Privacy Act of 1974
Privacy Act of 1974: Overview
The Privacy Act of 1974, codified at 5 U.S.C. § 552a, was enacted to:
Regulate federal agencies’ collection, use, and dissemination of personal information.
Protect individuals’ privacy rights by establishing safeguards for “records” maintained by federal agencies that contain personally identifiable information (PII).
Provide individuals with rights to access, correct, and seek redress concerning their records.
Key Provisions
Restrictions on Disclosure (5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)):
Agencies cannot disclose records without the consent of the individual, except under specific exceptions (law enforcement, congressional inquiry, etc.).
Access and Amendment Rights (5 U.S.C. § 552a(d)):
Individuals can request access to their records and seek corrections.
Agency Record-Keeping Requirements:
Agencies must maintain accurate, relevant, and timely records.
Civil Remedies (5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)):
Individuals can sue agencies for violations, including willful or intentional disclosures.
Important Case Law on the Privacy Act of 1974
1. Doe v. Chao (2004)
Facts:
Plaintiffs sued the Department of Labor for improper disclosure of their Social Security numbers.
Issue:
Whether plaintiffs must prove actual damages to recover statutory damages under the Privacy Act.
Holding:
The Supreme Court held that plaintiffs must prove actual damages to receive statutory damages under the Act; mere violation without harm is insufficient.
Significance:
Limited the scope of remedies under the Privacy Act by requiring proof of harm.
2. Tobey v. National Labor Relations Board (1994)
Facts:
The NLRB maintained records about an employee that were allegedly inaccurate and improperly disclosed.
Issue:
Whether the records were "maintained" by the agency and whether disclosures violated the Act.
Holding:
The D.C. Circuit held that the NLRB was responsible for the records and that improper disclosures could violate the Act.
Significance:
Clarified the scope of the term “maintain” and affirmed agency responsibility.
3. U.S. Department of Defense v. FLRA (1999)
Facts:
The Federal Labor Relations Authority’s records were challenged for accuracy.
Holding:
The court emphasized that agencies must maintain records that are “accurate, relevant, timely, and complete” as required by the Act.
Significance:
Reinforced the substantive duty of agencies to ensure data quality.
4. Doe v. FBI (1988)
Facts:
An individual sued the FBI for refusing to amend inaccurate information in its records.
Holding:
The court ruled that the Privacy Act requires agencies to correct inaccurate records and provide individuals an opportunity to amend.
Significance:
Emphasized the corrective mechanisms under the Privacy Act.
5. Kissinger v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (1980)
Facts:
The issue was whether private papers of a former Secretary of State were “agency records” under the Act.
Holding:
The Court held that records must be under agency control and used by the agency for the Privacy Act to apply.
Significance:
Set limits on what constitutes an agency record subject to the Privacy Act.
6. Wilkinson v. FBI (2001)
Facts:
Plaintiff alleged improper disclosure of sensitive personal information.
Holding:
The court held that even if disclosures were improper, the Privacy Act requires proof of willful or intentional conduct for damages.
Significance:
Reinforced the high standard for agency liability under the Act.
7. Bechhoefer v. Department of Justice (1991)
Facts:
Plaintiff alleged improper dissemination of information damaging his reputation.
Holding:
The court recognized Privacy Act’s role in protecting individuals from unauthorized disclosures.
Significance:
Supported privacy interests against government disclosures.
Summary Table of Key Cases
| Case | Issue | Holding / Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Doe v. Chao (2004) | Proof of damages | Actual damages required for statutory damages |
| Tobey v. NLRB (1994) | Agency responsibility for records | Agencies responsible for records they maintain |
| DoD v. FLRA (1999) | Accuracy and completeness | Agencies must keep accurate, relevant, and timely records |
| Doe v. FBI (1988) | Right to amend inaccurate records | Agencies must provide correction mechanisms |
| Kissinger v. Reporters Comm. (1980) | Definition of agency records | Records must be under agency control |
| Wilkinson v. FBI (2001) | Willful violation standard | Willful or intentional conduct required for damages |
| Bechhoefer v. DOJ (1991) | Unauthorized disclosure | Privacy Act protects against improper disclosures |
Conclusion
The Privacy Act of 1974 provides important privacy protections against unwarranted government collection, use, or disclosure of personal data. Courts have consistently held that:
Agencies must maintain accurate and complete records.
Individuals have the right to access and correct records.
Liability for violations requires willful or intentional misconduct, and plaintiffs usually must prove actual damages.
The Act applies only to records under agency control.
These cases collectively shape how courts interpret agency responsibilities and individual rights under the Privacy Act.
RELATED Blog
0 comments