Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

extent possible in the interest of national security. During its consideration I offered an amendment to the bill that would have placed constraints on the dissemination of personal information which would have prohibited any unauthorized use and that amendment passed in this Committee.

As we listen to the testimony today, I am interested in determining whether it would be useful to resurrect at least the spirit of H.R. 4598 by ensuring that American citizens and those traveling within our borders are fully aware of how their personal information will be collected, used, and disseminated by whatever source in the name of national security.

And that, coincidentally, is exactly what the letter from our minority leadership is encouraging the president to focus his attention on and I'm sure that new Privacy Officer will be-it will filter to you at some point.

So we are delighted to have you here and I appreciate the Chairman calling this hearing. He's known for getting on top of these things when they are topical and interesting and covering many fronts and being in front of the curve, not only reactive but being proactive.

So I appreciate the Chairman getting this convened today, look forward to the witnesses' testimony and to the markup.

Mr. CANNON. I thank the gentleman for those kind comments and I appreciate his bipartisan support. These are important issues that we need to actually move on.

Without objection, the gentleman's entire statement will be placed in the record.

Also, without objection, all Members may place their statements in the record at this point. Any objection?

Hearing none, so ordered.

Without objection, the Chair will be authorized to declare recesses of the Subcommittee today at any point.

Hearing none, so ordered.

I also ask unanimous consent that Members have five legislative days to submit written statements for inclusion in today's hearing record. So ordered.

Are there further opening statements? Mr. Coble?

Mr. COBLE. No opening statement, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. CANNON. Thank you.

I'm pleased to introduce the witnesses for today's hearing. Our first witness is Nuala O'Connor Kelly, the Chief Privacy Officer of the Department of Homeland Security. Ms. O'Connor Kelly was appointed to her current position on April 16, 2003. Just prior to her appointment she served as the Chief Privacy Officer at the Commerce Department.

Before entering public service, Ms. O'Connor Kelly was the Vice President for Data Protection and Chief Privacy Officer for Doubleclick, an online media services company, that she rescued with her privacy policies. I add that as a personal note. In that capacity, Ms. O'Connor Kelly established that company's first data protection department and was responsible for instituting privacy protection policies and procedures for Doubleclick, its clients and partners.

1

Ms. O'Connor Kelly received her undergraduate degree from Princeton University and masters degree in education from Harvard University and a law degree from Georgetown University Law Center.

Our second witness is the Honorable James Gilmore, the former Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Governor Gilmore, as you will recall, has previously shared with this Subcommittee his vast expertise on technology and Internet policy matters for which we are deeply grateful.

Today Governor Gilmore appears on behalf of USA Secure Corporation, a nonpartisan, not-for-profit think tank which he founded. USA Secure is comprised of technology and infrastructure companies that are affected by and participate in homeland security. It provides a forum for its members to develop integrated solutions regarding homeland security issues.

Of particular relevance to today's hearing is Governor Gilmore's service as the Chairman of the Congressional Advisory Panel to Assess the Capabilities for Domestic Response to Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction, all also known as the Gilmore Commission. The Commission was established by Congress to assess Federal, State and local Government's capabilities to respond to the consequences of a terrorist attack. The Gilmore Commission, which recently submitted its final report to the President and Congress, was influential in developing the Department of Homeland Security.

Governor Gilmore received his undergraduate degree in foreign affairs from the University of Virginia and, after a 3-year tour as a U.S. Army counterintelligence agent in West Germany, obtained his law degree at the University of Virginia Law School.

He continues to demonstrate his dedication to homeland security and technology issues as a partner of the law firm of Kelley, Drye, Warren here in Washington, D.C.

Our next witness is Professor Sally Katzen of the University of Michigan Law School. We understand the Professor Katzen appears today solely in her personal capacity and not on behalf of the University of Michigan or any other entity.

Prior to joining academia in 2001, Professor Katzen was responsible for developing privacy policy for the Clinton administration for nearly a decade. As the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget, she was effectively the chief information policy official for the Federal Government. Her responsibilities included developing the Federal privacy policies, including implementation of the 1974 Privacy Act.

Professor Katzen later served as Deputy Assistant to the President for Economic Policy and Deputy Director of the National Economic Counsel in the White House. Thereafter she became the Deputy Director for Management at OMB.

Before embarking on her public service career, Professor Katzen was a partner in the Washington, D.C. law firm of Wilmer, Cutler and Pickering, where she specialized in regulatory and legislative matters.

Professor Katzen graduated magna cum laude from Smith College and magna cum laude from the University of Michigan Law

School where she was editor-in-chief of the Law Review. Following graduation from law school, she clerked for Judge J. Skelly Wright of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Our final witness is Jim Dempsey, a Judiciary Committee alum who we are pleased to welcome back. Mr. Dempsey is currently the Executive Director of the Center for Democracy and Technology where he specializes in privacy and electronic surveillance issues.

Before joining the Center, Mr. Dempsey was the Deputy Director of the Center for National Security Studies and also served as Special Counsel to the National Security Archive, a non-governmental organization that uses the Freedom of Information Act to gain the declassification of documents pertaining U.S. foreign policy.

From 1985 to 1994 Mr. Dempsey was Assistant Counsel to the House Judiciary Committee on Civil and Constitutional Rights. Mr. Dempsey obtained his undergraduate degree from Yale College and his law degree from Harvard Law School.

We have a very distinguished panel. I extend to each of you my warm regards and appreciation for your willingness to participate in today's hearing.

In light of the fact that your written statements will be included in hearing record, I request that you limit your oral remarks to 5 minutes. Accordingly, please feel free to summarize and highlight the salient points of your testimony. And you have a light on-I think you're all familiar with this lighting system. It goes yellow when you have a minute left. When it goes red you don't have to stop, but we'd appreciate it if you'd sort of wrap up, if you could, so that Members have the opportunity of asking questions.

After all the witnesses have presented their remarks, the Subcommittee Members, in the order that they arrive, will be permitted to ask questions of the witnesses subject also to the 5 minute limit.

Ms. O'Connor Kelly, would you now proceed with your testimony?

STATEMENT OF NUALA O'CONNOR KELLY, CHIEF PRIVACY OFFICER, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, WASHINGTON, DC

Ms. O'CONNOR KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Cannon, Congressman Watt, and Members of the Subcommittee, it is my distinct honor to testify before you today on the activities of the United States Department of Homeland Security's Privacy Office, which I am privileged

Mr. CANNON. Ms. O'Connor Kelly, if you wouldn't mind, we will restart your clock, but I think we have a reporting quorum. So consistent with our earlier orders, we are going to recess this hearing for a period and try and report out this bill. So we will go at this moment to our markup.

Do any of you have I don't think this is going to take a long period of time. Do any of you have significant other obligations that we need to meet?

Thank you. If you don't mind then, we will be recessed from the hearing and we will open our markup.

[Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene this same day at 3:35 p.m.]

Mr. CANNON. And now, Ms. O'Connor Kelly, we appreciate your indulgence and the indulgence of the panel.

I would now like to be informed about what is going on in the new world of privacy. Thank you.

If you would like to proceed, we will reset the clock.

Ms. O'CONNOR KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you Congressman Watt and all the Members of the Committee.

It is a great pleasure and an honor to be with you today to talk about the Department of Homeland Security's Privacy Office, which I am privileged to lead as the Department's first Privacy Officer.

The creation of the Department of Homeland Security and its many programs raise no shortage of important privacy and civil liberty issues for this Nation to address. The Department, led by Secretary Ridge, and this Administration, led by President Bush, are committed to addressing these critical issues as we seek to strengthen our homeland. A crucial part of this commitment is the mission of the Privacy Office at the Department of Homeland Security.

Before this office officially opened its doors, Secretary Ridge articulated his vision for our office, stating that the Privacy Office will be involved from the very beginning with every policy initiative and every program initiative that we consider, to ensure that our strategy and our actions are consistent with not only the Federal privacy safeguards already on the books but also with the individual rights and civil liberties protected by our laws and our Constitution.

As Members of this Subcommittee are uniquely aware, the enabling statute for the Department of Homeland Security directs the Secretary to appoint a senior official in the Department to assume primary responsibility for privacy policy. That legislation reflects, I believe, a growing sensitivity and awareness on the part of our citizens regarding personal data flows in the public and in the private sector and the particular concerns surrounding this melding of 22 former separate agencies along with the unique mission and data collection activities that each of those agencies brings.

The DHS Privacy Office works to promote best practices with respect to privacy and to infuse fair information principles and practices into the DHS culture. A major goal for my tenure as Chief Privacy Officer is to operationalized privacy throughout the Department. We are doing this not only by working with Secretary Ridge and our senior policy leadership of the various agencies and directorates across the Department but also with our Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act teams, as well as the operational, policy, and program staff throughout the Department.

Through internal educational outreach and the establishment of internal clearance procedures and milestones for program development we are helping this Department consider privacy whenever developing new programs or revising existing ones. We are evaluating the use of new technologies to ensure that privacy protections are considered in the development and implementation of these programs at each stage.

In this process Departmental professionals have become educated about the need to consider and the framework for considering that privacy impact of technology decisions. We are reviewing Privacy Act systems notices before they are sent forward and ensuring that we collect only those records that are necessary to support the Department's mission.

We also guide Departmental agencies in developing appropriate privacy policies for their programs and serve as a resource for any questions that arise concerning privacy, information collection, or disclosure.

And the Privacy Office, of course, works closely with various Departmental policy teams, the Office of General Counsel, the Chief Information Officers to ensure that the mission of the Privacy Office is reflected in all DHS initiatives.

The Privacy Office also seeks to anticipate and to satisfy public needs and expectations by providing a crucial link between those outside the Department who are concerned about the privacy impact of the Department's initiatives and those inside the Department who are diligently working to achieve the Department's mission.

Our role is not only to inform, to educate, and to lead privacy practice within the Department but also to serve as a receptive audience to those outside the Department who have questions or concerns about the Department's operations. To that end, the Privacy Office has engaged in consistent and substantial outreach efforts to members of the advocacy community, industry representatives, other U.S. agencies, foreign governments, and most importantly, the American public. Our Government and our agency are grounded on principles of openness and accountability tempered, of course, by the need to preserve the confidentiality of the most sensitive personal commercial and Governmental information.

Our work at the Department Privacy Office is proving that it is, in fact, possible to achieve both responsible privacy practices and the critical mission of the Department of Homeland Security.

Issues of privacy and civil liberties are most successfully navigated when the necessary legal, policy, and technological protections are built into the systems or programs from the very beginning. I am often asked whether I view my job as a privacy advocate as at odds with the mission of the Department. And the answer is, without hesitation, no. As Secretary Ridge has articulated on many occasions, the Department of Homeland Security's mission is more than just counterterrorism and more than just the protection of people and places and things. It is the protection of our liberties and our way of life.

That way of life includes the ability to engage in public life with dignity, autonomy, and a general expectation for respect for personal privacy. Thus, the protection of privacy is neither an adjunct nor the antithesis of the mission of the Department of Homeland Security. Privacy protection is, in fact, at the core of that mission.

I thank you for your time and the opportunity to testify before this important Committee and I look forward to hearing my colleagues' testimony and to answering your questions.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. O'Connor Kelly follows:]

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »