How’d this happen? Give or take a capital letter or two...believe it or not...wonder of all wonders...Orly’s statutory cite to 5 U.S.C. §552(a)(4)(B)...is correct! Well, sorta. As far as it goes.
OK, so nobody bluebook me, please...just a convenient way of cutting and pasting...
5 U.S.C. §552(a)(4)(B) wrote:
(B) On complaint, the district court of the United States in the district in which the complainant resides, or has his principal place of business, or in which the agency records are situated, or in the District of Columbia, has jurisdiction to enjoin the agency from withholding agency records and to order the production of any agency records improperly withheld from the complainant. In such a case the court shall determine the matter de novo, and may examine the contents of such agency records in camera to determine whether such records or any part thereof shall be withheld under any of the exemptions set forth in subsection (b) of this section, and the burden is on the agency to sustain its action. In addition to any other matters to which a court accords substantial weight, a court shall accord substantial weight to an affidavit of an agency concerning the agency’s determination as to technical feasibility under paragraph (2)(C) and subsection (b) and reproducibility under paragraph (3)(B).
So far, so good, right? So it looks like the government has the burden of proof now. Orly's on the right track. But wait! There’s more.
5 U.S.C. §552(b) wrote:
This section does not apply to matters that are—
….
(3) specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than section 552b of this title), if that statute—
(A)
(i) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue; or
(ii) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld; and
(C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,
Hmmm. You don’t suppose there could be some other statute that requires withholding, do you? Class, can you think of any?
Bingo! the kid in the back row who said “Privacy Act.” Gold star for that. Maybe we should take a look at that. Let’s start with what kind of records and stuff are covered by the Privacy Act:
5 U.S.C. § 552a wrote:
(a) Definitions.— For purposes of this section—
(1) the term “agency” means agency as defined in section 552 (e) [1] of this title;
(2) the term “individual” means a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence;
(3) the term “maintain” includes maintain, collect, use, or disseminate;
(4) the term “record” means any item, collection, or grouping of information about an individual that is maintained by an agency, including, but not limited to, his education, financial transactions, medical history, and criminal or employment history and that contains his name, or the identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual, such as a finger or voice print or a photograph;
(5) the term “system of records” means a group of any records under the control of any agency from which information is retrieved by the name of the individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual;
So Orly, about those social security records you're demanding: Do they have individual identifiers?
Check. Are they kept in one of them so-called "systems of records"?
Check. I know, I know, it doesn't specifically say social security records, does it? Well, think about it. Seriously.
Let's read on....
5 U.S.C. § 552a wrote:
(b) Conditions of Disclosure.— No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains, unless disclosure of the record would be—
OK, if I'm getting it, that doesn't seem to leave much discretion to the SSA. So, it sounds like those records with the individual identifiers can’t be disclosed without written permission of the individual…unless…unless what? Well, to shorten this up, the items that follow include stuff like the bureaucrats who maintain the records, routine agency uses, for use by the Census, statistical research under controlled and confidential conditions, the National Archives, certain law enforcement and public safety situations…it’s all that kind of stuff. I couldn't find one matching "deranged dentist". Trust me.
So what is it, Orly? You doing your own census? Or maybe you want to set up your own federal agency to compete with the SSA. Ya wanna crunch some numbers after swearing you won't divulge individual data? Got a badge to flash? I mean, really, where’s your hook here?
Didn’t think so.
Login
Register
FAQ
x 3 
x 21
](./images/smilies/brickwall.gif "brickwall")
