Canadian Privacy Czar Wants To Anonymize Court Records On the Web 340
An anonymous reader writes "The web is evil and must be stopped — because it makes public information too public. So says Canada's Privacy Commissioner. She wants to 'anonymize' court records by substituting initials for names.
The Toronto Star quotes Jennifer Stodddart as saying 'The open court rule, which is extremely historically important, has now become distorted by the effect of massive search engines... Court decisions and other related documents, which contain all sorts of personal information, are now searchable worldwide, which was never intended when openness rules were devised.'
All Stoddart's proposal would do is erect a minor barrier for the techno unsaavy. Researchers, reporters, geeks, and most teenagers would still be able to figure out who's who.
Stoddart seems to believe only in an abstract notion of freedom and access — but only as long as not too many people use it and no one suffers. She cites the case of someone who is upset at reading the divorce case of her parents.
Is Stoddart a danger or a menace? Or just clueless?"
Re:History (Score:5, Informative)
Well i can understand their concerns over privacy - but having an open, readily accessibly law system is important in any democracy. Also, what about historians 100 years from now trying to reconstruct these records - it would be much more useful if people's role's in society were not just a bunch of initials.
It'll still be in the physical court records, and probably in the "internal" computerized documents.
Czar!?! (Score:5, Informative)
There are no "czar" positions in Canada, even in slang terms. Yes, I know that it has become a popular term in US politics - drug czar [wikipedia.org] , war czar [wikipedia.org] , etc. It's really, really stupid in that context, and in a Canadian context it is additionally inappropriate.
Re:Sounds reasonable (Score:3, Informative)
Bullshit. Ugly divorces are because off greedy spiteful people, and a completely broken family court system and stupid custody laws.
Having it more open wouldn't stop another person from making bullshit allegations so they can keep their kids away from their "evil" spouse. There are lawyers who will always tell their client to claim sexual abuse happened.
those who have sat on a stand or been sued (Score:1, Informative)
I'm divorced. My ex has my kids. She's sued me 5 times now. She's a rich, powerful woman who does her best to keep the kids away from me. I've payed 60% of my post tax income in child support over the last 3 years, and have spent over 100K on lawyers fees to maintain my rights to see my children. All because she is rich, she can hire lawyers, and pay enough in a small-town east-texas system that is manipulable.
The state treats divorced fathers without custody like criminals: My SSN, address, taxes, salary, employer, dates spent with my kids - they are not only public record, and searchable online, but *I* am required, under penalty of a "motion to enforce" (risking jail or losing access to my children) and more legal fees and flights to TX, I am "forced" to voluntarily provide much of this this published information even outside of an ongoing trial if I choose to remain in the lives of my children.
Stoddart is not a danger, a menace, or clueless.
For all of you commenting on court records, consider this: Have you ever been sued? prosecuted? Stood 12 hours on a witness stand grilled by lawyer after lawyer? Submitted 5 years of taxes during discovery? Had psychologist evaluate your and publish reports on your fitness? Been threatened with jail if you can't pay the money a judge says you owe?
Re:The Challenge of Privacy in the Information Age (Score:5, Informative)
Did you actually read what she said? She doesn't want them taken offline, she just wants to make them semi-anonymous so you can't google for people. They'll still be at the net.
Re:How about a Cease and Desist letter? (Score:5, Informative)
I wouldn't have a problem with my arrest for something being public, as long as it was just as public if I were found innocent.
A relative of mine built a storage shed in his back yard. A neighbor didn't like it and called the city. An inspector came out while he wasn't home, took incorrect measurements, and left a large, neon colored notice on the front of his house saying that he was in violation of city ordinances. He had them come out, showed them that they were wrong, and they said, "oh - sorry". He said, "Well, go tell all my neighbors." Of course they didn't.
A homeless man in Phoenix was picked up on suspicion of raping and killing a child a while back. They figured out pretty quickly that he didn't have anything to do with the child, but he did have other legal issues so he was kept in jail. That night it made the local news that he had been picked up in connection with the child's murder. He was beaten so badly he lost his spleen.
People who are accused of something are not necessarily guilty and I can see why they may not want it broadcast all over the world that they have been accused, when it is not easy to also broadcast their innocence later.
You can read about the guy who lost his spleen in this new times article [phoenixnewtimes.com] that was written a bit after it all happened. It was all I could find, but this happened 8 years ago or so.
Re:Uhm, Hyperbole? (Score:3, Informative)
Indeed. And a fact that I failed to mention in my original post is that, in fact, in every jurisdiction I am aware of the Court has the ability at its own discretion to waive the fee, if you make an application that you are unable to pay it. So even that is not more than a cost of time.
Re:The Challenge of Privacy in the Information Age (Score:4, Informative)
As I posted in another comment, the concern about 'pricing people who really do need the information out' is not one I've ever found to be valid.
All of the Courts I've dealt with have had wavier programs in place to allow those who need access but cannot pay for it access to the materials they require, so long as they are willing to make the appropriate application.
Re:Look too hard, and you might not like what you (Score:5, Informative)
So, what is your point? Surely, the images of me doing various things at home are theoretically available to my neighbor with good binoculars, who happens to be watching at the right time. Does that mean that it should be also made available to two billion of my neighbors on Internet? If so, is it too much for me to ask that at least I am identified by initials rather than full name?
Don't forget that the court papers will likely contain your address, so people will know where the show is performed.
Re:Look too hard, and you might not like what you (Score:2, Informative)
...but that's just as faulty in that it doesn't describe atheism...it describes absence of belief, which could be atheism, agnosticism, or plain ignorance.
Of course, you're free to like it better :)
I would point out that I also agree that atheism isn't a religion, but my reason is that religion is a belief in a higher power (a "God" so to speak), and atheism is a belief that there is no higher power. Atheism is not an absence of belief at all since a decision has been made based on some sort of information.
Agnosticism is someone who hasn't been convinced either way, and ignorance is not even knowing there's a decision to be made.
Re:Look too hard, and you might not like what you (Score:1, Informative)
Atheist means "without god(s)", ie "without belief in god(s)" - or "absence of belief in god(s)". Hie ye to a proper English dictionary as opposed to doing an online search. I recommend the big Oxford dictionary. It will tell you the etymology.
See also moral, immoral, and amoral.