libertarian groups, to lobby for more and better personal
privacy safeguards by the public and private institutions of today's
society. Likewise, the research findings contribute positively to the
advocacy causes of consumer protection groups, particularly in advocat
ing for the protection of consumer identifier personal information in
307
the market place. Further, the findings present a number of potential
impl ications for trade union officials relative to intrusions upon the
privacy of the individual which relate to the employment situation.
For example, the findings strongly suggest that employee information,
its recording, its relevance, its source, its use, and individual rights
thereto, are subject matters which warrant attention in collective bar
gaining.
For organizations such as the Council of State Governments and
the National Association of State Information Systems, the research
findings support their advocacy for state governments to address the
personal privacy issues evolving in an increasingly information society.
As presented in Chapter 2, the Council of State Governments has developed
model state privacy legislation applicable to both the public and pri
vate sectors and advocated its enactment in state legislatures. The
results of this research suggest a strong consensus of Arizona residents
would favor such legislation. Additionally, the research findings sup
port the commitment of the National Association of State Information
Systems to advocate for more and better administrative and technical
measures for securing and maintaining the confidentiality of the person
al information of people in state government record systems. Advocacy
with supportive public empirical data should enhance the ability of
such organizations to accomplish their personal privacy protection
objectives.
The findings in this research also reinforce the need for pro
fessional associations, particularly the computer and telecommunications
professions, to establish and apply membership professional codes or
308
standards of ethics and conduct with relevancy to public privacy con~
cerns. These professional associations, such as the Association of
Computing Machinery which has a Code of Professional Conduct (Parker.
1978, pp. 159-162), the Institute for Certification of Computer Profes-
sionals which has a Certification in Data Processing Program (Parker,
1978, pp. 185-191), and the Data Processing Management Association who
is in the process of ena"-"ting a Code of Ethics and Standards of Conduct
(Dooley, 1981b, p. 27), I:ould also play instrumental roles in educating
and policing their memberships in the mattters of personal privacy
responsibilities to the public. Certainly the findings in this re-
search contribute grounds for such organizations to consider such ac-
tions as a part of their professional responsibilities to society, and
their desires to advance their profession.
Additionally, th~ strength of the consensus of concern of Ari-
zona residents toward threats to their personal privacy in our
increasingly information oriented society, and their strong desire for
protections in the personal information record systems of government
ans business, could awaken the privacy issue as one deserving attentfon
and action by a variety of public, consumer, and special interest groups
beyond those mentioned here. The many dimensions and complexities of
the privacy issue as reviewed in Chapter 2, and the multitude of find-
ings in this research, invite a variety of actions by a variety of
parties.
309
Leg i s 1 a to r s
Perhaps, for more than any other categorical group, the imp1i-
cations of this research weigh heaviest on legislators. Particularly,
the research findings place a heavy burden on Arizona State legislators
and those who serve in executive level positions in Arizona state govern-
ment which can influence the legislative process. This judgment is
based on a number of important considerations.
First, the Arizona State Legislature has the authority, i~ not
the obligation, to establish the legal foundation from which solutions
to privacy problems in an information society can be readily built or
developed. There are two ingredients considered important in laying
such a foundation. First, there is the need to legally establish the
right to privacy of personal data. Second, there is the need to legally
define the ownership of personal data. The concept of ownership Nhich
is thought to best meet the individua1's privacy needs is to deem the
data owned by the individual or individuals who can be identified from
the data, and otherwise to the user or the compiler of the data
(Simpson, 1977, p. 30). Those who collect, process, maintain and dis-
seminate identifiable personal data would do so "in trust" for the
individual and in compliance with laws and agreed upon standards of
professional practice. The findings in this research show that a con-
sensus of Arizona residents can be expected to favor initiatives on
each of these key ingredients. As mentioned earlier, one could statis-
tica11y expect a 'strong consensus of between 69 percent and 79 percent
of Arizona residents to favor the estab1 ishment of privacy as an
inalienable right. The research findings also point to between 79
310
percent and 87 percent of Arizona residents favoring the legal concept
of individual ownership rights to their personal data records not in
their possession, with the holder of the information maintaining them
"in trust" for the individual.
A second important consideration is the knowledge that the
Supreme Court is looking to the individual states to initiate general
rights to privacy for the public. As reviewed in Chapter 2, the Bill
of Rights to the Constitution does not provide specific language on a
right to privacy. The Supreme Court in the case of Griswold v. Connecti
cut held that the specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights estab1 tshed
"zones of privacy," but chose not to define an individua1's specific
right to pri'vacy. Then later in Katz v. United States the Supreme
Court specifically stated that it was not going to set down general
rights to privacy and that this must be left to the i'nitiative of the
individual states (Raines, 1974, p. 117). Also, as pointed out in
Chapter 2, the United States Congress has to date adopted the prefer
ence for state and local regulation of personal privacy matters over
federal regulation, feeling that such regulation is more responsive
to local needs. Thus, if there are going to be initiatives toward
defining specific individual rights of privacy for Arizona citizens and
more privacy protection legislation, the Arizona State Legislature will
have to playa lead part, if not the leading role.
A third important consideration is the knowledge that the find
ings in ths research can contribute directly to the responsibilities
of elected government officials to serve the consensus view points of
their constituents in the democratic process of government. Certainly
311
the findings in this research, at a minimum, imply the need for the
Arizona State Legislature to give attention to the privacy problems
evolving from an increasingly information oriented society. This is
established by the statistical expectation in the research that between
82 percent and 92 percent of Arizona residents have some level of con
cern about threats to their personal privacy in today's society. The
need for attention is further established throughout the research
findings which point to personal privacy as being a major issue of con
cern to Arizona residents. Futher, the research findtngs show that
Arizona residents, by an overwhelming consensus, want laws to protect
their personal privacy and establish their legal rights to their per
sonal information which exists in the personal record systems of
Arizona's public and private institutions. Also, they want assurances
that their personal information not in their possession is used properly
and kept confidential by these institutions.
There inevitably will be individual examples of reform initia
tives by the Artzona State Legislature in some small areas of the law
to protect, directly or indirectly, a variety of privacy interests.
The privacy related statutes that now exist in Arizona law exemplify
this (Privacy Protection Study Commission, 1977c, pp. 31-32). Still,
the major policy issue which the Arizona State Legislature must decide
is which of, or what combination of, two basic approaches it should
adopt to provide adequate privacy protections. The first basic
approach is the bold act of declaring and defining a general "righ.t to
privacy" and then allowing the individual to enforce that right through
the courts and other avenues. The second approach is the more
312
conservative act of simply seeking to strengthen the network of exist-
ing laws by enacting additional new laws to fill the gaps that exist.
There are specific findings in this research to tndicate a consensus of
Arizona res'idents would favor ei ther approach. Summari ly, the research
findings suggest Arizona residents want both approaches. That is, they
want their "right to privacy" defined and legally established. Plus,
they want new laws to protect their 'Iright to privacy."
There is precedelce for the bold general approach of declaring
and defining a "right to privacy.11 As pointed out in Chapter 2., a
number of European countries have taken a comprehensive, "omnibus"
approach with a single privacy law covering the private and public
sectors. Further, durin, 1978 Norway, Denmark, and Austria enacted
privacy protection laws \/hose scope extended to legal persons (Hoffman,
1980a, p. 110). At the province level in Canada, British Columbia has
enacted a general Privacy Act (Young, 1978, p. 127). Also, a number of
states, including Arkansas, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Ohio,
Utah and Virginia, have enacted omnibus privacy protection statutes
(Privacy Protection Study Commission, 1977c, p. 2).
Support for the bold general approach is implied in a number of
research findings. As previously mentioned, the research suggests that
a consensus of Arizona residents can be expected to favor a declaration
of privacy as an inalienable right, and an even stronger consensus could
be expected to favor a legal concept of individual ownership of their
personal information with the possessor of such information doing so
"in trust" for the individual. The research findings also show that
Arizona residents strongly favor what are common individual rights
313
featured in the omnibus statutes, usually referred to as "privacy acts"
or "fair information practices acts," that have been enacted in other
states. These individual rights form the basis for a definition of a
"right to privacy" as it relates to an individual's personal information
and his or her interaction with record keeping institutions. They
include: (1) the right to be informed of the existence and start of
individually identifiable information record systems; (2) the right to
review on demand the contents of records concerning them; (3) thel
right to correct, rebut, update and expunge incorrect or ob.so1ete in-
formation concerning them; (4) the right to learn the source of infor-
mation concerning them; (5) the right to be informed how information
collected on them will be used, and; (6) the right to require individual
agreement prior to information from their records being given out to
others for purposes other than what it was collected for. It should be
emphasized that the need to legally establish these indivtdua1 rights
have been repeatedly recommended in the more important studies conducted
to date on the subject of personal privacy in an information society,
including Records, Computers, and the Rights of Citizens (U.S. Depart
ment of Health, Education and Welfare, 1973, pp. 40-42), and Petsona1
Privacy in an Information Society (Privacy Protection Study Commission,
1977a, pp. 13-21).
Even more support for an omnibus approach to privacy 1egisla-
tion was evident in the research finding which indicates between 88
percent and 96 percent of Arizona res tdents can be expected to fee.1 it
either very or somewhat important that Arizona have a privacy law
designed to ensure that the personal data records in state ~nd local
314
government files are kept confidential and used properly. Further,
it was found that between 76 percent and 86 percent can be expected to
feel it either very or somewhat important that Arizona have a computer
privacy law designed to ensure that the computerized personal data
records systems maintained by private business are kept confidential
and used properly. The importance which Arizona residents place on
Arizona having a privacy law and a computer privacy law can also be
pertinent to the second more conservative approach of enacting laws to
patch the gaps in the existing network of privacy protection related
laws.
The conservative approach is essentially that method currently
being employed by the United States Congress and a majority of states.
As presented in Chapter 2, the Congressional approach to date has been
to enact a number of specific prfvacy laws by sector, primarily in the
public sector. Likewise, most of the states, including Arizona, have
followed this pattern of specific legislation for specific privacy
problems. There are, however, a number of states which have exhib.ited
more innovative and far-reaching actions than the Congress or their
peer states, such as those previously mentioned states which have
enacted omnibus privacy statutes. The shadow bearing on th.fs approach
is whether a patchwork methodology can keep pace with tbe privacy needs
and expectations of·citizens in an increasingly technological and
information oriented society. The critics maintafn that this approach
has not kept pace, it results fn inconsistencfes, fs chaotic, and point
to the increasing number of privacy problems arising in our society as
an example of its failings. At a minimum they advocate the need for
315
guiding national and state policies and privacy acts that will
delineate principles of fair information practices and individual per
sonal privacy information rights. Nevertheless, the findings in this
research also contribute a number of specific recommendations in the
context of favored Arizona public opinion as to what specific laws
would provide for their personal privacy. \-lith these recommendations,
of course, come a series of complex implications for Arizona legislators
to consider, such as: (1) the use of existing regulatory and legisla
tive mechanisms; (2l minimizing the cost of administration and compli
ance; (3) the providi"ng of inducements for wi l1ful compl iance to
minimize the number of disputes over compliance, and; (~l the provision
of reasonable protections against liability for unintentional failure
to comply, as well as appropriate penalittes for willful failure to
comply.
This research indicates that between 52 percent and 66 percent
of Arizona residents could statistically be expected to favor a law
which specifies their employee right of access to their personal files
held by employers. This right has generally been provided by law or
administrative action in the public sector. However, to consider
enacting a law which extends into the private sector would create some
complex impl ications for Arizona legislators, particularly since such
records in the private sector have generally been regarded as the
property of management. As such it is interesting to note the con
cluding recommendation of the Privacy Protection Study Commission
relative to the issue of legal access to employee files in the private
sector. The Commission in studying this issue recommended that
employers should develop and promulgate access and correction policies
voluntarily (Privacy Protection Study Commission, 1977a, p. 256). It
made this recommendation based on the recognition that to legislate a
right of access to records without a broader scheme of rights to pro-
tect the employee who exercises it could be futile. Without this
broader scheme, employers would have discretion to determine which
records will be made availaille to their employees. Also, the Commis
sion anticipated that accesa to records would become a prominent con-
316
tract negotiable item in defining the employee-employer relationship by
collective bargaining.
This research also showed that between 90 percent and 97
percent of Arizona resident could statistically be expected to favor
a law establishing their le~al right to see all their medical records
held ~y private doctors, clinics or hospitals. Existing Arizona stat
utes are generally absent of provisions giving patients legal rights of
access to their medical records. Rather, the issue is dissipated in
statutes concerning physician or psychologist/patient privileges, and
such records are generally disclosable only as a part of a malpractice
adjudication. The Privacy Protection Study Commission as one of its
concluding recommendations did recommend that each state enact a statute
creating individual rights of access to, and correction of, medical
records, plus the establishment of confidentiality standards (Privacy
Protection Study Commission, 1977a, pp. 293-295).
A number of states currently have statutes granting a patient
the right to inspect and, in some instances, obtain copies of his or
317
her medical records (Privacy Protection Study Commission, 1977c, pp.
19-20). Colorado has probably the most liberal state statute in that
they apply not only to hospital records, but also to records kept by
private physicians, psychologists, and psychiatrists, and patients are
granted the right to obtain a copy of their records for a reasonable
fee, without resort to litigation or authorization by physicians or
hospital officials (Privacy Protection Study Commission, 1977a, pp. I
295-298).
Another interesting finding in the research was that one
could statistically expect a majority of between 58 percent and 72 per-
cent of Arizona residents to favor a law specifying what types of per-
sonal information insurance companies should be allowed to gather 0
people. As in most states, Arizona's pass regulating of insurers has
primarily focused on matters such as rates, coverages, reserves and
financial stability. The findings in this study suggest that Arizona
residents are also concerned about the manner in which insurers col-
lect and use information about individuals. Most protection proposals
to address this insurance issue involve the establishment of formal
government mechanisms for individuals to question the propriety of
information collected or used by insurance institutions. This formal
mechanism then has the obligation of raising legitimate objections to
the appropriate bodies to establish public policy. The State of Arizona
has, in essense, the structure for such a mechanism in that the Depart-
ment of Insurance currently has a Consumer Affairs and License Division
which accepts consumer complaints. The issue for examination before
318
the Arizona State Legislature is whether processes are in effect to
enable legitimate complaints to be transcribed into legislative require
ments, and if so, how effective have they performed. Still another
implication of this finding for the Legislature to consider is the
extent and measure of granting rule making authority to the Insurance
Commissioner to address issues of propriety of information and insurer
collection methods.
The research findings also provide evidence that a consensus
of Arizona residents are in agreement, and more than not in strong
agreement, that a variety of privacy protection proposals should be
imposed on government, business, and private employers who maintain
computerized personal data records on individuals. Each of these pro
posals, either directly or indirectly, present a variety of implications
in the sense that statutes can be enacted to implement each and all of
the proposals. In fact, a majority of the proposals are features of
the model computer privacy law developed and long advocated by the
Council of State Governments (Council of State Governments, 1978, pp.
43-52). They present indirect implications in the sense that the pro
posals, for the most part, can be voluntarily instituted by private
industry without mandate of law, if given motivation and cooperation by
the Legislature. The proposals as presented in Chapter 12, include:
(1) all computerized record systems being registered by law as to pur
pose and cont~nts; (2) the establishment of security standards for com
puter equipment and the programs that run them; (3) the establishment
of professional standards concerning how personal information is
319
acquired and disseminated; (4) all computerized personal data record
systems undergoing periodic site inspections to assure compliance as to
their purpose, content, use and security, and; (5) the certification
and licensing by a government agency of the people who work as data
processors on computerized personal data record systems.
Another implication noticeable in the research findings,
which warrants attention, was the general lack of trust which Arizona
residents have toward government and its personal information manage
ment practices. This was evident in a number of findings in the re
search, including the statistical expectations that between 44 percent
and 58 percent of Arizona residents are worried about government prop
erly using the personal information they collect on people, and between
44 percent and 60 percent of Arizona residents believe that ten years
from now they will have lost much of their ability to keep their pri
vacy free from unreasonable invasion by government. This sense of dis
trust was also evident in the finding that a plurality of the respond
ents were unsure if a hypothetical Arizona State Privacy Protection
Agency should be created and mandated to protect the privacy of Arizona
citizens. Yet, throughout the research findings, there was overwhelming
favor for the enactment of privacy protection laws and proposals. This
general distrust existed even though there was evidence to suggest that
significant proportions of Arizona residents are not generally knowledge
able about the specific personal information management practices of
various government agencies. As examples, nearly 36 percent of the
respondents were not sure if Arizona State regulatory agencies ask for
320
too much personal information or limit their personal information
gathering to what is necessary, and 42 percent were similarly not sure
about government welfare agencies. Also, 42 percent of the respondents
were not sure if Arizona State regulatory agencies are doing enough or
should be doing more to keep the personal information they maintain in
their records confidential, and 40 percent were similarly not sure about
governmen~ welfare agencies.1 These results, irrespective of future new
privacy protection legislati'~e action, suggest that Arizona State
government needs to do a morE~ effective job of communicating with the
public on their personal information management practices.
The research findings also present implications for federal
legislators who represent Ar"zona in the United States Congress. Much
of the preceding implication!; presented for Arizona State legislators
are equally applicable to the! senators and representatives who serve in
the Congress. Additionally, the findings in this research suggest a
strong consensus of Arizona residents would favor the enactment of a
federal code of fair information practices which has long been ad-
vocated in the Congress by a variety of authorities (U. S. Department
of Health, Education and Welfare, 1973, p. 50; Annual Chief Justice
Earl Warren Conference on Advocacy In The United'States, 1974, pp.
34-35). Further, a consensus of Arizona residents could be expected
to favor a National Privacy Protection Policy as recommended by the
Congress's Privacy Protection Study Commission (Privacy Protection
Study Commission, 1977a, pp. 6-21). This policy would provide a broad
definition of a right on the part of the citizen to have some control
321
over the circulation of sensitive or personal information about himself
or herself. Specifically, the individual should retain rights to con-
tinue control over his or her information once given to an institution
for a specific purpose, such that the personal information, its use,
and its dissemination remains to the interest of the
individual, and not to the interest of the organization which may be
brokering the information.
The research findings also imply that Arizona residents are I
in favor of more federal government regulation of the private sector in
matters of personal information privacy. As indicated in Chapter 2, the
Congress has acted with legislation to regulate and police the personal
information management practices of the federal government agencies, and
state and local government to the extent federal funds are being usee to
operate local government programs. However, the Congress, with some
minor exceptions such as the Fair Credit Reporting Act, has generally
chosen to not regulate information privacy matters in the private sector.
Rather, they have hoped that the private sector would follow their ex-
ample of the Privacy Act imposed on federal government agencies, that
the private sector would voluntarily implement the recommendations of
the Privacy Protection Study Commission and self-regulate their own
industries.
The research findings also suggest that Arizona residents
would favor an omnibus national privacy legislation approach as taken
in many European countries, as opposed to the piecemeal specific leg-
islation for specific privacy needs approach now being followed by the
322
Congress. As presented in Chapter 2, a number of European countries,
including Sweden which through research studies has been identified as
a "bellwether" nation for the United States in areas of social policy
formulation, have taken a number of national personal information pri
vacy measures beyond those now existing in the United States.
One additional research finding which may present specific
implications for federal legislators, particularly considering the cur
rent federal administration's proposals to amend the Freedom of Infor
mation Act (Gartner, 1981), is a strong consensus of Arizona residents,
statistically expected to be between 85 percent and 93 percent, are of
the opinion that people should have access to their records kept in
government files. Further, this access should be at cost to the govern
ment, even if such requests areti.meconsuming and expensive.
Private Sector Policy Makers
A business does not exist in isolation, but in the society.
And, it is generally considered advantageous for a business, or an
industry as a whole, to operate within the general beliefs and accepted
codes of conduct of the society, for wide deviation from the accepted
codes may jeopardize the security of the firm in the society. In
essence, society's social and ethical beliefs as well as its rules of
conduct provide business with guiding parameters for internal operations
and activities in the market place. For these reasons, the challenge
to private business or industry policy makers brought by the findings
in this research is perhaps even greater than that faced by legislators.
Particularly since information for the modern business organization
is as important as land, labor, and capital.
At a minimum, the findings in this research should serve as
323
an early warning signal to business policy makers that many of their
previously unquestioned prerogatives in freely collecting and using
personal information about people are not without contention in the
public eye. Threats to personal privacy in today's society, specifi
cally the potentials for abuse and misuse of one's personal information
by business, is revealed in this research to be a serious public issue
of concern to Arizona residents.
The major policy issue facing private sector policy makers is
the extent they will take measures to self-regulate the personal infor
mation management practices within their industries. As previously
mentioned, self-regulation by industry has been the preferred course to
date of the United States Congress and the Arizona State Legislature.
Both the Congress and the Arizona State Legislature, for the most part,
have restricted their privacy related legislation to the public sector,
principally government operations and activities, and have not extended
like legislative applications into the private sector. Rather, they
have hoped their actions and studies would serve as models and provide
incentives for the private sector to impose their own self-regulatory
methods. A review of the response record of private industry shows
that they have been slow to follow the lead of the legislative bodies.
Given the findings in this research, it would appear to be only a matter
of time before public pressure manifests itself through more government
324
legislation in the private sector, collective bargaining demands,
negative consumer reactions, and other channels. Unless the private
sector can demonstrate self-regulatory vigor and convince the public
of such, these manifestations may result in laws, regulatory require-
ments, and market place conditions which are not to the best liking of
the private sector. Even then, however, the findings in this research
suggest that the public will Iwant fail-safe type laws that will assure
their legal rights to their ~ersonal information, its proper use, and
protection from misuse and abuse. Still, the benefits derived from
self-regulation will likely outweigh the negatives that could be expected
from imposed regulation by an outside source, such as government.
When private sector olicy makers consider self-regulation
methods, their considerations will most likely fall into three general
categorical alternatives. T~ese alternatives are: (1) the recognition
of individual rights with respect to their personal information, with
the enforcement of these rights serving as the method for self-operating
regulation, so to speak; (2) the establishment of industry standards to
serve as the method for self-regulation, which could be in a variety of
forms, such as fair information management policies, ethical or profes-
sional codes, management accountability applications, or technical and
systems standards, and; (3) the establishment of special authorities,
such as independent ombudsmen or industry regulatory agencies, to regu-
late information management practices within the industry.
For deliberation purposes in considering each of the preceding
alternative methods, the findings in this research contribute public
opinion input. As example, in Chapter 12 it was shown that Arizona
325
residents strongly favor a number of specific rights which an individual
should have with respect to their personal information maintained by
business. This chapter also presents the finding that Arizona residents
strongly agree that a number of specific standards should be applied
to the computerized personal data record systems of business and private
employers. Another interestin~ finding in this chapter, was that Arizona
residents strongly favor an independent body or agency to handle com
plaints about violations of personal privacy, whether they occur in t~e private or public sector. Yet, the research also found that Arizona
residents are not convinced that there should be created a government
agency to fulfill this function. The combination of these two findings
could present a unique opportunity for the private sector to fill this
public request. The creation and support by business of an independent
body to handle personal privacy complaints and to police the industry's
personal information management practices could be one method of sei~ing
on this opportunity.
The research findings also illustrate that private industry,
either by design or neglect, as failed to provide public visibility of
their personal information management practices. As a possible conse-
quence, Arizona residents were found to have a low level of trust
toward such practices, even though they were generally not knowledgeable
about the specific personal i~formation management practices of various
industries. This implies that private sector policy makers not only
need to develop and implement standards and operational methods to
address public concern over personal information privacy, but they also
need to devise more and better methods of communicating with the public
326
on their personal information management practices. These communications
should be aimed at raising the confidence of the public that controls
on personal information collection and use do exist and are effective.
The research findings also present an argument for business to
reconsider their application process and methods of qualifying people
for jobs and evaluating them as consumers. It was found that signifi
cant proportions of Arizona residents feel too much, improper, unneces
sary and unfair personal information is being required on applications
for employment, credit, and insurance. The finding that one of four
Arizona residents have on occasion not made such applications because
they did not want to provide certain kinds of information being required
of themselves suggests that new methods for qualifying people for jobs
and evaluating them as consumers could derive economic benefits as well
as alleviating the privacy of personal information concerns of the
public.
Summarily, the research findings suggest that private sector
policy makers should examine their total personal information manage
ment systems in the context of not only operational needs, but also in
the context of the privacy concerns of the public. More than not in the
past, publ ic privacy concerns have not played a prominent role in infor
mation management policy development or operational decision making.
The findings in this research argue that privacy concerns need to become
a permanent, if not prominent, consideration variable in these processes.
327
Administrators
The findings in this research also present important implica
tions for administrators, both public and private, who function at the
middle and operational levels of the management hierarchy. As legisla
tors and top management officials conceptualize and enact laws, policies,
and professional standards to address public privacy concerns and issues,
their actions will inevitably flow down the government and business or
ganizational structures to the administrators for application and imple
mentation. Also, the authority and responsibility structure in various
public and private institutions may allow decision making at the admin
istrative level to take actions without policy directive which will
address the privacy concerns of consumers, clients, and employees. This
being so, much of the implications of the research findings previously
described for legislators and private sector pol icy makers are equally
applicable to the administrators charged with directing the daily opera
tions of their respective institutions. Indeed, the findings in this
re~earch identify privacy as a significant social issue, such that con
sumer, client, or employee personal privacy concerns ought to be a
consideration variable in each of the traditional management functions
of planning, organizing, staffing, directing, and controlling at each
level of management.
As is the case for policy makers, the research findings contri
bute strong reason for administrators to examine the personal information
management systems within their functional areas of responsibility.
This examination should consider the privacy concerns of consumers,
clients, and employees, as well as the operational needs of the
328
organization. The findings in this research reinforce the need for
administrators to establish effective internal policies and procedures
to protect the confidentiality of personal information and to assure
its proper use.
The lack of trust which Arizona residents have for the personal
information management practices of public and private institutions
should be of concern to admiJistrators as well as policy makers. More
than not it will be at the of,erational level where public criticism will
be aimed. The findings in this research support the realization that if
public and employee faith in administration is to be established and
maintained, than the personal information management systems of institu-
tions much contain at least :hree interrelated dimensions. There must be
an access dimension, a fairnl!ss dimension, and an integrity dimension.
The access dimension must allow for the individual to have knowl-
edge of what is going on. The findings in this research indicate that
Arizona residents are not generally knowledgeable about what is happen-
ing to their personal information once given to an institution. Conse-
quently they distrust the personal information management practices of
public and private institutions without much knowledge of such practices.
The fairness dimension must provide for the individual to gain
confidence in how decisions are being made from personal data records.
The findings in this research suggest that Arizona residents lack this
confidence. As example, nearly 53 percent of the respondents were
either not sure or felt that decisions were being made wrongly about
them on the basis of information they didn't know about. And, over 71
percent of the respondents felt that some people are prevented from
329
getting fair treatment because of past mistakes kept too long on their
records. Other findings in the research showed that Arizona residents
generally feel that too much, improper, and unnecessary personal infor-
mation is being required on applications for employment and various con-
sumer services.
There must also be an integrity dimension to assure the individ-
ual that their personal information is being kept confidential and pro
tected from abuse and misuse. In this research it was found that le~s than 20 percent of the respondents felt that most organizations that use
information about people have enough checks and safeguards to protect
against misuse or abuse of their personal information. This compares to
over 55 percent of the respondents who felt that adequate safeguards do
not exist, and over 25 percent who were not sure. Also, it was evidE:nt
in the findings that Arizona residents generally feel that various
public and private institutions should be doing more to protect the
confidentiality of the personal information they maintain on people.
The research findings, particularly those presented in Chapter
12, also contribute cognizance of public opinion about various privacy
protection safeguards and remedies being proposed and advocated by a
variety of interest groups. As example, the findings reiterate the
widely recognized need for rigorous professional training and codes of
professional standards and ethics for the staffs who operate and control
computerized personal data systems. More than not the staff are the
weakest link in the securtiy chain, for they have both the technical
capability and the opportunity to gain access to the system and tamper
with data files therein. The findings also reiterate the general
330
personal privacy principles which administrators should be applying to
the development of policies, administrative procedures, and design
requirements for computerized personal data systems. As presented in
Chapter 2, they include: (1) the establishment of access to one1s own
data; (2) ensuring accuracy, completeness, and timeliness of recorded
information; (3) establishing procedures for challenging and correcting
erroneous data, and; (4) protecting data from unnecessary disclosure.
In addition to the preceding general principles, the findings
also support the need for a variety of general safeguard requirements
that should be considered in the development of policies, procedures, and
controls for administrative personal data systems. For example, the
findings suggest that one general requirement for any such system should
be that no transferof any personal data to another organization or sys
tem should occur without the prior informed consent of the individual to
whom the data pertains. Also, affirmative actions should be taken to
inform staff who have responsibility or function in the design, develop
ment, operation, or maintenance of the data system, or the use of any
data contained therein, about all the safeguard requirements and all the
rules and procedures of the ogranization designed to assure compliance
with them. Further, specific penalties for violating safeguard require
ments should be spelled out. There should also be consideration of and
reasonable precautionary steps taken to correct the data system and
detect any violations, such as hardware and software techniques which
limit access to authorized and identified persons, control the process
which is carried out on the data files, and monitor the performance of
the system to detect unusual suspicious, or unauthorized activites.
331
Still another general requirement for consideration is the application
of standards which address the risk to data security from transfer of
data from one system to another, such as specifying under what security
conditions data is to be transmitted and what security features the
receiving system should possess. The findings in this research also sup
port the need for any personal data system to have a data purging general
requirement to destroy irrelevant and outdated personal information
about people.
The research findings also contribute the realization for admin
istrators that there are few if any substitutes for forthright, face-to
face methods for gathering information from employees and monitoring and
evaluating their work performance. Reliance on covert methods such as
monitoring informal employee conversations to learn their feelings
about supervisors and managers, or electronic devices such as closed
circuit television to monitor work performance, are perceived by the
employee as being intrusive and should be forbidden. The research find
ings also contribute the warning to administrators that public disclosure
of salary and insurance claims of employees are sensitive areas of con
cern to a significant proportion of Arizona residents.
Computing Community
The institutions of our society have virtually made an irre
vocable commitment to computer technology. Whether the institutions
have examined and understand in the fullest scope the implications for
the future of this commitment is debatable. It would appear that this
commitment has been driven primarily by the quest for operational
332
efficiencies and competitive edge, with minimal assessment and considera-
tion of the humanistic consequences such as personal privacy. As more
and more facts of one's personal life are stored in computerized data
systems, and such systems are networked to create a multi-access and on-
line information society, privacy fears will predictably increase. This
research reveals these fears are now at perilous levels, implying if
government and business expect to be able to continue making widespread
use of computers without eventJal negative publ ic reaction, and possibly
even confrontation, they need seriously to address the privacy issues
which evolving computerized personal data systems present. In the
process of addressing these privacy issues, one would expect the comput-
ing community to play an instrumental role. Consequently, the findings
in this research can have a va-iety of implications for those who design,
construct, and operate compute~ized personal data systems.
In the broad sense, the findings in this research imply that
more privacy protection legislation is inevitable. Thus, it would seem
prudent of the computing community to not only begin considering in
detail the implications of future privacy legislation, but they should
also advance to the forefront in recommending and influencing the
character and passage of such legislation. Although a bold approach,
it would assure that full accounting is taken of what is feasible
technology-wise and cost-wise in weighing the various legislative alter-
natives, and reduce the probability of legislation being enacted with-
out appreciation of these important factors. It is also probable that
the merits of an offensive approach, particularly if public support is
in your favor, will surpass those of a defensive posture.
333
In a narrower scope, the findings in this research present a
variety of other implications for the computing community. Certainly
there is need to increase public awareness and understan~ing of what is
and is not inherent in computer systems, where and how potential dangers
and benefits exist through computerized personal data systems, such that
the computer is not symbolized as an excuse or justification for things
that are not in the public interest.
It was acknowledged in a previous section that't~aining and
professional standards of the staff who operate and control computers
are the prime safeguard against the misuses of computerized personal
data systems. The next most important means is through technological
hardware and software techniques. The findings in this research imply
that the privacy and security features of these techniques in computer
ized personal data systems will grow in importance over the years. As
late as 1977, Honeywell Information Systems was marketing Multics
(Multiplexed Information and Computing Services), which is a large
scale, virtual memory, operating system implemented on the Honeywell
Series 60/Level 68, as the only commercially available system for
which privacy and security were original IIdesign objectives ll (Simpson,
1977, p. 46). Whether this marketing assertion is valid or not, the
claim does serve to illustrate that perhaps privacy and security objec
tives have long been too low on the requirements scale in the develop
ment and operation of computerized information systems. The findings
in this research suggest that privacy and security should consistently
be a priority design objective in the development of computerized
personal data systems, and the future will require greater emphasis on
334
techniques for combining hardware, software, and administrative controls
to meet public privacy and security concerns.
If all the privacy related laws and protection proposals for
computerized personal data systems that were found in this research to
be favored by a consensus of Arizona residents were enacted or imple
mented, the implications for the computer and data processing people
in the institutions affected would be tremendous. As examples, the exist
ing systems would have to be examined to determine applicability and
compliance. There would follow detailed work, including systems
analysis, programming, testing and installation, to change existing
systems to meet the new specifications. The existing data would have to
be re-established in the form required by individual access rights and
other security provisions. If individuals are to have access to their
personal records, the data must be provided in an understandable form.
There would also be the requirements to purge out of the systems out
dated and non-relevant data. Additional data collections may be neces
sary to complete new data requirements. New monitoring systems would
have to be developed into the systems to provide for adult or govern
ment inspection requirements. There may be new hardware, software,
telecommunication, and even physical environment needs to meet increased
standards and individual interface requirements. Administrative con
trols would undoubtedly have to be enhanced, possibly resulting in
reorganizations of responsibilities and authorities. Additionally,
staff would have to be educated and trained. And, of course, all of
these implications individually and collectively would result in
increased costs, and still further implications in terms of who should
335
bear what expense. These are but a minimal number of the possible
resulting implications, but they reflect the magnitude of the task that
would lie ahead of the computing people. They also suggest the comput
ing community should get a head start in addressing these implications
in order to buffer their impact when they occur.
Conclusion
The irrevocable commitment of our society to computer technology
will undoubtedly lead to the building of vast data processing and data
transmission systems. Indeed, the benefits to be acquired from better
information handling will not only warrant their construction, but will
create enthusiasm for their being built. As this technological advance
ment occurs there will be those who will argue that the civil liberty
concepts which developed in our less-scientific and limited-government
eras should not be re~ained in the coming technological age of better
information and more objective decision making. Rather, they will
believe that more complete information and high disclosure will render
obsolete many of our present procedures for evaluating and judging
people, and lead to a healthier personality development in people by
minimizing the shame-guilt culture plus increasing social toleration.
This research prescribes to the counter argument that privacy
and due process, regardless of the technological level we are at, will
surface and remain dominate public pol icy issues as vital elements in a
soc i ety whose co re goa 1 s wi 1 1 rema i'n human i, sm and demo'"
'cratic participation. This will happen because privacy is the nub of
the American individualism tradition. Further, privacy protects the
336
innovative and important role of private organizations in a puralistic
culture, and prevents totalitarianism by safeguarding areas of social
and political life from supervision by authority. So also is due
process essential to a free society. It exposes error and bias in ad-
judication, and it affirms the dignity of the individual, plus protects
against the exercise of arbitrary power. Thus, the right of privacy and
due process in exercising that right will not be outmoded in the computer
age, and the basic problems Of/society will not be dislodged by advanced
technology. Whether information is scarce or in abundance, delivered
late or in real time, there will remain the conflicts between individuals
and institutions and between protection and free access to information.
Man will continue to believe a times that they have been judged unfair
ly and request redress, and th3t withholding and controlling information
about themselves is vital to tleir personal integrity.
Consequently, society will need and demand rights to privacy,
even in an age of computerized personal data systems. Thus, the task
before public and private policy makers and others is how to provide
the same legal, organizational and social-norm limitations on the col-
lection and use of personal information in computerized personal data
systems as a combination of legal and administrative controls and a
less efficient technology gave us in the pre-computer age. The basic
issues will remain the same. That is, protecting against the abuse
or misuse of the individual·s personal information not in his posses-
sion, limiting the power of authorities to judge an individual un-
fairly, and assuring independent-minded citizens in a democracy.
Ideally, the preferred procedure for resolving the evolving
personal privacy issue in our computer information society would be a
holistic approach encompassing a tri-partnership of the people, the
government, and the private sector, cooperatively seeking to strike
an equitable balance between requirements of information subjects and
information keepers. The prerequisite to constructive participation
by all parties is knowledge and common understandings, particularly
337
that of and by the public. This ~esearch serves to broaden that
knowledge base, thereby not only calling attention to a rising and
serious public issue, but hopefully providing direction to those actions
required to address the privacy issue in a computer information society.
APPENDIX A
QUESTIONNAIRE AND RELATED COVER LETTERS
338
!'Rl\'>CY <:<J!;STra,Nru:
Please feel froe to write: personal ccr.m:!nts After any question.
I. Hal C'OnCemcd arc you about tl1rc .... to your parsonol privACY In toWy" society? (Pi ..... I'Jt • check In the
.pproprbtc box.)
I'm very concerned Only. I1ttle concerned Not concerned At All
o o o 2. 'Ibis country was foundca on the beue! th.>t the rlQh ... to I1fe, Uberty, and the ".,raUit of happlnes ........
func!omentol for both the 1ndividu.l1 and a just society. Do you think ..., should, or should not, add toWy the
right to privACY to this list?
Should add the right to priv.cy Should not add the right to privACY tk)t sure
o o o 3. For each of the fOl1C>11nq statmentsplease 1ndicatc if it expresses the .."y you yourself feel, or not?
Expresses the Does not express W<1V t (cal the wa:i: r fPoet ~
I. I hove .<=one I can shore my parsonol prcblans 0 0 0 With '"''hen I need to • • • • • • • • • • • •
2. I om generally oble to be by myself """" I 0 0 0 need to be .................. 3. 'nlcrc is so nuch noise In today'. ""rid th.>t I 0 0 0 have little p!ace and quiet • • • • • • • • • ,
4. I think sam decisions are beinq modo Wl'Q1qly about III! on the bo51s of infOnMtion th.\t I don't 0 0 0 Icno.I about ..................
5. I don't )uv. nuc:h contact With paople .me C41"8 0 0 0 about III!! .................
6. I SOI!I!tlJres feel saraone is watch1nq lie or 0 0 Cl rec:ordlnq ..no t I do • • • • • • • • • • • •
7. My enployer Icno.Is too lIWly parsonal th1nq. 0 0 0 about lie ................. 8. My neighbor. Icno.I too r:uch about my pancnal Ufe • 0 0 0
4. '!be follCMinq list Includes activities \ohlch scne paople feel arc matters of private choice or c:cnsent th.>t OU9ht
to be lett to the 1ndividusl. Other paople feel they should be rcqulated by l.w, and others feel they should be
forbidden by l.waltoqether. lis you read each activity please 1nd1cate the Fhrase \oiUch best describes he" you
feel the actiVity should be treated-shculd It be left to the lndlvidusl, .hould It be allowed but rcqulated by
1 .. ", or should it be totally forbidden by law? All~ but '1\Jtally Left to rcqulated forblllden
the 1ndlvldu.51 ~ 1a\l ~ ~ I. IllcUnq a IlDmrcycle Without a 0 0 0 0 protective halmlt •••••••
2. Engaging In prostitution ... 0 0 0 0 3. SItok1nq IMrlj\W\a In a private re.sldenc:e 0 0 0 0 4. Heterosexual rel.tlons In private be......"
0 0 0 0 c:cnsentinq .dul ts • • • • • • • • • • • •
5. Hcm>scxual relations In private be......" 0 0 0 0 conscntinq adul ts • • • • • • • • • • • • •
6. Havinq An Abortion ............ 0 0 0 0 7. Selllnq parnoqr.ph1c magazines and filmS In
0 0 0 0 book stores ................ 5. Havo you personol1y over been the victim of ..not you felt .... An lJrpropar invASion of priv0cy7
YOI, h,ve boen a victim o No, never hove been • VlctlZll
o Not sure
o 6. If you hove been a Victim, \.hot typo of orgAnization or authority ..". Involved? (/lark lIS I!Wly as appropriate.)
o 1'01Ico deportlrCnt/leorch Without warrants 0 Place of ""1'IO)llent/enployer
o lIetall cx:rrpany I've p.>reh.>sed 9CXld5 or •• rvices fratl 0 Crcdlt bureau
o Telephono/door-to-<loor sales rltehc. 0 Fo:!oral 9OVenr.ent
o INluronc:o cx:rrpany 0 Pcr""",l <]OSBip
o Invo1S1on of hcI!I! by vorl",. paoplo 0 Internal lIovonua service (IllS)
o IIo,pltal 0 School
o Church 0 JW>k IMil/ .... U order
o State rplDmrcnt 0 cc..nty ICI ty 9OVenr.ent
o Ilurglary 0 COllection ag.oncle.
o 'nlc pres./1I'CdJ.a 0 Not 1iW"e
o Other _______ ~~~~~~-----------(pl""so .pcclty)
339
340
7. tn 4 took entitled.!ill by G.~rgc Orwll, VlrtUllly all personal prlvolCY h.ld ~ lost and the qovem~nt,
cAlled "81g SrrJthcr", knew aln'Ost everythlnq tholt everyono won dolnq. Whether or not )'OJ tuve read the b::ok,
which of the follOollnq expressions best descrJ.bc ho.I close you think we are to that k1nd of SOCiety?
o h'e are there already o Vory closs
lJ~t close
o Not at all close
o Not sure
8. h'hen you thlnl< abo.It what life in the U.S. and Arizona "UI bo 11k. 10 years ftall """ do you believe ~" "UI have
lost nuch o~ our abll1ty to keep izTportant ASfA.'Cts of oor Uvea private frtn qavernrent, or do you beheve we will
sUll be <>ble to keep our privacy free fran wu:easonable invasion by 'JOVel'mCtlt?
WUI have lost nuc:h privacy
o WUI sUll bo abl. to keep privacy
o Not lure
o 9. On the ",'hole, ... 'hen it c:croos to our goIJet"T'lTCnt-federal, abt.e, county, and clty--collecti.ng personal 1nfotmltion
abo.It you, ...",Id you say you pratcy nuch trust them to use It properly, or that you are ""rrled atwt t"OJ they
will use It?
o Pretty ouch trust them 0 flOt sure
o I a:. ""rrled 0 It depends on
I
~------~IP~I~e.~s~e~'~~~~'f~y~wha~~t~I---------------
10. .... you re.d each of the following statare,to, pi .... 1nd1cate Whether you agree or disagree With them?
~~~
1. ~ :i~e:r:e~~~~~r: ::i~~e~~ ~~t.~~e.o~ . 0 0 Cl
2. Merlcans be<Jin surrendering their personal privacy the day they open their Urst chaf1iJC account, take out a loan, buy saooth1ng on an instaU:rent plan, or lIpply for a credit card . • • • • • • • D D D
3. Most orqanlzatlons that collect Infotnlatlon abo.It peopl. ask for rroro sensitive informstion than 1s nece.ssary • • • • • • • • • • DOD
4. ~~;:..r;e~: ~~p~f~U~~~I:!o=en~l~per:..~~~a~ • 0 0 0
5. In order to provide credit, Insurance, or """I~nt, It is proper to collect a qreat de.1 of senslUve personal InfotrMUon about people ••••••••••••••••••••••••••
6. MO.t orqanlzaUons that u ... InformaUon abo.It people have enough checks ar.d safequ3rd:i; ~;~1n.t the misus of perSOl'1Al lnfotr.\!tica •
7. Most peopl. Who o:npl.1n abo.It their pr Lv.cy being Invaded AnI enqaged in 111eqal or inm::Jral 4ctivlUc I • • • • • • • • • • • • •
o
o [J
o o
IJ o
o o
ll. Have you ever decided not to .pply for am .thIng, 11J<e a job, credit, or 1nsurance, because you did not want
to provide certain k1nda of InfotrMtion ab .. t yourself?
Yeo, has happened No, has not happened Con' t ruretber/not aura
o [) o· 12. In the pa.t When you have appUed for """IO)'Irent, credit, or insurance, have you ever felt that the InfotrMUon
belnq r<'<jUlred on the appl1cation ..... f~1r or unfAlr7
Felt InfotrMUon ..... falr relt InfotrMUon ..... unfalr Not sur., o o o 13. '!'he following 1Jo .. Ust of &are practice. that have been used by buslneaa orqanlz.ue;.. and 'JOVOXTm!nt .genel.a for
different rcasona. FOr each, pie .... indicate 1! you feel they shculd, or ahculd not, be forbidden by I.w?
Should be Should not ~ be forbidden ~
I. Listenlnq In on the conversations of """Ioyees to find out 0 0 0 \.'hat they th1.nk about their supervisors and rMl'I4gera ••••
2. Asklnq a job appl1cant to take a psycholoqlcal test .... 0 0 0 3. Asking. job Applicant to take a polyqroph/l1e detector test. 0 0 0 4. Kocplnq a close circuit talevlalon watch on the ""rk or ,al ..
floor to prevent theft and pUf.rlng by _Ioyce • ... . 0 0 0 5. Installlnq closed Circuit television to obtain contlnue>a
0 0 0 checks on to" fait \oOrkcra perform ••••• '.' •••••
6. ~<'<jUlr1n9 an """Ioyce to taka a 11. detector te.t When thera 1a 0 [J 0 suspicion of theft In 1>10 or her dcpartrrcnt ..........
14. Hcu Uk.ly do you think It 11 that your """Ioyer has ever reloa.od any Wormation ftall your persomel !lIe lnproperly?
Very likely o Sarc..nat Uk.ly
o Not at all likely
o NotlNre
o
IS. The foll""lnq I •• Ust of o<qon1ZaUon.s or 1nd1vldu.tls ""-\ch oarcUrne. collect or use lnfoDTlOUon aboJt people.
For each of the •• pl •••• 1ndlcate 1£ ~ feel they l1m1t their personal lnfomutlon qather1n9 Allwt IndIVlc!u.sl.
to \orhat is really ncccss.uy, or t..'hat.hcr they ASk for teo r:uch parsonal infonn.stion?
I. F 1Mnc:. cmponl.s • •
2. Creell t bureaus •••
3. Insuri1nC"O carpa.niea •
4. Internal Revenu. service IIRS)
5. Credit card c:arp.l.n1ea •••••
6. CoIcnr.ent \o'Qlf4rt! agenc1es • •
7. tk!d.1a sources fi.a. newspapers, maqazincs, radie, television)
B. ~nks 9. &.ployers •••••
10. Hospitals •••• Jl. Law enCorcere:nt aqcn:le:a (1.e. local pJUce,
state police, federal police)
12. Private doctors •••••••••.••••
13. Census Bureau • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 14. Sbte c;ov.mnent requlatory aqencl.s 11 •••
Corp:Jrate Ccmnisslcn, Dcpartm:mt of Revenue, Dep.1rtT.1l1\t of Health services)
IS. Elected .tate/county/clty of Ucla Is 11 ••• Senators, Representatives, Supervisors, CO\lncU _rs) . • • • • • • •
16. 'Ille telephone cmpony •••••
17. Social security Mn1n1strat1on
18. Schools.
19. Other_--;==:-::==.-_____ _ Ipl ..... spccuy)
Limit perSOllAI Ask for too lnfoImltlon qather1n9 I1'lJCh I"'rsorol to ',Jut is nl."CO!'I:s.uy infoInltton
C C C [J
C C o o o o o o
o o o
o
o o o o O·
[J [J [J
[J
[J
[J [J
[J
[J
o [J
[J
[J [J
[J
[J
[J
~ [J
a [J [J
[J
[J
o o o o o o o
[J
[J
o [J
o o
16. For the ... ,.. Ust \oOJld ~ pl ...... 1nd1cate whether you feel each is currently do1n9 enouqh to keep the pol"llCX\Ol
Womut1on they have on 1nd1vlduaU conUdentlal, or should they be do1n9 lIDee?
DolM enouah Should be do~ nora ~ I. F1nonce c:<r.pon.Ie. • • 0 [J 0 2. credit bureaus ... [J [J 0 3. Insuranco carpa.nieo • [J [J 0 4. Internal Revenue service IIRS) 0 [J 0
S. Crcd1 t card CClT'panies • • • • • [J [J 0 6. COVe~nt \.IOUAre agencies •• 0 [J 0
7. HedJ.a sources (i,e. newspapers, maqaz1nea, [J radio, television) [J 0
8. Bank.s [J [J 0 9. &.ployora • • • • • [J 0 0
10. Hospltall ••••• [J [J 0 11. Low enforcamnt aqcncl •• 11.e. local police,
state police, federal police) [J [J 0 12. Private a:ctor •••• , •••••••• , • [J 0 0 13. Census £Nrcau • • • • • • • • • t • • , • • [J [J 0
14. State qov.mnent requlatory aqencl •• 11.e. COrp::lrate Ccmn1ss1on, OCpdr'tnCnt of Revenue,
[J [J 0 Dcpartm:nt of Health :;ervices)
IS. Elected state/coonty/clty officials 11.e. SenatOrs, Rcpresent.a.t1v(!s, SupcrvJ.SOr'3,
[J [J C COJncll :-:erbers) • t' ••••
16. The tel.phone cmpony ••••• [J [J C 17. !lOClal Security Mn1n1.traUon [J [J 0
18. SChooU ......... [J 0 0
19. Other 0 Ipl ...... spoclfYI
[J 0
341
\.-
17. When.arcane appUes for a job In wune .. or qovemnont, de you think it is proper or I .... prcper for an """layer
to Mk for the follOJ1nq type. of Infonnaucn?
I. "'hat kinds of friends the appl1c4nt h.u •••••••
2. The type of nelgh!:orhocd In ""Iell the .ppUcant UVe'
3. _rslUp In peUtical and cxmrun~ty organlzaUCln5 •
4. Infomutton al:xJut the Applicant'l IIp:JUSe ••••••
5. !/hcther the appl1cant C7wM or rente their residence •
6. Records or arrest without convlctJ..on •••••••
7. General credit_rthInoss and ability to pay bill.
8. 'Iho result. of p.ychological tests •••••••• 9.~ •••••••••••••••••••••••
Proner
a a a o o o o o o
10. !/hcther the appUcant h.u ever received psych.1atric or psychcloq1c41 counseling • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 0
11. !"'ethor the appUcant is pregnant or net 0 12. Huitol status •••• • • • • • • • • • 0 13. Whether the appUcant uses illegal drugs 0 14. Dr1nk1ng (alcohcll habits. • • • 0 IS. Height and ... ight • • • • • • • • • • • • 0
16. EInIluatiau ot mental stability. • • • • 0 17. The appUcant', military dUchuqe status • 0 lB. sex ••••••••••••••••••• 0
19. Aqe ••••••••••••••••••• 0 20. ltedical reports cn =ent physlc;al c:adlticn and past nedical history. 0 21. References fran the aWUcant's fearer C!Il'loyer •••••••• 22. The rosulte of tests I.f11ch measure the ability of people to de
difterent type. of jobs
23. Dtplcyrnent hbtory •• I.t .•
24. !l:Iuc.1Ucnal backqro.lnd
o o o o
r:ot nt'COer
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
18. Dc you Jmo" ot any occaa1cn .men your enployer used per8al41 Wormot1cn about enpl~. Wlt4irly?
Ye" knew of cc:c:.u1cn
o Ne, dcn' t knew of cc:c:.ulcn o Net sure o
~ o o o a o a o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o
19. Have you ever been turned cb.n for a job or for a pttrDt1cn because of Informot1cn about you l.f11ell you tolt ......
Wccurate, out-of-date, or Wlt41r1
~ No ~ I. Because of Inaccurate Wormot1cn • 0 Ci 0 2. Because of out-of-date WOIIMt1cn 0 0 0 3. 8ec4.use or Wlfair infoanatial ••• 0 0 0
:20. fbi upoet ..,.,Id you be if everybody at ""rk laIew """ I!1JCh you and all the other enpl~ are paid? Vory upset
o Net sure o sare..na t upset o Net at all upaet o
21. How concerned are )Q.I that ~ lupervlsor or sana: other rrmber of rMM9BMnt at ycur place of \JQrk will lee }'O.1r
heal th and II¥!dical lnouranc:e claims before they are sent to the lnaurance CXI1p4Oy?
very ccnc:erned o sare..nat ccnc:erned o Net tee ccncerned
o Net at all concerned
o Not aure
o 22. Havs you ever net suI:Jn1tted a health lnaurance claim at your ""rk place becauso you did net wont your _layer
or other _Icyee. to knew the detail' of tha claim and treatm>nt you received?
Yes, h.u happened
o Ib, hal net happened
o ~t aunt
o 23. fblin'pcrtant de you think It 18 that an _layer should Infol11\ enplcyees before releasing any personal !ntOCMt1cn
fron enplayment fllel, except the re9lJlar repertlng required by la\17
Very Itrpcrtant 5a!e.Ihat Itrpcrtant Ibt a tall in'pcrtant o 0 0 Net ounr o
24. Dc you think that all enplayen ohould haw a specific CXI1p4Oy pellcy deslqned to aafequud that Infomuticn
ccntalncd In tholr _Icyees' perllClMCll and nedlca I f Ilea?
Should have pellcy Should net have pellcy o 0 Net sure
o
342
25. 'Il1e follc><lnq Is 0 Ust of kinds of intOrIMuon that arploye ... keep on thalr arployees. For e.u:h, pi .....
1nd1cate """'ther you fool an arployee BhoJld, or lhoJld not, hove a rlqht to look at and questlen each k1nd
of WOt1l\Otlon?
1. Supervisor's noporta to IMMgarent as to """ther the arplO)'CC is lult.lble for prarot1on ••••••••••
2. Elrplayer's fo"",l job perfo,""""o revl ... of the arployee •
3. 'Iho personal o::Jtes a. supelVisor keeps abc::Yt the CTployces perfotn\1J'lCe •••••• • • • • • • • • • • • •
SInIld have tho ri9ht
o o
o
SInIld not tuvo the rltlht
o o
o
o o
o
26. 00 you think arployers should decide """t rights arployees have regarding access to their CMI personnel fUes
or do you think a low should bo passed to apeclfy these rlqhts?
A low should bo passed Left up to arplayers o 0 Not sure o
27. Ilhcn you have personally dealt with different types of institutions that give people credit, such as bonks, credit
card CXJ1l>01Uos, and stores, have you ever been Asked to supply Wo"",t1cn that you folt was inF<t>per or UMeceSsory
Io!1en applying for ony type of credit?
Yes No Not sure o o o 28. wtUch of the follC><lnq k1nds of WOIJllOt1cn asked by insUtutlens that give people credit do you feel are ~
or WV\eCessary? (Mark as many as you feel appropriata.)
o Incare/saluy/eam1ngs
o PoIostlens about personal Ufe not related to . credit rating (1 ••• drinking habits, politics, friends)
o Race
o Ot.her 5O.IrCeS of 1ncx:m!
o Sex o Age
o F1nonces/11'CXleY in bonk or savings ACCO.Il\ts
o Value of .. soia/p<t>perty
o Family life/lore env1roment
o Harltal status
o Cred.lt references/credit rating/outstondlnq bU1a
29. Kave you ever been refused credit?
o PJes.tlcna about job/arployment
o PJestlens relating to spouso
o !>boro you live and for hew loncz
o References/cosigners
o "bother you rent or "'""' hare o PJestions regarding waren obta1nlnq credit
o Informot1cn about reloUves' f1nonc1al and credit status
o Nhether you have been in ja.l1 or arrested O~r, ______ ~~~~~~ ______ __
(please specify)
o ~r. ____ -.~~~~~ ________ _ (pl .... e specify)
Kave been refused credit Kave not ever been refused credit Not sure
o 0 o 30. If you have evor been refused credit, do you bolieve the dec1a1cn to refuse you credit ..... based en WOIJllOt1cn
""'ch was 1naccurats, Wlfo1r, and/or 1noaTt>lets?
1. Because of J.noccurote Wocnot1cn ,
2. BecAuso of unfAir JnfoDMtion ••• 3. BecAuse of 1ncatplete Wocnot1cn •
~ o o o
[):) not believe
o o o
~ o o o
31. 00 you """" .mother you have, or do not have, the 1_1 riqht to see any credit bureau report that might be uaed
in A declolen to deny you credit, insurance, or """loyment?
00 have right 00 not have right Not sure o 0 0 32. 00 you think people .me WDnt to shou,d have, or IIhould not have, I_I right to see all their 1!edic41 rocorcb
held by their per""""l doctor, or a cl1n1c or ""plta!?
1. ~led1cal reoords fran their peraa1A1 doctor,
2. Modical records fran A cl1n1c or ~pital •
Should hava the r1aht
o o
Should not havo the rlallt
o o
~ o o
33. If you ..,ro bolnq treated by A <'octor, WOJld you """t your doctor to tell you All the relevant W ...... Uon about
your 11Ine .. even thouqh you might bo told that you ore dy1rtrP
Would """t to be told Would not want to be told Not oure
o o o
343
.\ ....
l4. 'Il1c foU""inq Is a llst of tha types of Info=tlon ~nlch insurance c:at1"Ullcs t:'oly usc to Ccclde .llcthar or not to
give people Ufe insurance or ~41th MId rredJ.cal insurance, and Wholt pranilrns to charge. Please indicate for each of tho (0110.11n9 types of infom.Jt1.on \.'hath.!r yo.! think J.n.suranr..ooe CO'l"fl.llllcs should or should not have thct right to
obt.:11n this mfotnltlon? 5hoold Shoold not ~ ~ ~
I. 'IllO llppl1co1llt ' S ago • . .......... 0 0 0
2. Infomltloo on the appl1CMt's life style. 0 0 0
l. 'll1e appllcant's health and I1'Cd.Ical history 0 0 0
4. The applicAnt's sex •••••••••••• 0 0 0 5. nl4! appUcant 18 1.nc:arc . ......... 0 0 CJ 6. h1lat othar health or life insurance tha appllcant already
0 has .. , ............... 0 0 7. 'Il1c appllcant' s drinking (olcol-DI) habits • • • • • • • • 0 0 0
B. n-.a appUc.lllt I s cr1m..lnal record, if ,any • • • • • • • • • 0 0 0
9. h'hcthar or not the appUC.ll\t cnqaqcs in spJrts activities 0 0 0 which involve saoo real physical r1sk .••••••.••
10. Information rcl~tIng to cl~1ITIs tha appllcant has made to 0 0 0 other tnsurat\C'e CCJTilol111es • • • • • • • • I • • • • •
11. h'hether tha appllcant has been turnedl dOIln or rated a 0 bad r1sk for health or Ufe insurance • • • • • • . • • 0 0
12. 'Ille applicant' s rroral character • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 0 0 ll. h'hcthar the appUcAnt SITOkes or not • • • • • • • • • • 0 0 0 14. 'the appUCAIlt I s type of crtplO)mCl\t . ......... 0 [J [J
IS. MY others 0 0 0 (please Spec1fy)
0 0 0
35. 'Il1c foUcuinq is a list of f~ things 1zuIuranco CCJIl'AIl1e, do or have dono to find ~t ..,.,ther or not &er.ea18 is
a good risk for insurance. Please 1ndicai:e for each ..,.,tIler you feel it 8hoold, or should not, be aUo..oed? . Should be Shoo Id not ~ ~ ~
1. Investlg.te. an applicant', personal Ufe to .eO If ahe or he I, frequenting dongero.lS bars or B<lCtions of tc<m • • 0 0 0
2. Use a cent:al ccr.putcr fUa to find a. t If an op;>li=t 0 0 0 was ever turned dOIln for life or heal I h insurance .....
3. nave sareone qo t.h.rouqh an awl1eant'l ham and check throJgh its contents to see \oIlat """1<\ be COVE red by a ham a.nera
0 0 0 policy •••••••••••••••• ... . ...... 4. Request an applicant', doctor or hospl tal personnel to
0 verify medical history records ... . ........... 0 0
36. Do you think that insurance c:at1"Ulles ou'll\t to be aUowed to determine \oIlat type. of personal lnformatl:lC1 they can
gothar on people in order to declda ..,.,ther they W111 give them insurance ond \oIlat prem1\J11S they wiU charqe, or
should the types of information they can gather be deteIl1\lned by laW?
Shoold be datennlncd by law
o Insurance cx:m>anles allowed to detemlne o Not sure
o :!7. Tho poUce forces have to txy to bala.nee 1" respect for tho 1nidJ.vidu41 '• c:::onseibJ_UQl41 rights aqa,1nst the need
to conduct surve1110nce to protect soc:lety. WOUld you .ay that thay have the balance about right, or that they
are not doinq enough to protect 1ndividual.' c:aultltutlonal rights, or that they are not doing enough to protect
society?
lB.
39.
o H.ve the balance about right
o Not doinq enough to protect eoc:lety
o flot doinq enOlJgh to protect 1ndivldual,' rights
o Not BUl'II
Do you think the police .hoold have, or shoold not have, the right to atq> anyone on tha street ond demand to aee
sam Identification even if the person is not doing anything 11Iag~l?
Shoold hev. tha right Shoold not have the right Not sure DO. 0
If saroone ...,rka in a govomront agency that 1100& classified InfOnMtion ond thare II a leak to the pre •• , do you
think 1t Is, or i8 not, aU right to I1\lluI aU thcaa CJIllloyccs \ob:l handle the information t.lke a lie detector test
to learn \ob:l leaked tha information?
Ye., 1t is AU right
o flo, it I. not aU right
o Not suro
o It depends on~_==:,:",,:==-::-___ _ o (please specify)
344
40. h'hen poUce ~Ueve tNt an ind1vidual, oit.hcr alone or .u a ~r ot an orqc.niZ4tlon, never convicted of • crJ.r.e,
.ught cnqlqe in 11109.1 ACts I." the future, do )<)U think they should, or should not, be abl. to ....... to"" follOl'lnCl
.... p. without obtlininq A court o~::7
Should Should not ~ ~ ~
I. Kccp1rlg the1r rTC'o.:mcnt.3 under !iUrvP.illl\.~ • • • [J [J [J
2. Puttinq WlCC";:(JI/tlr agents into the ors'n1,.at1on [J 0 [J
3. Ia>k1nq into their blnl< records [J [J [J
4. Toppinq their teleptlOnO [J [J [J
5. 0p0n1nq their .... U • • • • • • • 0 [J [J
41. For serre years ncu tho law MS Allo.~ people access to fcdc!ral C}C:We~t filu abclJt themselves, Scr.e ~m1'V!nt
agencie. ct:r.p1.1n I:h.lt answorlnq the •• requests is ~ and ~1V11. 00)<)U feel I:h.lt px>ple should
hove acceu to the1r records even 1f 1t 1. costly for tho qcwerrm>nt to p",."ide them, or ahoullln't tho)?
Should hove .cee .. Should not hove occeos Not aura o o o
345
42. 00)"" feel I:h.lt the present use of CCJIl"ltel'll are, or are not, an ACt1: .. 1 threat to personal privacy In this =tI:Y? Present uses are A thrc.st Present uses are not a threat llot sUre o o o
43. Tho following are stataren .. Ioil.lch sam people have IMde about catpJtea. Please Jnd1cate for each ~flether )W
agree, or disagree, With each atat.ment7
~ ~ I. CQr,luters have II\lde 1t I!UCh easier for sarocae to 1trproperly obta1"
ccnfieential personal infonnatiCll....a1xl.lt individual. • • • • • • • • C [J 0 2. In generAl, the privacy of personal 1n!orr:at1on in catpJtera is
adequa ... ly .afequarc!cd •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •••• [J 0 Cl
3. Because COT;>Jters can IMlce use of nora personal detaUs about px>plo,
~~~~"': ~":"!~ ~~r~ ~~.~~ ~~i~l!Z~.~~~~ •• [J 0 0
4. Ccr.p.>tors hove 1trproved the quaUty of Ufe in our society ••••• [J 0 0 5. If privacy i. to be preserved, the use of c:atp.ltoro ·"""t be shAtply
resulcted .1n the fuDJro ••••••••••••••••••••• '. 0 0 0
.: 44. The follc.,lr.q is a Ust of difCercnt ""yo thot c:atp.ltera could be used today. Pleas. indicate _thor )<)U feel
each type of us. is, or is not, justified?
Is justified ~lustlfled ~ I. Govenm>nt agencle. checkinq welfare roll' aqain5t ""l'IO)lU!l1t
records to i~entify peeple claimlnq benef1ts they are not 0 a 0 entitled to • • • • • • • • • • ~ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
2. Maintaininq a central COlt"lter file cc:ntainlnq the names ot all indivieu.:.ls ~ho have been treated tor """tal health problems for
0 0 0 use by a:ployer. ••••••••••••••.••••••••
3. Internal Rovenue Service (DIS) uslnq COlt"ltora to ch<clc tax 0 0 returl'\S against credit card records •••••••••••••• 0
4. State agencie. lMinta1n1ng a central COlt"lter fUe containlnq • rocord of the name. of individual. Who hove been qiven a
0 0 0 pre!lCrJ.ptlon lor A d.lnqercus or adcUctive dru9 ••••••• 5. '1lle insurance indu.try lMintoinlng a central c:atp.ltor fUe
ccntlinlnq c!e:"11. of anyone ..no Is suspected af I1'olI<1nq a 0 0 0 fraudulent claim in any insuranc. policy .........
6. Law enfore""'"t o'1enci •• nulntaininq a centrAL c:atp.lter fUe cont.ll.n!.nq Q, record of tho MlTCS ~ lldr::1resscs of aU ind1vldual.
0 0 0 Who Visit"" !mate at .tato or federal prison ....... 7. !.Jw cntorca-cnt agencies IMintalnlnq a central CClTt'Uter tUe
ccntlinlnq a record of names and .ddre .... of !nd1vidu.lla Who 0 0 0 p.u-cnose oruni~ion.. .....................
45. Various p.x:ple ruve suqqestcd a ntJtber of riqht.5 Which 1ndlvic:llJ.lls stoJld Nve t.men personal WOr1T\1tlon recort!.s
Are rMlnt.u.ncd on them by qovcnvre.nt, tu'l1nessca, and pnvate arploycrs. Please incUc.lte
YDJ aqrce,or disa~,wlth each of the COllOtJinq suqgested righUi for individualS?
I. 'Ibe rl~ht to be inforned of the exlstcnce of such records "''hen s ta.rt.cd • • .. . ...
2. The right to revl ... on de!Mnd the contenta of rcccrda conca rnL.~q them .. . . .. . . .
l. The rl~ht to correct. rebut, updAte. >nd expunge In-correct or obsolete 1nfonMtion concemtnq than · .
4. The riqht to le.un the !!ources ot intOm.1t1on c:cn-cerning them • · . . . · .
5. The right to be inforned just hew infotlMtlon collected on them lIill be used • · . '" . · .
6. The rl~ht to require an lz1divldu.!I' a .gr.....",t before 1n.foIT.'.ltlon frD:'l. t."i,eir fUes is given OJt to other orqani:atlons for purt:Oscs other than WhAt it was collected for ... · . . . . ..
StronCjly ~~~
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
the exU!nt to \o'h1ch
StronqlY ~ ~
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
46. A nt.II'ber ot privac:y protection proposals have been sugqested for qovenr.ent, businesses, and private e:fllloyers \.Iho
mointaJ.n C<r.i'Iterlzed personal data recorda on 1nd1vldu.!ls. PI .... e indicate the extent to whlch you 'gree, or
dis.gree, \11th each of the follo.t1n9 propos.la? Strongly Stronqly ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I. All C<r.i'Iterized record sy.tan<. should be reqlstered 0 0 by law A. to purpose and contents • • • • • • • • • 0 0 0
2. Securi tv standards for catpJter equiprent and the pro;t"""" that run them should be established ... 0 0 0 0 0
l. Professional stanC.>rda c:onc:..rnJ.ng hew personal infer-Nbon 15 acquired and dissmunated should be estab-
0 0 0 0 0 l!shed ......................... 4. All c:trp.Iterized personal data record systems should
uzUrg:> pericdic site wpect.lons to assure CCIIt'I1ance 0 0 0 0 0 as to their p.upo5e, ccntents, \150, and security ...
5. The peopl. who ...,rl< as data processors on c:trp.Iterlzod personal data record systems should be cert.\C1cd ond
,0. 0 0 0 0 1J.c:enaed by & qovenment ac;cncy • • • • • • • • f • • •
47. S<m! people believe that a new Arizona State ('.averment Privacy Protect.\on Aqercy shoold be set up if the prlVllCY
of J.nd1vidu.!1 citlz",," 10 to be protected in this State. Other _Ie believe that auch a Stato agercy """,Id
aerely lead to rrort! intrus10ns into our personal privacy. \okuld you taver, or oppose, the cre.atJ.a\ o! an i\ri:ona
State Privacy Protec:t.\on Aqur:y?
Faver ep;os. Not sure
o o o 48. S<m! people believe that personal data recorda mointa1ned by cpvemrent, l>.1slnelse., and priVllte ~Ioyers are their
exclusive property, and the 1nd1vldu.!la on """" the rocoro,. are kept have no J.ntsrelt in them. Others feel that the
infom"t.lon in these recorda should be ca\lldered a.med by the J.nd1vict.JaI, and that the 90110""""", l>.1slnell, or
priv.te """Ioyer only .... intain th01I "J.n trust' tor tha J.nd1vlct.Jal. Which ot these 1>00 poJ.nta ot view do you
believo or prefer?
o The personal data records Are the exclusive property of the holder of the infetIMtlon and 1nd1vldu.!11 have no interest. 1n them. _
o ;:'I':ir~:.,~~:-:e!dt~ ::~~~ by the J.nd1vlct.JaI, and the holder of the informot.lon
o l:Ot lure.
49. Thinking of organizations such as qaverment agenCies, and busJ.nosses such as banks, Insurance CCl!t""'lel, credit
card CCI!t""'lel, and prlv.te """Ioyers, hew lnportant 11 it that there ahoold be an independent body or ''lercy to handle ca:plaint.l aIlo.1t vlol.t.lons of personal privacy by an organization?
Very lnportant Scr.cwhat lnportant llot lJrport.lnt at all Not sure
o 0 0 0 50. nunk.1.nq of orqanizatiaa such 45 qovernrcnt a9cncies, and bJs1neuel auch 4S banks, insurance CXI'I'fW11el, credit
CArd CCl!t""'lel, and priv.te arployo .. , hew lnportan. II it that they COllact only tho personal info"""tlon on
J.nd1vldu.!11 ~"ich 11 eslentlal to IMke a proper declllon?
Very 1r.portant Scr.cwhat lnportant Not lnportant a t all Not lure
o 0 0 o
51. I.'hich of the foll<>Jing do you think should have the .... jor responsibility for protectlnq the privacy of
iI1d1vidUolI citizens?
o Tho U.S. Congre ••
01'he Arizona St.lb: Lc<jlslatw:e
o D:;>loyers
On-.., people thanaelve.
o Tho Preo1dent
O'l'he Governor
O'l'he Calru
o flot sure
52. Hc>I Itrport.lnt I. it that Arizona have a privacy law desl9T\ed to ensure that the personal data records in state and
local qovem:cnts' (C'CIUIlty/clty/to"') lUes ..... kept confidential and used properly?
Very 1r;x>rt.1nt SalLowhat lntx>rtant flot Inp:"unt IIot sure
DOD D 53. Hc>I ltrport.1nt Is It that Arizona have a c:atplter privacy law dcslqned to ensure that the <Xr1'I'1terlzed personal data
records systans rMintalnc:d by priVAte buJ.nesses are kept c:cnf!cential w used properly?
Very 1r;x>rt.1nt Satcoo!lat lJTtx>rtant IIot lJTtx>rtant IIot sure
DOD D 54. Althc>.Jgh there are already sore la .... which requlato What infoanotion private organizations can collect about
lI1d1vldua15, State and Federal legislature ...... continuing to consider passlnq additional privacy legislation.
In Ioi-.lch of each of the follo.1.ng or .... do you th1nl< It I. 1trportant that the.e legislatures pas.
~ I>:>t !!!:elrt.3nt Not sure
1. Medicine and health • 0 0 -0--
2. Insunnco ••• [J [J [J
3. Drplcyment 0 0 0 4. Ha.J.ling lists • .- '-
0 0 0 5. credit cards 0 0 0 6. Telephone caq>any call records 0 0 [J
7. Public assh tan:e (welfare) records • 0 [J 0 8. TAX records 0 0 0 9. Property records 0 0 0
10. Others (pleas •• peclfy) 0 0 0 0 0 0 [J [J [J
55: Pi .... 1nd1cate ..nether you agree, or disagree, with each of the follow1ng .tatetents?
1. Covermcnt can generally be trusted to lcok after our interests •
2. The way that one votes has no effect on What the gavermcnt doe.
3. Technology has alnost qotten out of contJ:t>1 ••••
4. In general, bus1.ness helps u.s rrcre than it h.ums WI •••••••
56. Your oga?
I.e.s than elghb:en 18 to 29 year. 30 to 49 year. 50 and over D D D D
57. Your sex?
"'..lle Ferale
D 0 58. Are you pre.ently "'Played outside the hato?
Yes, fUll t.lr.c Ye., port tlnu I>:>
D D 0 59. Your occup" tion la
(please specltyl
60. Size of city or to.on you live in?
o I.e .. than 5,000 people
o 5.000 to 25,000 people
025,000 to 50,000 people
050,000 to 100,000 people
0100,000 or ""re people
61. Your highest level of education CXJlllletcd?
o Crade ochcol
o High Icheel
o Vocational or trade ochcol
02 yean of college
o 4 yeus of college
o Craduate achcol
o o o o
~ o o [J
o
legislation?
~ o o o o
347
\ .
62. yrur ho.Jschold lncan:! p.:!r year? (Include all 1ncarc. c:an1J'Iq Into ywr haTe.1
o Less th.ln $5,000 p.:!r year 0'5,000 to $9,999 p.:!r ye.u-
0$10,000 to $14,999 par ye.u-
0115,000 to 119,999 par year 0,20,000 tD $24,999 p.:!r year 0$25,000 tD $49,999 per ~·.ar o OJer 550,000 per ye.u-
63. Yrur pol tie, I .tfillaUCn?
o Rc!"bUcan
o Data:rat
o Indcl"'!1<lent
Oo~r----~(p~I .. ~s~e~s~pec~l~~~)------------------
64. Yrur poUtical pl\Uosophy?
o Llboral
o tUddlc-ot-the-road
o ConseNative
o Other_--("'p"'lcas=':"e ~S"'pec=lT.ty"')----------------
65. Y= nee? Ollhite O.flexlean-;w,r1can o Arrcrlean IndlM
OBlack
o Oriente I o Other __ ....-::;=::-:=::.::.-______ _
(please speclfYl
'l1W1K Yt:XI vtRY ~UlI rat = TIlE TIME 'IO FlU. 'Il!IS rur: YOolr partieipati", In th.ls re ... rch la str1ctly ano<l:/lllOU5.
Please return this questic:Ma1re In tho enclose I, pcstp,1id, selt-addresaed envelope tDl
Privacy st Idy . 924B E. 29t I St.
'I\lcson, AriZQl' 85710
348
THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA T U C SON, A R I Z 0 N A
COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND PUBLIC AD~IINISTRATJON
85721
DEPART.\lEST OF MANAGEMENT JNFORMATJO~ SYSTEMS
July 10, 1981
TO Residents of Arizona,
403 ECOSOMICS BVILDISG '23
(602) 626-3116
An individual's right to privacy is a personal issue. Yet, we live in a society where it is virtually impossible to exist without haVing to give out personal information about ourselves to various businesses and government agencies in return for goods and services. Public concern for the right to privacy, specifically the potential abuse or misuse of this personal information being held by business and government, has increased steadily in the recent past. Much of this concern results from our society's adoption of the ccmputer, with its rapid capabilities for storing, processing and exchanging large volumes of information.
Although government and business have implemented some laws and practices to safeguard the personal privacy of individuals they deal with, we anticipate they will soon be considering further safeguards. The views of the average citizen are not always incorporated into the legislative process of the Arizona state Legislature or the United States Congress, nor are they always a consideration in business decision-making. As researchers in privacy we hope to make available to these parties the many points of view of Arizona residents regarding this important' matter. Ne Io/Ould like to include the viel';s of a member of your family arrong them.
Your name was selected by a completely random process from those listed in Arizona telephone directories. In order to get an approximately equal number of responses from men and \oIO!l\en we ask that an ad'.llt female of your family fill out the enclosed questionnaire. If there is not an adult female family member, we ask that an adult male family m::>.mber fill out the questionnaire. Half of the other recipients of this questionnaire are being asked to have a male fill it out. The information provided will be combined with that of others in preparing a consensus view for Arizonans.
This study is being conducted under the auspices of the Managemen~ Information systems Department of The University of Arizona. The results will be made available upon request. Individual responses, however, will be completely anonymous.
A self-addressed, starJlped envelope is enclosed for your convenience in returning the questionnaire.
The matter of personal privacy is an important issue in our evolving society, and we sincerely would like to incorporate your views into this study. Ne appreciate your cooperal~Q in this project.
~. cere~ I
d<:"t:f J,C~-,·~A Jay,a,amaker ! Protc5sor and Department Head
'I .,
THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA TUCSON, ARIZONA' 85721
COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS
July 10, 1981
To Residents of Arizona,
40l ECONOMICS BUILDISG III
(602) 62f>.J 116
An individual's right to privacy is a personal issue. Yet, we live in a society where it is virtually inp:>ssible to exist without having to give out personal information about ourselves to various businesses and government agencies in return for goods and services. Public concern for the right of privacy, specifically the potential abuse or misuse of this personal information being held by business and goverrurent, has increased steadily in the recent past. Much of this concern results from our society's adoption of the ccmputer, with its rapid capabilities for storing, processing, and exchanging large volumes of information.
Al though governrrent and business have inplerrented sane laws and practices to safeguard the personal privacy of individuals they deal With, we anticipate they will soon be considering further safeguards. The views of the average citizen are not always incorporated into the legislative process of the Arizona state Legislature or the United states Congress, nor are they always a consideration in business decision-making. As researchers in privacy we hope to !l'ake available to these parties the many points of view of Arizona residents regarding this inp:>rtant matter'. We would like to include the Vie\'lS of a member of your family arrong them.
Your narre was selected by a catq:lletely random process fran those listed in Arizona telephone directories. In order to get an approximately equal number of responses from men and women we ask that an adult male of your family fill out the enclosed questionnaire. I.f there is not an adult male family member, we ask that an adult female family member fHl out the questionnaire. Half of the other recipients of this questionnaire are being asked to have a female fill it out. The information provided will be ccrnbined , ... ith that of others in preparing a consensus view for Arizonans.
This study is being conducted under the auspices of the Managerrent Information Systems Depar\:n"ent of The University of Arizona. The results will be made available upon request. Individual responses, however, will be ccmpletely anonyrrous.
A self-addressed, stamped envelope is enclosed for your convenience in returning the questionnaire.
The matter of personal privacy is an inp:>rtant issue in our evolving society, and we sincerely would like to incorporate your views into this study. We appre-
;:;;;;Z~::t· this project,
tz:N~er Professor and Deparbnen Head
350
LIST OF REFERENCES
American Enterprise Institute. Privacy Protection Proposals. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute, 1979.
Annual Chief Justive Earl Warren Conferences on Advocacy in the United States. Privacy in a Free Society. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Roscoe Pound-American Trial Lawyers Foundation, 1974.
Ashley, Paul P. Say It Safely. Seattle: University of Washtngton Press, 1976.
Bain, H. M. and D. S. Hecock. Ballot Position and Voter's Choice: The Arrangement of Names on the Ballot and Its Effect on the Voter. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1957.
Beeler, Jeffrey. "Formulate Privacy Concept Now, Lawyer Warns." Computerworld , Apri 1 13, 1981, p. 7.
"Bill Limiting ID Access Via License Plates Advances." The Arizona Daily Star (Tucson), April 2, 1981, Section B, p. 2.
Block, Victor. "Washington Info." Infosystems, March, 1981, p. 16.
Bloustein, Edward J. "Privacy Is Dear at Any Price: A Response to Professor Posner's Economic Theory." Georgia Law Review, Vol. 12 (Spring 1978), pp. 429-474.
Bradley, Robert J. "Privacy: What Kind and How Tight the Lock." Data Management, May, 1980, pp. 56-58.
Brenton, Myron. The Privacy Invaders. New York: Coward-McCann, Inc., 1964.
Buckley, John W., Marlene H. Buckley, and Hung-Fu Chiang. Research Methodology and Business Decisions. New York: Nattonal Association of Accountants, 1976.
Burch, John G., Jr., and Joseph L. Sardinas, Jr. Computer Control and Audit: A Total Systems Approach. Santa Barbara: John Wiley and Sons, 1978.
"Business Bulletin." The Wall Street Journal, October 14, 1976, p. 1.
Carroll, John M. Confidential Information Sources: Public and Private. Los Angeles: Security World Publi'shing Company, Inc., 1975.
351
IICBEMA Monthl y Report Covers Pri vacy Legi s 1 a t i on." Computerworl d, Ap r ill 3, 1981, p. 34.
C h u r chi 1 1, Gil be r t A., Jr. .:,.;M-:;a,.;..r_k-::-e...;;,t,.;..i ..:..n""=;..;.Re.;;...s.;;...e=-a;;;.r;...c.:;..;h,.;..:;........,~M..:..e;...t;;.;,h,;,.;o;.,.;d.....:o-=l,.::i~g:..;;a....;,l--..:..F.;;.o.;;.u,;,.;n..;,;,d,;;:.at ions. Hi nsda 1 e, 111 i no is: The Dryden Press, 197 •
352
Commission on Federal Paperwork. Confidentiality and Privacy. \4ashington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1977.
Computer and Business Equipment Manufacturers Association. Second Federal and State Legislation Status Report. WashIngton, D.C.: Computer and Business Equipment Manufacturers Association, 1981 •
Connolly, T.G. and W. Sluckin. statjstics for the Social Sciences. London: Macmi llan Press Ltd", 1971.
Council of State Governments. 1978 Suggested State Legislation. Vol. 37, Lexington: Council of State Governments, 1978.
Dillehay, Ronald C. and Larry R. Jernigan. liThe Biased Questionnaire as an Instrument of Opinion Change. 1I Journal of Personali'ty and Social Psychology, 1970, Vol. 15, No.2, pp. 144-150.
Dixon, Robert G., Jr., Thomas I. Emel"son, Paul G. Kauper, Robert B. McKay, and Arthur E. Sutherland. The Right of Privacy. New York: Da Capo Press, 1971.
Dooley, Ann. "Automation Said Creating Information Culture." Computerwo rId, Ap r i 1 6, 1 98 1 a, p. 28 •
Dooley, Ann. "DPMA Ready to Propose Code of Ethics." Computerworld, May 4, 1981b, p. 27.
Eger, John M. "The International Information War." Computerworld! Extra!, March 18, 1981, pp. 103-119.
Engel, James F., Hugh G. W3les, and Martin R. Warshaw. Promotional Strategy. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1975.
Entended Basic User's Manuel. West Lafayette, Indiana: Technical Systems Consultants, Inc., 1979.
Ferber, Robert K. and P. J. Verdoorn. Research Methods i'n Economics and Business. New York: Macmillan Co., 1962.
Gartner, Michael. "Freedom of Information Act Losing Power." The Arizona Daily Star (Tucson), September 20, 1981, Sectionc, p. 4.
353
IIGovernment Information and Rights of Citizens.1I Michigan Law Review, Vol. 73, May and June, 1975, pp. 971-1340.
Gregory, Francis M., Jr. liThe Privacy Issue--:A Reply.1I Records Management Quarterly, Vol. 11, No.1, January, 1977, pp. 7-9.
Harris, Louis. The Dimensions of Privacy. Stevens Point, Wisconsin: Sentry Ins~rance, 1979.
Hill, Alfred. IIDefamation and Privacy Under the First Amendment. 11
Columbia Law Review, Vol. 76, No.8, December, 1976, pp. 1205-1313.
Hoffman, Lance J. Computers and Privacy in the Next Decade. New York: Academic Press, 1980a.
Hoffman, Lance J. and \.Jillis H. Ware. IIComputers and Privacy in the 80s. 11 Computerworld, August 4, 1980b, pp. In Depth 1-16.
Jackson, D. N. and S. J. Hessick. IIA Note on IEthnocentdsm l and Acquiesent Response Sets.11 Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 54, 1957, pp. 132-134.
Jagolinzer, Philip. A Comparison of Opinions of Residents of Arizona and Maine Regarding Redistribution of Wealth, with Federal Estate and Gift Tax Provisions. Tucson: University of Arizona, 1978.
Kalven, Larry, Jr., IIPrivacy in Tort Law - Were Warren and Brandeis Wrong?11 Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 31, 1966, pp. 326-341.
Kazmier, Leonard J. Business Statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1976.
Koch, Edward I., U.S. Representative. IIPrivate Lives on the Record. 11
Congressional Record, Vol. 123, Part 19, July 18, 1977a, p. 23644.
Koch, Edward I., U.S. Representative. liThe Odds Are 50-50 That Your Privacy Wi 11 Be Invaded. 11 Congressional Record, Vol. 123, Part 10, April 20, 1977b, pp. 11527-11530.
Konvitz, Hilton R. "Privacy and the Law: A Philosophical Prelude. 11
Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 31, 1966, pp. 272-280.
Laberis, Bill. "0hio Legislature to \.Jeigh Privacy vs. \1elfare. 11
Computerworld, April 13,1981, p. 34.
Lana, R. E. "Familiarity and the Order of Presentation of Persuasive Communications." Journal of Abnorma'l and Social Psychology, Vol. 62, 1961, pp. 573-577.
Laver, Murray. Computers and Social Change. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1980.
354
Miller, Arthur R. The Assault on Privacy. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1971.
Nie, Norman H., C. Hadlai Hull, Jean G. Jenkins, Karen Steinbrenner, and Dale H. Bent. Statistical Package For The Social Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1975.
Nisenoff, Norman, Ethelyn Bishop, and Audrey Clayton. liThe Privacy of Computerized Records--The Swedish Experience and Possible U.S. Policy Impacts. 11 Information Processing and Management, Vol. 15, 1979, pp. 205-211.
OIBrien, David M. Privacy Law, and Public Policy. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1979.
Office of Management and Budget. "Privacy Act of 1974.11 The Federal Register, Vol. 43, No. 151, August 4, 1978, Part VI, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1978.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OE.CD). Policy Issues in Data Protection and Privacy. Paris: OECD, 1976.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development {DECD}. Transborder Data Flows and the Protection of Privacy. P.aris: OECD, 1979.
Packard, Vance. The Naked Society. New York: McKay, 1964.
Parker, Donn B. Ethical Conflicts in Computer Sci.ence and Technology.· Menlo Park, California: SRI Internation, 1978.
Parkin, Andrew, ed. Computing and People. London: Edward Arnold Limited, 1977.
Pipe, G. Russell. "International Treaty on Data Protection Privacy in Limbo." Computerworld, January 28, 1980, pp. 20-21, 25-26.
Privacy Protection Study Commission. tion Society. Washington, D. Off i ce , 1 977 a .
Personal Privacy in an InformaC.: U.S. Government Printing
Privacy Protection Study Commission. Technology and Privacy. Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1977b.
Privacy Protection Study Commission. Privacy Law In The States. Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1977c .
........
Privacy Protection Study Commission. The Privacy Act of 197[.: An Assessment. Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1977d.
355
Privacy Protection Study Commission. Employment Records. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1977e.
Privacy Protection Study Commission. The Citizen as Taxpayer. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1977f.
"Private Sector Should Police Itself On Invasion of Privacy." Marketing News, May 2, 1980, pp. 6-7.
Prosser, ~/illiam L. IIPrivacy." California Law Review, Vol. 48, No.3, August, 1960, pp. 383-423.
Raines, John C. Attack on Privacy. Val ley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1974.
Rule, James, Douglas McAdam, Linda Sterns, and David Uglow. The Politics of Privacy. New York: Elsevier North Holland, Inc., 1980.
Schultz, Brad. "Cause for Concern Seen in Privacy Laws. 11 Computerworld, Apri 1 20, 1981, p. 4.
Shi1s, Edward. "Privacy: Its Constitutional Vicissitudes}1 Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 31, 1966, pp. 281-306.
Simpson, Alan, ed. Computer Privacy: Where to and Why. London: Just and Company Limited, 1977.
Sobel, Lester A., ed. \~ar on Privacy. New York: Facts On Fi le, Inc., 1976.
IITroub1e Surrounds Strike Force." Tucson Ci"tizen, February 28, 1981, Sect i on A., p. 1.
United States Congress. Privacy Act of 1974-Public Law 93-579. 5 U.S.C. 522a, Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974.
United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Records Computers and the Rights of Citizens. Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973.
United States House of Representatives. House Committee on Government Operation. Commercial Credit Bureaus. 90th Congress, 2nd Session, March 12-14, 1968, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1968.
356
United States House of Representatives. The Computer and Invasion of Privacy. Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966.
United States Supreme Court. "Olmstead vs. United States. 11 United States Reports, Vol. 277, pp. 438-488, October Term, 1927, Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1929.
Volander, Carl. Executive Director, National Association of State Information Systems, Lexington, Kentucky, Personal Letter. March 5, 1981.
Walizer, Michael H. and Paul L. Weiner. Research Methods and Analysis. New York: Harper and Row pUbll ishers, 1978.
Warren, Samuel D. and Louis D. Brandeis. liThe Right of Privacy." Harvard Law Review, Vol. 4, No.5, December 15, 198Q, pp. 193-220.
Webb, Eugent J., Donald T. Campbell, Richard D. Schwartz, and Lee Sechrest. Unobtrusive Measures: Nonreactive Research iOn the Social Sciences. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1971.
Westin, Alan F. Privacy and Freedom. New York: Atheneum, 1967.
Westin, Alan F. liThe Impact of Computers on Privacy." Datamation, December, 1979, pp. 190-194.
Westin, Alan F. and Michael A. Baker. Databanks in a Free Society. New York: Quadrangle/The New York Times Book Company, 1972.
Young, John B., ed. Privacy. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1978.
Zientara, Marguerite. "Most Americans Feel DP Threatens Privacy." Computerworld, June 11, 1979a, p. 35.
Zientara, Marquerite. "Tag of $1 Million Put on Bank Privacy Rules." Computerworld, July 16, 1979b, p. 9.
