Whatever one thinks of the Department of Homeland Security and the agencies under its umbrella, one thing that it does have is a Chief Privacy Officer in a statutorily created position.

Naturally, such a post can only be as strong as it is allowed to be by the department or agency it is supposed to monitor. In that sense, while the reviews by privacy advocates of the work done by Nuala O'Connor Kelly, the DHS's Chief Privacy Officer, have been generally positive, they will be forever watchful of her work and that of DHS.

The point is that John Ashcroft had an opportunity to take the lead in providing for stronger oversight the Justice Department's operations both in the wake of 9/11 and then after it had been handed substantial new powers through the USA-PATRIOT Act.

Perhaps had he called for the creation by statute of a Chief Privacy Officer position, privacy advocates might be less edgy in expressing concern about DOJ. They would certainly be vigilant and watchful, but it is also possible there would be more positive and constructive interaction between the two camps.