APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2001-12 > 1008022274


From: "Richard A. Pence" <>
Subject: Re: [APG] CA birth and death indexes......
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 17:11:14 -0500
References: <F1373094C975D211A56100805FE6ED440B208D4F@hqmsgsrf01.autodesk.com>


Brian Mavrogeorge wrote:

> It is important that we understand -all- the issue. The
> objection is that birth information was available for
> living people and the information included mother's
> maiden name. Remember also that the California
> constitution includes a right of privacy.

Hello, Brian.

The Governor's Exectuitve Order halting sales of the birth
and death indexes mentioned the Constitutional right of
privacy.

The Constitution is on line and I was curious as to what the
"right to privacy" covers. Apparently, whatever someone says
it covers because all the constitution says in the list of
rights the citizens have is "the right to privacy." There is
no amplification whatsoever, only those words.

I am not sure what this means but if I were in the news
business in California, I'd sure want some lawyers checking
copy.

Let us take the case of a woman quoted in one of the early
stories on the California vital records. She is Sharon
O'Mara Hartman, who lives in "the Bay area." Ms. Hartman was
quoted as saying that when "personal information" is put on
the Internet, her privacy is infinged. The question I have
is, how could the placing of her birth record on line be an
infringement of her privacy? There are 24 million names in
the California birth index and not even Ms. Hartman's
closest friends would be able to tell which of those records
was her!

Well, at least not until she willingly told the Mercury News
who she was and, presumably, gave us her maiden name. Now,
it is possible for hier privacy to be infringed - and the
culprit is not RootsWeb or the California birth index, but
the Mercury News!

And, until the law in California is changed, a birth record
is not "personal information." It is public information.

Remember the lawyer quoted about 10 days ago by the San Jose
paper? The one from the Electronic Privacy Institute in
D.C., Mr. Hoofnagle? Mr. H. is now telling me that it's a
matter of degree. Until we had the Internet, it wasn't a
problem: "They are now remotely accessible by even the
simplest of Internet users. Previously, they were
considered 'practically obscure.' Public--but stored in
such a fashion that they were not accessible without a
deliberate attempt to obtain them."

So, what we are confusing - in California and elsewhere - is
not what is public or what is private but how easy it is to
get it.

As someone in this group said earlier - this is a mighty
slippery slope. Once you start pulling information off the
Internet because it _might_ be used for an illegal purpose,
you change the entire face of information availability.

And, as another denizen in this group wrote, you could shut
down the entire Internet and the incidence of "identity
therft" would not change one bit.

In his Executive Order, the Governor proclaimed that the
availability of the vital records posed "a risk" to
Californinians. I wonder when he is going to issue an
Executive Order halting the use of automobiles, which surely
pose a risk to the people of California that is thousand of
times greater than the supposed risk of someone stealing an
identity because of on-line birth records.

Those who would censor public records should be asked to
provide documentation that this information has, in fact,
been used for "identity theft."

There may be good reasons for not putting birth and death
indexes on line, but the "invasion of privacy" or "identity
theft" have not been demonstrated to be two of them.

As a genealogical tool, the loss of access to the California
birth records is something I can live with. In my PENCE
databases, I don't bother with anyone born before 1920 (and,
next year, 1930). But what bothers me a great deal is the
intellectual dishonesty and lack of substance in the
emotional arguments used by those trying to close the
records. These are the same tactics used by those who
advocate the banning of certain books least they "poison"
some child's mind!

Regards,
Richard



This thread: