Slashdot Mirror
How Public Should Public Records Be?
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".
This is a real issue. I'm amazed what I can find about people on the Web already. Correlating bits of innocent data can give you a surprisingly complete picture.
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.
InstaPundit! Ahead of the Curve Since 30 Minutes Ago
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 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.
There's an assumption being made:
"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!
-- Is "Sig" copyrighted by www.sig.com?
If they are realy public, why shouldn't they be on the internet? In fact the site above is indeed an invasion of privacy, but because it is disclosuring the address of people, not because it is disclosiring wheter people are registred voters or not. If the site response were :
:-)
:-/
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.
[]'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins
^[:wq
I don't know. There is someone at my work place that has been going through a divorce over the past year. She likes having the court records online so she can check it daily to see what is going on and where the paperwork has stopped.
...
.. I found my sister's traffic tickets (where she actually had to goto court) .. things on my brother.. things on other friends .. etc.. All in the comfort of my own home.
.. people start pulling information for no reason other than just to see whats out there.
.. and maybe even having stuff on the internet is good too .. but I think if records are public .. shouldn't there be a record of who has looked at the 'public records'? Isn't that public infomation too ??
.. that way at least there's a small stepping stone to prying through people's information .. and since the information about ME I should know who looked at my information.
...
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
Back in college I worked for this guy as a PC tech. He had this great idea of building a system which would link all the property to a database that would in turn allow you then to either click on the map and pull up all the records for the parcel of land or type in a name and see all the property that person owned.
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?
III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIII
Since when is it news that you can get property records online?
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).
"I'll just chip in a bit for RedHat: I actually have that installed on my university machine." - Linus, '95
I just went to the site (http://www.registeredtovoteornot.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.
Monochrome - Probably the UK's largest internet BBS
For example:
It doesn't take long to come up with 10 or 15 names.
A quick Google 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.
i know that 1800ussearch searches nearly all public databases for information about a certain subject. in most coubntries in Europe thats illegal... hwo do you cope with that in america?
".Sig Stealer" was here
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).
Certified Black Helicopter Pilot *** Unwitting Dupe of One World Gov'ment
On http://www.registeredtovoteornot.com , there is a 5 step process. The last step allows you to post comments in the 'guestbook'. Problem is is that the guestbook in fact sticks the comments instantly right on to the main page of the website! This wouldn't be a problem, but several less-informed people have put up requests to be removed from the database - and included their date of birth, full name, address, Soc. sec. # etc!! Just reload the page every couple of minutes and you can see it happening in real time.. good if you want to do some identity stealing, not so good for the unwitting people who post the comments :/
Moo.
And just how 'public' should the public library be? Privacy is not really an issue here since the records are available at most libraries and county municipal facilities. Just what are these people trying to prevent? Anyone with half a brain and an ounce of determination can find these records.
I really think that this is an issue of power over the internet, not one of privacy .
I'm glad to see this issue finally coming to the fore. The legal prescidents mentioned in the article have pretty much set the foundation on this issue already. I have somewhat mixed feelings on this issue, for example, the online availability of detailed public records (including personally identifiable contact information, etc.) has made things like geneology MUCH easier, but the convenient availability of this information to a worldwide audience has a tremendous potential for abuse. In the more specific case, I've never felt my political affiliations should be public record at all (as, they reflect on my political beliefs, which are private) but since they are public record, there is no basis to prevent their distribution as far as I can see.
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
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
The idea of "practical obscurity" is that you can find out individual records that you're looking for, but you can't just go and get all of the records. This effectively prevents data mining while allowing access to direct information of public record.
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.
This is nothing. I work for a company that provides computer services and software for county records offices, which is where things like deeds and mortgages are registered with the county. Land owner's signatures, and sometimes even social security numbers are public information, and have been for quite some time. Anyone can go into the county office, and for a couple of bucks walk out with a copy of someone's mortgage.
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
Soccer Goal Plans
If you visit the website now, you might notice that you get redirected to the EFF. Apparently when you post comments, it doesn't check what you type in. A few lines of javascript later (hehe), and the site looks like it's h4x0r3d.
Great job e-ThePeople!
Great job.
Black holes are where the Matrix raised SIGFPE
I try going to
http://www.registeredtovoteornot.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.
In Soviet Russia...michael would be rotting in Siberia!
Always a hallmark of a well-written site. Taking input from a user and spitting it back verbatim is NEVER a good thing.. there are plenty of worse things people can do with that than just redirecting you to a different page..
I do not think that, when they set the rules for publicc access to public records, they knew the internet was coming.
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?
Fish! LipHo
I Just mark "Independant".
Carl G. Jung
--
"With one breath, with one flow, You will know Synchronicity" -La Policia
When I went to registeredtovoteornot.com (at 09:20 EST) it popped up a dialog box that read "This site has been slashdotted. Please move on", clicking "OK" redirected back here.
Best Slashdot Co
It might be helpful to consider what the public actually needs to know in deciding what information should be available in any form (paper or electronic). Various government agencies need to collect personal information about the consituents it serves. This is unavoidable. So the question becomes who needs to have that information and when is having that information available in the public interest.
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.
Now, if you don't like it, tell your Mayor/Councilman/StateRep/Governor/Congressman/Se
Carl G. Jung
--
"With one breath, with one flow, You will know Synchronicity" -La Policia
Traditionally, one has always had to make the "trip across town" to the local town/city hall or state/federal building. This has limited access only to those who were somewhat determined to get the information (ie for lawsuits and other conflicts).
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.
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.
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
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. 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.
Exterminating your personal information is probably impossible. It's probably better to generate as dense a fog of contradictory and misleading information about yourself as possible.
InstaPundit! Ahead of the Curve Since 30 Minutes Ago
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.
Laws affecting technology will always be bad until enough techies become lawyers.
If it's public, put it on the web. The means of distribution should not be confused with the security level of the document. If it's public, put it on the web, otherwise, don't. I think it's pretty underhanded to call something public and then not provide a reasonable and convenient means for public viewing.
~ now you know
I think the concept of "too public" is completely bogus. It is actually WORSE to allow access to public records in crippled ways only. In a nutshell, knowledge is power and a system where data is difficult to get citizens are at a tremendous knowledge power inequity. I support anything that moves power to citizens.
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.
That's the quote I was mis-quoting! Thanks.
Best Slashdot Co
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?
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
Well, on one hand, they are Public records... that's pretty clear. Public does mean Public.. why should I have to inconvenience myself by driving 3 counties over to get some files at city hall, when I could just look it up on the internet from anywhere?
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.
Hey,
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
"Goodness me, how unlike the FBI to abuse the trust of the American public." -- The Onion
The State of Connecticut until recently maintained a registry of sex offenders which was accesible online. It was an extension of the "Megan's Law" idea of letting citizens known when a child molester lives next door to you. You could search the database by location and be presented with a list, complete with addresses and photos, of area registered sex offenders.
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.
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.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Hey,
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. 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
"Goodness me, how unlike the FBI to abuse the trust of the American public." -- The Onion
1. Any record that you could normally see, or have the "right" to see, is made public via the Internet.
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.
between private entities collecting information from and about you and the government collecting information therefrom: the Government gets to TELL you what it wants to collect, and you have no choice but to secede from the Union, or accede to the invasion of privacy.
.gif photographs of me available along with drivers license information on the net without my consent.
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.
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.
I agree that in this case candidates should have free access to the addresses of relevent registered voters, but is it necessary to also have the names rather than just the addresses? This also relates to the website where one can find out if someone is a registered voter. The address is unnecessary information that can be abused. The question is simply is Jane Doe a registered voter, not where does Jane Doe live. Also I think that access to the addresses of registered voters should be restricted to those who have a civic interest in having that information. This would prevent the potential for mass marketing campaigns based on address lists of registered voters.
that access to publicly available personal information be allowed, as long as those seeking the information also identify themselves and go on record as having looked at it.
In most areas you have to PAY ....
And what was it about the word "FEE" that you didn't understand?
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.