Hazel O'Leary: Carma Chameleon   

The Clinton administration's siege mentality spreads to the Energy Department.

When it comes to invading privacy, who is the worst offender?

According to Alan F. Westin, a professor of public law and government at Columbia University, the greatest violators of privacy are the media.

Speaking at a symposium on privacy and public policy in Hartford, Connecticut, Westin opined that the media often "go too far" in their efforts to gather and disseminate news, even though the First Amendment may give them the right to do so.

It is intriguing that Westin would single out the press. His thesis presumes that media intrusions into citizens' private lives far exceed those of other commercial entities, such as direct marketers or credit reporting agencies like Equifax, for whom Westin, incidentally, has worked as a consultant.

Furthermore, news organizations' "excesses" in reporting on individuals pale in comparison to those of law enforcement officials engaged in surveillance of individuals. Westin's position seems particularly laughable in light of the FBI's crusade to obtain broader authority to tap telephone lines. But of course, as Edward J. Appel, director of counterintelligence at the National Security Council, said at one of the panel sessions, "If an intelligence agency violates privacy, it's doing it for the good of the United States."

Presumably the Department of Energy was also acting with "the good" of the republic in mind when it decided to pay more than $40,000 to Carma International, a private company, to monitor and analyze news coverage of the agency. Although Energy Secretary Hazel R. O'Leary denied requesting it, Carma also provided DOE with "favorability" ratings for news outlets, reporters and news sources.

O'Leary said that the agency wasn't trying to develop an "enemies" list, nor to single out journalists who wrote positive stories for favored treatment; all DOE was trying to do was gauge whether it was getting its message across. As it turned out, O'Leary said – as if this ends the matter – she didn't find the reports to be that useful anyway.

In the wake of bipartisan calls for O'Leary's resignation, the White House apparently decided that a tongue-lashing – and an order to repay the tab from her office account – was sufficient punishment. After all, the White House said in a statement, O'Leary has been an effective Cabinet member, and "this matter should not detract from that record."

Is it a big deal for government agencies to amass information on the journalists who cover them? Most reporters expect government to collect news clips that have been publicly disseminated. And many journalists, quite rightly, have pointed out that reporters keep track of sources and news subjects, including federal employees who toil in government agencies. Turnabout is fair play, they conclude.

But is it? The federal Privacy Act, enacted in 1974, is intended to prevent the government from randomly collecting data on citizens. It explicitly prohibits agencies from maintaining records that describe how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, unless expressly authorized by statute, by the individual or as part of authorized law enforcement activities.

Retention of the Carma studies by the Energy Department seems like it might be a violation of the Privacy Act, which one would think the Clinton administration would consider to be a serious matter. And it is disquieting to note that other agencies, including the Internal Revenue Service, have availed themselves of the "expertise" of Carma's chief, Albert Barr, in the past.

It is troubling that an agency with the power to conduct audits, freeze bank accounts and otherwise intimidate citizens would hire someone to help it keep an eye on press coverage. And it isn't reassuring to know that, at least as of 1991, the Central Inelligence Agency maintained several databases to track leaks of classified information that appeared in bylined news stories.

But at least you can understand why the IRS and the CIA would do this, even if it is pretty chilling to contemplate. By contrast, it is ironic that O'Leary – whose 1993 decision to release information about the government's radiation testing was widely lauded as heralding a new era of openness and accountability – would succumb to the urge to monitor and rate news stories and the journalists who prepare them. It suggests that the siege mentality and media paranoia that have pervaded the Clinton administration affect even departments that have received some of the most favorable press.

And it reminds us that government remains largely unaccountable for its seemingly unlimited power to keep tabs on the American people.

Remind me again, Dr. Westin – who is the greatest violator of privacy? l