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".

Comments

pillars of privacy and public records

[pjones]

Robert Ellis Smith of Privacy Journal lists what he calls the 6 Pillars of Privacy (interestingly enough Senators that I've heard speak drop the last two and you'll see why):

1. Notice (you need to know information is being collected)
2. Choice (you need to know if and how you can opt out or in; for government info this you may not have an option and you should be informed of that as well)
3. Access (you should be able to access any information collected about you; in government records this is covered by FOIA, but business is not so covered in all cases)
4. Security (you should know if others are allowed access and in cases of no public access that restriction should be made secure)
5. Accuracy (you should be able to demand that the information kept about you be accurate; interestingly enough this is one that's been dropped)
6. Restricted Use (no unathorized secondary use of such data. South Carolina cannot sell its Drivers License database says the Supreme Court, but again businesses are not always so restricted)

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).