The need for privacy law

Miami Herald: In the post-9/11 environment, security is a critical concern. Security should not, however, blindly trample privacy. As Benjamin Franklin said, those who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security. Congress should keep this in mind as it considers rules for companies that collect and sell personal data about individuals. Lawmakers should draft a bill that allows for security, but also protects citizens' rights.
In recent hearings, members of Congress heard that some data brokers obtain phone records and other private information through deception. In some cases, the information is sold to federal and local police. So the House Energy and Commerce Committee passed legislation to outlaw the tactics, including impersonating customers to trick a company into revealing consumers' personal information.
Taking the easy way
The energy panel is concerned that some law enforcement agencies will use brokers to obtain information in lieu of getting a subpoena or warrant, which requires court clearance. The agencies denied the claim and said that they were unaware of illegal methods that brokers might use. Nevertheless, it is clear that some law-enforcement agencies have gotten private information from brokers.
Beyond the rules for brokers, Congress also should consider limits on police use of brokers' data. While surrendering some privacy may be necessary for security, requiring a warrant or subpoena for sensitive personal information would ensure oversight by a court, which can balance concerns about privacy and liberty.
This situation is a symptom of a larger problem that hasty legislation cannot cure. In past months, the National Security Agency and telephone companies have been criticized for alleged violations of the Telecommunications Act and overstepping the bounds on privacy for the sake of security. These problems result from a patchwork of outdated laws that were spurred by specific instances of privacy violations, and they include long exclusionary clauses that undermine the original intent of the 1970s Privacy Act.
Adding similar legislation to this list would only aggravate the trend. Instead, a broader privacy standard should be adopted. A judge could authorize exceptions on an individual basis when granting a warrant or subpoena. Privacy should be the standard and security the exception, not the reverse.