Public Comments

Public Comments: December 2006 – Confidential Information Protection and Efficiency Act of 2002 (CIPSEA)

The World Privacy Forum submitted comments to the Office of Management and Budget regarding proposed guidance on Title V of the e-Government Act. The proposed guidance did not address the relationship between CIPSEA and the USA PATRIOT Act Section 215, and guidance regarding identifiability and the Privacy Act of 1974 needs to be further refined. WPF suggests that OMB consider developing a formal statistical confidentiality seal controlled by a federal agency. The purpose would be to provide an identifiable marker that would tell individuals if the information they provide will receive the highest degree of confidentiality protection available under law.

Public Comments: December 2006 – Medical privacy / Medicare Part D World Privacy Forum Requests That CMS Bring Its Medicare Part D Data Activities Under HIPAA and Require Certificates of Confidentiality to Protect Patient Privacy

In comments filed with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the World Privacy Forum requested that CMS give effect to data restrictions that Congress has expressly included in the law. WPF also requested that CMS include in its standard agreements for use of CMS data a requirement that the recipient obtain a certification of confidentiality for all identifiable CMS data. WPF also requested that CMS perform a regulatory impact analysis and publish a system of records notice.

Public Comments: November 2006 – Privacy Act of 1974 Department of Justice Proposes Making Changes to Routine Uses of its Systems and Databases; World Privacy Forum Files Comments on Problematic Privacy Act Issues with the Proposed Changes

The Department of Justice published a notice proposing to update the Routine Uses of its systems and databases under the Privacy Act of 1974. The proposal was not precise enough, and was written in such a way as to allow sensitive Privacy Act systems such as the Criminal Division Witness Security File (CRM-002), the Witness Immunity Records (CRM-022), and the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS, FBI-018) to be disclosed to almost anyone in certain circumstances, including to individuals working outside of law enforcement. The World Privacy Forum is requesting that the DOJ significantly tighten its language in the proposal, and to specify what individuals or entities may have access to these sensitive records, under what specific conditions. The World Privacy Forum is also requesting the DOJ republish all of its up-to-date system of records notices in their entirety immediately and at least every two years thereafter. Read the comments (PDF).

Public Comments: October 2006 Comments to National Institutes of Health regarding its Request for Information for Genome Wide Association Studies repository policy.

Genome-wide association studies present complex and challenging privacy issues. The National Institutes of Health, in a published request for information, asked for public comment on its proposed policy regarding its support and management of a central genomic repository for genome-wide association studies. In comments filed with the National Institutes of Health, the World Privacy Forum raised concerns about the proposed NIH policy in the specific areas of genetic identifiability, secondary uses of the genetic data, oversight, legal protections, and informed consent.

Comments: September 2006 – WPF Files Comments on a Proposed DHS rulemaking; asks the Department to make a Commitment to Transparency and Accountability

Privacy Act of 1974 In response to a proposed Department of Homeland Security rulemaking regarding a system of records, the World Privacy Forum filed comments requesting changes. The primary objections are that the proposed system of records commingles records and functions, the proposed exemption is inconsistent with the system notice, and DHS’s proposed exemption from civil remedies was not correct, among other issues. The World Privacy Forum stated in its comments that the Department of Homeland Security should demonstrate its commitment to accountability and transparency in the rulemaking.