City Fights Blogger On Display of Public Information

rokkaku writes "When the gadfly blogger Claremont Insider went searching for information about employee compensation on the city of Claremont web site, they never expected to find scans of pay stubs for all the employees. Nor did they expect the city attorney to demand that they remove copies of those pay stubs from their web site. They found it especially odd since, according to California law, the compensation of public employees is public information."

Pay stub != compensation

[winkydink]

Dear Rokkaku:

You are very confused. And I mean that in the nicest possible way.

Yes, a California judge has recently ruled that the compensation of public
employees is public information. But all of the pay stubs that I have
seen in, oh, the last 20 years have more information on them than that.

Many pay stubs have the employee's social security number on it. Is that
public information?
Are all of one's deductions for various benefits also public information?
What about the ones dealing with health care?
Or one's marital status?
Or amount of tax withholding?

In fact, an employee's pay stub probably has enough information on it
to steal that employee's identity. Yes, the public has a right to know
what a public employee earns. The public doesn't have a right to steal
a public employee's identity.

Except...

[daveschroeder]

..."public information" != "information that must necessarily be accessible instantly, on-demand, via collection or aggregation by a third party" (regardless of how or from whom they were obtained, and it's also not clear whether images of the actual pay stubs themselves are completely "public information", even if they were accessible for a time)

(And love how the article is tagged "censorship"...)

Also, there is a lot of "public information" that isn't online and instantly searchable and accessible en masse. There are other issues here, which I'd hope someone who stops to think about it for a few moments can imagine.

And the bottom line is that anyone can still determine the compensation of a public employee if they wish to do so.

For example, the University of Wisconsin System [uwsa.edu] made its budget summaries, including compensation - known as the Redbook [uwsa.edu] available on the internet. However, now the personnel salaries are only accessible via computers with UW System IP addresses. Else,

Print copies of the Redbooks are located in the main library at all UW System institutions and the central public libraries in Madison and Milwaukee.

Salary information can be obtained by contacting the Human Resources department of any UW System institution. A CD of the Redbooks from fiscal years 2000-01 to 2006-07 can be purchased for $10.00. To file a written request for salary information or to purchase a CD, contact: [...]

Why? Because it was being abused. So now it's not universally available and publicly searchable on the internet. That doesn't mean the information still isn't "public". And before you say that the government's job should be to use technology to make access to such information easier, e.g., via putting on the internet, ask yourself if you'd want all information about you that is technically "public information" aggregated and made quickly and easily searchable by anyone on the internet on a whim, or if you'd rather that people have to actually have a legitimate need for specific pieces of information, and be willing to go through the processes to get it?

Would you want anyone to see images of your entire pay stubs, even if you work for a public agency and your compensation is "public"?

When things like the Redbook and Wisconsin Circuit Court Access [wicourts.gov] became more restrictive, most of the complaints I heard over time were from people who could no longer do the essential equivalent of casual stalking of individuals' salaries and civil, criminal, and traffic court records. Persons who still have a legitimate need for it can still easily get access to the information, and any member of the public can easily obtain any information they might need.

Further, this case seems a little odd...if all of the pay stubs were available on the city's web site, why did they have to aggregate them all? They were already publicly available, right? Obviously the city didn't intend for them to be displayed or obtained the way they were, and regardless of how much "their fault" it was, how incompetent they were at running their web site, or whether it was a data leak, even if it it is "public information" doesn't mean it needs to be, or should be, aggregated en masse on a third party internet site.

Also, while the individuals' compensation may be public, actual images of pay stubs may not be at all (and probably isn't). Again, even if the city had this out in the open through their error, that still doesn't mean it should be fair game for everyone until the end of time, regardless of whether some of the content of the image is "public information". A mistake is a mistake. The city isn't filing charges against someone for "hacking"; they're asking that images of pay stubs of city employees be removed from the internet. The public can still discover the compensation of the employees if they wish,

They're just ignorant.

[SatanicPuppy]

I deal with FOIA type stuff all the time, and the truth of it is, most government employees have no idea what is public and what is not. They fire off knee jerk threats, and withhold stuff all the time.

Used to be the media kept them in better check, but if your local newspapers aren't suing the crap out of them every time they step out of line (and mostly they're not these days, because it's expensive), then they start power tripping and keeping secrets.

the yro scolor scheme sucks

[larry bagina]

let me repeat: the yro color scheme sucks. Particularly the part where comment titles are a slightly darker shade of red than the background box.

Public Information

[ackthpt]

Generally you WRITE a REQUEST for this information, not snoop around and find it. Bad on the City to leave stubs lying around as that's just more stuff for identity thieves to pillage.

Re:Pay stub != compensation

[TheRealMindChild]

In fact, an employee's pay stub probably has enough information on it to steal that employee's identity. Yes, the public has a right to know what a public employee earns. The public doesn't have a right to steal a public employee's identity.

But it is illegal to steal someones identity! Surely no one would break the law! The point is moot!

Re:Except...

[torkus]

Public information means what it says ... information that is freely available to the public. Period. If you think there is security in making it more difficult to obtain you're delusional.

It's like saying "free speech!!!" and then turning around and expecting someone to excercise that right only in their basement. At a whisper. When alone.

If it's public information it should be readily available. Furthermore, if it's PUBLIC INFORMATION how can you reasonable claim copyright?! That's pure insanity. Who holds the copyright? The public? Go futher, it's information - *not* an artistic work of any sort. What will they try now, patent it?

Position Pay ranges versus individual pay stubs

[surfingmarmot]

My wife works in city government. The salary ranges and what a called control points (maximums for a position) are indeed public knowledge although some of the high level execs hide their bonuses, but not pay levels, in obscure documents. Wonder why ;-) But as many hear have stated, an individual's pay stub isn't a position pay range--it is uniquely personal and contains information about taxation, vacation. PTO, health insurance, life insurance, possibly bank information, possibly social security information, maybe addresses, dependents, etc. The city is divulging way too much information and that should be shut down ASAP.

Re:Except...

[peretzpup]

If it's public information & I'm a member of the public, that means once I get it I can do whatever I please with it. The government certainly isn't necessarily obligated to provide easy access to it, but I'm not sure why I shouldn't be allowed to do so. Now whether these stubs are in fact public information could, possibly, be a valid question. Bit suspicious of governments retroactively declaring information non-public after they've published it, myself.

Re:Except...

[GIL_Dude]

Well, I think the OP had a point there. After all, with online phone directories (that sometimes have mailing addresses, etc.) coupled with this kind of data, targeted mailings become too damn easy (yes, my opinion).

For example, run a quick query with some simple software and presto you now have the address, phone number, name of all public employees over 30 in area X,Y,Z making more than $80,000 per year. That's something I wouldn't want the average run of the mill "marketing" (read slimeball) drone to have easily available. Now, if they want to go to the city records office or something and write all this stuff down on paper and then transfer it to their computer - more power to them. But they won't, and we all know that. So, by keeping it public but off the internet it keeps it from being abused en-mass.

Re:Pay stub != compensation

[jasonditz]

When is it ever not "post a counter assertion without any effort to actually provide some backing" day at Slashdot.

If we didn't have 20-30 posts that make no sense and 5-10 replies each that amount to RTFA, these comment sections would be damned short.

Re:Except...

[andreMA]

They apparently were never "contacted and told that it needed to come down" -- the City Attorney directly contacted Google and still hasn't revealed what, if any, information is considered "non-public" using a claim of "attorney client privilege" There was also apparently some absurd murmuring about "copyright violations", leading me to suspect that they invoked the DMCA in their communications with Google. False claims under the DMCA are punishable, and I suspect the refusal to reveal the content of the communication to the party impacted is an effort at ass covering. City Attorney needs to have the bar association look into this and possibly suspend their license to practice law.