Because this is such a hot top in the genealogy community, I thought you might want to read some of the information from long-time researchers and "experts" in the field. Bob Davis has been in Georgia and Alabama genealogy circles for ages and is now Director at Wallace State College up near Birmingham. >From: Robert Scott "Bob" Davis <[email protected]> from Hanceville, Alabama - at the Family and Local History Program at Wallace State College >Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 10:26 AM >Subject: Identity theft and genealogy A question: > I wonder how many identity thefters are using the genealogy sites? KT My answer: > From what I have seen of identity thefts, none of the sources we use as genealogists that can be closed (funeral notices of dead children in old newspapers cannot be closed, for example) are used by identity thieves. Further, when security measures on birth certificates and other such records are implemented, it keeps honest citizens out while presenting no real obstacle for dishonest persons with criminal intent. As I point out in an upcoming article on changing identities in mid-nineteenth century America, recommendations were once considered a secure means of identity but that actually only gave honest people a false sense of security. Similarly, the restrictions on birth certificates etc. also give criminals a false credibility with people who do not know that such records are easily obtained by criminals. I saw someone on television who used to be in the false identity business but today works as a security consultant. He says that getting false identity is now easie! r than ever. Also FROM: Robert Davis at Wallace State Community College in Hanceville, Alabama: Alvie Davidson [from Lakeland, Florida and the Fl State Gen Soc] provides us with the following. It relates to efforts in California to close the indexes to births and deaths: "LEGISLATIVE REPORT - EXTRA - SB1614 - MAY 1, 2002 Iris Carter Jones CSGA Legislative Coordinator In my last report we covered Senator Speier SB1614 on vital records indexes and informed readers that the bill was scheduled to be heard on April 23, 2002, but the bill was amended April 15th in which all the indexes except the birth records were eliminated. The hearing on April 23, 2002 was canceled by the author and rescheduled on April 30, 2002. Again the bill was amended on April 24, 2002. This time it includes both birth and death record indexes. It requires that these indexes be considered confidential and be removed from coverage under the California Public Records Act. It requires the State and county recorders to develop a 'noncomprehensive index' for each which will contain some of the information included in the present indexes. These will then be available at the offices of the county recorders for 'viewing only' by the public. But government agencies are exempt. The next hearing is set for May 7, 2002. Meanwhile, the bill did not meet the scheduled cut off of April 26, 2002, the last day for policy committees to hear and report on fiscal bills introduced in their house. But the Senator was able to get an extension. I have included below the copy of the Counsel's Digest and the Bill language, if you want to read it yourself. Commentary: If the researchers in California do not want to see these important tools done away with and removed from 'Public Records' then it is imperative that you let the Senator and the Judiciary Committee know how you feel. There is no indication that these indexes contribute to identity theft. In fact, the most recent studies show, according to First Amendment Coalition's latest statements, that most identity thefts occur through the literal theft by friends, relatives, fellow workers or strangers, of wallets, purses or mail, or fraudulent address changes. This is what I have said all along. That the 'Indexes' do not create a threat to the theft of personal identities, but are a marvelous tool for family historians, family health researchers, heir finders, and estate lawyers. The loss of these indexes will be crippling to research. That the 'noncomprehensive index' can be viewed at the offices of county recorders is of little consolation. California researchers already know that more than half our county recorders, either do not have the manpower to facilitate the demands at the present time or will not willing comply. We have, over the years, fought at the county level to improve these situations, but in some cases it has prove useless. This mandate will just add to the overburdened State and county recorders, additional expenses and more work. This type of band-aid legislation does nothing to solve the problems of identity theft, and does punish the law abiding, voting, taxpayers, who have legitimate uses for the indexes. Energy would be better spent encouraging the enforcement of the present laws; furnishing our courts with the funds needed to do their jobs and help law enforcement do the same. The bill if passed out of the Judiciary Committee on May 7, 2002, must still go to another policy committee for hearing before going to the floor of the Senate for a vote. Consider writing to the author Senator Speier, State Capitol, Room 2032, Sacramento, CA 95814. (916) 445-05032/Fax (916)327-2186. Consider writing to the members of the Judiciary Committee: Senator Martha Escutia (Chair), Room 5080; Senator Ray Haynes (Vice Chair), Room 2187; Senator Dick Ackerman, Room 2032; Senator Sheila Kuehl, Room 4032; Senator Jack O'Connell, Room 5035; Senator Steve Peace, Room 3060; Senator Byron Sher, 2082. These too should be mailed to the State Capitol, (Room #), Sacramento, CA 95814. ---------------------------- LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST: SB 1614, as amended, Speier. Public records: vital statistics Existing law requires the Director of Health Services, as the State Registrar of Vital Statistics, to administer the registration of births, deaths, fetal deaths, and marriages. Existing law requires the State Registrar to arrange and permanently preserve the certificates in a systematic manner and to prepare and maintain a comprehensive and continuous index of all certificates registered. Existing law, the California Public Records Act, requires state and local agencies to make records that are not otherwise exempt from disclosure available to the public upon receipt of a request that reasonably describes an identifiable record, and upon payment of fees to cover costs. This bill would require the comprehensive index described above, and birth and death record indices prepared or maintained by local registrars and county recorders, to be kept confidential, except that these indices may be disclosed to government agencies as prescribed by law. This bill would exempt these indices from disclosure under the California Public Records Act. This bill would require, on or before an unspecified date, the State Registrar to establish separate noncomprehensive electronic indices of all California birth and death records and make the indices continuously, electronically available to county recorders' offices statewide. This bill would require the noncomprehensive indices to be available at the State Registrar's office and in county recorders' offices for public inspection and viewing only, by individuals who have signed a standard form certifying, under penalty of perjury, that the information they view will not be used for criminal purposes. By expanding the scope of the crime of perjury, and by increasing the duties of local officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement, including the creation of a State Mandates Claims Fund to pay the costs of mandates that do not exceed $1,000,000 statewide and other procedures for claims whose statewide costs exceed $1,000,000. This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: yes. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 102230 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read: 102230. (a) (1) The State Registrar shall arrange and permanently preserve the certificates in a systematic manner and shall prepare and maintain a comprehensive and continuous index of all certificates registered. (2) The birth and death record indices prepared pursuant to paragraph (1), and all birth and death record indices prepared or maintained by local registrars and county recorders, shall be kept confidential and shall be exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code). (3) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the release of the information contained in comprehensive birth and death indices to government agencies as prescribed by law. (b) In addition to the indices prepared pursuant to subdivision (a), the State Registrar shall prepare separate noncomprehensive electronic! indices of all California birth and death records that shall be made available for public inspection pursuant to Section 102231. SEC. 2. Section 102231 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read: 102231. (a) On or before ____, the State Registrar shall establish separate noncomprehensive electronic indices of all California birth and death records and make the indices continuously, electronically available to county recorders' offices statewide. Notwithstanding the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code), no part of these indices may be released to any individual or entity except as authorized by this section or Section 102230. (b) The separate noncomprehensive electronic indices prepared pursuant to this section shall be available at the State Registrar's office and in county recorders' offices for public inspection only and shall be subject to the following restrictions: (1) Availability to public inspection shall be limited to viewing only. (2) An individual who wishes to inspect the indices shall sign a standard form, as described in subdivision (d), certifying under penalty of perjury that the information he or she views will not be used for criminal purposes. (c) Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, including the California Public Records Act, the separate noncomprehensive electronic indices prepared pursuant to this section shall be the only birth and death record indices open to public inspection or otherwise available to the public. (d) The State Registrar shall develop a standard form to be signed by persons who wish to inspect the indices pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (b). (e) For purposes of this section, "noncomprehensive index" means an index that contains some of the information contained in the index described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 102230. The State Registrar shall dete! rmine the information from birth and death records that shall be included in the noncomprehensive index based on the lawful uses that may be made of the noncomprehensive index and the privacy needs of individuals whose records are included in the index. SEC. 3. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution for certain costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district because in that regard this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution. However, notwithstanding Section 17610 of the Government Code, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains other costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and ! school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code. If the statewide cost of the claim for reimbursement does not exceed one million dollars ($1,000,000), reimbursement shall be made from the State Mandates Claims Fund.--