Juggling Act: When Does Public Knowledge Cross the Line?
When a sex offender moves into town, neighbors (rightfully) want to know. It would also be helpful to have property deeds and transactions accessible. And wouldn’t it be comforting to have nearby convicted thieves’ or defrauders’ information available at a button click?
The truth is that each of these can be a matter of public record in virtually all areas of the U.S. Such data is mean to provide security and legitimate information to a given location’s citizens.
But some states are now arguing that public knowledge is expanding too far in the details of people’s lives, crossing the line from helpful information to an invasion of privacy.
Private Lives
The Des Moines Register reported on Jan. 3 that a panel of lawmakers has proposed blacking out certain personal information from public eyes. Iowa’s Identity Theft Prevention Committee strives to balance rights with privacy in what can only be termed a juggling act at best. Of concern to many Iowa citizens is that executing the information blackout could cost the state millions.
In support of its proposals, the committee pointed to complaints by landowners last year of the site IowaLandOwners.org, where Social Security numbers came up in addition to other information.
The site was shut down, but removing Social Security and other information from all records—an act known as redaction—could cost in excess of $2 million, a hefty tab many argue the state doesn’t have at its disposal.
How Far is Too Far?
The state of Georgia apparently sees the privacy matter a different way. In a move that came up against its own set of detractors, sex offenders are required to reveal certain internet access information to their local sheriffs’ office, including screen names and passwords.
The requirement began Jan. 1.
David Rush of Columbia County insisted, “It’s just another way for (sex offenders) to know that we are looking at them, adding, “As long as they’re obeying the law, they have nothing to worry about.”
But many residents argue with this idea, wondering how far such a revelation of privacy could go and whether it might eventually leak into the non-criminal private sector, with revealing information becoming a matter of public search.
Controversial Rulings
Each ruling is, in its own way, controversial and raises legitimate questions, according to experts. Do criminals have fewer rights in every sector of their activities than non-criminals? If so, where is the line drawn? If highly personal information is the public’s right to know, should revealing requirements also extend to those arrested but not convicted? How about individuals suspected of misdeeds but not yet in legal custody?
And beneath all this: what about the fact that revealing identifying information such as maiden names and Social Security numbers could lead to further criminal activity in the form of identity theft?
Toward the Future
No doubt about it: rulings on public records will remain a juggling act for some time to come and must be taken on a case-by-case basis, law experts say.
Meanwhile, both factions—right-to-know advocates and privacy defenders—must agree to disagree on their own states’ decisions or else form committees and organizations of their own to combat what they see as unfair practices. And it bears noting that that in the end, protection is the final aim of both factions.
“The point of (the Illinois information blackout proposal) is not to restrict access,” pointed out Steve Warnstadt (Sen.-D, Sioux City). “The point is to prevent identity theft and personal information from being disclosed from people who don’t have a legitimate reason to have that information.”
