SPAM: -------------------- Start SpamAssassin results ---------------------- SPAM: This mail is probably spam. The original message has been altered SPAM: so you can recognise or block similar unwanted mail in future. SPAM: See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. SPAM: SPAM: Content analysis details: (5.7 hits, 5 required) SPAM: Hit! (2.7 points) Subject contains lots of white space SPAM: Hit! (1.0 point) Received via an IP in dynablock.njabl.org SPAM: [RBL check: found 71.157.88.138.dynablock.njabl.org.] SPAM: Hit! (0.4 points) Received via a relay in dnsbl.njabl.org SPAM: [RBL check: found 71.157.88.138.dnsbl.njabl.org.] SPAM: Hit! (0.6 points) DNSBL: sender ip address in in a dialup block SPAM: Hit! (1.0 point) DNSBL: Received via an IP in dynablock.njabl.org SPAM: SPAM: -------------------- End of SpamAssassin results --------------------- -------- Original Message -------- Subject: NJ Privacy Study Comm. Urges Phone & Special Address Disclosure Restrictions Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:40:24 -0400 From: J.D. Abolins <jda-ir@private> To: declan@private Declan, The proposal to have home addresses of law enforcement officers (active and retired) and other special classes exempt from NJ public records access echos the Kirkland City seeking to keep its police officer's info off a Web site posting court records. <http://www.politechbot.com/docs/justicefiles.opinion.051001.html> But, if I remember the Kirkland matter, it was over Web posting and did not go as far as to insist upon the redaction on paper information given to people seeking the public records. I agree with Grayson Barber's comment in the below article; the proposal would create an informational "a caste system". >From a technical standpoint, the differential exemption is also going to create a data management burden if government data and document systems will need to flag who's exempt. Ironically, the "holes" in who's home address is listed could out undercover cops and others. I don't have time today to explain some of the interesting gltiches in this approaches. Background Info: OPRA = NJ Open Public Records Act, see http://www.nj.gov/opra/ NJ Governor McGreevey's Executive Order #26 (13 Aug 2002 <http://www.nj.gov/infobank/circular/eom26.shtml>) directed the NJ Privacy Study Commission to examine the question of whether or not individual's home addresses and phone numbers are to be exempt from public disclosure. The report by the Commission has yet to be published on its Web site at http://www.nj.gov/privacy/ J.D. Abolins http://www.nj.com/news/times/index.ssf?/base/news-2/1089448550238510.xml <<< Panel urges phone, address restrictions Saturday, July 10, 2004 By KRYSTAL KNAPP Staff Writer TRENTON - Telephone numbers and some home addresses in government records should be barred from the public, the state Privacy Study Commission recommended yesterday. Under a proposal that will be submitted to the governor and the Legislature within two weeks, all home telephone numbers would be exempt from the state's Open Public Records Act. A special category of individuals such as law enforcement officials and judges would be excluded from having their home addresses disclosed in any public records - the single provision of the proposal that generated debate among commission members yesterday. The commission recommended that much of the decision-making on home addresses be placed in the hands of the governor and Legislature and suggested that they establish guidelines for "defining when and from which public records home addresses should be kept private." Similar to the idea of the national "do not call list," the commission suggested that individuals should be able to opt out of having their home addresses disclosed on public records. The commission also recommended: -- that public agencies should notify individuals that their home addresses may be disclosed pursuant to OPRA requests; -- that individuals should be permitted to provide an address of record for disclosure purposes in addition to their home address; and -- in the future, computer systems and applications should be programmed to collect but not disclose all home addresses and telephone numbers. [...] When Grayson Barber, a Princeton privacy lawyer who led the subcommittee on home addresses and phone numbers, suggested the provision exempting the addresses of certain categories of individuals should be struck from the report, she met with opposition from the rest of the commission. Barber argued that certain members of society should not be given a special privilege over others. "It's an abomination," she said. "It's creates a caste system." But other commission members, including chairman Larry Litwin, a professor of public relations, advertising and broadcast journalism at Rowan University, said people in certain professions such as law enforcement should be shielded from having home addresses disclosed because the practice could jeopardize their safety. The groups of individuals whose home addresses should be shielded include: active and former law enforcement personnel, correctional and probation officers, judges, attorney generals and their deputies, county and municipal prosecutors, crime victims, personnel from the state Division of Youth and Family Services and Division of Taxation, local government officials involved in revenue collection and enforcement and current and former code enforcement officers. The report suggested that "There may be other groups of individuals whose positions create a demonstrated safety risk not set forth in this list" and suggested they be exempted. The commission recommended not disclosing home numbers because it would be too difficult for records custodians to determine whether a telephone in a public record is unlisted. The numbers of people who are listed could be found through other means, such as phone directories, members said. <rest of article snipped> _______________________________________________ Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Jul 15 2004 - 09:13:55 PDT