How Public Should Public Records Be? 175
Hobobo writes: "This article on the New York Times talks about whether public records that are available in local government offices should or shouldn't be available online. It also talks about the "practical obscurity" of people checking files in police offices and whatnot, and public records on the internet are "too public," and the privacy and freedom of information issues involved." If you'd like to try it, you can use "Giuliani" and "5/28/44".
A real issue (Score:2, Insightful)
There's a big double standard here: the federal judiciary, whose financial records are required to be made public, has consistently refused to make them available on the Internet, or to release them to people who plan to do that. That's no surprise, but it's unfair. Sauce for the goose, and so on.
Re:A real issue (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:A real issue (Score:2, Informative)
Re:A real issue (Score:2)
Re:A real issue (Score:1)
Re:A real issue (Score:1)
they're not putting financial records online, it's only public information.
i think it's great, it makes it easier for the public to access. as mentioned earlier, you'll find home layouts, property layouts (city auditor), as well as arrest records, warrants, etc.
what's the big deal if i can take a name/birthday and find your address (if you're a registered voter in NY City) i could just as easily look it up in the phone book without even knowing your birthday. That's not even public information, it's information published by a private company (ma bell). after all, it's just information, doesn't "it want to be free" :)
Re:A real issue (Score:1)
This is very true. To give a practical example, I looked up this young man [anywho.com] and this gentleman [anywho.com] and found that they shared the same address! Imagine what inferences someone could draw from that.
The Internet brings a whole new level of accessibility to public records - the ability to mine data using scripts and correlate it in a huge database adds a lot of value to information that used to be isolated.
Personally I've spent a year trying to exterminate my personal information from the Net, and I'm far from succeeding.
Personal Data Extermination (Score:2)
Sex Offender Database (Score:2, Interesting)
This program, understandably, was controversial from the start, with good arguments being made both for and against it. A Federal judge ordered the site shut down earlier this year. I wouldn't be surprised, however, if that decision won't be later overturned.
There are safeguards (Score:2, Informative)
Most public records laws already have measures in place to safeguard personal privacy. Others, as in the article (I read it!) do need some work to account for personal privacy. A good example is, before records were finally given to APB news on judges' finances, personal information such as address, phone, etc., was redacted.
Records being available in the Internet is very important. Check out www.freedomforum.org [freedomforum.org] to see how hard it is often to get public records in person, with demands to know why, see ID and attempted arrests (especially for public police records such as who's currently in jail). Internet access would allow people to get this information without fear of intimidation.
Re:There are safeguards (Score:2)
I agree. Public records are just that - PUBLIC. Lets be realistic people - if someone really wants to know something about you they are going to find out and public records online aren't going to change that. Sure it saves a would be psycho some time, but thats about it. The good thing about these records going online and the CHicken Littel media these days is it'll raise awareness to records that have ALWAYS been public. People need to know what stuff about them is public and what type of opt out programs there are.
Re:There are safeguards (Score:2)
a: The request is logged in the public records
b: The information can't be requested anonymously
c: I receive notification of the name of the person requesting my data, and the date they do so.
After all, if the person accessing my records are not going to cause me harm, they should have no fear of my knowing who they are and what they are doing.
The benefit of such a system would be to cut down on things like your co-workers looking up dirt on you for fun, because you could do the same in return.
Great Assumption (Score:3, Insightful)
"Only you, your family, and your closest friends know your birthday"
I _wish_ I could remember my family members' birthdays (and anniverseries, etc. etc. etc.)!
But seriously... that's there idea of "security"? That's not security through obscurity, that's security through stupidity!
Re:Great Assumption (Score:1)
"Only you, your family, and your closest friends know your birthday"
Even more so, who else knows your birthday: Stalkers, your ex, everyone at work,
Re:Great Assumption (Score:1)
Why is this dangerous?
Re:Great Assumption (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Great Assumption (Score:1)
How about if you lived in New York and had a telephone? Then anyone could find out where you lived.
I hope sensitivity to ever-decreasing privacy will cause people to recognize charging for an unlisted number as the blackmail that it is. Imagine if every entity that collected personal information about charged you to keep it secret.
Re:Wrong (Score:2)
And what was it about the word "FEE" that you didn't understand?
Public? (Score:4, Insightful)
Doe, John is a registred voter.
instead of
Doe, john 123 main street republican.
It would disclosure the information that is public and would not be that intrusive.
But there are worst cases, the directory of phone of Rio de Janeiro disclosures not only the address but also the map on how to get there.
you can try : HTTP://www.telelista.com.br/, just lick in the "residancial" and search for josé (a fairly common name in Brasil. Click on the little ball on the left of name and voila you have a map to that person's home.
Re:Public? (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, but I suppose you can get an unlisted number.
Luxembourgish P&T (national telephone operator, who is now also an ISP) is far worse: even if you had an unlisted number, people could still can find you address on P&T's website! You could opt out of that one too, but you had to know about this page. Moreover, those who opted out would get no personal web hosting space.
There are reasons records are public (Score:2)
Doe, John is a registred voter.
instead of
Doe, john 123 main street republican.
It would disclosure the information that is public and would not be that intrusive.
One big reason public records are public is so they can be checked for accuracy, allowing errors and fraud to be detected and corrected. This is especially true in the case of voter registration.
Political machines have historically created large numbers of fake votes, and used these to keep themselves in power far beyond the point where the actual population would have voted them out.
Once this was done by techniques such as "keeping alive" a voter registration after the actual voter had died, an abuse so prevalent that "the graveyard vote" became a term of political discourse. This practice continues to this day. (Our next-door neighbor has been trying for years to deregister her mother - who died a while back. The clerk refuses, because she's still voting.)
But more recent changes to election laws - especially in California - have led to enormous abuse.
"Motor-Voter" registration, with stacks of mail-in forms in every public office, allows the creation of paper voters in wholesale lots.
At-poll-site registration-and-vote allows vanloads of "instant voters" to move from poll site to poll site, registering and voting multiply.
No-reason absentee ballot laws allow paper voters to vote - first time and every time - by mail, never showing a face to a poll watcher. (One address in Berkeley was recently noticed to have several THOUSAND "residents" voting absentee.)
Non-citizens are allowed - and encouraged - to vote. A poll-watcher may not ask for proof of citizenship because this is allegedly "racist" and "intimidating".
Any fraud at all can swing a close election. This sort of massive fraud can swing even non-close ones. Without such fraud would the last presidential election have been a squeaker? Would the houses of congress be closely divided and split between parties? Would the Hunter's Point park have been turned into shopping malls and condos and millions in bond money spent (to be repaid from taxes) on a stadium that was never built?
Would millions of potential voters be staying home (making the fraud still easier) because they believe their votes don't count?
Would YOUR vote make a differenc?
Changing the law starts with showing there's a problem with the existing law. Showing there's a problem requires detecting it. Detecting it requires documenting large numbers of fake voters. Documenting fake voters requires access to the names and addresses of registered voters.
So hiding the addresses of registered voters - in bulk on the internet - promotes voter fraud and political machines. Yet the privacy risk comes from the availability of the address AT ALL - and a stalker, crook, or information seller can still get the addresses he wants.
So keeping addresses off the internet is the worst of both worlds, leaving the crooks and privacy-invaders with access and the general population in the dark.
Re:Public? (Score:2)
I mean, the Americans gave the French free access to stuff, and now they've taken over Jerry Lewis!
Anyhow, you could either implement regional restrictions on Internet access (a bad thing), or you could keep the records offline and require some "proof of citizenship"-style validation before releasing the info to qualified parties.
Public Records on Internet (Score:3, Insightful)
But then again... I wouldn't have known about her divorce she was going through if her name hadn't popped up in a search that few of us were 'jokingly' putting in people's names into search engines seeing what we could "dig up"
I not only found her divorce
There's something to be said about getting up off your butt and going down to a location to dig up information on someone. When it's all at the tips of EVERYONE's fingertips
I think it's good to have records available to everyone
People should have to get an ID to get the public records
Just a thought
De-formalizaiton of society (Score:1, Informative)
Then again... U.S. society is gradually becoming less and less formal. Many people don't wear suits to work. Many issues which used to be taboo (sex, divorce, drugs) are more openly discussed. But, we're still quick to criticize people who have faults. Could making public information more readily available finally relax this high-view stereotype that we have? We're already progressing in that direction. Clinton wasn't stoned after his affair was publicized. Bush was elected president even though he had a serious drinking problem when he was young.
With public records being easily accessible, we're going to have to get used to everyone having a "history." But, society does change with time. This is just another transition that society needs to go through. Sci-fi writers (e.g. Spielberg/Kubrik in A.I.) try to make us believe that people are static---they don't change with technology. But, they do. Aren't cars, planes and *nuclear missles* a bit more society-altering than a robotic boy? In some ways, this change will be great. It will allow us to discover when people have a seriously dangerous history (e.g. mass murder, millions of $$$ in credit card fraud, etc.). It will also bring our society to accepting things that normal people do (e.g. drinking in college, smoking pot, not paying parking tickets, etc.). We're all human. We make mistakes sometimes. We also occasionally just like to enjoy life and not think too much the future consequences of our actions.
Anyway, making public records easy-to-access may seem like a terrible thing. But, they are public records. If someone *really* wanted to know your birthday & address, they would have been able to find it. Making them easily accessible helps those who don't have the time to search through all of the records. And, it will (hopefully) inject some much needed humanity into our society.
Jason
Re:De-formalizaiton of society (Score:1)
But, society does change with time. This is just another transition that society needs to go through. Sci-fi writers (e.g. Spielberg/Kubrik in A.I.) try to make us believe that people are static---they don't change with technology. But, they do.
There's a really interesting Sci-Fi book dealing with just this idea -- The Light of Other Days by AC Clark & Stephen Baxter. The premise is someone developing a stable wormhole large enough to fit a tiny camera through. The camera can be pointed anywhere and is too small for the people on the other side to see. Once the wormcam becomes cheap enough for the public, deeply-held notions of privacy (and later, memory) begin to dissolve. Pretty good reading. Check it out.
Re:Public Records on Internet (Score:1)
Many who read slashdot, inluding me, would agree that open source security software like firewalls and IDS is a good idea. It allows coders to dig through and find the flaws as an evolutionary process. The software has a great responsibility of protecting out network and thus should be open to criticism of failure and flaws. By exposing those flaws, the software is made stronger in every successive version. The software is only held accountable by those that use it. If they feel that it is not good enough, they can modify the code to improve it, they can just wallow in self pity and do nothing, or they can stop using it alltogether and choose a different software package.
Covering the flaws in software with laws and government regulation only slows the process of making better software. Closed source software only gives two of the three options listed above. If you don't like the software, you can wallow in self pity and do nothing, or you can stop using it alltogether and choose a different software package. The maker of the software package in this case is held accountable to two groups this time, but the groups are linked financially: the shareholders and the users of the software. If the users revolt, then the shareholders will also revolt. If the company is private (no public stock) then the users are alone.
By the logic above, an individual should by that logic want to divulge all their information to others for the purpose of making themselves better individuals. Open the source and let some people poke around and give advice. The problem is that if we fail, we are only accountable to those that depend on us. If we have great responsibility (like protecting the network) then we should be open to some poking around through the code to make things better. If we are only responsible for ourselves then we have every right to deny people access to our code. If the society in which we live demands access to our code as a condition of membership, then we choose to either give the code or leave the society.
A few thoughts (Score:2)
Nifty idea back in it's time.
Anyway...
I know that there are companies that go to each court house and scan in all the documents posted in the last year and they sell the data to other companies that use the data to market products or back to cities as an effective storage / archive system. these same companies do the same thing for the states, too.
I think it should be a careful balance between my right to some privacy and the public right to know. Sooner or later all the records will be stored in a digital format. And sooner or later that information will find its way to the net.
Maybe limit the number of times a person can access the records per day? Or maybe give the database office hours (only accessible from 9 to 5)?
Maybe its time for us technically inclined to run for office and put into effect some good ideas?
Re:A few thoughts (Score:1)
Re:A few thoughts (Score:3, Insightful)
As is usual in these privacy debates, the stable door is open and the horse long gone. The only difference now from 4 years ago is that you had to put up some money to get the info. That means that big companies had access to the data and people didn't. Ever get a credit report on yourself? The first time I did I was astounded how much they knew about me.
The only privacy is complete privacy. If we don't want this information public, then the government shouldn't collect it (I mean, do they really need your address on file to let you vote?)
(On a side note, it actually sort of disturbs me now when I do a Google on somebody and don't get *anything*. I almost believe they don't actually exist.)
Re:A few thoughts (Score:2)
I expect Lexis/Nexis and Westlaw lobby pretty hard against making this public data more accesible.
Re:A few thoughts (Score:2)
One of the most frightening things I ever saw was an interactive/online postive-ID system that pulled a credit report on you, and asks you questions about your mortgage, which bank it's through (as well as your SSN and bday). It'd be difficult to get the entire set of this information if you weren't the person, but at the same time, it scares the user to find out that there's so much information already known about them.
Lexis-Nexis has scary amounts of data, if you know where and how to look. Their combined P-Find search tool has rarely failed me in finding a person's current and previous addresses, phone number(s), living conditions (apt? small house? duplex?) and birthdate. If you go through tax records, you can find all their owned property, and let's not forget civil cases and felonies!
It's expensive, tho, so that at least somewhat limits its usage, i.e. only to really big companies that generally already have that info on you.
Or you could bypass the registration ... (Score:1)
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/24/nyregion/24VOTE. html [nytimes.com] V OTE.html [nytimes.com] (watch the spaces if you copy/paste)
becomes:
http://archive.nytimes.com/2001/08/24/nyregion/24
Raises an interesting point... (Score:1)
While I am irked that they are making it too easy to get at some of this personal data, the guy has an interesting point. The real problem here isn't online accessibility -- it's accessibility by anyone. The "practical obscurity" notion has some merit, but IMHO, I am rather miffed to find out that some of this information is available to any bozo who strolls down to a county records office with a few crumbs of data about me to begin with.
What makes us think it's a good idea to allow access to things like the names of crime victims anyway? Anybody who throws my voter registration info in a database with nothing but my name and birthdate to protect it is getting sued. This kind of thing should be opt-in only!
Accountability (Score:1)
Re:Accountability (Score:2)
Now, if you don't like it, tell your Mayor/Councilman/StateRep/Governor/Congressman/Se
It's about people, not records (Score:2)
For my state (Ohio), and county (Franklin), I can get full property record information, including sale price, all inspection history, even the layout by knowing just the address. This service has been available for years now and is available for countless other counties in Ohio and the same in many other states.
The only thing you can't do right now is get someones criminal record (although it is available for anyone about anyone for a fee). In addition, there are many states which have been putting court transcripts online for awhile now. So this isn't news -- it's just the privacy people drumming up more emotion.
For the most part I don't think people should worry the slightest. Actual stalkers who want someone's information and are determined to actually do *something* don't care about convience. They'll go dig through a file cabnet for their x-wife's name and address just as they would look it up online. It saves them some work, but that wasn't their goal in the first place.
In addition, most important people and celebrities have known addresses. They show their homes off on TV and magazines. So I doubt they care about that.
That article presents a pretty pathetic argument. These are public records, and there are all kinds of positive uses. Public records will always be abused, and putting them on the Internet isn't going to stop nor increase that abuse (due to the nature and type of people who do such abuse).
Ooops! (Score:3, Funny)
I just went to the site (http://www.registeredtovoteornot.com [registered...eornot.com]) and in the section entitled "What others are saying:" was the following...
JANE B, on 60 STREET says, "Please remove my name (Jane S. Brody, Woodside, dob 7/4/47) from your site IMMEDIATELY (i.e., this morning, Friday, August 24). AND PLEASE DO NOT POST MY COMMENTS ON YOUR SITE. Your site, for all your good intentions, is a serious invation of privacy (for one thing, if you have a person's birthday but are not sure of the year, you can now find out the year; also you can now determine anybody's party affiliation). You would be well advised to shut your site down, at least for several days, and redesign it. By the way, why did you choose a person's birthday as the identifier? Would social security number be safer? No one that I know of (besides myself, my bank, my employer, etc.) has that information. Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter."
I think that demonstrates exactly how much they respect the wishes of the citizens of NY...
-- Pete.
Re:Ooops! (Score:1)
strange.. it shows this message and throws me to, you guessed it, to www.eff.org
It didn't say what did I lose or did they found the thing I've lost or anything. Oh well, EFF is a good site, it's nice they direct people there. More eyes on the real issues of todays world.
Re:Ooops! (Score:1)
Am I. . . Registered to Vote or Not?
New York City edition
Practical Obscurity (Score:1)
Every one assumed they had privacy through "practical obscurity" meaning that before the internet information had to be obtained by actually visiting or calling a government agency.
With the internet the amount of personal data that you can obtain on a person in a relatively short period of time, while sitting at home is quite disturbing.
The real question is "Should the goverenment publish personal information to the net, but still make it available if you show up in person?"
0.02 cents
Affiliation (Score:1)
Re:Affiliation (Score:2)
I Just mark "Independant".
Re:Affiliation (Score:1)
Celebrity Addresses (Score:3, Interesting)
For example:
It doesn't take long to come up with 10 or 15 names.
A quick Google [google.com] search for their name and the word "birthdate" gave me all I needed to find their home address using this site.
Some of them may think that this knowledge is not public, and they're the ones for whom information is most easily available, since celebrity birthdates are very easily found.
This certainly isn't the worst problem with this site. I think private citizens deserve privacy more than celebrities, who did, after all, make the decision to be known publicly, but theirs are the easiest birthdates to find.
Re:Celebrity Addresses (Score:1)
Donald Trump, Lauren Hutton, Spike Lee... the list goes on.
It's naive to think this info would have been kept private. Another neat site for the people who can't mind their own business is www.domania.com. Shows how much people paid for their house and assesed value so you report you neighbors to the tax collector.
I've also heard great things about resourse for Nexxus/Lexxus (sp?) but I've never used it. Any one have info on what kind of personal info you can get from it?
Re:Celebrity Addresses (Score:1)
Yea but can you beleive the addresses are to their home address? Most likely, however I did a quick search on Matthew Broderick and Sarah Jessica Parker don't have the same address? :)
-Scottlegal question (Score:2, Interesting)
pillars of privacy and public records (Score:5, Insightful)
All that said, the public has a long standing and legally well tested right to know (as we journalists call it). Public figure like the Mayor of New York or Janet Reno give up most claims to privacy that might apply to ordinary folks when they run for office. We need to know about their criminal and inventment histories when we vote (for example).
Problems with the guestbook on the site (Score:2, Interesting)
security through obscurity again? (Score:1)
Same argument stands -- the "bad guy" will find it anyway... The easier the access, the higher the awareness -- no longer will one's unwillingness to, say, use the Social Security Number as the student ID number (UMass Boston [umb.edu]'s practice, for example), look freakish...
Then perhaps, the politicians will realize something too and some of those records will not be public anymore...
There is no privacy (Score:1, Flamebait)
actually... (Score:1)
Re:actually... (Score:2)
info- data is kind of old (Score:1)
Inaccurate Records? (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:Inaccurate Records? (Score:1)
But that's the general problem of public databases, it seems: it's easy to get data into them, but not to get it out.
'Practical Obscurity' & possible solutions (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's assume for the moment that in fact something should be done to limit online access to what have always been public records. There are two possible approaches. Each typee of record could be examined and re-evaluated as to what portion of the record whould be made public (ie: remove the addresses of indeviduals from X record before it is made public) or the laws regarding the disclosure of public records could be ammended to prevent certain types of distribution of the media (ie: no electronic distribution permitted). The first solution, although more precise, would be almost impossible to achieve and would reduce the value of the record as a whole. The second is far more easily achievable, but may be over-reaching in the case of certain completely inocuous record types.
Peraps the latter alternative could be used where there shall be no electronic distribution of records to those who do not reside in a municipality local to the storage of the records (such thet they could have physical access to the records anyway, without inconvenience), but anyone who requested the records on paper or electronic media, could recieve them for private use - with the afore mentioned provision still in force). This solution has it's own problems, such as it would just server to create an industry that would employ indeviduals local to areas housing highly valued public records, to re-distribute them for a fee in some non-elecronic form, rather than such application fees as the government would otherwise collect.
--CTH
Too public (Score:1)
question authority....
useful property values site already (Score:1)
It should be email, not web, and take time (Score:2)
The real-world implementation is that you can go and ask for a record, and get a copy of it. But you have to ask for the record you want; you can't just say, "give me all the records you have". I'd be fine with a site that made public records available online in such a way as to prevent someone from sending it all the names from the phone book or something.
Definatly Real Problem (Score:1)
Mucho complaining, and they shut down the website. You can still go down to the town hall and get all this info though.
Is that better? I don't know.
Laws (Score:1)
As a story here on /. mentioned a while back
(the search tool is down at the moment, or I'd
put a link to it), many laws a copyright by the
people / organizations who submitted them.
Once it becomes a law, copyright over that text
should be void, and it should be publishable by
anyone, and it should be put on the web for easy
access.
Laws already online (Score:1)
I vaugely remember the copyright issue you mentioned. I doubt copyright issues will prevent the government from publishing it's own laws. At least, I really hope that's the case.
Just the tip of the iceburg (Score:2)
My current job, or a major part of this is to put this information on the internet. There are still issues being worked out like who pays for the systems...the users or the county, and other minor problems, but in many counties the information will soon be available free over the internet. What's scary is it is a piece of cake for someone to grab person's name, usually address, signature, and social-sec-# all in a one stop shopping experience.
And the NYT is having a stink over names linked to addresses? We have not made any waves yet, but our core customer base are commercial searches, who if don't get the info over the internet will just drive to the county anyway.
I'll be interested to read the discussion following this article.
-Pete
unintelligent site design... (YOU LOSE, EFF) (Score:2, Funny)
Great job e-ThePeople [e-thepeople.com]!
Great job.
looks like someone is pissed (Score:2)
http://www.registeredtovoteornot.com [registered...eornot.com]
and I get a javascript alert saying:
"You Loose! Have fun at the EFF"
And then it redirects to the EFF homepage.
I guess someone's feelings are hurt.
Nice comment that redirects you :) (Score:1)
His script says:
WILLIAM S, on ROCKAWAY PARKWAY says, "(SCRIPT)alert("YOU LOSE! Have fun at the EFF"); location.href="http://www.eff.org/";(/SCRIPT)"
I just disabled javascript to read the site... To fix it, I guess 3 people need to add comments to clear that out
Re:Nice comment that redirects you :) (Score:2)
There *IS* such a thing as TOO public. (Score:2)
For example, Foreigners able to access our citizens public records just by browsing to their county's public records page.
I live in Volusia County, FL (where all the shark attacks are happening) ANYONE can browse to http://www.clerk.org and put my name in and find out all kind of information about me from my last speeding ticket to the deed on my house. My social security number is included on some of these documents and available for the WORLD to see.
Also, City Officials seem to have some pull on the online database - just look up records to the clerk herself - Diane Matousek - You will find almost all of the documents on her many property purchases to be "missing".
Sure, it says it's a crime to misuse the information... but since when do criminals follow the laws?
Explanation of 28 May 1944 (Score:1)
Rudolph Giuliani (politician and former Mayor of New York City)
http://www.famousbirthdays.net/may28.htm
Re:Explanation of 28 May 1944 (Score:1)
It's a very sticky question (Score:1)
As a State government webmaster, I've been expressly asked NOT to publish information that one of our departments has...
How to obtain a permit for explosives.
Can a person obtain that information by calling us on the phone? yes. But by making the information hard enough to obtain, you're hopefully reducing the number of people you don't want to have that kind of power.
I've been a 'victim' of identity theft. An analysis of _that_ occurance determined that all the other person had was my name and SSN. They could get that if they worked for my Doctor, Life insurance Company, Workplace, Bank, or a miriad of other places that have FullName and SSN as fields in a database.
Most likely it did not stem from my internet usage.
I don't know what the solution is, but I can tell you it's not an 'internet only' phenomena.
slashdot effect (Score:2)
What does the public need to know? (Score:2, Interesting)
I think you can make a case for saying that having deeds and property ownership information available is a good and necessary thing. That does not mean that complete personal information (birthdate, SSN, etc) about the owner needs to be made available to anyone who asks. I think it's time to start considering dividing records into two parts one of which will be provided to the public, and the other (which may be necessary for the agency to do its job) which will not be disclosed to a third party.
This should not be confounded with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). FOIA is generally a good thing. It is the hook that enables us to keep tabs on our government. This needs to be protected. However, it can be limited. It is rarely necessary for a journalist or other investigatory agency to obtain the records of specific individuals to do their jobs. It is almost never necessary to disclose this to a corporation which will typically use it primarily for marketing. Note that there is precedent for this. In most cases state universities have exemptions from FOIA for student records. This principle can be extended.
This is an old problem made even more problematic by new technology. Gotta love it.
Maybe different types of public access are needed? (Score:3, Insightful)
Easier access to this information can be used by spammers, telemarketers, etc. to create mailing lists that bombard us with all kinds of garbage.
I propose that online access to public information be limited such that it doesn't allow a person to retrieve dozens or hundreds of records continuously. If a person wants to access such information, he or she would be allowed a fixed amount of usage (determined by a browser cookie, a scan of the persons IP address, etc.) per day or week. If that person needs to access or download hundreds of records at once for legitimate reasons such as lawsuits, tax research, title research, then such access can be applied for and granted on a case by case basis.
This won't stop unscrupulous people from abusing legitimate access for their own needs, but it will provide some tracability and accountability for their actions.
Public records should remain public. However, the cybernetic tools to search and gather hundreds of records don't have to be. A human brain has always been an excellent, and free, tool to use. It still is.
Re:Maybe different types of public access are need (Score:1)
Won't work. Someone only has to get access to all the records once, and can quite legally republish them, since they're public records. Either it's public or it's not--we've too long relied on "public but obscure," which has been no protection at all from those "in the know."
Re:Maybe different types of public access are need (Score:2)
Easier access to this information can be used by spammers, telemarketers, etc. to create mailing lists that bombard us with all kinds of garbage.
Wouldn't it be easier to have a government-run list of telephone numbers, and to say 'These people will not recieve telemarketing calls'?? You could then instill a fine of, say, $5,000 for every marketing call to a number on the list.
I mean, many people already have thier details on record. That's how all the postal spam you get has your name and address on it. Instead of making public records hard to get, why not simply offer a marketing opt-out procedure?
Michael
I don't see why everyone is upset. (Score:3, Insightful)
The answer to any concerns that there is too much in the public record is to change the laws so such information is not public record, not to make public records harder for the "little people" to access.
Re:I don't see why everyone is upset. (Score:2)
If easy access pushes questions as to whether or not such-and-such is legitimately part of the public record, so much the better -- these questions need to be raised, or the default answer becomes whatever the bureaucrats who operate the system want it to be.
What happened to nformation wants to be free? (Score:4, Interesting)
I ran for school board a few years back and I needed a list of registered voters in my district. I had to pay the county $100. Not a lot, but it represented 10% of what we had to spend on the campaign. I clearly had a need to know and it rankled me that some bureaucrat had decided that candidates should have to pay $100 for a floppy that took 2 minutes to produce. It boiled down to a tax on challenging the incumbents.
As a public service, I publish California high school SAT scores. [greenes.com] Every year, it's like pulling teeth to get the state to relinquish the data. We go round the bush with the same arguments each year and then they finally let me have the data. It's obvious they don't like what I do with the data, but then, is it their right to deny access?
We operate a tutoring business that uses computers to grade some 500 tests per week. We think what we're doing has a real effect on children's ability to compute and that it's positively correlated with their math test scores. We've needed access to data for years to test that hypothesis but privacy concerns thwarted that access. This year, we finally gained access and sure enough, our hypothesis was confirmed. Those data not only showed us we're on the right track, they also suggested changes in what we're doing. Was the public interest better served by denying access?
In the end, it comes down to "who decides what you should be allowed to know?" Given their druthers, most agencies would rather they decide, even if their decision is not in the public interest.
fair use vs privacy (Score:2)
while I do think that is fair use of government data, I don't think many people would want their math test scores available to the public on the internet
making records available behind the counter is different to sticking up posters in the street...
the analogy may not be totally accurate, but I don't see why there can't be a middle ground
Re:What happened to nformation wants to be free? (Score:1)
Just because I'm registered to vote doesn't mean I want CANDIDATES, such as yourself, contacting me at random.
These people also happen to be morons. They don't understand that a birthdate is not a secretive piece of information ("your last name and birthdate should be known only by family and close friends"). What the fuck? Any idiot can know your birthday.
In short, such information can certainly be useful, but it ought to be better protected and I ought to be able to say "Take my information out of there."
Re:What happened to information wants to be free? (Score:2)
Re:ETS property? (Score:2)
The state has a very good reason for seeing your scores. The SAT is an external measure of how well education monies are spent. There are schools in California that have average SAT scores in the low 500's as well as one public school that averages in the 1300's. Clearly, there's a huge disparity in the level of service between the affected communities.
If public education is going to reach international standards, it's going to require volumes of good data that's measuring quantitative differences between various teaching methods. Without access to those data, you're flying blind.
So much for screening... (Score:2)
What others are saying:
TIM R, on WEST 15 STREET says, "Susan and I love your site.
Thanks for giving out our home address!"
JERRY S, on CENTRAL PARK WEST says, "Hi Jerry Seinfeld
here. I live at 211 Central Pk. West and was born 4/29/54 I'm a
stand-up comic, but I don't think this site is very funny! Now
everyone knows I'm a registered democrat! "
WILLIAM D, on GREENWICH STREET says, "Please remove
my data from your database!"
Other issues aside, with quality control like this, I wonder how much of this information is accurate.
Right or privilege? (Score:1)
I'm not sure how I feel about it. I guess that they court clerk's office doesn't have to do anything that isn't in the law, so, in my opinion, the law should be changed to provide such a mandate (and, consequently, state funds for providing such access). I can live with part of my tax dollars going to make this information available on the web.
It's simple (Score:2)
Privacy by Obfuscation IS worse, not better (Score:4, Insightful)
All privacy by obfuscation does is create fake value-add business models to market public data.
An example is judicial decisions and legal records. Most circuits are available on the net now, but most district opinions are still offline. Lexis and Westlaw make big bucks by doing nothing other than providing access to public documents. The whole legal industry is dependent on them, which increases legal costs dramatically, reduces predictability of the law, and serves to enforce the guild.
The credit report situtation is just as bad. You often have to pay to see what's in your own credit report, but it provides no privacy protection against creditors and potential creditors, who are the main groups you want privacy protection from.
Once policy decides that information should be public, it should be made available in the most accessible way. If the info should be private, the information subject should control all access. The problem is only if we choose to make information public or semi-public that should be private.
My appraisal district here makes all property values available on the net in a manner that can be searched by name or address. I have looked up all of my neighbors and my coworkers property values. I think that crosses the line, but I would absolutely NOT consider it a solution to make people go in to the property tax office to get these records, though. That would simply serve to limit the knowledge to those who could pay a falsely inflated price to get the information, which would then serve to improve the negotiation position of organizations over citizens.
Re:Privacy by Obfuscation IS worse, not better (Score:2)
Transparent Government (Score:1)
Irony and balance (Score:1)
I find it ironic that anyone with an Internet connection can anonymously find out where I live, my telephone number, the size of my house and how much I paid for it, whether or not I received a speeding ticket, etc. but I can't read the NY Times article without getting a ^@$#*!* username and password. (OK, you can register a fake name, but that's more than what you have to do to check up on me.)
Public information should be public, but I don't think completely unfettered access is necessarily good either. On the other hand, if specific checks and balances are put in place to protect those who have information in public databases, they can be used as roadblocks by those who have something to hide. I have no idea how you strike a balance between the two. Perhaps the traditional method of going down to the courthouse is not too far off the mark.
-z
The two sides, presented how I see it. (Score:3, Interesting)
Which brings us to the other hand; the fact that said information is somewhat obscure in practice. You have to go out of your way to get it; it's been that way for a long, long time, so putting these records on the internet WILL change the way information is used.. it IS different.
I think the real answer is both a) Yes, if it's on the Public record, it should be available to anyone free, online... and...
b) Given this, we should re-think what should be public record and what shouldn't.
Remember, those in power can find things out about you a lot faster than you can find things out about them simply because they know where to look. This would even the playingfield.
Flouting of state and local FOI. (Score:1)
state and local FOI freedom of information principles when it involves their very own
departmental curatorial reports on collections development and the related cities consultants reports on our cities public libraries.
Boston Public Library denies it, yet has flouted state FOI principles and reference desk principles.
Guide to Problematical Library Use
GuideToProblematicalLibraryUse.WebLogs.com/storie
http://saklad.org [saklad.org]
Re:Flouting of state and local FOI. (Score:1)
Not a problem. Well, not a 'real' problem. (Score:2)
Personally, I don't see what all the fuss is about. I live in the United Kingdom, and we have had something similar to this for a while, and it has caused no real problems.
Voters' registration records are publically availiable. Also, people who don't ask to be ex-directory have thier phone numbers listed in thier regional phone book.
Anyway, a company called I-CD Publishing makes the UK Info Disk [192.com]. They got all the (public) phone books, and all the (public) voter's records, and correlated the two, producing a range of CDs, and I gather they offer online searches as well. Linited versions of these CDs (i.e. only 15 records returned per search) were made availiable on the front of several computer magazines and the like.
I have one of these CDs; all it does is make accessing publicly availiable information easy. If I want a phone number for someone living a long way away, I can look them up on the CD, assuming I know the area in which they live, and thier second name, and optionally thier first initial. Then I will get returned thier address, and telephone number (assuming they are not ex-directory).
This isn't a terribly abusable resource. Nobody is harassed by EVIL TELEPHONE MARKETING COMPANIES, because you can ask to be put on a global British Telecom do not call list, and then telemarketers do not call you. nobody is ATTACKED BY EVIL STALKERS because there isn't much stalking over here. If you get stalked, you call the police, and the person in question is arrested. There's no EVIL IDENTY THEFT because there isn't enough information availaibe to perform identy theft, and banks tend to like solid proof of your identity before they will give you money.
So, what's my point? Having some information publically availiable online, i.e. name / address / telephone number, does not instantly make your society degrade into anarchy. It is, however, a useful reference tool for legimate uses.
Don't get too paranoid. Anyone who has the time to search for your personal details out of the millions of other people in the country likely has enough free time to wander down to the county records office and ask for the relevent records.
Michael
No right to anonymity in reviewing public records (Score:2)
2. Anyone can go look at any of these records.
3. Access to the records requires a validated identity (which means a login and password).
4. To get a validated login, you must show up at a public place, prove your identity, and a smart card (or similar) will be issued to you.
5. You get a report sent to you of who looked at your records, and when.
If people know who's looking at their records, it would ease a lot of fears. It would also prevent abuse of the records (like marketers). People would then realize that their records aren't being looked at, or would be horrified at how often the information is requested.
The main thing here is: the information is public, but there is no right of anonymity when reviewing those records.
There are some fundamental differences . . . (Score:2)
One example is the collection of pet information. The government, for reasons of animal control and public good, requires that you register with it the details of your pet's vaccinations. In Florida, those documents are registered with the County and thus become public records. This information includes, by statute, your name, address, telephone number where pet resides(whether or not unlisted), veterinarian, address and number, pet, name, breed, age, date of last vaccination, type of medication given.
This information has been used to obtain lists of veterinary practice customers, but also to obtain telephone numbers of individuals at home for scamming (complete with great human engineering information like, "How is fluffy?").
The point here is that Florida's public records act didn't permit privacy of such information -- the government took it as a condition of having the pet. It took three years of litigation and an act of the legislature to put a stop to these abuses.
I would really prefer that the State not be obliged or even permitted to make
It is one thing to hold me accountable for maintaining my privacy by not disclosing information I hold dear, or only to do so discriminately. It is another thing when the government obtains, collects or forceably extracts that information.
Accordingly, public information ought to be more restricted in how it is made available.
I propose (Score:2)
Re:they should be public (Score:3, Insightful)
I really think that this is an issue of power over the internet, not one of privacy .
Re:Actually, michael, I've heard you can (Score:1)
The other guy was redundant; I was first.