Kerry DoughertyRats.
For years I've been begging everyone to ignore those bellyachers over at the ACLU. Earlier this month, the General Assembly did just that.
Unfortunately, the American Civil Liberties Union is right this time.
For once, it isn't engaged in a wacky mission to protect the rights of prisoners to grow dreadlocks or to block before-meal blessings at VMI.
Nope. This time, the Virginia chapter of the ACLU is defending our privacy.
The ACLU wisely decided to oppose a piece of legislative junk: SB133. Still, it passed the General Assembly and was signed by the governor last week.
If you gave the bill a quick read - as the lawmakers apparently did - you might think it was a good idea.
The law says Virginians cannot "intentionally communicate another individual's Social Security number" publicly, even if that highly personal information came from a government Web site.
But that sidesteps a more important question: Why is the government posting our personal information on the Internet, anyway?
Virginia is requiring all localities to have many public records posted on the Internet this year. According to news reports, these documents include deeds, mortgages, wills, divorce decrees and much, much more. These records have always been public, of course. But until recently, you had to hoof it to the courthouse to read the juicy details.
Putting the information online was supposed to be a convenience. Instead, it's led to a massive invasion of privacy.
Many of these "public" papers contain highly personal data. Our Social Security numbers are often on there. So are our dates of birth, mothers' maiden names and other tidbits that would make identity thieves salivate.
Oddly enough, it is Virginia's loudest privacy rights advocate - Betty "BJ" Ostergren of Hanover County - who may be penalized the most by this ill-conceived piece of legislation.
Ostergren has posted the Social Security numbers of powerful public officials on her Web site for years, in an ironic attempt to goad them into deleting the information from the Internet. She calls that exercising her First Amendment rights.
"I'm only doing what they're doing," huffed Ostergren, who garnered national attention after she posted the Social Security number of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.
She said that instead of harassing her with pointless laws, Richmond lawmakers ought to figure out how to get all that personal information out of cyberspace.
"They're wasting time pointing their poison arrows at me when they've been spoon-feeding our information to identity thieves," she said Monday.
Kent Willis, executive director of the Virginia chapter of the ACLU, agreed with Ostergren. If the government can publish these numbers, so can we.
"The ACLU is a staunch supporter of laws that prevent the government from allowing Social Security numbers to appear on publicly accessible Web sites," he said. "But the government can't put the numbers online and then turn around and prevent the public from using those numbers."
Exactly.
Willis said SB133 is a transparent attempt to "mask" the General Assembly's failure to mandate the removal of personal information before records were ever posted in cyberspace.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but the ACLU is dead right.
Kerry Dougherty, (757) 446-2306, kerry.dougherty@cox.net
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Non Sequitur
The bill didn't sidestep the issue of accessibility of public records. It has nothing to do with it. The censoring of public records is a far different subject from someone collecting personal information into their own database and publishing it. They are both tough problems that have always existed but the could generally be ignored because obscurity minimized the impact. There's no turning back the clock on information technology so we have to deal with both but there's nothing to gain by confusing the two.
I love the hypocrisy!
IN a recent editorial, Kerry lambasted her daughter's physician for not disclosing private medical information to her [which is federal law under the HIPPA statute]. NOW, she praises the ALCU for upholding what I call a "DUH" law. OF COURSE your SSN shouldn't be readily accessible. The willful disclosure also falls under the HIPPA and Gramm Leach Bliley Acts as well.
So we go from "DUH" laws to "DUH" editorials. Privacy is privacy, Kerry…
ACLU 1, State 0
Just remember even a blind pig gets lucky and finds an acorn occassionally!
Of course
Kerry never looks at the big picture, for example that the ACLU takes on more issues than dreadlocks and saving grace. But then again, there is never been any question that Kerry is fickle and lacking a clue.
Kerry, you are a very shallow person.
The sheeple never seem to care unless it's their own lives are directly affected.