your SS number: is it secure?
Brent Finnegan -- July 3rd, 2008
Earlier this week, the Times-Dispatch ran a story on a woman who is trying to keep Social Security numbers private by making the SS numbers of public officials, well… public. Today I noticed that some former Rockingham County officials were included on her list.
Authorities have agreed for now not to enforce a new state law aimed at Betty “BJ” Ostergren, an activist who has been fighting to keep Social Security numbers private.
In her campaign to alert the public, Ostergren has posted the numbers of some state officials on her Web site, www.TheVirginiaWatchdog.com.
Identity thieves and others can use Social Security numbers to perpetrate frauds.
Ostergren obtained the numbers from government Web sites.
The new law bars the dissemination of Social Security numbers from any public records, even ones on government Web sites.
Ostergren is challenging its constitutionality.
The law was to take effect today, the same day court clerks must make land records available on the Internet, though some already have.
Land records could include divorce decrees or other documents with Social Security numbers. To gain access to the records, one needs to register and pay a small fee [...]
“The state is doing something that is extremely troublesome to her and to me and it ought to be to every citizen,” said [Judge] Payne, referring to requiring the information to be available on the Internet without forcing the clerks to redact Social Security numbers.
The list of (mostly former) public officials and their SS numbers on Ostergren’s website includes Brenda Huffman, Hallie Dinkel, and Phoebe Orebaugh.
Ostergren’s case begs the question: should the state be allowed to disseminate private information (such as Social Security numbers) while private citizens are barred from doing the same?
I see the point Ms. Ostergren is trying to make. And it’s a very important one, however, I think her noble intentions aside, the WAY she’s going about this is wrong.
The government DOES need to make this information more secure, and at the very least, black out social security numbers on these documents before they are available to the public, but the difference between what they’re doing and what she is doing is the key here.
You have to jump through a few hoops to get this information. You have to be requesting a specific record, make an official request and pay a fee. And then you only get access to that one record.
On the other hand, Ms. Ostergren is intentionally taking a large number of social security numbers, gathered from various documents and records, and then publishing that information in one places, thereby making it available to whoever might wish to take it and use it.
I do think something needs to be done about ensuring that our identities are protected even while maintaining access to public records, but this is most definitely NOT the way to address that issue, and I agree with the action taken.
I think in the matter of the records, no one should be giving out someone’s social security number. I think whether it’s a hard-copy of a record, or a PDF file that’s being viewed on line, the SSN’s should be blacked out.
I spoke with BJ years ago about this issue. She has spoke at many committee meetings and contacted almost every legislators. She told them she was going to do this if they continued making these documents available on the net.
And that makes it ok? I think not.
It has done a pretty good job of exposing the problem to the light of day, regardless of approach.
True enough, David, but I look at it this way…if I went to this site and found my information out there, displayed as she has? While I’d be irritated at the agency that let her have access to that info and wanting to see what could be done about it (no doubt!) I’d be WAY more upset at her for putting my information out there for anyone to see, even without having to go through the legwork of requesting that info as a public record. In fact, I’d probably be contacting her directly and taking measures to have it taken down.
Enforcing the law is the best way to deal with this … but only if they grandfather Ostergren and arrest some clerks. Civil (and pure) libertarians should quiver at the idea of an individual being charged with a crime for something a bureaucrat does as part of his job, not out of necessity, but out of bad practices and habits created in a less technological time.
Brooke
Good points. I’d be pissed but sometime you’ve gotta break some eggs, or in this case some political balls.
I have a subscription to uslandrecords.com where I can access the recorded court documents online (for real estate purposes). I was a bit confused to see this message when I performed a search a few days ago…
“We are currently in the process of redacting Social Security Numbers from the online records. Searches in the land records will be limited to the dates that have already been redacted.”
I guess I was confused because when I looked up “redact” on dictionary.com I learned that it means:
1. to put into suitable literary form; revise; edit.
2. to draw up or frame (a statement, proclamation, etc.).
So — I suppose this means that they are getting rid of the social security numbers on the recorded documents in the Rockingham County Circuit Court? Seems like a good step, though apparently this may not be happening in other localities.
Redact originally meant edit. It’s since become governmentese, especially in Freedom of Information cases, for running a black magic marker over the most interesting parts of a document before it’s released to the public.
Betty “BJ” Ostergren has made it personal. When you see that people info is available it’s easy to for get that we are the people. So way to bust some egss, balls, egos or whatever it is that needs busted to get some of our privacy back.
ACLU: Court Upholds Privacy Advocate’s Right to Post Public Records on Website
Thanks for the update.