[Reader-list] Easy Access to Public Records Online Raises Privacy Questions

[Harsh Kapoor]

The New York Times
October 13, 2002  


Easy Access to Public Records Online Raises Privacy Questions
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

CINCINNATI, Oct. 12 ‹ Before the Internet, public records were 
essentially private because of their obscurity ‹ they sat gathering 
dust in courthouses across the land. Now governments are examining 
what information should be made public on the World Wide Web and 
whether different rules should apply to electronic documents.

Since the late 1990's, courts have posted records online to manage 
cases more efficiently and provide easier access. But complaints have 
followed.

Crime victims, jurors and witnesses fear that assailants can easily 
identify and find them. Others worry about identity theft. Former 
inmates want their pasts hidden, not publicized. Divorced couples 
grumble that their neighbors now know their business.

Jim Moehring knows firsthand the pros and cons of making public court 
records available online.

A general manager at Cincinnati's hockey arena, Mr. Moehring has used 
the Hamilton County court's Web site to check out potential 
employees. He has even turned away a few because of what he found.

But someone used the site to get Mr. Moehring's Social Security 
number and other personal details from a 1996 traffic ticket, opening 
seven credit cards in his name and charging $11,000.

"It was absolutely terrifying," Mr. Moehring said. "I got smoked in a 
bad way. The information is way too accessible."

Though officials knew records would be made more available, "there 
was an underestimation of the impact that was going to have on the 
individuals whose documents now were online," said John Bessey, a 
Franklin County judge and chairman of the Ohio Supreme Court's 
technology committee.

This month, a coalition that includes the National Center for State 
Courts in Williamsburg, Va., is to recommend guidelines for states 
drafting online policies.

The federal court system decided last year that documents in civil 
and bankruptcy cases, but not criminal cases, should be available 
electronically without personal information like Social Security 
numbers, birth dates and names of minors.

The Florida Supreme Court is considering a moratorium on online court 
records while lawmakers review a 2000 Florida law that requires 
courts to post by 2006 scanned images of all official records.

Other states, including Ohio, New York, Arizona and Wisconsin, have 
task forces studying the issue. But some fear lawmakers might use the 
Internet as an excuse to deny the public access to information 
off-line.

"I'm deeply suspicious of anyone tinkering with open records laws 
because they're usually doing it for a specific self-serving reason," 
said Timothy Smith, director for the Ohio Center for Privacy and the 
First Amendment at Kent State University. The better solution, he 
said, would be to limit the amount of personal information that many 
public documents require.

Randal Bloch, a divorce lawyer in Cincinnati, often hears complaints 
about privacy from her female clients. Most are concerned, Ms. Bloch 
said, that criminals may surf the Web for names and ages of children, 
their addresses and the layouts of their houses.

She now asks judges to prohibit her clients' cases from being posted 
on the Internet.

"People don't have good intentions, and the county is laying a road 
map for them," Ms. Bloch said. "It goes beyond stolen identity. It 
speaks to personal safety."