profession
in 1994, I developed a keen interest in public records access. Authoring
the Guide to Criminal Offender Public Records in 1996, it was the
first comprehensive publication written on the topic of obtaining
publicly releasable inmate data from Departments of Correction (DOC)
and verification of probation and parole through those offices nationwide.
In 1998, learning that the Virginia DOC published the Virginia Parolee
Address List, I also became aware that this valuable public document
languished in relative obscurity – as it was not publicized
and only available by paid monthly subscription. Providing the list
to local libraries as a community service--and publicity stunt,
doing so created somewhat of a furor in the Metropolitan DC area.
Issuing a news release announcing the lists’ (now) easy access,
my actions invited newspaper articles, local television and radio
talk show appearances debating the issue of convicted criminal’s
privacy versus the public’s right to know with a defense attorney
and representative of the ACLU.
Responding to a Washington Post article bemoaning the fact that
much personal identifying information can be gleaned through Internet
research, my Letter to the Editor was titled “Records Protect
Us”. In 2001, I participated in a meeting held at the Federal
Trade Commission where national investigative industry leaders met
with top privacy advocates to discuss information privacy issues,
this at a time when the term private investigator was used synonymously
with identity theft.
The Virginia legislature has slowly closed public inspection of
certain court documents (such as the DD214) and restricted electronic
access to land records with more privacy bills introduced into the
General Assembly’s this year. Much of the current privacy
legislation resulted from an identity theft study commissioned by
the Attorney General’s Office that made privacy measure recommendations
including redacting, restricting or eliminating personal identifying
|
(and
yet to be defined) 'highly private' or ‘embarassing’
information contained in court documents.This year I served on
a panel discussing Online privacy/Land records at this year’s
Virginia Coalition of Open Government’s (VCOG) conference.
Other panel participants were; The Honorable Samuel Nixon (General
Assembly Delegate- (R) and special court record access study committee
member) Chris Hoofnagle (Deputy Counsel, Electronic Privacy Information
Center) Arnold Thielan (MIXNET) and The Honorable Gary Clemens
(Loudoun County Clerk of the Court). The discussion was moderated
by Tom Moncure, (Assistant Attorney General and member of FOIA
Advisory Council).
Members of the audience (and sponsors) included, Freedom Forum/First
Amendment Center, various regional newspapers, LexisNexis, Virginia
Professional Chapter, Society of Professional Journalists, VA
Association of Broadcasters, The Associated Press, Thomas Jefferson
Center for the Protection of Free Expression, Virginia Library
Association, Media General Cable and local television networks.
Held under the domed grandeur of Thomas Jefferson’s Rotunda
at the University of Virginia, the discussion, according to organizers,
went exceedingly well. Whereas the below talking points are neither
new, nor original, I felt they bore repeating just the same.
1. From an occupational standpoint, investigators cannot imagine
personal identifying information such as social security numbers,
dates of birth, addresses etc., becoming redacted, restricted,
or eliminated from court documents. That while social security
numbers were not intended as a national identifier, they were
allowed to become as such. And until another system can created–
lack of identifiers on land and other records will create a society
of unidentifiable persons thereby impeding the administration
of justice and, as another panelist noted, would adversely affect
commerce, such |
as with the real estate industry.
Note: Recently someone brought to my attention that in an attempt
to verify identity under The Patriot Act, a mortgage company seriously
questioned the use of a PO Box used in lieu of residential address
on a Virginia driver’s license, thus delaying loan application
approval.
2. Regarding the theory that identity theft occurs from access to
court records, it is still unclear as to ‘who is’ the
real enemy? Whereas we read (and hear testimony) about how identity
theft could, might, may or possibly result from access to court
documents actual victims seem nonexistent
Note: Chris Hoofnagle of the Electronic Privacy Information Center,
supported this position saying: 'There is little to no indication
that identity theft results from court record access" Hoofnagle
assigned much of the blame to the consumer financial industry’s
acceptance of card applications and the granting of credit without
the thorough and proper identity verification.
3. Personally and adamantly opposed to 'paparazzi style' privacy
advocacy generating undue public concern based on 'what ifs' it
was suggested that time, and energy is better spent educating the
public about the beneficial uses of personal identifying information
4. Legislating identity theft prevention based on unproven theories
and tampering with information contained in the public record system
will most likely result in mayhem. Citing the 1996 Amendment of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act requiring the consumerization of third
party investigations, delivered was the ominous warning that our
industry remains engaged in the battle to rectify the problem nine
years later.
Deborah Aylward is serving her second term as President of the Private
Investigators Association of Virginia; is Chairman of HomeFires
Ltd., Professional Investigators for Missing Children and the senior
private investigator representative appointee to the Private Security
Services Advisory Board to the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice
Services |
