It seems to me I heard somewhere that Paul Havemann wrote in article <ZrIU7.3805$0g.101587@iad-read.news.verio.net>: >Dennis P. Harris <NO_SPAM_TO_dpharris@gci.net> says: >: Don Kirkman <newsman@covad.net> wrote: >:> Since the state *sells* the same information on CD venal motives could >:> be suspected, but the income probably is insignificant in the scheme of >:> things. I chalk it up to PCness, and expect a court case or two may >:> clarify things (depending, of course, on how PC the judge and jury turn >:> out to be). >: well, they shouldn't sell it at all! if i want someone to have >: my birth information (and i was, unfortunately, born there) i'll >: give it to them. otherwise, the state shouldn't give it out >: except to police agencies. period. Public documents can't be restricted from public access, though there can be requirements of time and place of access. PA doesn't necessarily imply Internet access; usually one must go to a public office or archive, or deal directly with the government office which has the records. >: the state where i live doesn't allow public access to vital >: records until 120 years after the person's birth or 20 years >: after death, whichever comes later. and rightly so. >: it's not PCness. it's the right to privacy, and prevention of ID >: theft. the law should require that we own the information about >: ourselves, and that we control who gets it and when. it >: shouldn't be sold by mailing list brokers, DMV, banks, or the >: vital statistics folks without or permission. period. The vital statistics folks, in my usage, are those who hold the records. Nobody's talking about releasing lists to brokers or banks, but DMV (surprise, surprise!) is a government agency which has its own public records to deal with. >As for privacy, I hear that too, but the same justification could >also be used to suppress any information that might possibly be >used for evil purposes. Why not ban telephone directories? After >all, if 'they' know where you live, they can rob your home, after >phoning to determine whether you're there -- or they could just >steal your mail, including anything with an account number on it. >The prevailing question is whether the need for public >availability of certain information overrides the need for >privacy. For birth records, I'm not yet certain which wins out. >As far as death records go, exactly how many cases are there of >identity theft based on them? That's the question indeed, but yes, in fact there are identity thefts based on death records of infants or young children who died at a time and place suitable for the thief's needs (such as his own age and provenance or a targeted inheritance). -- Don donkirk@covad.net