At least two state representatives believe that obfuscating court records is more important than removing or "blacking out" your social security, financial account numbers, driver’s license numbers and other personal information from Wisconsin’s public databases. Proposals to limit and redact sensitive taxpayer information from city and county public records have been largely ignored by the legislature.
Representative Marlin Schneider
Representative Marlin Schneider (D-Wisconsin Rapids), who is considered a privacy advocate, and Rep. Fred Kessler (D-Milwaukee) introduced legislation to limit and track access to Wisconsin Circuit Court online records (wcca.wicourts.gov). They want to filter what records are available to the public, effectively creating a separate government database and a filtered public database whose access will be monitored by big brother.
Ironically, the proposal to track who accesses the Consolidated Court Automation Programs (CCAP) of the Wisconsin Circuit Court Access (WCCA) is tainted as a violation of personal privacy.
While the database, affectionately known as CCAP, contains disputable errors, it does not contain the type of sensitive information available on city and county databases that can be used by thieves to commit identity theft, which has increased 29% in Wisconsin.
Proponents of the CCAP legislation allege that the database is used by landlords and employers to discriminate against applicants.
Applications for employment and housing often ask if the applicant has been convicted of a felony. CCAP is an inexpensive solution to verify that the applicant has not falsified the application. Certainly an employer or landlord could deny the application if it was falsified by not listing convictions. Denying an application based on falsification is not discrimination.
If CCAP shows that a felony was drug related, a responsible law-abiding landlord would grant the application, if the applicant meets all other criteria for tenancy. However, as a responsible citizen, the landlord might also keep an eye out for drug-related activities to protect other tenants and neighbors.
Limiting access to or obscuring CCAP does not prevent background checks from being performed for lawful purposes. It just raises the cost of doing so by requiring landlords and employers to go through private investigators, which is lawful. My business is listed with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners to perform third party verifications and background checks on applicants for insurance licensure in all 50 states. My firm is also listed by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to perform E-Verfy. In such cases, investigators use consolidated national databases to access appropriate background information. Landlords and small business owners may not be able to afford the fees associated with hiring an investigative firm or an attorney to do a simple background check.
Earlier this year my firm determined that county and city governments in Wisconsin were allowing unrestricted online access to public records that contain social security numbers, mortgage account numbers and driver’s license numbers. Isthmus recently covered that story. I proposed legislation to put an end to this negligent government practice. I assembled an panel of privacy, information security and law enforcement experts to brief Wisconsin senators, representatives and staffers last May. Representative Schneider and over 20 others attended the briefing.
Paradoxically, this effort was met with resistance. One staffer filed a frivolous police complaint when I illustrated how easy it was to pull the ambivalent staffer's social security number, mortgage information, date of birth and driver’s license number off of public databases that are accessible to anyone on the planet.
Compared to the estimated 11 million CCAP records available on court cases, there are hundreds of millions of public records that may contain the social security number, mortgage account numbers, driver’s license numbers and other sensitive information of current and former Wisconsin residents. The sensitive information, openly available online, can be used by thieves to commit identity theft and various types of fraud as well as to stalk, harass and discriminate against innocent residents of Wisconsin.
What is more important to you, protecting your identity or controlling access to court records?
Comments
I am a little confused— I believe court records should be open, but no one needs to know personal details: names are sufficient. Why SSNs and drivers' licence's numbers et alia are even in court record– especially trial records– seems unfathomable. Landlords and employers are probably only interested in arrest & conviction data, not testimony— besides they know SSNs anyway.
Taxpayer info though is much more sensitive— and data other than name and address could be blocked.
Mr Campana your article here is laced with certain emotional triggers.. in my opinion you might discard them for a even more acerbic, even patronizing tone. However more personally– and this is a matter of public record– my being a convicted drug dealer has proven to be a gateway to expressing sincerity with bankers, prospective employers et alia in demonstrating my conviction [pun intended!] to get on with my life.
I would never consider omitting such data— unless they didn't ask..
No sale with me either, Joe. What you describe as "court records" are in fact "public records". They do not belong to the court but to the people (the public.) As a Licensed Private Investigator, I use this information to positively identify thieves, fraudsters, sex offenders, etc. who prey on the young, the weak, and the old. Many such knee-jerk laws are passed by irresponsible legislators admittedly with good intentions but instead of being "privacy protections" they are quite simply "criminal protection acts." Can we suppose Joe and his newspaper would be willing to make all government records "private" and banned from the press as well?
Greg and irvn, I think you misread the article. Campana is opposed to the restrictions on court records. Maybe you are confused in that separately he suggests that government should be concerned with other public records that divulge our Social Security Numbers, and the author gives a link to the relevant article. Seems like your comments are knee jerk and don't relate to the same article that I read.
Irvin, you misread the article. In fact, there are no SSN's or drivers license numbers in the court records; there are only names and addresses. The SSNs and drivers license numbers are available in OTHER govt databases, from the state but also from cities and counties. The point of the article is that the courts have done a good job of removing key pieces of data that might compromise personal identities. However, these OTHER databases do not remove the key elements, making it easy for identity thieves to use the data. The OTHER databases include tax records, driver license records, etc
The most important thing to me is protecting my name and my identify. And I think it is totally unfair, and a complete invasion of my privacy, that misdemeanor marijuana charge from 16 years ago shows up any time somebody types in my name on this discriminatory site. I want privacy, I want to clear my name, and I want my life back.
I think it is a total invasion of privacy and encourages abuse and discrimination.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!