Privacy Concerns Misplaced Over Google's Effort To Help Governments Make Public Records More Accessible
from the who's-to-blame-here dept
Google is getting some press coverage for helping (at no cost) various state governments to put public records online and make them searchable. This seems to fit with Google's overall mission of making the world's information available. It's also noteworthy that Google isn't holding onto control of the content either -- meaning that other search engines are equally able to index the content. However, where the story is most interesting is that certain privacy advocates are complaining about this effort, while also taking side swipes at Google's own privacy efforts. This seems entirely misplaced. The documents that we're talking about here are public documents -- meaning they were already available to the public. All Google has done is improved the accessibility of those documents. In fact, one thing this might do is make people a lot more aware of what private info their local governments have incorrectly exposed. This should help people to better protect their privacy. While one state official complains that all state agencies now need to run around removing things like Social Security Numbers and other private info from these documents, a bigger question is why that information was already available on public documents? It's not Google to blame here for making it easier to access these public records, but the state agencies who simply assumed that they could leave the private info on those documents just because they were difficult (but not impossible) to access.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
cant even safeguard pieces of paper.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
the courthouse blotter
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
thing is, that's kind of a reasonable assumption. A lot of these documents are public documents, have been considered public documents for centuries, but when those rules were put in place, the only people who would be looking into them had a vested interest in some fashion.
Maybe some of these things really shouldn't be public in a setting where they're easily searched by bots and cross-referenced.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
public sure
Oh and a little thing like scanning your email, searches online, and what you click on tied to the public info makes it not-so harmless.
But hey they are making lots of people money, who cares. Go 1999!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
By making some of my records public helps me protect my privacy? That is truly absurd. Where before not just anyone could get at my info (because it was more difficult or required some authority), now any idiot who is stalking me or my family can find it. Also, anyone think about telemarketers and spam? That info that was a little harder to get a hold of before will now be openly available for anyone who takes the time to look. Have a student loan and you only use your cell phone for contact info? Great, now you can have some idiot call ya for long distance service when you are at the supermarket.
The info that was available before was bad enough, why do we have to have ways for people to get more? You guys may find it a terrific thing to give up anonymity and freedoms, but this doesn't sit well with me at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The reason a lot of technology providers won't do this is that they can't quantify the ROI which is the only way they look at things. In other words, how many $'s can they immediately stuff in their pockets if they invest a buck here or there?
Google on the other hand seems to have plenty of bucks stuffed in their pockets and they have a culture that seems to understand how increasing their footprint for free now results in dramatic revenue streams much further down the chain.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Don't thank Google for this...thank the gov't agencies that are making it happen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What a thoughtless comment. Yes, they were always public, but in the past they have been very difficult to actually access. For example, for some records you had to physically go to the town hall of the city of the person of interest to view the records. So, the percent chance of someone doing this was very low, thus that "public" information was relatively private. Having google give easy access to those records significantly increases the chances of that info being seen by the wrong people. Its really that simple.
Yeah you could maybe blame the government for classifying certain info "public" (such as your home address when you purchase a house), but getting those laws changed would be a much bigger hurdle then simply preventing search engines from accessing such records.
"In fact, one thing this might do is make people a lot more aware of what private info their local governments have incorrectly exposed."
Yeah Mike, that makes perfect sense! So now I will have the added stress of having to *CONTINUOUSLY* search the web to see if anyone has incorrectly posted private info of me. Oh yeah, I would much rather this be the solution to this issue instead of just making it harder to access my info in the first place! [sarcastically said].
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I think you're focusing on the wrong type of docum
I've actually been a part of this effort, which included a four hour presentation last year to Webmasters of dozens of U.S. government agencies... helping them learn how to make a broad swath of useful information more available.
I wanted to address, though, what appears to be a misunderstanding of some of the commenters here. By "public records," we're talking about documents that aren't primarily just about us (citizens) but are, more pointedly, about the government many of us pay taxes to... and, for instance, where this tax money goes.
Making more information available means greater accountability of our elected (and unelected) officials... more insights into drug approval processes and environmental impact records, easier access to *aggregate* census and sociologically-relevant data that can be a goldmine for researchers, and so on.
When I chatted with government Webmasters in D.C. last year, I was surprised yet pleased at how much they could do... how much they were *eager* to do to make information from their bureaus more available on the Web. So many of the studies conducted, reports written, useful info bits available have been collecting dust, and that's a shame. That's stuff we pay for; we deserve to not only see but also be able to search this treasure trove of information.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I think you're focusing on the wrong type of d
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A clarification
But I wanted to clarify that I've not been a part of this latest effort.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I think you're focusing on the wrong type of d
Recently I was trying to find out when recycling is picked up in my neighborhood. Naturally I Google-ed 'recycling Philadelphia'. After wasting a half hour trying to navigate the city's old recycling page, I found a link to the 'new' recycling site. There I find out I need to know if I'm in a 'green' or 'blue' zone to know when recycling day is in my neighborhood. How do I find out what zone I'm in? Check out these official directions (from http://recyclingpays.phila.gov/res_cal.shtml):
* Visit the CityMaps website: http://citymaps.phila.gov
* Click on "Service Areas"
* Read the "Terms of Use and Disclaimer", click "I Agree"
* Enter your address, click "Find"
* Select the service areas of interest to you
* Click on "Find City Service Areas"
* Schedule information will be displayed
Here we have public data, which is necessary for me to comply with the law (you couldn't tell it by looking around, but recycling is mandatory in Philly) hidden behind a "Terms of Use" agreement where search engines will never find it, and apparently very few Philadelphians have.
Google, please help these poor souls figure out the internets!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Well, since they didn't make any distincsion if it was government info or personal info that will be posted, us "many" are just playing it safe and voicing our opinion just in case the public info does include private info.
Or, should we just assume the government is always just doing good stuff and would never do anything bad like post personal info?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
http://techdirt.com/articles/20070420/121820.shtml
I don't know about anyone else, but I wouldn't trust the government to make me a PB&J sandwich. You would have committees trying to decide the best materials to build it and other committees that would help decide the right way to build it. By the time it gets done, my sandwich would cost $1.5M... and I end up with a tuna a salami burger.
This is basically the same debate as Democrat vs. Republican. Neither side is going to listen to the other because each thinks the other is a moron. Personally, I don't want my public or private data out on the interwebnet. My public data was fine, right where it was in Podunk, ID. It doesn't need to be broadcast.
There is a ton wrong with having a lot of that government info out there as well. Just because a thing can help certain people, doesn't mean that it is in the best interests of everyone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The documents that we're talking about here are public documents -- meaning they were already available to the public. All Google has done is improved the accessibility of those documents. In fact, one thing this might do is make people a lot more aware of what private info their local governments have incorrectly exposed. This should help people to better protect their privacy.
Google is not making anything available that wasn't available to EVERYBODY already, the only thing that changes is the amount of effort (which wasn't that big to begin with) to get the information. And the protecting your privacy better bit, as also clearly stated in the article (again, try a little harder at actually comprehending what you're reading) goes as follows: right now, there's private information available (that shouldn't be public, like Soc Sec Number and other private information) on those documents but you don't know it, you don't know anybody can ask for those documents and get that private information. By the Google initiative, it is becoming a known fact that there is information on PUBLIC documents that shouldn't be there, resulting in this information being removed from those documents...I would say having private information like my social security number, removed from public documents is indeed helping me protect my privacy...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
so let's not pretend like you had to move mountains to obtain the data, in fact, it was only marginally more "difficult" than looking it up online.
"So, the percent chance of someone doing this was very low, thus that "public" information was relatively private"
Information is either private or public, there is no such thing as "relatively" private...there as only something like "relatively rarely accessed information". the percent chance is bs too of course, it just takes 1 guy to look it up and screw you over by using your social security number, etc...
"Having google give easy access to those records significantly increases the chances of that info being seen by the wrong people. Its really that simple."
Either the information is (rightfully) publicly accessible, in which case there are no "wrong" people who can see the information, or the information shouldn't have been available to the public at all...it really is that simple
Yeah you could maybe blame the government for classifying certain info "public"
well, who the hell else but the people who do it would you blame for putting private information on publicly accessible documents???
It isn't Google that put the private information on public documents, it is the government...it really is that simple...don't take my word for it, even Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Washington-based Electronic Privacy Information Center, says "[those documents] often contain citizens' Social Security numbers. Such information should be redacted from records regardless of whether they're viewed online or in person at a government office"
"but getting those laws changed would be a much bigger hurdle then simply preventing search engines from accessing such records."
preventing search engines would only have marginally effect, since the information would still be available to ANYBODY who'd want to access it...and no laws would have to be changed...if there's really a law decreeing what information has to be put in those documents, it will be overturned on privacy issues anyway...it's impossible for a law to be "legal" if it decrees your social security number has to be on a public document
"So now I will have the added stress of having to *CONTINUOUSLY* search the web to see if anyone has incorrectly posted private info of me"
how many local governments have information about you that you would need to "CONTINUOUSLY" search the web? How "CONTINUOUSLY" does that multitude of local governments release documents about you anyway?
Mike's point, which apparently you fail or refuse to get is that by Google making the content available online (which they have not as of yet and actually are not doing anyway, they are only providing free consulting and some software to the local government), the local government is/will be forced to do something they should have done a long time ago: correct a situation that shouldn't exist in the first place, which is have private information on public documents....for someone capable of actually comprehending the article while he's reading it, it is clear that the documents that will be put online will not contain the private information...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
@18
Pull your head out of your ass and think about the slippery slope before you fall down it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
@19
also, I appreciate this can be a sensitive issue and people can get emotional over it. However, how (emotional) you feel about something, has no bearing in a (rational) discussion...which doesn't mean I trivialize the strong feelings you apparently have about the subject...
first off, let me agree with you on one point: you are right, you don't have the right to say no if/when the government decides to release the data in a more searchable format (this is of course assuming the government was already releasing said data in a less searchable format and had/has the right to do so)
This should be obvious: the government either has the right to make a particular piece of information public or not. If they do, they can make it public any way they want: as a printed document anybody can go look at in the town hall or any other building (or request by regular mail), online, by printing it on posters and hanging those out on billboards, etc...
If the government is handing out information they don't have the right to hand out, again, it doesn't matter whether they do it by letting you look at a paper document at the town hall or letting people search for it online, in both cases you will be equally successful at suing them for divulging private information they aren't allowed to.
THAT is a point that I would think was pretty clear in my message: it IS black and white: if the government has the right to make certain information public, you don't get to complain about what form they do it in and you have no right to say no. If they don't have the right, again the form they do it in isn't relevant either, they're not supposed to and you can sue them regardless of what medium they use to make the information public.
This goes beyond releasing public info into an easy to search environment.
No, it doesn't...if you have a problem with certain information that pertains to your person is made available to the general public, go bug your representative that laws should be changed making it no longer legal for the government to divulge this information period.
The only thing this cooperation with google is doing is making documents which are ALREADY PUBLICLY AVAILABLE (albeit maybe less easily) available for people to browse/search online. Not one piece of information that could be obtained otherwise is now being divulged through the internet...so if you have a problem with people having access to certain information, you ask to have said information removed from the public domain altogether, and again, whether or not it is available online has no bearing to this
Pull your head out of your ass and think about the slippery slope before you fall down it.
always a funny way to end your post, especially since it's a ridiculous remark...
please tell me, what slippery slope am I on? In fact, I am quite categorical and absolute in my point of view (correct me if I'm wrong, but a slippery slope usually surfaces when you don't go black and white): information is publicly accessible or it isn't, the form under which it is made public has no bearing on this...
IF I can walk in a town hall, request a particular piece of information, without my identity being logged or having to show any cause or reason why I want the information, there can be absolutely no valid argument against me doing or being able to do the same thing online. (In fact, it would be less anonymous as my IP address would be logged)
Pull your head out of your ass and think about the slippery slope before you fall down it.
You want to know about predators? I don't have a problem with that.
you know, if it wasn't so sad, it would be funny, you scolding me about being on a slippery slope, when you're the one actually sliding down one...
and just to be clear, let me repeat once more the main point of my original and this post:
if you have a problem with the government making certain information public, go bitch to them or have a law changed that handles said information being made public, don't go bitching because there is a new way that makes the information more easily accessible...if you're not ok with the information being public, the way it is made public is not relevant
[ link to this | view in thread ]
databases refreshed regularly
Actually, most of the vendors that load public info into their public record databases refresh that public info on a quarterly basis, if not more frequently. So, yes, for someone to try to opt their personal info out of some of these databases (those that even give us the option), it is a task that must be carried out regularly.
I don't so much find fault with Google for making info easier to access (it is INDEED easier and faster to tap into the Internet than to stand in line at a Govt office and convince a Govt worker that you're entitled to some info. Try it some time.) It's that, as someone else said earlier, down the road they will likely profit from it. Meanwhile the burden is on US to do damage control, as the number of ID theft cases grows exponentially.
Oh, and who was the genius who suggested suing the govt? Ever tried that? - how long do you think it would take? how much money do you have handy? and what do you think the odds of winning might be?
Same with getting a law changed, it turns into another situation of the little guys vs. Govt and/or little guys vs. Google. It's a lengthy, sometimes expensive process the outcome of which is often dictated by who has the most money at their disposal. Not so easy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Actually, most of the vendors that load public info into their public record databases refresh that public info on a quarterly basis, if not more frequently. So, yes, for someone to try to opt their personal info out of some of these databases (those that even give us the option), it is a task that must be carried out regularly.
so you have to ask a particular vendor X every quarter, if not more frequently, to remove your information?
(it is INDEED easier and faster...Try it some time.)
nobody said it is not easier and faster, it seems rather obvious that everyone in this thread is in agreement on that particular point, so what point are you trying to make exactly?
I don't so much find fault with Google for making info easier to access.....It's that, as someone else said earlier, down the road they will likely profit from it.
Please don't feel hindered at all by actually reading before you comment...In the article referenced by Mike (as well as several times in the comments) it clearly states that:
Google is providing the government with free consulting and software to make this information/those documents available. What will be happening is that government sites will be easier to access/index, which will benefit all search engines, so Yahoo, Microsoft,...are just as likely to profit from it down the road, and actually without doing any of the work (for free). By all means, let's bitch about the one search engine that actually does the work, for free, maybe making money over it down the road, that's so much more evil than the search engines that will do exactly the same thing but are sitting on their hands right now...
I see David vs. Goliath is still very much in swing too. If the government is doing something illegal, you will have no problem getting an injunction, no matter how much money they have, and it won't cost you a lot either.
I will try this one more time, and really break it down into little pieces so that everybody with at least basic brain activity should be able to understand this:
1) it is the (local) government who made/makes the decision to make the information available through the internet.
[Yes, Google is helping them by giving free consultation and software, and yes, Google as well as every other search engine will benefit from this in some way as they will be able to index and link to said information. I don't think anybody here is doubting/denying that]
2) Either there is nothing wrong (from a legal standpoint) with certain information being publicly accessible or there is...either the government is allowed/entitled by law to make certain information public or they're not.
[yes, being able to just "Google" it is less work than going to a government building and possibly standing in line to ask for the same information. Again, I don't think anybody here is doubting/denying that]
so if you feel like you need to bitch and complain, don't complain about Google, but bitch and complain about/to the government...about their decision to do this project, or them making information public that you feel shouldn't be. And if you feel you have to do something, sue them or have the law changed. How easy or difficult this is, how long it would take or how money this would cost is not relevant and more importantly does not justify one bit (re)-focusing complaints/rants on Google...
so to recap:
we have local government K, who has always made certain information publicly available, is now going to make information available online. We have vendors A, B and C that load public info into their public record database and miscellaneous people X, Y and Z that might use said (already publicly accessible) information for ID theft.
And people feel certain information should not be publicly available (at all) and are in general worried about ID theft with any piece of information about them that is publicly available. (btw, at no point did I countered or explicitly disagreed with this concern about ID theft and related concerns)
However, instead of opting for having legislation that would prohibit the government, or anybody else, from making certain information public (after all, right to privacy should cover a whole lot already, so it might require very little legislation, maybe even just some precedents), what is the proposed/wanted solution?
make a law that would make it illegal for a search engine/company to index legally made public information...
Not to mention the fact that the concept in and by itself is just ridiculous (let's make it illegal for certain people to make information more easily available, but let's not make it illegal to make that information public by any other means...(vendors A, B and C would still be loading that public info into their public record databases)) it would do absolutely NOTHING to achieve the end that you feel justifies those ridiculous means...because if Google (or any search engine for that matter) is able index (and provide links to) certain information, that means that said information can be accessed online anyway, it's not suddenly available because Google indexed it, Google can only index what
1) is already there
2) it (and thus the internet community at large) already has access to
[ link to this | view in thread ]
yes, that's what you have to do
Yes, and the office I work for currently does this on a quarterly basis for certain individuals whose names appear regularly in local news.
And by all means, treat the related issues in a dismissive manner, since the point you've aptly made exists so neatly in a vacuum... somewhere.
[ link to this | view in thread ]