Comment Submitted by Courtney Hampson

I agree with the passing of this proposed rule change. I believe that the Department of Homeland Security must, at certain times, take measures to ensure national security by exempting some information from public record. Given the recent terrorist activity that our country has experienced, it is understandable that the DHS would take some necessary precautions to promote national security. In this case, protecting the physical safety and identity of informants (such as immigration and border management and law enforcement personnel), protecting the privacy of third parties, and safeguarding classified information all seem reasonable justifications for exempting the Immigration and Customs Enforcement unit from the 1974 Privacy Act. Not only is this proposal standard, but it has also been issued by many other federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Further, people may be more likely to come forward with information about terrorist activities, or to become employed in a dangerous position if they know that their identity and information will be secure. One question that comes to mind, however, is who still has access to this information once it becomes privatized. By limiting access to a small number of people, power and responsibility may be monopolized in the hands of some who are never given a system of checks and balances over their power. The only other concern I have is that, as domestic and international security policies and concerns shift overtime, this proposed rule change will be stagnant. I would propose, then, that this rule be revisited in the coming years as security threats continue to fluctuate.