Another example of the dangers of large government databases on the citizenry comes to us this week from the city of Los Angeles. It seems that an officer was using the Department's surveillance databases, as well as some maintained at the state and federal level, to not only stalk a former paramour but also to gather dirt on celebrities to sell to supermarket tabloids.

Officer Kelly Chrisman was fired on October 27 after a disciplinary board conducted three years worth of proceedings. The case arose from an investigation into a domestic violence incident involving Chrisman and Cindy Truhan. Truhan claimed Chrisman used the police data to stalk her and filed suit. She settled out of court for $400,000. Truhan also made the allegations concerning Chrisman's use of the databanks to gather information on celebrities, which led to the misconduct investigation.

The data-gathering, said to have gone on for six years, included such celebrities as Kobe Bryant, Courteney Cox Arquette, Sean Penn, O.J. Simpson, Meg Ryan, and Drew Barrymore, among others. The LAPD has not yet said what they think Chrisman was doing with the information he improperly accessed. Chrisman and his attorney maintain his innocence.

The Los Angeles Times reports that:

LAPD computers are linked to state and federal databases that store criminal histories, addresses, birth dates, Social Security numbers, physical descriptions, driving histories, vehicle ownership, restraining orders, unlisted phone numbers and other information not readily available to the public.

The L.A. Times story went on to say that "Laws prohibit calling up the files except for authorized law enforcement purposes."

The Associated Press quotes an LAPD spokesman as saying "The message is clear. . . If officers break the law, they'll be dealt with severely."

One might beg to differ. Consider that this is the case of one single officer who, if the allegations are true, totally overplayed his hand by snooping on a number of powerful celebrities. And the only penalty (so far, anyway) was losing his job three years down the line. This should be considered by all those who decry business collection of consumer data but see nothing wrong with government collection of data to "protect" consumers and citizens.

As part of his defense, Chrisman maintains that LAPD keeps detailed data on celebrities as a matter of course. If this is indeed the case, the question must be raised as to how legal this practice is. And will anyone else be held accountable? If not, the "clear message" claimed by LAPD becomes rather cloudy.

With a similar case coming to light in Utah, one must wonder whether this state of affairs is exception, or rule? How much, if at all, should we trust the public sector to enforce rules on how information is used in the private sector? Who is the real Privacy Villain in that equation?

government surveillance

medical privacy

financial privacy

online privacy

News | Press Releases | Online Privacy Tools | Privacy Principles | Experts | Links
About NCC | About Consumer Alert | Contact Us | NCC Privacy Home