THE PRESS AND THE PUBLIC: AT ODDS OVER PRIVACY?

BY ROBERT O'HARROW, JR.

They have long been a prized tool for reporters and researchers: electronic dossiers filled with names, addresses, and other identifying information collected from credit records. For about $20, journalists can buy the reports online, day or night, to confirm the identities of people in the news or to search for leads and contact information.

But this summer, as a consequence of financial privacy rules issued by Federal Trade Commission and other regulators, these reports will likely become less detailed, less current, and more expensive. The new regulations are the latest sign that the roiling privacy debate in America is beginning to have a tangible impact. All across the country, driver license information, property records, and databases of both public and private records are being closed off.

In the last few years, marketers, private investigators, and others have gained greater access to personal details about us, and some people are understandably upset. But little attention has been given to the potential impact of the privacy backlash on journalism.

Tom Boyer, a research editor at The Seattle Times, worries that state and local authorities, reacting to privacy fears, already are closing off access to government files inappropriately, and the FTC's new rules won't help. "What frightens me is that the FTC's standard will be advocated as the standard for public records," Boyer says.

At issue in the new regulations are "credit header" reports containing identifying details collected from the credit records of nearly 200 million Americans. Credit bureaus routinely gather names, former addresses, Social Security numbers, and other personal details -- along with financial data about accounts, spending habits, and the like -- from banks, insurers, retailers, and other companies. The stated purpose is to track a customer's creditworthiness.

Over the years, though, the credit bureaus have made a profitable side business of selling information gleaned from the top sections of credit reports, containing names and other identifying details. The credit bureaus say the practice falls within existing federal credit regulations and does not compromise the privacy of financial information.

Companies such as CDB Infotek, USSearch.com and Equifax buy the identifying data, package it, and then resell the reports to reporters, marketers, private investigators, and law enforcement authorities.

But last May, the FTC and other regulators ruled that the creation of those reports could violate financial privacy provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which overhauled the financial services industry in 1999. As a result, the credit bureaus can't resell the data unless the individuals are notified, and the financial institutions are reluctant to do that. Thus, in order to stay in business, the information brokers will have to rely on other sources, which are likely to be more expensive and less detailed.

They are not happy about that, and have gone to court to try to overturn the FTC's interpretation. A group called the Individual Reference Services Group sued the FTC and other regulators in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. last summer, contending that by limiting the use of credit header information the new regulation will undermine anti-fraud programs and hinder efforts to locate missing children, deadbeat parents, and potential heirs of estates.

Privacy advocates insist that individuals ought to have a right to say no before corporate brokers profit from personal details gathered for an entirely different purpose. The rule takes effect in July. In the meantime, both sides are exchanging legal briefs.

Dan Gillmor, a technology columnist at the San Jose Mercury News, says, "I can't make the case that anyone, including us, has an unabridged right to anything out there in private databases. But I'm equally worried about any moves by politicians and bureaucrats to use people's legitimate fears of privacy invasion to close off publicly collected records that should remain public."