In a feat that may change what it means for a document to be public, more
and more municipalities are moving ahead with ambitious plans to put
government records on the Net.
In Arizona's Maricopa County, some
32 million public documents are now posted online, giving worldwide access
to real estate records and indexes
to superior court cases as well as birth, death, and marriage certificates.
In San
Diego County, documents recording real estate purchases made over the
last two years are available online, just the beginning of what officials
there promise will be a comprehensive program to put virtually all records on
the Internet. And at least one city in Canada has placed edited versions
of tax assessor information on its Web site.
Officials say the moves are part of their efforts to increase efficiency
and give citizens better access to government information. And by
eliminating the need to drive to a central location during limited office
hours, it is clear the agencies have succeeded in their mission.
For their part, civil libertarians generally applaud the moves, but warn
that the sites raise new risks to privacy that will require governments and
citizens to strike a delicate balance.
"I think we all know the value of public records to a democratic society,"
said Beth Givens, director of the San Diego-based Privacy Rights Clearinghouse. "On
the other hand, when you look at making public records available on the
Internet, you go beyond what the founders of this country had in mind."
Specifically, Givens and other privacy advocates worry that electronic
dissemination--especially over the Internet--makes public information
susceptible to "data mining," in which the records are culled and
cross-referenced with other electronic records. What emerges is a detailed
portrait of an individual that is constructed, for instance, from court
records documenting a nasty divorce case, liens placed on property, and
mountains of other government information available about the person.
Police officers, judges, and prosecutors also worry that the easier access
could make their addresses and other personal information available to
convicts--many of whom may still be serving prison sentences--or others seeking revenge. Terry Sills, president of a police union in Phoenix, said
public records have always posed a threat to police. But with records
available on the Internet, he adds, "the problem now is compounded tenfold."
Lawrrie Fitzhugh, a neighborhood activist in Phoenix, said, "The
initiative it takes for most people to [physically go to the recorder's
office] is very different from somebody casually having access to that
information on the Internet. I don't know where the line is, but it's there
somewhere." Both Fitzhugh and Sills criticize Maricopa county officials for
launching the project before first holding public discussions. "It just
happened," Fitzhugh said.
Officials in Victoria, British Columbia, experienced similar opposition
when they launched a Web site
in September 1996 that provided tax assessor information. On the first day
of operation, the site counted more than 1,500 hits, a British Columbia
official said. Before the site was launched, the tax assessor
typically received 25 to 30 requests for information per day.
"Of course [the Web site] has a legitimate reason to be there, but it's
the potential for abuse that concerned us," said Pam Smith, the research
and communications officer for British Columbia's information and privacy
commissioner. As a result of the opposition, Victoria officials removed the
information, and later posted it again with the names of property
holders removed.
Victoria's compromise, privacy advocates say, is exactly the kind of
approach that may be necessary when considering public information in the
digital age. In fact, electronic dissemination, which allows companies
anywhere in the world to access an individual's personal information with
the click of a button, may force governments and individuals to refashion
their public disclosure policies.
"The idea of 'public' has become much more full-blown in this environment
than it used to be," said David Sobel, legal counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center in
Washington. Public "used to mean that information was published in the
local community where a particular event occurred, but the Internet really
eliminates that local aspect. We now kind of have to come up with a new
concept for what it means when information is public."
Officials in Maricopa and San Diego counties say the response to their Web
sites by and large has been positive, although misgivings by San Diego
County judges has forced the county to delay the full implementation of its
Web site. Ultimately, both counties plan to make all public documents
available online, a move officials say is inevitable.
"Our
position is it [public disclosure] is required by law," said Greg Smith,
San Diego County's tax assessor. "We might as well make it as convenient
as possible."
Neither county has any plans to remove names or other
information from the public records posted online, officials said.
Instead, they say they are working with law enforcement officials and
others concerned about the online sites to shield their privacy. One
option, said San Diego's Smith, is for people to create legal partnerships
when purchasing property so the owners' names are not made public.
"Our system does not facilitate getting your hands on all the data in one
chunk," added Paul Allsing, director of Maricopa's electronic business
center. Officials from both counties add that it is no easier to cull and
cross-reference material accessed off the Net than it is to "data mine" by
pulling up information off a computer terminal at a government building.
In either case, they said, a person has to pull up one record at a time.