GovernmentExecutive.com

Lawmakers are investigating accusations that federal agencies are violating civil liberties in enforcing a presidential security directive that requires workers and contractors to undergo background checks in order to enter government buildings and computer systems.

On April 26, a bipartisan group of scientists from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Jet Propulsion Laboratory wrote a letter to Reps. Rush Holt, D-N.J., and Vernon Ehlers, R-Mich. The scientists urged an end to the policy of gathering extensive personal information, including racial, ethnic, financial and medical details as part of the new security protocol.

In October, agencies were required by the directive to start issuing standard identification cards after fingerprinting and conducting thorough background examinations of each employee.

The scientists wrote that the intent to gather widespread personal information "without a probable cause" is "inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment."

"In addition to fingerprints, which will be commingled in the FBI criminal database, the additional information being required includes full financial records; full medical records, including psychological therapy; and criminal history, including traffic infractions such as carpool-lane violations."

The NASA employees noted that the probes interfere with recruitment efforts. "In the face of such intrusions, talented researchers are inclined to take positions elsewhere, where the employers have a modicum of respect for the Constitution," they wrote.

On Monday, Holt said the matter represents "a serious problem that probably extends all across the government" and will require "a lot of checking into." He does not have a specific plan of action yet, but "somebody's going to have to explain to me why that's necessary."

"Heavy-handed security can have a heavy-handed effect just like excessive secrecy can have a counterproductive effect, all in the name of better protections for Americans," Holt said. "Having been a researcher myself, [I know] research thrives in an atmosphere that is trusting and open."

According to the letter, the scientists also contacted their local congressmen. Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said in a statement that as a member of the House Appropriations subcommittee that oversees NASA, he looks forward to further exploring the issue with NASA "and safeguarding both our centers and our privacy."

"There is no question that [the lab] and other space centers play a vital role in maintaining our national security," he said. "At the same time, we must be vigilant here, as elsewhere, to ensure that whatever personal information is obtained from those who work at our science centers is necessary to maintain security and used for only that purpose."

Jo Maney, the spokeswoman for Rep. David Dreier, R-Calif., said his office has contacted the lab. "Mr. Dreier wants to ensure the privacy of [lab] employees is protected," she said.

In responding to the letter's complaints, NASA officials maintain that they are simply following the president's rules. NASA spokesman J.D. Harrington said, "The requirements NASA is putting in place are consistent with those policies and procedures being implemented by all other federal departments and agencies."

COMMENTS

• While I have absolutely nothing to hide, there are some things in life that are deeply personal, and that are nobody's business but my own. I don't want my employer to know (via "full medical records") that I have foot fungus, or that I had plastic surgery to fix a tied tongue, or that I have the BRCA1 breast cancer mutation. Moreover, I don't want my employer to know what my credit card balance is, whether I have a mortgage or rent, or whether I am financially stingy or financially generous. My employer doesn't need to know the trivialities of my financial life. The broad strokes--maybe. Full financial records--no. Some kinds of information I don't trust employers with because such information has been mis-used in the past, and could be mis-used in the future. There are ample historical records of employer discrimination based on all sorts of personal details: HIV status, sexual orientation, disability status, etc. History also justifies a certain amount of wariness regarding how our otherwise very fine government has handled itself: Japanese internment camps, McCarthyism, Watergate, the debate about warrantless surveillance and data mining, etc. Only a fool has blind faith in his employer or his government. It's good to be at least a little skeptical. Why is this level of detail needed throughout the federal and contract workforce? Wading into the middle of stream to measure stream height for a stream flow calculation, or typing the length and age of a fish into a database that calculates average length-at-age tables, or writing a computer program that makes a map of the Earth's core/mantle boundary, certainly don't seem to warrant such intrusion. Some background checking is a good and understandable thing. An employer needs to find a person who can be trusted to do the job at hand. But employees also need to be able to have some basic trust in the employer for the employer-employee relationship to work. In some people's eyes these new heavy-handed security requirements violate that subtly negotiated boundary of what is permissible and what is not, what treatment you can reasonably expect from an employer, and what personal liberties an employee can reasonably be expected to give up. Janet Posted May 11, 2007 3:13 PM
• Good Grief. Get over it already. The government has leaked our personal information out all over the place. What's the point?? PD Posted May 11, 2007 12:59 PM
• The presidential directive, HSPD-12, mandates only a method of identification. My credit history, medical history, and other information requested does not serve that purpose. Bill, get real. Criminal background information is readily available to agencies who legitimately request it. My own finger prints have been on file since I was in the Navy, back in 1995. Ted Jackson Posted May 10, 2007 2:54 PM