©
By Larry O'Dell
RICHMOND
A Virginia privacy advocate can post public records containing Social Security numbers of private citizens as well as government officials on her website, a federal appeals court ruled Monday.
The court agreed with B.J. Ostergren's claim that a 2008 state law prohibiting anyone from making Social Security numbers available to the public violated her First Amendment rights.
Ostergren posts the records on her website, TheVirginiaWatchdog.com, to publicize her message that governments are mishandling Social Security numbers and to prod them to correct the problem. Many of the documents are Virginia land records that court clerks have made available on government websites without redacting Social Security numbers.
The General Assembly passed legislation prohibiting Ostergren's practice, saying the state's interest in preventing identity theft trumps her First Amendment rights. A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed.
"The unredacted SSNs on Virginia land records that Ostergren has posted online are integral to her message," Judge Allyson Duncan wrote in the unanimous opinion. "Indeed, they are her message. Displaying them proves Virginia's failure to safeguard private information and powerfully demonstrates why Virginia citizens should be concerned."
The court also agreed that the state cannot punish Ostergren for posting on her website the same public records that the government makes available online.
"Ms. Ostergren's most powerful advocacy weapon has been to demonstrate to the public how bad a job the government is doing to protect our online privacy rights," said Kent Willis, executive director of the ACLU of Virginia, which represented Ostergren. "The government responded, but by trying to silence Ms. Ostergren."
The Virginia attorney general's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The case is not completely settled because the panel disagreed with U.S. District Judge Robert E. Payne, who had issued a ruling that generally favored Ostergren, on the scope of her First Amendment rights. The panel sent the matter back to him for revision.
Payne's ruling had allowed her to post only the Social Security numbers of Virginia legislators, court clerks and other public officials who are in a position to correct the problem - not the numbers of private citizens or government officials from outside Virginia. The appeals court said that was too limited.
"Under our First Amendment analysis, Ostergren's constitutional right to publish Virginia land records containing unredacted SSNs does not depend on the political status of people whose SSNs are compromised," Duncan wrote.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
BJ privacy
before most of you that make negetive comments about the decision and especially Ms.BJ have not read her web site www.thevirginiawatchdog.com Ms BJ is no liberal. She is a patriot that is looking out for all Americans. She wnats the state to stop putting our SSN numbers on the internet. So, she took drastic measures, I say thank you BJ.
She did all this a great expense to her. Money and time.
I know Ms, BJ and her husband and she is one of the smarted woman/people I have ever known.
So most negetive comments agaist BJ, don't be a Forest Gump.
Stupit is, is stupit does.
That first amendment is such a pain in the butt isn't it?
I would think that our AG would be with the 4th circuit on this case being the strict constitutionalist he is. We wouldn't want any of those pesky liberals interpreting the constitution on this issue would we?
That first amendment is such a pain in the butt isn't it?
I would think that our AG would be with the 4th circuit on this case being the strict constitutionalist he is. We wouldn't want any of those pesky liberals interpreting the constitution on this issue would we?
What's your SS#??
If it's no big deal...offer it up.
Thought so.
Way to go! See what just one person can do!
She should be commended for having the tenacity to take on this painstaking endeavor. The government seems to think that whatever they do is fine, regardless of how legal or ethical their behavior, but when a citizen copies their actions, woe be it to the citizen, and the lawsuits and court madness begins.
The same thing needs to happen to the judicial systems, both local and Federal. The average citizen would be appauled and rudely awakened if they had only a clue of what goes on in the courts on a day to day basis. The taxpayers get the huge bills for their ruthless, careless actions, and numerous people's lives are ruined, as a result of their unstopable power. America, wake up and pay attention, it could be you next! Yes, it does happen in America, the once land of the free, but now, the ever expanding police state.
When I grew up, we had role models to look up and aspire to. Who are the role models and examples our kids can look up to today? On any given day, we have a new saga at the Whitehouse, and/or in Congress. We pay the bills for their expensive, freedom forfeiting actions, and another expensive tax draining saga begins. It's time to take our country bac
HUH!!!
The logic behind this does not add up - This is like a peace advocate killing someone to demonstrate that killing is wrong!?!?! The logic behind this hurts my brain and insults my intelligence..
I was always taught that my rights end where yours begin - So where is my right to privacy protected by her violating my rights to privacy???
This is NUTS.
SA Altorre, your analogy
SA Altorre, your analogy does not apply. Murder is against the law. Publishing SSNs of private citizens is not against the law. The point is that it ought to be against the law, and Ms. Ostergren was trying to bring attention to that need. The Court ruled that it can't be against the law for Ms. Ostergren if the state does it.
and when did SHE ask my ok
I never asked her to "Defend My Rights" This is another example of someone "Who thinks they know What is Good for Me" - That type of argument justifies a whole range of issues that are addressed by wrong action. Like Prayer in Schools, Religious symbols on Government property , or "In God We Trust" on money. I just get very tired of other people thinking they know what is better for me than ME. Apply the law of the land - If the law is wrong - than change it - not the action that violates my right to privacy in the process.
But no matter - I will not convince anyone that supports this action who feel they know what is better for me than I have the ability to decide for myself.
I still think it is wrong for the State to do what they are doing- But I also think she is wrong as well.
Simple - 2 WRONGS DO NOT MAKE A RIGHT - Never have - never will
praise Ostergren and focus on the government officials
Ostergren is showing the failure of public records that have our identities. The postings are not just those that have to be FOIA but right on the website. If the officials whose social security numbers are being posted are upset then FIX THE PUBLIC RECORDS THAT ARE NOT REDACTED!!!!!
This is a classic case of shooting the messenger before the herald reads the message. Don't make public records less on the web, just take the time blacken over social security numbers before you, the government official scans it.
Read it again.
Let's see if we can review this case. State courts recklessly published the SSNs of private citizens. So the legislature of the "Commonwealth," instead of correcting the state's error of judgment, passed a law to punish the whistle-blower. The court merely analyzed her first amendment right to re-publish the numbers as a way to highlilght and protest the failure of the General Assembly to protect the common weal. Now, as to the dreaded ACLU, would any of you object to their donating their services if the General Assembly passed a law prohibiting anonymous comments on PilotOnline? By the way, SSNs can no longer be included in court orders but must be filed in the case and sealed by the court. That's Ms. Ostergren's point about what should be done with real estate records.