The New York Times The New York Times National October 13, 2002  

Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
- Columns
Politics
Business
Technology
Science
Health
Sports
New York Region
Education
Weather
Obituaries
NYT Front Page
Corrections
Opinion
Editorials/Op-Ed
Readers' Opinions


Features
Arts
Books
Movies
Travel
Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
New York Today
Crossword/Games
Cartoons
Magazine
Week in Review
Multimedia/Photos
College
Learning Network
Services
Archive
Classifieds
Book a Trip
Personals
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Member_Center
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
Newspaper
Home Delivery
Customer Service
Electronic Edition
Media Kit
Community Affairs
Text Version

Business DSL experts FREE set-up & equip.


Find More Low Fares! Experience Orbitz!


Highest in Satisfaction 3x by J.D. Power!


Join Ameritrade. Get 25 commission-free trades.


Go to Advanced Search/Archive Go to Advanced Search/Archive Symbol Lookup
Search Optionsdivide
go to Member Center Log Out
  Welcome, malak

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.

Advertisement


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."





Judges Ease Surveillance Of Web Use  (September 20, 2001)  $

Plan for Web Monitoring in Courts Dropped  (September 9, 2001)  $

PUBLIC LIVES; To One Judge, Cybermonitors Bring Uneasy Memories  (August 18, 2001)  $

Monitoring of Judiciary Computers Is Backed  (August 14, 2001)  $



Doing research? Search the archive for more than 500,000 articles:




E-Mail This Article
Printer-Friendly Format
Most E-Mailed Articles
Reprints

Wake up to the world with home delivery of The New York Times newspaper.
Click Here for 50% off.


Home | Back to National | Search | Corrections | Help | Back to Top


Copyright The New York Times Company | Permissions | Privacy Policy
E-Mail This Article
Printer-Friendly Format
Most E-Mailed Articles
Reprints


Topics

 Alerts
Computers and the Internet
Privacy
Courts
Create Your Own | Manage Alerts
Take a Tour
Sign Up for Newsletters


Advertisement
Here's a Hot Deal From Dell
Get a FREE printer or digi-cam or MP3 player with the purchase of select Dell PCs. Offer ends 10/15/02. Click for details.



You can solve today's New York Times crossword puzzle online. Click here to learn more.



SEARCH FOR SINGLES
I am a Seeking a
Create a free photo profile
Contact others now!
(under $25/month)
Read dating success stories