Forbes (2000): If there is an FBI file on Bush . . .

http://www.forbes.com/2000/11/07/1107freeman.html


Technology Heralds End Of Clinton Era
James Freeman, 11.07.00, 12:01 AM ET

NEW YORK - Who was the source of the George W. Bush DUI story? We may never know, but in the future new technology could eliminate the uncertainty in similar cases. In fact, while people fear that computer databases will lay bare the most intimate details of their personal histories, information technology is exactly what will give people a level of privacy that we've never enjoyed in the past. And technology will prevent the kind of abuse of personal information that's been routinely conducted by the Clinton White House.

As for Bush's case, we know that a Maine delegate to the Democratic National Convention passed along Bush's 1976 court docket to a Fox television reporter. Who gave the information to the Democratic delegate? He won't say, so we're left to wonder about the ultimate source of the information.

It could be that someone who happened to be in the Biddeford, Me., courtroom that day in 1976 made a note and decided to share it with the world 24 years later. You might think that that's an awfully long time to hold a secret or a grudge. You also might think that it's dirty politics on the last weekend of a campaign, but it's perfectly legal. Whatever happened in that courtroom is public information. So this scenario is possible, but since the Democratic delegate, Tom Connolly, won't reveal a source, it's hard to judge the likelihood of this chain of events.

It's also possible that the news resulted from a very thorough opposition research effort by the Democrats. Under Maine law, any citizen who shows up at the court is free to check the records. But this would have been a very difficult job. The records for the Biddeford court weren't computerized until 1986 or 1987, according to a clerk who works there. Dockets for earlier years exist only on paper. So slogging through decades of court records in search of a Bush infraction would have been extremely time-consuming. Unless, of course, you knew where to look.

Which brings us to another possibility. It's unlikely that the Secret Service would have done a background investigation on George W. Bush while his father was in office, but an FBI spokesman says that the Bureau might very well do background checks on the family members of Presidents and Vice Presidents. The FBI won't say whether or not it has a background file on a particular person, so I can't tell you whether they have one on W, or whether information about him would appear in a file on his father.

But if there is a file on W, history says that the Clinton White House would have had no reservations about perusing it for politically useful data. We've known for some time that the White House illegally requested and received the summaries of FBI background investigations on more than 900 appointees from the Reagan and Bush Administrations. FBI Director Louis Freeh called these requests "egregious violations of privacy." Anthony Marceca of the White House Office of Personnel Security pleaded the Fifth when questioned about them.

Neither Bush was included among the more than 900 names, but those are just the 900 that we know about. The legal watchdog group Judicial Watch showed that White House Associate Counsel William Kennedy was able to obtain FBI background information simply by picking up the phone, and Linda Tripp testified that FBI files were piled up all over Kennedy's office. In her testimony for a Judicial Watch lawsuit, Tripp described visiting this office: "My impression of Bill Kennedy's office from that day forward never changed, and that was that he was the keeper of more files than I'd ever seen in my life, which is why...I was surprised at the number that seemed to be associated with the file issues because it seemed so very many more than 900."

Tripp, of course, is living proof that members of the Clinton-Gore team don't hesitate to use the dirt they've gathered on their perceived enemies. In direct violation of the Privacy Act, Tripp's Pentagon personnel file was leaked to the media. The White House used the same tactic on Kathleen Willey, an alleged victim of an Oval Office grope by Bill Clinton.

What does all this have to do with information technology? As Peter Huber correctly predicted in Forbes several years ago, electronic recordkeeping will provide better privacy and security than paper files. Why? Because computers keep very accurate records and can maintain very tight access to information.

The paper FBI files were sent to the White House and who knows who saw them. The White House was able to claim that the record requests were the result of a bureaucratic mixup, and that no senior people, and certainly not Mrs. Clinton, ever took a peek at them. Who can dispute that? With no records of access to the files, with hundreds of them sitting in piles around an attorney's desk, who can even guess where that information ended up?

With electronic files, secured under the latest security and authentication software, we can know exactly who accesses personnel files and when they're doing it. The latest trend in authentication is "biometrics," using the body to ensure that people are who they say they are, that they're cleared to view your information, and to record the details of their visit to your file.

Companies like Identix (nyse: IDX - news - people), Veridicom and Authentec are providing tools to scan fingerprints before people have access to encrypted files, or are able to use a wired or wireless device. Start-ups like Bionetrix are creating software that manages access to information based on retina scans as well as fingerprint verification. Much bigger corporations like Verisign (nasdaq: VRSN - news - people) offer a range of products to secure computer networks and prevent illegitimate access to data.

Technology is delivering, in a word, accountability. And whether we're talking about White House files or your medical records, that means less potential for abuse.