Canadian Privacy Czar Wants To Anonymize Court Records On the Web

An anonymous reader writes "The web is evil and must be stopped — because it makes public information too public. So says Canada's Privacy Commissioner. She wants to 'anonymize' court records by substituting initials for names. The Toronto Star quotes Jennifer Stodddart as saying 'The open court rule, which is extremely historically important, has now become distorted by the effect of massive search engines... Court decisions and other related documents, which contain all sorts of personal information, are now searchable worldwide, which was never intended when openness rules were devised.' All Stoddart's proposal would do is erect a minor barrier for the techno unsaavy. Researchers, reporters, geeks, and most teenagers would still be able to figure out who's who. Stoddart seems to believe only in an abstract notion of freedom and access — but only as long as not too many people use it and no one suffers. She cites the case of someone who is upset at reading the divorce case of her parents. Is Stoddart a danger or a menace? Or just clueless?"

Comments

Czar!?!

[thirty-seven]

"Canadian Privacy Czar"
There are no "czar" positions in Canada, even in slang terms. Yes, I know that it has become a popular term in US politics - drug czar , war czar , etc. It's really, really stupid in that context, and in a Canadian context it is additionally inappropriate.

Re:How about a Cease and Desist letter?

[stoolpigeon]

I wouldn't have a problem with my arrest for something being public, as long as it was just as public if I were found innocent.
 
A relative of mine built a storage shed in his back yard. A neighbor didn't like it and called the city. An inspector came out while he wasn't home, took incorrect measurements, and left a large, neon colored notice on the front of his house saying that he was in violation of city ordinances. He had them come out, showed them that they were wrong, and they said, "oh - sorry". He said, "Well, go tell all my neighbors." Of course they didn't.
 
A homeless man in Phoenix was picked up on suspicion of raping and killing a child a while back. They figured out pretty quickly that he didn't have anything to do with the child, but he did have other legal issues so he was kept in jail. That night it made the local news that he had been picked up in connection with the child's murder. He was beaten so badly he lost his spleen.
 
People who are accused of something are not necessarily guilty and I can see why they may not want it broadcast all over the world that they have been accused, when it is not easy to also broadcast their innocence later.
 
You can read about the guy who lost his spleen in this new times article that was written a bit after it all happened. It was all I could find, but this happened 8 years ago or so.