Net Detective lets you check out
and so much more . . .
Click here
[Home]
[Up]
| |
Wider Access to U.S. Court Records Database Stirs Up
Controversy.
Author/s: Paula J. Hane
The U.S. federal courts are quickly moving to create electronic case
files and to provide public access to those files through the Internet.
The Judicial Conference of the United States has been studying the
privacy and security implications of vastly wider public access to these
court documents via a Web-based system called Public Access to Court
Electronic Records (PACER). In mid-November, the Administrative Office
of the U.S. Courts (http://www.uscourts.gov) solicited comments about
PACER from the public that were due by January 26, 2001.
According to Dick Carelli, a spokesperson for the Administrative
Office, 244 comments were received and then posted on the court's Web
site (http://www.privacy.uscourts.gov/matrix.htm). There will also be a
public hearing on March 16, from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., in Washington,
DC, at which a number of those who submitted comments will be invited to
testify. It's not surprising that the issue has attracted this flood of
opposing views from advocates of both privacy and First Amendment
rights.
Case file documents, unless sealed or otherwise subject to restricted
access by statute or federal rule, have traditionally been available for
public inspection and copying, but easy access to the information via
the Internet raises the stakes considerably for privacy and security
concerns. Many federal courts already place documents online through
PACER, but, under the current system, a user must log Onto the
appropriate PACER site for a particular court. Under the new PACER
system being developed, users will be able to search all courts from a
single site.
Individuals who seek a particular document or case file will need to
open a PACER account and obtain a login and password. Public access
through PACER will involve a fee of 7 cents per page of a case file
document or docket viewed, downloaded, or printed. Electronic case files
also will be available at courthouses' public computer terminals free of
charge.
The Privacy Foundation (http://www.privacyfoundation.org), an
advocacy group based in Denver, submitted extensive comments to the
Administrative Office, urging it to consider the ramifications of the
Internet availability of sensitive private data. The foundation
recommended that the office appoint a national commission to review the
balance between the public's right to know vs. an individual's right to
privacy in regard to court records. "Each court should retain
complete supervisory power over all court records with complete
authority to deny public access to files, or portions of files based on
present, well-established legal principles." The statement included
a recommendation to implement a method of electronically editing out
sensitive personal information--ranging from Social Security numbers to
medical records--from court filings. "Given the alarming rise in
identity theft, restrictions to sensitive-but-not-confidential
information is essential."
The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC;
http://www.epic.org), a public-interest research organization in
Washington, DC, filed a statement that supported broad public access to
electronic case files, tempered with certain privacy safeguards. For
example, the group stated: "Sensitive information required in a
bankruptcy filing, such as Social Security and account numbers, do not
impart a meaningful social or political message to the public. These
numbers are not needed by the public to evaluate the court system. In
this context, the privacy interests in keeping this information secure
outweigh the public interest in access.
Countering the privacy view was a lengthy statement issued by a
prestigious group of journalist organizations that included The
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the Society of
Professional Journalists, the Washington, DC Professional Chapter of the
Society of Professional Journalists, and the Radio-Television News
Directors Association. Basically, the group urged that the court permit
the same access via the Internet or other electronic technologies--for
all types of files--that citizens have when they walk into the
courthouse. The statement raised concerns that restrictive policies on
access to information would violate First Amendment law.
While the group did prefer an option that would restrict viewing of
Social Security, credit card, and other account numbers to only the last
four digits, it pointed out that although this information is freely
available in files that are at the courthouse, there has been no call
for secrecy in the records. The statement stressed the great benefits
for the public and the media to the improved access to court
information, and urged a policy of openness. It provided a number of
examples to illustrate that information contained in court records is of
vital public interest.
A single system that provides easy electronic access to U.S. court
records will be a boon for all. We can only hope that such a careful
study of the issues and options will lead to a wise decision that
balances the public and private interests. Watch here for reports of new
developments.
Paula J. Hane, co-editor with Barbara Quint for NewsBreaks, is
contributing editor of Information Today, a former reference librarian,
and a longtime online searcher.
COPYRIGHT 2001 Information Today, Inc.
in association with The Gale Group and LookSmart. COPYRIGHT 2001 Gale
Group
| |
|
