http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060117/NEWS02/601170446/1 008 Bill would limit access to birth, death records By Greg Hafkin greg.hafkin@indystar.com Birth and death records now open to the public would be closed under a bill proposed in the Indiana House, pitting freedom of information against privacy concerns. House Bill 1067 would make it harder for someone to retrieve another person's birth or death information unless they are a relative of the person listed on the record, a member of the media or someone researching genealogy. Others would have to get a court order to gain access to the records. Proponents say the legislation would cut identity theft. The legislation raises issues beyond which records should and shouldn't be open to the public. In an age of Internet blogs and nontraditional families, defining media and who constitutes a relative could be difficult. "It could be very important for a community group near a stream or near a dump or factory that might suspect for some reason that they're part of a cancer cluster," said Stephen Key, general counsel for the Hoosier State Press Association, which objects to the bill. "By going to the county health department and checking the causes of death for people, they might be able to show there's a problem." The proposed legislation directs the Indiana State Department of Health to create rules to govern the inspection of records by genealogy researchers. While the media still would have access to most records, it would be blocked from looking at documents that list the cause of death. Under current state law, information on birth and death certificates is available to the public, with the exception of Social Security numbers. Greenfield lawyer Thomas Williams took advantage of the law in 1999, when he started placing information from Hancock County birth and death records on his local-interest Web site, hancocknews. com. For births, he listed the name of the baby, the date of birth, and the parents' names and ages, including the mother's maiden name. When people died in Hancock County, he posted their names, ages, addresses and dates of death, along with causes of death and the names of the people who reported them dead. Williams said he posted the information as part of a "community-building activity." "When kids are born, the community should know it so they can participate in the joy of that event," Williams said. Pam Baker, office manager of the Hancock County Health Department, initially denied Williams' request for the records but then complied after she discovered she could be charged with a felony for withholding the information. Last year, Baker contacted Rep. Bob Cherry, R-Greenfield, who promised he would draft a bill to address her concerns. The bill has been assigned to the House Public Health Committee, but no hearing date has been set. A similar bill proposed by Rep. Peggy Welch, D-Bloomington, during the 2003 session was defeated. Cherry was among legislators who voted against Welch's bill, which also was sparked by concerns about identity theft. Concern for homeland security prompted Cherry to take up Baker's request, he said. "I'm not against Mr. Williams getting the information, but if he's putting it on the Internet, I have a problem," Cherry said. "What goes on the Internet can be picked up any place in the world." Some contents of the birth certificate, such as the mother's maiden name, could be used toward identity theft, he said. Such a law might be difficult to enforce, according to Marian Pearcy, president of the Indiana Coalition for Open Government, which advocates public access to government records. She opposes the legislation. "I'm not clear as to why the press should get any special privileges over the citizen," Pearcy said. "In this day and age, with the Internet blogs, what is the media right now?" The bill would limit the definition of news media to newspapers that have been publishing for at least three consecutive years, licensed radio and television stations, and news services. Baker, the Hancock County health official, said she knows of no cases of identify theft stemming from Williams' site, but she said it's always a possibility. "Because of the Internet and terrorism, we are becoming more aware that birth records are an important piece of a person's identity," she said. In fact, there's no evidence to prove that anyone has committed fraud using information obtained from birth or death certificates, said Fred Cate, a professor at Indiana University School of Law and an expert on information law. "I couldn't argue that no one could ever use those records to commit identity theft, but all the research we have about identity theft is that the much greater risk is from people you know or identity documents like your driver's license or credit cards," Cate said. Lawmakers in other states have pushed similar legislation, although the bills typically have numerous exceptions, such as the one Cherry is proposing. While freedom of information is something many Americans value, it is not afforded the same constitutional protection as freedom of speech, Cate said. Still, he said, that's no reason to restrict it. "The basic principle to my mind is that you should never intrude on a freedom unless it is necessary to accomplish a more important purpose," Cate said. "In this case, it is not clear if it will even help accomplish that purpose, much less if it's necessary." Williams, whose Web site prompted this debate, said the only complaints he has received is that he does not keep the records up to date. He hasn't posted any new information on hancocknews .com for several weeks, and as of Monday, the site was down. Still, Williams said he wishes Cherry would back away from the bill. "Draping a curtain over population statistics could cause a real shortage of community information," Williams said. "I would hope he doesn't pursue it vigorously, because it would be a mistake."