What I think after going on the goose chase, what I found while chasing after something else is worthwhile. It is one thing to monitor and require reporting related to additional privacy data added to expanding governmental silo data bases. More important in the world of information expansion is the aggregation of silo data bases as they connect to aggregated Big Data.
The reporting requirements aim at the silos. Silos connect and by so doing become a component of Big Data.
What seems to be important and required is the monitoring of Big Data. The problem is that bureaucracy is by nature segmented to agency responsibilities and their own silos. Big Data is not segmented to agencies.
Privacy is increasingly a Big Data issue. How does the government monitor that? It is no longer an agency silo matter!
No benefit in reading beyond this point unless you care to be amused by me chasing my tail. A frenetic activity that really did get me somewhere out of the circle in the end to a point where I could write the preceding paragraphs that only moderately justify the following waste of time.
Read further to waste time as I did: It is background to enlightenment but nothing else.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big fish eat smaller fish and get eaten by bigger fishes. That is the story of Big Data. It just has a need to grow.
Big data bases eat smaller data bases by aggregating them.
The Federal Housing Finance Agency wants a bigger data base. It "must" have it to fulfill their reporting requirements to Congress. Therefore it must seek revision to an existing system of records.
"In accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a (Privacy Act), the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) gives notice of and requests comments on revisions to an existing system of records. The proposed revisions are to the system of records entitled “National Mortgage Database Project” (FHFA-21). The system of records covers the National Mortgage Database and the National Survey of Mortgage Borrowers."
This is the link to 5 U.S.C 552a Check it out. No, I don't mean read it. Just look at it by quickly scrolling its entirely. The quicker the better but pic a few random sentences. Who makes this stuff up? The U.S. Code is a virtual hole to Wonderland that Alice fell into. It is the law of the land in 200,000 pages. It is the cumulative product of our law making branch of government, with revisions. It is a data base of information that has yet to see the light of the information age that structures information for the purpose of general knowledge extraction. In its current form it protects and rewards those that use it to their advantage to help themselves and their clients while masquerading it as helping "We the People". Who dat? Lawyers and their cronies in Congress that make the laws. Its Politics. "Forget it, Jake. Its Chinatown."
From Notice Of Revision To An Existing System Of Records; Request For Comments.
As required by the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), and pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996 (61 FR 6427, 6435 February 20, 1996), FHFA has submitted a report describing the system of records covered by this notice to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and the Office of Management and Budget.
So, what is to be concluded here? Must every Federal Agency of government with responsibilities for maintaining records about individuals have to submit a similar report every time they want a revision to "An Existing System of Records".
Glory be! It it was only true! A way to monitor the privacy related data management of the federal government!
If an agency can't find a loop hole in the USC to exclude them from this requirement then they are either blind, not trying very hard or need to perpetuate a bloated work force by the old strategy of "make work".
Working for the government often produces experts in boiler plate recognition and usage. It is a short cut to producing lengthy works of art that at first glance look like gems of original creativity.
Boilerplate Alert!
This is the first line of the FHFA submission that quacks like a duck that knows how to cut and paste:
"Notice Of Revision To An Existing System Of Records; Request For Comments."
The law, 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) seems to require that any agency not exempt from making the same submission has to make the submission if the agency is going to make a similar generic change to their systems. Considering that information systems are growing and changing all the time that would mean a big bunch of similar submissions.
Goggle the obvious boilerplate term in quotes "Notice Of Revision To An Existing System Of Records; Request For Comments." There are a total of 8 results. All of the results are related specifically to the FHFA submission except one which a spam link to a French site.
WTF! Why only FHFA complying with what seems like a very broad law requirement applicable to all government agencies to either comply with or find an exemption Easter Egg.
Is the FHFA guilty of creating an original work of significant effort where no boilerplate was available to satisfy what seems like a broad legal requirement of the US Code, the law of the land that obviously would apply to government agencies across the board making the same changes to their “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” ???
If so, FHFA wins extremely rare bragging rights to the original creation of government boiler plate to be cut and paste, fill in the blanks use by all other government agencies that have to comply with the same US Code requirements?
Or did FHFA set a precedent of being the first to honestly comply with the law of the US Code and thereby requiring all other agencies facing the same requirement to also comply. That, of course, would either heap collective governmental agency scorn upon the FHFA for doing what they were required legally to do and being the only one to do it. The results (again, of course) will probably be some revision exempting everyone from complying as FHFA did.
From Appendix I to OMB Circular A-130
All Federal Agencies. In addition to meeting the agency requirements contained in the Act and the specific reporting and publication requirements detailed in this Appendix, the head of each agency shall ensure that the following reviews are conducted as often as specified below, and be prepared to report to the Director, OMB, the results of such reviews and the corrective action taken to resolve problems uncovered. The head of each agency shall:
3.a(8): Systems of Records Notices. Review biennially each system of records notice to ensure that it accurately describes the system of records. Where minor changes are needed, e.g., the name of the system manager, ensure that an amended notice is published in the Federal Register. Agencies may choose to make one annual comprehensive publication consolidating such minor changes. This requirement is distinguished from and in addition to the requirement to report to OMB and Congress significant changes to systems of records and to publish those changes in the Federal Register (See paragraph 4c of this Appendix).
4c of the Appendix:
New and Altered System of Records Report. The Act requires agencies to publish notices in the Federal Register describing new or altered systems of records, and to submit reports to OMB, and to the Chair of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight of the House of Representatives, and the Chair of the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate. The reports must be transmitted at least 40 days prior to the operation of the new system of records or the date on which the alteration to an existing system takes place.
4c(1) Which Alterations Require a Report. Minor changes to systems of records need not be reported. For example, a change in the designation of the system manager due to a reorganization would not require a report, so long as an individual's ability to gain access to his or her records is not affected. Other examples include changing applicable safeguards as a result of a risk analysis or deleting a routine use when there is no longer a need for the disclosure. The following changes are those for which a report is required:
(c) A change that alters the purpose for which the information is used.
(d) A change to equipment configuration (either hardware or software) that creates substantially greater access to the records in the system of records. For example, locating interactive terminals at regional offices for accessing a system formerly accessible only at the headquarters would require a report.
(e) The addition of an exemption pursuant to Section (j) or (k) of the Act. Note that, in examining a rulemaking for a Privacy Act exemption as part of a report of a new or altered system of records, OMB will also review the rule under applicable regulatory review procedures and agencies need not make a separate submission for that purpose.
(f) The addition of a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3).
My concluding comment on all this: There should be a large number of notices published in the Federal Register.
Maybe I am not using the key word phrase search term that is generally used to describe the report submitted by government agencies in compliance with the requirement?
No comments:
Post a Comment