Is Your Email Address Public Data?

quackking writes "Are email addresses public records, accessible under public open-access laws in America? Up in Maine they are fighting about just this issue ..."

Comments

Whole article, slashdotting imminent

[Anonymous Coward]

E-mail address request snub has statewide implications

Associated Press

LAMOINE -- A resident's request for a list of all e-mail addresses on file at the Town Office could spark a statewide challenge about whether e-mail addresses are public information.

What Makes Central Maine Special!

The Maine Municipal Association has advised Town Administrator Stu Marckoon that e-mail addresses in the town's database are public records. About 200 Lamoine residents receive town notices by e-mail.

But Marckoon said Maine's Freedom of Access law does not expressly say e-mail addresses are public information, and that he wants to protect the privacy of residents. He has proposed a new town policy to protect the addresses unless their owners give written permission to release them.

"I feel I'm violating their trust if I release the e-mail addresses to any Tom, Dick or Harry who wants them," Marckoon said.

Lamoine resident Robert Sharkey last week requested all e-mail addresses in the town's computer. In his written request, Sharkey said he wanted the electronic addresses because he has "a need for corresponding with residents of Lamoine."

Marckoon sought the advice of the town's attorney, Anthony Beardsley, who told Marckoon he didn't think e-mail addresses were public records under Maine law. Marckoon said Beardsley recommended that the town develop a policy addressing the issue.

But Maine Municipal Association spokesman Michael Starn said e-mail writers should know that their addresses aren't confidential, even if they consider the release of those addresses an invasion of privacy.

"Privacy just isn't there," he said. "People will view this as an invasion of privacy, but it's just a fact of life with the way communication has changed."

Attorney Gordon Scott of Bangor, former longtime counsel for the Maine Press Association, said he has no doubt that towns cannot withhold e-mail addresses. He was unaware of the issue arising in any other Maine town.

Marckoon said the town sends e-mail notices, on things such as dog license renewals and property tax notices, to residents who fill out a form and give their e-mail address.

When Marckoon sends e-mail notices, he uses a "blind carbon copy" computer command to prevent one resident from seeing the e-mail addresses of the other recipients.

Under Marckoon's proposed e-mail policy, all e-mails received or sent by town officials would be public documents. But the e-mail addresses of residents who signed up for electronic notices would not be divulged unless they give their written permission.



(Copyright Infringer: Yes, those box thingies were in the original. Probably a Mozilla/IE-ism, or some kind of conversion problem.)

The issue

[Apreche]

Spam is the issue here. E-mail addresses, house addresses, and phone numbers should all be treated the same way. I wouldn't unlist my phone number if there weren't telemarketers. And I wouldn't mind having the whole world know my e-mail address if it wouldn't get spammed.

Open gov't

[MacAndrew]

The default rule should be that public data is open to the public, Mr. Cheney notwithstanding. There are exception such as statutorily-granted privacy, (gov't) doctor-patient privilege, national security, executive privilege (narrow!), and so on. In general, though, we should expect such records to be open when we go looking for them and when we turn over data to them. I don't see a reasonable expectation of privacy UNLESS the gov't assured me of one; and I wouldn't give them an email address of any value to me without assurances. If the gov't gave such assurances falsely, they should at least purge the data they have, or be liable for damages.

I do think such records should probably be protected, but by law. There were some nasty problems, for example, when states such as California were not just releasing driver's license data, but selling it for profit. In CA, and at least one other place, this led to stalking/murder, such as by someone who knew only a license plate.

But generally, we should expect gov't to be open by default -- we pay for the system, we gets the fruits -- as always, IMHO....

Re:Open gov't

[nlvp]

I agree, this is just an example of new territory. Nobody's ever asked for this before, and so they're thinking, "is this appropriate?" If it isn't, then they need to legislate, but just because this Sharkey fellow is the first person to come up with the request doesn't mean he should be exempt from the laws that are passed in reaction to his request.

Legislators don't generalise laws if they deem it to be inappropriate, they need to acknowledge (or not) that email is different to regular mail addresses on the basis that the cost-free nature of emailing an address means that should that address become public knowledge, the address itself may become unusable quite quickly.

Hopefully, common sense will prevail and legislators will decide that people that provided their email addresses had a reasonable presumption of privacy, or that if you want to contact them through this method, then you have to go through an authorized third party that will forward certain types of communication (ie not be a spam-forwarder); perhaps neither of these options is the right one, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that just implementing open access policies and letting anyone get access to these email addresses is inappropriate.

Since the article says that the email addresses are used to communicate council business to residents, we can say that the address owners had a reasonable presumption that that was what the address was going to be used for, not for whatever Mr. Sharkey's unstated purposes are.

The law in question

[Lumpish Scholar]

[Lamoine, Maine] Town Administrator Stu Marckoon ... said Maine's Freedom of Access law does not expressly say e-mail addresses are public information

The law is here. It says:

The term "public records" shall mean any written, printed or graphic matter or any mechanical or electronic data compilation from which information can be obtained, directly or after translation into a form susceptible of visual or aural comprehension, that is in the possession or custody of an agency or public official of this State or any of its political subdivisions and has been received or prepared for use in connection with the transaction of public or governmental business or contains information relating to the transaction of public or governmental business, except [exceptions listed, none relevant]

It's open to interpretation, of course, but I see the problem.

Also from the newspaper article:

Lamoine resident Robert Sharkey last week requested all e-mail addresses in the town's computer. In his written request, Sharkey said he wanted the electronic addresses because he has "a need for corresponding with residents of Lamoine."

Insert joke here.

The request certainly does not adhere the spirit of the law, which is intended to keep decision making "transparent." It may be in line with the letter of the law, though.

they aren't public in Canada

[a voice in the crowd]

under the recently enacted Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), email addresses are private information.