It appears that the intent is primarily to cover the state's backside and ensure that it isn't responsible for any harm that might come to someone from posting of documents on the internet. The wording, however, leaves plenty of room for lots of problems with restrictions on any entity that receives funding from the Commonwealth. I, too, am in favor of protecting people's right to privacy and reasonably protecting them against crime by not posting info of living individuals to the internet; but this needs the wording significantly clarified or there could be major problems ahead, especially in light of the fact that VA's present laws are already more restrictive than necessary for "reasonable protection ." It would seem that their intent isn't to totally restrict the posting of information any more than they absolutely necessary; because it specifies that the individuals actually filing documents (for instance wills) with the courthouse or agency are the ones ultimately responsible for providing a blanked-out document for the purpose of internet posting. It specifically states that if such a document is not provided, then the courthouse isn't to be held responsible if information is posted. However, people filing the documents aren't necessarily going to recognize who should be blacked out and who should not. Then, offices receiving the filings and faced with the added work of worrying about whether each document should or should not be posted, whether a duplicate one with the blacking out is filed, how much should be blacked out, and where are they going to store all those extra copies, will simply find it much easier (and less costly) not to post any of the documents at all, regardless of what they are allowed to do. After all, where is the funding to hire the additional people needed to handle all this extra paperwork? The VA law is already one of the most restrictive in the country on vital records. It would seem that application of the laws already in place would be more than adequate to keep records of living people from being posted by the agencies in charge of them. If the law says they won't give out a birth certificate to anyone but the parents or guardians, and not even them after the child turns 21, then it certainly wouldn't allow the agency to post the document on the internet. This new law is just a veiled first step towards the state gaining more restrictive control than necessary or desireable over internet use. Diane familytr@att.net wrote: >Hi all, > But doesn't it say that the information shall not be posted on state agency or >court controlled websites? I don't see where it mentions personal websites and >I am sure they are refrring to living persons information. > >Here is a quote from the bill which is from a previous posting below: >"no state agency or court clerk shall post on a > > >>state agency or court-controlled website any document that contains the >>following information: (i) an actual signature; (ii) a social security >>number; (iii) a date of birth identified with a particular person; (iv) >> >> >the > > >>maiden name of a person's parent so as to be identified with a particular >>person; (v) any financial account number or numbers; or (vi) the name and >>age of any minor child." >> >> > >It looks to me if I am reading it right that they mean only state agencies >sites and people and court clerks and court controlled sites. > >God bless, > Beth >familytr@attnet > > >>I know that many of you have VA research also >> >>From: SANDRA TYLER DUNCAN >>in Sacramento,CA >> >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: <whoucisme@mindspring.com> >>To: <TYLER-L@rootsweb.com> >>Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 6:52 AM >>Subject: [TYLER] Fw: HB2426 >> >> >>Fellow genealogists-- >> Please read the below (House Bill 2426) and address your concerns to >>Patron Del. Nixon & Co-Patrons Del. Janis & McDougle as soon as possible. >>This will affect ANYONE doing genealogy research in Virginia. >> >> >>>