Comments Received by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts in response to Request for Comment on Privacy and Public Access to Electronic Case Files.
Each comment has a number, date, and where provided, a
geographical identifier. In cases
where the comment was sent by an individual with no business or
professional affiliation noted,
the name of the commentor is not included. In cases where
the comment was sent by an
individual in a professional capacity or on behalf of a group or
organization, the name of the
commentor and/or the name of the group is included.
The Administrative Office of the United States Courts reserves
the right not to post a comment,
or any part thereof, which contains irrelevant or scurrilous
material. Footnotes and endnotes
attached to comments have been omitted.
Item |
Date |
From |
Summary |
# of Pages |
1 |
11/08/00 |
Richard A.
Berger
Associated Professional Services
Waterloo, NY |
"All court records should be available to the
public by all means possible at all times, with no
exceptions." |
1 |
2 |
11/10/00 |
Jennifer
L. Hathaway
Foremost Search and Recovery Co.
Camden, DE |
Opposes initiative to shut down or restrict elec./pacer
files; they are public records; understand right to
privacy, but court records are public. |
1 |
3 |
11/11/00 |
Charles T.
Pinck
President, Georgetown
Group |
Public information (personal identifiers such as
address, dob and ssn) is crucial to professional
investigators and the legal profession; current
legislation (Privacy and Identity
Protection Act; Identity Theft Protection Act) as well
as new FTC regs. (treating such info. as financial and
thus protectable) are threatening.
(Legal Times, 10/30/00) |
3 |
4 |
11/13/00 |
Ariane
Ciarlo
Claimsupport.com
Pompano Beach, FL |
Strongly protest efforts to close down federal court
database access; lawyers and clients will have to pick
up costs of this inefficiency; requests for comments
like this are the first step to narrowing access. |
2 |
5 |
11/13/00 |
John
Healy
Litigation Intelligence Service
Warner, NH |
Courts have always been open and accessible; records
are used daily by legal, investigative, law
enforcement, and investigative communities; they have a
right, and public needs to be able to observe this
process. |
1 |
6 |
11/13/00 |
Landers
Service Co.
Private Investigations
Milton, MA |
Lawyers and private investigators are licenced,
responsible professionals; existing state laws vary
widely, and can already severely inhibit legitimate
background investigations; medical records are very
difficult to obtain under present circumstances. |
1 |
7 |
11/13/00 |
John
Frank, Esq.
Lewis and Roca
Phoenix, AZ |
Electronic public access will make it easier to obtain
financial info for fraudulent purposes; obtain trade
secrets; and aid in identity theft, especially in
bankruptcy cases. |
1 |
8 |
11/14/00 |
William
Losefsky
Goffstown, NH
(private investigator) |
Uses PACER on a daily basis for judgement collections.
Without access to this and other public record
databases, these efforts are futile. |
1 |
9 |
11/14/00 |
Guy
Paradee
IARS
Rutland, VT
(private investigator) |
Collection of public info is essential to conducting
investigations. Certain types of
info. require restrictions. It is clear that we
lack the info necessary to understand investigative
needs, and what the info sought is used for. |
1 |
10 |
11/14/00 |
Teresa
Vila
Premier Invest. Svcs.
Fort Lauderdale, FL |
Small business searches rely on internet
databases. Increased costs of in-person searches would be
prohibitive. We should go forward,
not backward, with technological progress. |
1 |
11 |
11/14/00 |
Ted L.
Moss
The Background Network, Inc.
|
There is a connection between private investigations
and public safety; limiting public access will only
increase costs and risks to public. Security industry
fills roles government cannot. Dangers of release of
personal information based upon fear of internet, the
unknown. Judicial process should be open to avoid government
hiding its mistakes; to leave government in control of
information could be. dangerous/oppressive. Article attached
entitled "Freedom or Privacy" |
5 |
12 |
11/14/00 |
Washington,
DC
|
Level of privacy on-line should be the same as in
court. Case law should provide the answer. Internet should
provide greater and faster access to documents already
public. Standards of privacy do not change because of
technology; technology must change to meet standards of
privacy. |
1 |
13 |
11/14/00 |
Sanford
Meltzer, Esq. |
Keep current service. We protect the rights
of the people and the proposal would hamper our efforts
in this age for instant info. |
1 |
14 |
11/14/00 |
Abilene,
TX.
|
ECF would help limit travel and copying costs; would
help in multiparty lawsuits if files could be
downloaded and discovery, under appropriate
protections, could be made accessible without
duplication and mailing; care should be exercised to
avoid publication of confidential information, which
could be addressed in local rules and protective
orders. |
1 |
15 |
11/15/00 |
Joe
Kolman, Reporter
Omaha World-Herald
Omaha, NE |
What is public in paper files should also be public in
electronic files; can understand fears re: personal
data, but attorneys, members of court, and research
entities should have unlimited access, excluding use
for commercial purposes; believes such provisions exist
in some federal info laws. |
1 |
16 |
11/15/00 |
Richard
Wilstatter
White Plains, N.Y.
Criminal Defense Attorney |
Objects to proposed restrictions to PACER for criminal
cases. Access is crucial for those with cases in remote
districts. Parties can move to seal records if that is
necessary. Defense needs access to balance power of state, and
avoid the additional expense of hiring investigators. |
1 |
17 |
11/15/00 |
Lexington,
KY |
Hard copy public documents should be treated the same
as internet documents. Sensitive materials
in these documents should be sealed at party request
while main document remains part of the public record. |
1 |
18 |
11/15/00 |
Rebecca
Lynn Woodward
Moyer and Bergman
Palo, IA
Legal Assistant |
State court info. is not readily
available. Federal court sites provide easy access. Case info available
to us makes our jobs easier, and services less
expensive for clients. |
1 |
19 |
11/15/00 |
Newtonville,
MA
|
The original intent of our founders was a free and open
government, particularly the courts; restrictions on
access to court info is a form of obstruction and overt
disregard for founders intent. Courts should promote
free and open access. |
1 |
20 |
11/15/00 |
Detroit,
MI.
Federal Court Employee |
Favors option 2 for criminal cases, keeping certain
materials out of public eye. In our court, very
little of the named documents are in public files;
judiciary should ban ssn use on civil documents. |
1 |
21 |
11/16/00 |
Coeur
d'Alene, IA
|
It is a basic right of people to access the courts;
medical information should remain private. Any info.
that is public in court should be public on the
internet. |
1 |
22 |
11/16/00 |
Julie
Titone
The Spokesman Review
Coeur d'Alene, IA
Staff Writer |
Supports continuation of, and enhancement of public
access to court records and full awareness of judicial
actions. Only minor, non-significant deletions to protect
privacy- such as shortening of ssn or credit card
numbers- should be considered. |
1 |
23 |
11/17/00 |
Columbia,
MO |
Fully supports on-line access to records and dockets of
the federal court system. The current PACER
system is antiquated and does not serve the needs of
the general public. |
1 |
24 |
11/17/00 |
San
Anselmo, CA |
"Any sensitive personal information should be
blocked out ("xxxxx"), all else in transcript
should be made public on the internet." |
1 |
25 |
11/17/00 |
Norman
Meyer
Fairfax, Va.
Clerk of Court,
U.S. District Court
E.D.-VA |
(Personal views; not those of court)
Public access should be restricted where privacy
interest outweighs need for openness. Sensitive personal
info should be restricted to keep pre-defined data
confidential. Renewed scrutiny necessary by litigants
and judges to seal material on a case-by -case basis.
Allow full access only to parties/litigants. The same
restrictions are necessary on access for paper and
electronic records. This will be
difficult for records custodians to implement. |
1 |
26 |
11/19/00 |
Milwaukee,
WI. |
If court cases are open to the public, they should also
have access to those records. Milwaukee
allows open access to its court records (cites personal
protection, business uses). Leaving the public in
the dark about info. available in
court records leaves them in avoidable danger. |
2 |
27 |
11/20/00 |
Kent,
WA. |
Electronic records should only be reviewable at the
courthouse, not across the internet. |
1 |
28 |
11/20/00 |
Renton,
WA. |
Current records access constrained by court hours,
viewing procedures, identity checks, provision of
copies only, cost of service. Unlimited internet
access would eliminate these few privacy
safeguards. If we move to open
access, need system for monitoring, charges for
service, and read-only copies to deter fraud. |
1 |
29 |
11/20/00 |
Jim
Sweeney
James M. Sweeney and Associates
(Pvt. Investigations) |
Legitimate searches are invaluable in protection of
companies/individuals. There are documents
(tax, medical) that should remain private. Courts are just in
deciding access questions. He prefers option that treats
paper and electronic access equally, but restricts or
presumptively seals sensitive information from public
view. Sufficient access is necessary to gain understanding of
court case and decision- this requires ssn or dob
provision by inquirer (software that can grant access
sufficient for review, and positive or negative
response from system). In this way, courts
do not have to release dob or ssn. |
2 |
30 |
11/21/00 |
Norway,
ME. |
Proposals are fair, but in criminal cases, personal
info. on defendants and their families must be shielded
to avoid possible retaliation |
1 |
31 |
11/21/00 |
San
Francisco, CA. |
Data provides useful academic/edu. info on causes of
bankruptcy available no where else. Ssn and addresses
could be blocked with no sacrifice of benefits to
scholars or process. |
1 |
32 |
11/22/00 |
Beaumont,
TX. |
Court files should be available on the same basis and
cost either in the courthouse or on the internet and
should be free in either place. Provision of this
service is a government, not a private function. |
1 |
33 |
11/22/00 |
Cheyenne,
WY. |
Access to public records should not be limited to those
with time, money and/or physical ability; documents
containing sensitive info. should be sealed, with
burden on filer to insure records are safe for public
consumption. |
1 |
34 |
11/22/00 |
Gary,
IN |
Public info. should be listed on the internet. We can do away
with paper and cut staff. |
1 |
35 |
11/22/00 |
Seattle,
WA. |
If it is a public record, then I believe it should be
as easily accessible via internet. |
1 |
36 |
11/23/00 |
Mineola,
N.Y. |
Please do not eliminate electronic access to criminal
cases; doing so will represent an abridgement of the
free access to public information. |
1 |
37 |
11/23/00 |
Kent
Morlan, Esq.
Tulsa, OK
Internet Publisher |
Commentor collects and publishes info. on civil cases,
judges, lawyers, etc. Access to
public records and internet should be free to all. Most of public
do not have access to federal court records due to
fees. Most
lawyers are unaware or do not use PACER. Judicial info. should
be easier rather than harder to get and calendars and
dockets should be free and available to all. |
1 |
38 |
11/24/00 |
Thomas
Lincoln
San Juan, PR
Criminal Defense Attorney |
Do not provide electronic public access to criminal
case files because there is less of a legitimate
need regarding them. Public need is
outweighed by safety and security concerns (e.g.,
harassment of defendants/families; jeopardizing
defendant cooperation; hampering law enforcement and
prosecution efforts). Reasons counsel might
request for sealing of information may be obvious in
some cases (e.g., pleas; sentencing issues; etc.), not
in others. The benefit of the doubt should be given to
counsel. On limited public access option, objections and
concerns the same. |
2 |
39 |
11/24/00 |
Chehalis,
WA. |
Internet access to court documents and cases is the
best thing to happen to the American public; it is
necessary for a person to be fully informed. |
1 |
40 |
11/24/00 |
Andrew U.
D. Straw, Esq.
Bloomington, IN. |
Civil: support maximum public access, with increased
penalties for misuse of data, and no charges;
Criminal: understands law enforcement reasons for
wanting to keep certain documents public, but all
documents that a judge does not have a compelling
reason to seal should be open, including plea
agreements, so that taxpayers can evaluate judge and
prosecutor conduct.
Personal info. on bankruptcy and other civil (e.g.,
ssn; credit card numbers) should be excised or
virtually sealed, but not whole documents. Courts should not be
cajoled into a mode of secrecy simply due to risk of
privacy invasion. Persons whose rights are at risk need
to take initiative to protect them. Courts should not
backpedal on commitments to openness due to new
technologies. |
2 |
41 |
11/24/00 |
Katy, TX. |
Mechanisms, rules and law already exist to protect
litigants, trade secrets, sensitive and other info.
deemed private by motion to seal, etc. Default policy
should always be resolved in favor of openness. By its nature,
litigation process exposes records to public view,
which should not be limited only to those who can get
to courthouse. All court records,
save only those recognized by law as appropriate for
seal, should be available on-liNEThe AO should not be
in a position to make new law and policy to seal
records for the 99.9% of public who can't go to
courthouse. Full access benefits
administration of justice and legal system as a whole. |
2 |
42 |
11/25/00 |
|
In Toysmart case customer lists generated by this
company were available for sale in bankruptcy
proceedings. This is a blatant
invasion of privacy/possible identity theft. Government is
allowing anyone with money to access private info. Customers of
the bankrupt should not be punished. |
1 |
43 |
11/26/00 |
Alexandria,
VA.
|
Personal data (ssn; credit info.; address; photographs;
etc.) should be blacked out from all paper or
electronic record copies to protect privacy and avoid
identity theft. |
1 |
44 |
11/26/00 |
Seattle,
WA.
|
Unsealed electronic court files should be treated the
same as unsealed court files; all should be available
for copying/downloading. |
1 |
45 |
11/27/00 |
|
Public access is necessary and required in an
information based economy; internet access of court
records is required to ensure public and corporate
security. |
1 |
46 |
11/27/00 |
Alan
Schroeder
Costa Mesa, CA.
Law Librarian |
Support full and open access to all court records,
either print or electronic. The transient nature of
info. technologies makes print version of court filings
imperative until a reliable electronic standard is
created and agreed upon. Courts should be
servants of the people, not research/ development
entities for third party commercial on-line service
providers without general system benefits obtained
through licensing agreements; lawful use of these
records has continued for decades under numerous laws
on the books. The AO needs to
manage this new technology effectively. |
1 |
47 |
11/27/00 |
|
Privacy policy should be confined to courthouse access
only. Going to courthouse to obtain info. is not onerous and
weeds out undedicated. |
1 |
48 |
11/27/00 |
Linden,
IN. |
All court records should be available over the
internet- easier, and a lot less work; if the
courthouse had more flexible hours, it might be
different. |
1 |
49 |
11/27/00 |
Cordova,
TN.
|
Would be very concerned if patient medical records
became public via the internet (e.g., litigant who has
been exposed to HIV). This is very
troubling legislation. |
1 |
50 |
11/27/00 |
Birmingham,
AL. |
Internet opens this type of data to unwarranted view;
please keep access limited as at present. |
1 |
51 |
11/28/00 |
Rennsalaer,
IN. |
Computer filing is ok, but viewing of all public
documents should be restricted to the courthouse only;
courts should protect non-court personal info. due to
current abuses. The potential for abuse
is greater than any benefit. |
1 |
52 |
11/28/00 |
|
Electronic access is inevitable. Privacy is
important, but access should be equal whether you can
make it to the courthouse or not. |
1 |
53 |
11/28/00 |
Alpharetta,
GA. |
Immediacy of access should have no bearing on
dissemination of materials that are public
documents. Some proposals treads on 1st Amendment. You should encourage
the widest dissemination possible. |
1 |
54 |
11/28/00 |
Clyde
Hill, WA. |
Civil cases: prefer a blend of options 1 and 2, with
sensitive info. sealed on application of counsel. Sealed info.
could then be available on application for disclosure,
stating reason or purpose (except commercial). Violations
should be subject to sanctions
Criminal cases: maintain status quo (no disclosure)
Bankruptcy cases: open and available (for electronic or
paper files), using guidelines of Sec. 107. |
1 |
55 |
11/29/00 |
Chicago,
IL |
Concerned about the erosion of privacy; court records
should be protected from unrestricted and widespread
public view; of the options presented:
Civil files:
option 1 does not adequately protect; unauthorized
third parties would still be able to access;
option 2 allows protection, but at cost of more work of
the courts, attorneys, and litigants; also a lack of
clear standards could lead to litigation; better than
nothing but not ideal;
option 3 is flawed to the extent that parties have no
choice if not voluntary, and may be victims of
dissemination of info from a weak or frivolous case;
option 4 privacy and security interests should be key
part of court records management;
Criminal cases:
option 1 provides the greatest protection and best
insures the efficacy of criminal justice process;
option 2 may not provide sufficient protection;
Bankruptcy cases:
option 1 provides needed reform to assure protection of
sensitive info.;
option 2 may not provide debtors all the info. needed
to assure the full and meaningful enforcement of
debtors' rights;
option 3 should be adopted as a minimum, although
greater protection is preferable;
option 4 may provide sufficient protection, but a
better approach would be to assure protection unless
legitimate need proven after application; but better
approach would be to assure protection unless
legitimate need proven after applying; balancing test
of info. sought and reason for request compared to
info. sought to be protected, and reason
to protect info.; similar to deliberative process
surrounding privilege issues at the federal level;
Appellate cases:
option 1 should be adopt across the board rule for all
federal courts;
option 2 does not promise uniformity; favor option
1. |
11 |
56 |
11/29/00 |
Chesapeake,
VA. |
Fire walls and IP address controls achieve benefits and
control risks of data access. Electronic data
access should require similar levels of cost and effort
to paper. A registration process and subscription fees are parts
of a possible approach, allowing some traceability of
accessors; some responsibility should lie with the
person posting; rules and search engines should require
open and free access to electronic and paper
documents. |
2 |
57 |
11/29/00 |
Lyman, S.C. |
Anonymity is the problem with unrestricted access- a
cloak of invisibility; cost would prohibit the search
for violators. The same restrictions
should govern internet access to personal info. as
govern in person access; technology must exist to leave
a "cookie" behind those searching data. |
1 |
58 |
11/29/00 |
Prescott,
AZ |
If you can get info. directly by photocopy, you should
be able to get the same info. via the internet. |
1 |
59 |
11/29/00 |
Stanley
D. Helsinki, Esq..
Boston, MA
|
A document is either public or private- no shades of
gray. The
standard should be the same standard as is applied in
allowing cameras into courtrooms. |
1 |
60 |
11/29/00 |
Los
Angeles, CA |
Keep court records of all types from electronic
access. The current system (paper access) addresses concerns by
requiring interaction with gatekeepers in courthouse,
limiting access to ssns, personal contact info.,
employment, and financial info. Please respect the
privacy of those who place their trust in the U.S.
justice system. |
1 |
61 |
11/29/00 |
Peter
Nikitas
State Bar of Wisconsin
|
One should analyze individual privacy data differently
from corporate data. Starting with
individual data, one may see great harm in disclosure
of medical records and ssns. Statutes prohibit
unauthorized ssn disclosure and disclosure of
worker's medical information beyond strictly
circumscribed exceptions, whether or not the worker is
disabled. We should oppose broad disclosure of
individual private data by federal courts, and any
effort to condition suit on waiver of privacy rights,
support efforts to provide openeyed, Mirandalike
warnings to federal court litigants of the use of the
data they file in court. |
1 |
62 |
11/29/00 |
J
C. Desmond
Savannah. Ga.
Career Law Clerk |
An open government is a healthy government. When private parties
use the judicial branch to resolve disputes they make
"private" papers public documents. Unlimited
access to public court records also advances
"citational accountability [of judges]." Without
unfettered access to court documents, "judicial
legislation" and judicial politicking would be
more difficult to detect. Commentator favors
the following proposals:
Civil case files no. 1 (place burden on litigants to
partially or fully seal records, but promulgate a
national rule hence, option 4 allowing partial (e.g.,
last fourdigit) tax and credit card
(etc.) numbers, but keep exception narrowly defined;
options 2 and 3 NO!- don't nickel and dime people
skip the 7 cents/page access charge; provide open
government, not another layer of wasteful
bureaucracy;
Criminal case files: option 2 makes sense and is well
worded;
Bankruptcy case files: illumination of debtor data
assists those who'd otherwise detect and illuminate
fraud;
Appellate cases: support options 1 and 2 and finds them
wellworded; |
2 |
|
|
|
Criminal case files: option 2 makes sense and is well
worded;
bankruptcy case files: bankruptcy has lost its stigma,
and is abused by many; illumination of debtor data
assists those detecting fraud;
Appellate Cases: supports options 1 and 2 and find them
wellworded. |
|
63 |
11/30/00 |
Healdsurg,
CA. |
Civil case files: establish "levels of
access" to certain electronic case file info.;
Criminal case files: provide limited electronic public
access to criminal case files;
Bankruptcy case files: restrict use of ssn, credit
card, and other account numbers to last four digits to
protect privacy and security; segregate certain
sensitive information on separate forms that will be
protected from unlimited access and available only to
the courts, Trustee, and to parties;
Appellate Cases: treat any document that is sealed or
subject to access restrictions at the trial court level
with the same protections at the appellate level. |
1 |
64 |
11/30/00 |
|
Anything normally protected under existing laws should
be protected if found in a case file. It is also essential
to our court system to be able to research and examine
rulings. Thus, information relating directly to charges, verdicts,
legal and logical basis behind verdicts should be
publicly available. There is no problem with using
the internet to disseminate the public access portions
of case files. |
1 |
65 |
11/30/00 |
Walnut
Creek, CA. |
All public court records should be available on liNEIf
they are available without charge locally, they should
be without charge electronically. Consistent standards
should govern protected info in paper and electronic
records. Perhaps info should not be on-line until conclusion of
the case, as this would allow parties time to request
the sealing of certain info. |
1 |
66 |
11/30/00 |
Santa
Rosa, CA. |
Contents of civil should be completely available-
necessary for a variety of research purposes. Criminal
records should be restricted for privacy reasons, and
stripped of sensitive i.d. data before publication;
better to err on side of privacy. |
1 |
67 |
11/30/00 |
Vidalia,
GA. |
Records of trials are public and should be on-line; if
court deems matters confidential, limited access for
approved purposes only. |
1 |
68 |
12/1/00 |
Binghamton,
N.Y.
|
Government should not promote user-friendly access to
this subset of the public record. Age of electronic
commerce promote misuse of data. Make people go to the
files. |
1 |
69 |
12/1/00 |
La Verne,
CA. |
No one should have access to personal or financial
info. without a court order. |
1 |
70 |
12/1/00 |
|
Paper and electronic records should be treated the
same. |
1 |
71 |
12/1/00 |
Milwaukee,
WI |
Support full and open exposure of all case files, with
penalties for misuse. |
1 |
72 |
12/1/00 |
San
Francisco, CA. |
Electronic records provide a technical ability for
abuse of masses of persons. Limit the number of
records a person or corporation has access to over
time. This
is only a partial solution. |
1 |
73 |
12/1/00 |
|
As court documents contain names, addresses, ssns.,
bank account numbers, they pose a grave identity theft
risk- caution is therefore in order. Until biological
identifiers are possible, the internet poses risks from
both here and abroad. |
1 |
74 |
12/1/00 |
Palo
Alto, CA. |
Due to the private data contained in these files, they
should be sealed. The only exceptions should be where
pubic health and safety are at risk, like with criminal
records. |
1 |
75 |
12/1/00 |
Boulder
Creek, CA |
Experience on jury duty, and laxity of care with regard
to juror personal data, convinces me that judges should
be subject to liability in tort for data security in
their courts. |
1 |
76 |
12/1/00 |
Plano,
TX. |
Records need to be open, but downloads should be
limited to prevent mass compilations and
cross-referencing; also, IP addresses should be given
to facilitate criminal abuse investigations. |
1 |
77 |
12/1/00 |
San Jose,
CA. |
Electronic dissemination of court records should be
limited to avoid large scale harm to large numbers of
people. |
1 |
78 |
12/1/00 |
San
Angelo, TX. |
Allowing full access to all on the internet empowers
those without access; it should be
embraced wholeheartedly by the government. |
1 |
79 |
12/1/00 |
Brian Lee
Corber, Esq.
Panorama City, CA. |
Court filings are public record in the absence of court
order. They should be accessible via the internet in
order to save time and money and to
increases efficiency. It will also make people
more comfortable with their system of justice. |
1 |
80 |
12/1/00 |
Lancaster,
CA. |
Civil and criminal records should be available to the
public, but personal information should be
removed. Business related files should be treated differently,
and the info. removed from any file should be available
upon court order. |
1 |
81 |
12/1/00 |
Nashua,
NH |
Paper and electronic records should be treated the
same. The
law should help people, and restricting info. does not
help, and could harm. |
1 |
82 |
12/1/00 |
Manassas,
VA. |
Electronic records of case files should not be publicly
available. Currently corporations maintain huge data
bases on the public into which they will now absorb
court case data. Data available in court data bases
will promote new kinds of discrimination. Keep these records
available to court and law enforcement only. |
1 |
83 |
12/1/00 |
Menlo
Park, CA. |
Do not allow web-publishing of even those records that
are public. Organizing and cross-referencing
capabilities of the web, with no legal or ethical
constraints, will eliminate personal privacy. |
1 |
84 |
12/1/00 |
Toronto,
Ontario
(U.S. citizen) |
Best to create a subclass of public information (i.e.,
make ssns non-transmissible information). Monetary barriers
alone will simply foreclose options to individuals, not
to corporations or governments. |
1 |
85 |
12/1/00 |
Durham,
N.C. |
It is alarming that the most private form of info., the
ssn, is available on the internet. This information must
be kept off. |
1 |
86 |
12/1/00 |
Virginia
S. Meehan
Plant City, FL. |
Commentor opposes electronic court records access. Medical,
financial, tax and other records must remain
personal. The internet/court system will mark everyone for life
who has ever failed. The doors to the
thievery of all other kinds of
personal info. will be opened. |
1 |
87 |
12/1/00 |
Duvall
LA. |
All public records should be available over the
internet, but personal info. should be extracted. This should
apply to paper court records as well. |
1 |
88 |
12/1/00 |
Mobile,
AL. |
Alabama court electronic data is very convenient for
law offices and paralegals. It saves time and
money for the legal community and courts. |
1 |
89 |
12/2/00 |
Port
Orange, FL. |
Full disclosure is vital for safeguarding rights, but
can be trumped by certain issues such as privacy. Commentor
suggests a three tier system of public (all general
proceedings) protected (information that could
contribute to illegal discrimination, such as sexual
orientation, medical history, etc.); and secure
(personal i.d. info.). Each classification
could be fitted with access controls appropriate for
that classification. |
2 |
90 |
12/2/00 |
Gainesville,
FL. |
Public access to activities of govt. are predicated on
need for public scrutiny; degree of disclosure should
be governed by degree of government involvement. In criminal
cases, unless on-going investigation, all info should
be public. In civil cases, unless government is a party, limited
info. should be available, excluding personal info.
unless directly related to final ruling. |
2 |
91 |
12/2/00 |
Sunnyvale,
CA. |
Certain aspects of public records can be kept
confidential through the use of software that extracts
personal info. prior to uploading on the internet. Salary listings
in bankruptcy cases is particularly egregious. |
1 |
92 |
12/2/00 |
Southbury,
CT. |
It is better to censor personal info but that may open
a pandora's box of enforcement problems. Err in favor of
full disclosure on principle. You might consider
recording who has obtained access, or monetary
restrictions. |
1 |
93 |
12/2/00 |
Ownsboro,
KY |
Some info. in court-related files is too sensitive for
general or electronic release. Identity theft is too
great a problem, and the potential liability is too
great to assume. |
1 |
94 |
12/2/00 |
Menlo
Park, CA |
Arguments for not providing full access to criminal
case files are not compelling, and may diminish the
rights of defendants. Legitimate concerns
do arise over mining of automated data, although it is
important as a research tool. Consider open info.
in cases with final determination of guilt, with other
defendants offered opportunity to seal records. |
1 |
95 |
12/3/00 |
Los
Angeles, CA. |
Do not prevent the average user form accessing the
information if criminals can get it just as easily by
other means (access to DMV records that are also
available without submission of justification on
internet); Consider requiring a form be filed with each
pleading containing all necessary personal i.d. info.,
with original in paper file, and redacted copy scanned
into electronic records system. This is not long term
solution, however which will require laws changing the
way we retain such info. |
2 |
96 |
12/4/00 |
Laconia,
N.H. |
Court records dealing with financial info. should not
be online; infringes on right to privacy, and opens
door to financial mayhem. |
1 |
97 |
12/4/00 |
|
No secret testimony should ever be allowed in a court
case. All
pro se case files should be on the net for public
education purposes. |
4 |
98 |
12/4/00 |
Zachary
Mosner
Ass't Attny. General
State of Washington
Bankruptcy and Collections Unit |
RACER and PACER have made equal access to justice a
reality; with e-documents there is no longer a
jurisdictional edge- it establishes a level playing
field. As
the technology advances, it will be possible to
identify abuses and address them (does not reflect the
official opinion of his office). |
1 |
99 |
12/4/00 |
Virginia
Beach, VA |
Allow internet access to court cases; amend current
laws to restrict info. to personal information. |
1 |
100 |
12/5/00 |
Long
Beach, CA |
Charge a fee to identify those gaining and using info
for later enforcement action for misuse. Personal data should
be omitted or encrypted. |
1 |
101 |
12/5/00 |
Orange,
CA. |
There should not be general public access to entire
criminal files. Parties names should
appear however, to facilitate searches. Limits on the number
of documents that may be retrieved [at any one time]
would also deter "info. harvesters." |
1 |
102 |
12/7/00 |
Bethesda,
MD. |
Courthouse paper records naturally restrict and control
access- electronic info. takes on a life of its
own. Consider giving each type of court case its own level
of access protection and limiting case info. to summary
files, requiring access to details on basis of password
or in person visits. |
1 |
103 |
12/07/00 |
Norwood,
MA |
Policies should be consistent between paper and
electronic records, but internet does create
opportunities for abuse. It is reasonable to offer
on-line index of cases/dockets, while sealing
[personal] contents; authenticated identity of person
seeking info. should be known, and details of the
request [request history] posted with case. |
1 |
104 |
12/8/00 |
West
Virginia |
We should use the technology available to glean the
info. we can from case files. The public has a
right to know, unless it is restricted or not in the
best interests of the people/parties involved. |
1 |
105 |
12/8/00 |
Seattle,
WA. |
Interested person can attend court or go through
minimal procedures to gain access. Most clients have
minimal experience with the law, and participate openly
due to the belief that the material provided will not
be widely disseminated. Open electronic court
files will engender this; it will also encourage others
to file scurrilous materials without fear of liability for
defamation; the public should come to the records- not
the records to the public. |
1 |
106 |
12/9/00 |
Eau
Claire, WI. |
Absent special circumstances, all open cases should be
available on the internet. Once closed, a case
should be removed so those involved can get on with
their lives. This balances need to
monitor public events with litigant's rights. |
1 |
107 |
12/10/00 |
|
In criminal matters, everything should be available and
indexed unless a specific reason prevents it. In civil cases,
subpoenaed info. should be withheld, including all
involuntary testimony. |
1 |
108 |
12/10/00 |
Portland,
OR |
Electronic files should be treated the same as paper;
if parties wish to protect sensitive info., they should
move to seal. The decision to
charge for access to electronic records is absurd and
should be promptly reversed. |
1 |
109 |
12/11/00 |
San
Francisco, CA. |
Court documents should be available on the
internet. |
1 |
110 |
12/11/00 |
Toni
Imfeld, Esq.
Linville, and Clausen
Seattle, WA. |
"Civil: option 2; there needs to be access to
most, but not all, documents via electronic means, and
uniform rules protecting privacy would be the most
effective means to do this;
Criminal: option 2; many items in criminal files are
not public information now, and should remain that way;
Bankruptcy: option 4; the easiest way to segregate the
private information is to collect them and restrict
access; it would then be up to the parties and their
attorneys to be sure that information did not make
it's way into a public file;
Appellate: option 2; electronic access to court files
is an important development, which will greatly reduce
the cost to litigants; courts should consider the
matter of privacy, unless and until Congress can act in
the matter. |
1 |
111 |
12/11/00 |
Salt
Lake City, UT. |
The public's business should be accessible to the
public on the web. Private becomes
public through government action. The public, as
taxpayers, should not have to pay for access. |
1 |
112 |
12/11/00 |
Howard
M. Unger
c/o Sarasota Herald Tribune
Bradenton, FL |
Electronic files should be treated the same as paper,
as there is no legal
difference. As a journalist,
commentor is concerned with the timeliness of document
postings. |
1 |
113 |
12/11/00 |
Needham,
MA |
The advantage of immediate access is arguable. There
remains a difference in making documents available at
the courthouse versus the internet, and the security
through the obscurity the former provides. The danger to privacy
rights and the threat of criminal misuse of data
remains, and is accentuated by internet access. It may result
in fewer people being willing to use their courts out
of fear. |
2 |
114 |
12/12/00 |
Orange
CT. |
Although in the public domain, the ease of internet
access to records over 17 years old could cause massive
loss of privacy; idea of levels of access will only
encourage violations of the policy; finally, if
available, it should be free for everyoNE |
1 |
115 |
12/12/00 |
John T.
Longino, Esq |
Limiting public access is an idea worthy of Washington-
only allowing the elites (local judges, lawyers) to
know what is going on. |
1 |
116 |
12/12/00 |
John Q.
Public |
There is no reason for distinction between paper and
electronic records access. If ssn and bank account
info. availability are hazardous, they should not be
available. The right to personal privacy should not be
sacrificed. |
1
|
117 |
12/12/00 |
New
York, N.Y. |
Posting documents on the internet should be a time and
money saver for everyone. |
1 |
118 |
12/13/00 |
Samual
Blanchard, Esq.
Los Angeles, CA |
Commentor is a PACER user. All public documents
should be scanned and on-liNEEmphasis should be on
active cases, but also last 5-15 years. Commentor prefers web-based
dial-ins, pdf formats and wants increased
access. |
1 |
119 |
12/13/00 |
Memphis,
TN |
FRCP should be changed so that parties are not
routinely required to file any info. until then the
harm of allowing free public access to sensitive info.
is greater than the public good of allowing such
access. Sensitive info. should be accessible only by those in
need-parties, attorneys, and the court; chances for
mischief too great. |
1 |
120 |
12/13/00 |
Schenectady,
N.Y. |
Public proceedings and the records that flow from them
are an essential part of republican govt.. All records before
the courts should be available. Secrecy is an
anathema to our type of govt. |
1 |
121 |
12/13/00 |
Winston
Ross
The Idaho Spokesman-Review
reporter |
Public records, no matter what form,
should remain open. If its public, it
should not matter who has access or how often. |
1 |
122 |
12/14/00 |
Sloughhouse,
CA.
|
Electronic access to bankruptcy court records saves
time, reduces costs to public, and makes legal services
more affordable. |
1 |
123 |
12/15/00 |
Elgin,
TX. |
Access to electronic records should be completely open,
and not just to those who know how to find the
"back door" to desired data. Secrets do more harm
than the truth. |
1 |
124 |
12/15/00 |
San
Francisco, CA |
I would like to keep court documents accessible. |
1 |
125 |
12/18/00 |
Bernard
Cane
Santa Monica, CA.
licensed private investigator |
Public record access is the fundamental basis for the
freedom we all enjoy; closing access would invite a
flood of fraud and deception. No further steps are
necessary if access is limited to registered, qualified
users for legitimate purposes. |
1 |
126 |
12/22/00 |
Bogolusa,
LA |
Ability to find any legal information should be
encouraged as one more tool that the uneducated and
poor can look to defend themselves from injustice. |
1 |
127 |
12/22/00 |
New
York, N.Y. |
In some cases, public offices release information only
to those presenting identification. We need secure
measures to allow for remote identification. NSA should
develop a single federal id/password schema |
1 |
128 |
12/22/00 |
Ira
Hoffman
Grayson & Kubli
McLean, VA.
attorney |
Commentor strongly supports expanding electronic access
to court files to the same extent that paper files are
available. Electronic access to existing files would have to be
read only, and impregnable fire-walls would have to be
constructed against hackers. |
2 |
129 |
12/28/00 |
|
Government records should always be open unless they
affect the defense or vital interests of the U.S. |
1 |
130 |
12/29/00 |
Richmond,
VA. |
Currently, civil court records and post conviction
criminal court records are accessible by anyone for any
or no reason. Access is not used
because it is administratively difficult. Attorneys and bar
associations see access to the courts as an economic
threat. In metropolitan areas, court personnel, under perceived
pressure from the bar, are not helpful to citizens who
want access to court processes. In state courts,
judges are often, although not unanimously, hostile to
pro se litigants. Electronic access makes possible
inexpensive and easy academic and citizen review of the
court process; inexpensive and easy resource access for
the potential pro se litigant; less costly
administration for the private bar and government
agencies; and greater opportunities for commercial
exploitation of public record information. |
2 |
131 |
12/31/00 |
Lynn M.
Evans
Executive Director
Mississippi Center for Freedom of Information
Jackson, MS. |
The Center is organized to protect peoples right to
know the actions of its government. Electronic filings in
federal court should be open and accessible. Access
represents long- standing rule of common law, protects public at large as well as parties in
litigation, and insures equality before the law. Restrictions on
access erodes the watch dog role that open access
provides. Mississippi law
now requires that all records, including electronic
ones, are governed by the Public Records Act The Center
favors of open public access to all electronic filings
of the court. |
2 |
132 |
1/1/01 |
Port
Clinton, OH |
Commentor approves of electronic access to court
records, so long as process of justice is not
encumbered and is pleased that all court
records in election controversy were readily
accessible. |
1 |
133 |
1/2/01 |
Warren
D. Matson
Milwaukee, WI.
Pastor |
Interested in greater availability of court
records. As an employer working with children, access allows
more complete background checks of employees. |
1 |
134 |
1/2/01 |
Dousman,
WI. |
Court system should obtain only that info. necessary to
its role. The entire
record of the court is public, and should be available
to the broadest audience by all technological
means. Courts should not discriminate as to access based on
geographical proximity. |
1 |
135 |
1/2/01 |
Grand
Marsh, WI. |
The public has a right to view all public records,
including criminal records. |
1 |
136 |
1/2/01 |
Fairfield,
CA |
There is no substantive difference between access to
hard versus electronic files. Any party with a
valid legal reason may seal records in either
system. Advantages of wider, more direct electronic access are
party ability to review to determine accuracy; savings
to clerk's office in time, space and personnel
costs. |
1 |
137 |
1/3/01 |
Shannon
O'Bien
U.S. Bankruptcy Court
Spokane, WA. |
Debtor name, address and other info. should be
sufficient for identification purposes. Commentor supports
limiting ssn, credit card, other data to last four
digits. |
1 |
138 |
1/3/01 |
San
Jose, CA. |
The magnitude of what judiciary is attempting leaves
doubt as to whether it can be managed effectively and
in a timely fashion. It is better to make
all prior judicial decisions that are precedential
electronically available to the public, rather than
just active new cases. |
1 |
139 |
1/03/01 |
Rolla,
MO |
Civil case files: option four, seek an amendment to the
FRCP to deal with privacy concerns; specifically, any
financial information that could be used for
"identity theft" or fraud purposes; also, any
information that could be used to harass a defendant or
plaintiff, such as medical information or
insurancerelated information;
Criminal case files: not necessary to provide in
electronic form; need for using the electronic system
is space saving due to the voluminous documentation
involved, and because these cases do not generally
create such large files, it does not seem that this is
necessary; further, these records contain information
and pertain to matters which are highly sensitive and
personal;
Bankruptcy case files: a combination of options one,
three & four would be necessary to prevent fraud
and "identity theft" by those who would use
electronic access to gain sensitive financial
information contained in these files; they would still
allow the case parties, as well as others such as
financial institutions access to the information as
permitted by statute;
Appellate cases: either option would suffice to protect
privacy while allowing sufficient access to the public;
PACER and CM/ECF Systems are invaluable tools for the
public; believe
that good government is government that operates in the
open; in the electronic age to have these records
easily available, but with secure logins for record
keeping and tracing is idea whose time has come. |
2 |
140 |
1/4/01 |
John
Wiltsee
Assoc. Gen. Counsel
Univ. of Nebraska
Lincoln, NE. |
Alternative policy models two and three are preferable
to alternative oNE |
1 |
141 |
1/4/01 |
Rose L.
Thrush
U.S. Bankruptcy Court
Portland, OR.
|
Bankruptcy case files: proposal 1-to work, it would
have to be in combination with proposal 4; proposal
2-not sure anything could be omitted; proposal 3-credit
card and account numbers could be reduced to the last 4
digits, but ssn should [not] be as it is; used to track
and identify serial filers and those who have been
prohibited by court order from refilling; proposal 4-in
conjunction with proposal 1 would seem to be the best
solution; but, do we have the technology that would
allow access to parties in interest which changes with
each case? |
1 |
142 |
1/4/01 |
Cincinnati,
OH.
|
You need
to secure info. that is available on the internet and
to protect privacy of all citizens. Only basic info. such
a party names, case numbers and dates should be
available. Outside inquirers should have case numbers for court
database inquiries. |
1 |
143 |
1/5/01 |
Harrisburg,
PA |
Limited electronic access to criminal case files should
be permitted, but safety and security concerns should
be met with regard to plea agreements, unexecuted
warrants, etc.. |
1 |
144 |
1/5/01 |
Phoenix,
AZ |
Access via internet not equivalent to in-person
access. The potential harm of internet access far outweighs
ease of access for the legitimately interested
few. The
identification of a file and its status may be all that
is appropriate. |
1 |
145 |
1/5/01 |
|
Case files should be protected from public disclosure
as all contain private or sensitive info. The disclosure of
medical records, personnel files, tax returns,
proprietary info., motor vehicle info., police records,
etc., should be on a need to know basis. When people feel the
truth will threaten their livelihoods, they will not
tell the truth.. This action holds the potential for a
slew of lawsuits. Why is this not a
question for a public vote? |
1 |
146 |
1/07/00 |
Chattanooga,
TN |
Make criminal records available on the internet. Criminals are
always trying cover their past activities to take
advantage of their next victims. |
1 |
147 |
1/8/01 |
El
Centro, CA. |
Commentor is concerned about personal info on the
internet. Identity theft is growing, and the current controls are
elementary with no verification of those seeking
access. Legislation should penalize unauthorized use of this
info. The
image of the courts will be harmed as criminals confess
that it was through court data sites that their crimes
began. |
1 |
148 |
1/08/01 |
Waukesha,
WI |
Commentor favors full access to paper file, limited
electronic access, shielded ssn's. She has had
experience with identity theft. Witnesses and
litigants should be protected. |
1 |
149 |
1/8/01 |
Carolyn
Elefant, Esq.
Washington, D.C. |
Commentor is an attorney with small firm for whom
internet access is vital. There is a need to strike
a balance between privacy of litigants and attorney
access. Paid access to brief banks/other commercial services
erodes equal opportunity of access and free access to
officers of the court is better. Commentor agrees on need to
amend the FRCP to reflect privacy rights and protect
sensitive info. Attorneys' access to important
work product info should also be protected against
commercial re-packagers/re-sellers of such info.
(attached partial web article: "How Much Privacy
Do Litigants Deserve in E-Filing?" by author ) |
3 |
150 |
1/11/01 |
Sevierville,
TN |
All bankruptcies should be a matter of public record on
the internet as such postings
can only increase efficiency. Commentor does not
understand privacy concerns. |
1 |
151 |
1/12/01 |
Eddy L.
McClain
Director, Past Pres.
National Council of Investigation and Security Services |
NCISS is a national org., with members in 40 states;
recognizes traditions and legal basis of open access to
public records; remain concerned about privacy in
internet records access. There is a difference
between paper records in the courthouse and
electronic records and internet access. Improved technology
requires improved controls. NCISS opposes restrictions to
access on unsealed records, but requirement of identity
at the courthouse (practical obscurity) remains more
secure than anonymous access over the net.
Amendments to the FRCP are not needed at this
time-the few aberrations should not outweigh the normal
daily info. flow;
Civil case files: court discretion in sealing records
sufficient- against any two-file (public/private)
solution as too restrictive, subjective and costly; but
requestors should have to register and qualify for
access for case by case access, and foreign access
should be prohibited to avoid intellectual property
theft;
Criminal files: no danger to treat these the same as
civil, with protections for witness and family info.;
PACER-type registration will provide protection, but
access necessary for safe workplaces; Bankruptcy case
files: full disclosure is necessary, and privacy has
been waived by filers to get relief; society has a
right to the info., not only for parties to the current
action, but also for all creditors and others who must
make judgements regarding dealings with the filer in
the future; the positive identification of the filer is
also important, and requires a ssn to insure that
others with similar names are not injured thru
mis-identification or confusion; data should not be
reduced, but increased- suggest dob on case files and
docket info.;
Appellate cases: same as above, with full access to
anything not sealed;
Strongly oppose bulk records sales; oppose elimination
of hard copies of records due to potential of internet
sabotage from hackers (on the increase)- keep as
necessary backup. |
4 |
152 |
1/12/01 |
Andrew
Oh-Wileke
Rumler Law Corp.
Denver, CO. |
Commentor favors: (1) presumption that all filed
documents not sealed are available at the courthouse
and electronically; (2) extending presumption to criminal
case files, where the sixth amendment gives public
access to criminal case files; (3) not modifying Rule 107 of the
Bankruptcy Code to reflect a movement to electronic
records access; (4) Restricting use of personal numbers
to the last four digits is appropriate in all contexts,
not just electronic ones, unless the entire number is
for some reason "at issue"; (5) Consistency
with these rules at the appellate level is
appropriate. Different standards
for paper v. electronic records is not sensible. Nothing in
public record is ever really private; i.e., credit
reporting, legal publishing, and title abstract
industries; illegitimate users who have a financial
interest in misusing paper records will not be
inhibited by a paper record standard; way to protect
privacy is by keeping certain information out of all
public records. |
2 |
153 |
1/15/01 |
Erik
Bakke, Esq.
Davis, and Arneil
Wenatchee, WA.
|
Commentor applauds the courts for web-RACER. Court files are
public and web access just makes access more convenient. If limits on
access are necessary, they should not apply to
attorneys who need info and are officers of the
court. Perhaps user access should be only through pass words
and defined levels of access, but limiting access to
what is already public makes no sense. |
1 |
154 |
1/15/01 |
Paul S.
Snyder, Esq.
Ashland, KY |
Electronic access will have significant implications
re: privacy, but free access is critical in a
democracy; info. may be segregated for cause in paper
and electronic records with party consent.. The judiciary must
avoid possibility of electronic "star
chamber" by eliminating disclosure requirements
for private info. and maintaining free access for
appropriate parts of public record. |
1 |
155 |
1/16/01 |
Everett,
WA |
Public records access should be the same for paper and
electronic records and the internet removes
barriers/restrictions of space and time. It should be
welcomed. |
1 |
156 |
1/16/01 |
Mississippi
Press Assn.
Jackson, MS
|
There is no reason that court
files on-line should be treated differently than
existing records. Federal and state
decisions support need for openness. A new medium should
not distract us from core values. Internet access is
more convenient and less costly. Privacy objections
raise no new controversies. Nothing has changed
except the technology. |
2 |
157 |
1/17/01 |
Charles
A. Schaffer, Dir.
Small Business Assistance Office,
Minnesota Dept. of Trade and Economic Development |
Business bankruptcy files are of interest to states in
addressing job loss and directing economic assistance
Civil files - Restricting access would prevent state
from securing accurate, timely info. with which to inform state
residents and shape good state policy; favor alt 1:
only option that maintains judicial discretion to seal
files at litigant's request if privacy concerns
threaten right to access- this has worked well;. alts.
2 and 3 have troubling elements; hard to see how
concept of "public case file" could be
uniformly applicable; concept of differing levels of
access erects further barriers; best course is
extension of current open access policies to electronic
files. |
3 |
158 |
1/17/01 |
Toby
Brown
V.P., Strategic Initiatives
iLumin Corp. |
Courts should revise policies to protect private
info. Citizens should be able to use their courts without
fear of info being published on the net. Use of PDF formats
makes this harder. Courts should use
XML (now
developing standards for court operation). XML allows easier
redaction, and "portioning" of
documents. |
1 |
159 |
1/17/01 |
Richard
J. Byrd
Byrd Mische, P.C.
10521 Judicial Dr.
Fairfax, Va. |
Commentor is a practicing attorney and member of
Virginia's Electronic Filing Committee, for which
Fairfax Co. is pilot. He has drafted legislation
excluding divorce cases from net access through
sealing, although they can still view in the
clerk's office. Federal cases involve
much sensitive info., including info. on children. It is seemingly
universal opinion among practitioners in Virginia that
court files should be sealed from electronic access.
Availability at courthouse satisfies access and open
government concerns. |
2 |
160 |
1/17/01 |
Anne
Gardner, AUSA
E.D. Arkansas
Little Rock, Ar. |
She is working on similar issues with state, local, tribal
governments, NACM, COSCA, Justice, and National
Criminal Justice Assn. (views are her own, not that of
her office);
Info. must be considered by type and context. Systems must
see each document as a whole, and public access
policy must be integral to system design to account for the
nuances of this data. Policy must reflect
new access, sharing, and analysis capabilities- all
agencies must become pro-active. For these reasons:
criminal case files proposal (section 1) is
unrealistic; civil case files proposal display that
difficulty is determining what info is public; levels of
access concept implies info is not truly public except
to those with authorization- if so, better to term it
disclosable or confidential. |
2 |
161 |
1/18/01 |
Anonymous
Attorney |
Commentor is against allowing pleadings, transcripts,
motions or other matters to be readily
available to the public in this manner and supports redefining
the what should be public record matters. He is concerned with
ramifications re: ABA code of conduct concerning
confidentiality of client info. and secrets attorneys
may be allowed to release without client consent. Allowing the
release of such info would harm the profession as well
as the public. Clients may choose
against bringing suit, against being forthright with
counsel, or going pro se; open access thru the internet
creates climate for manipulation by parties- can also
lead to blackmail, more cases withdrawn, more requests
for redaction and sealing. There must be standards for
what is public. Redaction and seal
solutions will create workload burdens on court
staff. You
need pro-active posture and should consult Nixon case
re: public v. private. It used to be that open access
was best policy; not anymore- now requires investment
to protect public, data, software, systems. There are more tort
suits coming on data access/misuse and parties opting for
arbitration to preserve privacy. |
3 |
162 |
1/18/01 |
Richmond,
VA. |
Commentor deeply concerned with allowing public access
to court records with personal info over the net
and possible misuse by stalkers, harassers, etc. Bankruptcy and
criminal cases should be available, but sensitive
identifying info. should be removed. It's the
responsibility of the government to protect
people's privacy. |
1 |
163 |
1/18/01 |
Englewood
Cliffs, N.J. |
There is a right to access, but some kind of tracking
and user certifications should be required. It would be an added
benefit for those whose info is accessed to have
access to that same info, and name of requestor. |
1 |
164 |
1/18/01 |
Chicago,
IL.
|
Criminal case files: do not provide electronic access-
can see no benefit, and possibilities for misuse of
data;
Civil case files: all documents that are not sealed are
available at the courthouse or electronically; in
reference to closed cases, included or excluded from
the new policy? recommend that it apply only to new
cases; "levels of access" concept- as a
computer professional, skeptical -difficult to enforce,
subject to hacking, and does not protect against second
readers who obtain copies. |
1 |
165 |
1/19/01 |
Charlotte
Hardnett, Acting General Counsel Social Security
Administration;
Arthur Fried
Fmr. General Counsel
Social Security Administration |
(Extensive comments-please see full text)
Social Security Administration believes that Federal
court records in Social Security cases should not be
made available to the public at
large through the use of the internet. Social Security
Administration policy is not to disclose personal
information pursuant to a Federal or State court order
or other legal process unless the disclosure is
permitted by the Social Security Act 42 U.S.C.
§1306(a); participation in Social Security
programs is mandatory, and people cannot limit what
information is given to the Social Security
Administration; thus, completely open access to Social
Security litigation case files would likely have a
chilling effect on seeking judicial review of administrative
decisions on Social Security claims; any such chilling
effect would be in tension with the congressional
intent to
furnish Social Security claimants the right to judicial
review 42
U.S.C. § 405(g)-(h); a claimant's right to such review
necessarily outweighs any general public interest in
universal, instantaneous electronic access to a
claimant's personally identifiable info.;
A civil case record generally includes the pleadings,
the parties' briefs on the merits of the Social
Security claim, the administrative record, the court
decision, and large amounts of personally identifiable
info.:
Alt 1: maintain the presumption that all filed
documents that are not sealed are available both at the
courthouse and electronically [....].:
Social Security Administration does not consider
sealing records on a case by case basis as a viable
method for addressing privacy and
security of Social Security claimants; potential harms
outweigh the benefits of general public in internet
access; first, virtually every Social Security case
file contains sensitive information; second, due the
pervasiveness of personally identifiable information in
Social Security court case files and the large volume
of Social Security civil litigation, this policy
alternative would be extremely burdensome for the
courts and the parties; third, we know of no legal
authority for sealing Social Security court records at
the courthouse; fourth, a single, nationwide approach
is necessary to help ensure uniform treatment of Social
Security claimants and consistent handling of their records and
could lead Congress to amend the Social Security Act
with respect to protecting claimants' privacy and
security interests uniformly;
alt. 2.: define what documents should be included in
the "public file" and, thereby, available
...either at the courthouse or electronically
[...]; since
this policy alternative links the public file in the
courthouse and on the Internet, the Social Security
Administration does not view this as a workable
alternative for the same reasons;
alt 3.: Establish "levels of access" to certain
electronic case file information [....];
if internet access to Social Security court case files
were restricted to judicial personnel and parties to
the litigation, the Social Security
Administration would favor this alternative; it is
noted, however, that filing paper copies of the
administrative record portion of the Social Security
court case record is the best currently available
alternative;. currently, scanning
is the only way to electronically file these
record and
it is of limited value for several reasons...[it would]
require the considerable additional funding...; does
not produce word-searchable texts...; [and the ]
inevitable inaccuracies would require additional
funding.... ; finally, failure to rely on accurate
records would lead to
erroneous court decisions;
alt. 4.: seek an amendment to one or more of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to account for privacy
and security interests;
Social Security Administration would be amenable to
employing this approach; we would want to participate
in the development of any such amendments;
Criminal Case Files
alt. 1.: do not provide electronic public access to
criminal case files....
No comment.
alt. 2.: Provide limited electronic public access to criminal
case files.... allow the general public access to some,
but not all, documents routinely contained in criminal
files....;
Social Security Administration is concerned about any
personally identifiable information, especially Social
Security numbers, that would be made available to the
public...;
Bankruptcy Case Files
alt. I.: seek an amendment to section 107 of the
Bankruptcy Code; section 107
currently requires public access to all material filed with
bankruptcy courts and gives judges limited sealing
authority;
for the reasons previously stated, we believe that
personally identifiable information, and
Social Security numbers in particular, should not be
included on internet postings of bankruptcy case
filings;
alt. 2.: require less information on petitions or
schedules and statements filed in bankruptcy
cases;
for the reasons previously stated, we believe that
personally identifiable information, and Social
Security numbers in particular, should not be included
on internet postings of bankruptcy case filings;
alt. 3.: restrict use of Social Security, credit card,
and other account
numbers to only the last four digits to protect privacy
and security interests;
Social Security Administration concurs;
alt. 4.: segregate certain sensitive information from
the public file by collecting it on separate forms that
will be protected from unlimited public access and made
available only to the courts, the U.S. Trustee, and to
parties in interest;
Social Security Administration has no objection.
Appellate Cases
alt. 1.: apply the same access rules to appellate
courts that
apply at the trial court level;
Social Security Administration concurs;
alt. 2.; treat any document that is sealed or subject
to public access restrictions at the trial court level
with the same protections at the
appellate level unless and until a party challenges the
restriction in the appellate court;
any document that is sealed or subject to public access
restrictions at the trial court level should enjoy the
same protections at the appellate level, until a court
of competent jurisdiction unseals the documents or
revises the access restrictions. |
14 |
166 |
1/19/01 |
Seattle,
WA |
Internet access to court case gives the potential for
access to personal info, especially in regard to
stalking or domestic violence victims and for identity
theft. |
1 |
167 |
1/20/01 |
Harry
Hammit
Editor/Publisher
Access Reports
Lynchburg, VA. |
It is a dangerous precedent for the court to respond to
privacy alarms with policy prohibiting access due to
potential invasions of personal privacy. As a society we have
not conducted the necessary debate as to what info. in
traditional public records should be public. General access
to public records is a statutory right, not an added
benefit, and is in no way tempered by what records
reveal. Court records are not necessarily public at creation,
but only when they enter the public record. Parties are in best
position to decide, but should not be given cart
blanche. Redaction should be based upon and objective standard,
not subjectively perceived embarrassment to the
parties. The court
should analyze public interest and outside parties the
opportunity to argue for disclosure. The goal should be to
maximize the amount of info. that can be made
available. Public oversight over the courts is essential and
should not be given short shrift due to personal
privacy concerns. |
3 |
168 |
1/21/01 |
Kirk T.
Hartley
Butler, Rubin, Saltarelli, & Boyd
Chicago, IL. |
Commentor has seen few cases in 17 years of law
practice where truly private info made its way into
court files; if sensitive, judges can seal; not sure
re: bankruptcy (fears of disclosure of credit and
account info are probably right) but concerns there
should not inhibit access to other court files. |
2 |
169 |
1/21/01 |
Jeff
Hatch-Miller
Arizona House of Rep.
Phoenix, AZ |
Few controls exist over publication of info. We should affirm a
basic right that except in specific circumstances,
doing business with the government does not require one
to become a public personality and that certain info.
(e.g., ssn; bank records; regular and e-mail address;
regular and fax numbers; tax returns; wage stubs;
medical info.; etc.) will be held
confidential. Protection should not
vary by record type. Data fields containing protected
info. may be encrypted, and available only to
identified, verified subscribers in single case
inquiries (no bulk requests), and offer only incomplete
identifiers in those protected data categories (e.g.,
first 5 ssn digits; zip codes in place of complete
addresses; range of dates in place of one dob; etc.). |
2 |
170 |
1/22/01 |
Greenfield,
WI |
Commentor is very much opposed to the courts giving out
info on the web as it can get into the wrong hands. |
1 |
171 |
1/22/01 |
Waukesha,
WI |
Internet use is similar to broadcasting- care must be
taken re: sensitive information. Consider excluding
all access to sensitive info in paper or electronic
records. Unless it is pertinent to the case, it should not be a
required part of it. Procedures are
required to shut down access on court order. |
1 |
172 |
1/22/01 |
Joseph
S. Pomykala
Towson State Univ.
Dept. of Economics
8000 York Rd.
Towson, MD |
Primary concern is bankruptcy case files;
re: Alt. 1(seek amendment to Rule 107...):
public access concept would be weakened thru
restriction to "parties in interest;" all
case documents should be accessible unless sealed, and
judges should have narrow authority to seal;
re: Alt. 2 (require less info. on petitions, pleadings,
...) :
more versus less info. should be required, as Congress
has recognized in recent bills (e.g., check off for debt
amount should include actual indebtedness);
re: Alt. 3 (restrict use of significant identity
numbers to last four digits...:
clearly justified- entire number should perhaps be
struck;
re: Alt. 4 (collect sensitive info. on separate
forms...)
may be
unwarranted, and unwise to create a separate info.
source to be withheld from the public; in general, all
case documents should be accessible, unless sealed by a
judge or law; sensitive i.d. info. should be excluded;
narrow judicial authority/discretion to seal; the law
should specifically reflect only that info. that is
required. |
4 |
173 |
1/23/01 |
Seattle,
WA |
Net access would surely affect the privacy and safety
of individuals. There is no need to
make personal ident. info. readily available. Private
and sensitive info. in court records poses a threat to
victims. Commercial info. venders facilitate the
discriminatory uses of this data.
Access to the courts should not subject the public to
increased danger or embarrassment. |
2 |
174 |
1/23/01 |
|
Lawyers don't want the public to know anything
without paying them first. |
1 |
175 |
1/23/01 |
Grass
Valley, IA |
Full electronic disclosure will create an assembly of
documentation that contains detailed info. about
criminal or personal activity. This info. is
dangerous in the hands of the wrong people, and its
presence would make the host web site unacceptable for
many viewers. Don't
[unwittingly] create a manual on criminal or illegal
business practices. |
1 |
176 |
1/23/01 |
An
American |
I am
aware that there are other ways to obtain personal
info., but unaware that it was so easy for people to
take otherwise private moments and offer them to the
world. I
don't think the founders would have
approved. |
1 |
177 |
1/23/01 |
Charlotte,
N.C. |
The degree of excellence in performance always improves
with observation. There is a long line
of stories of misbehavior or reckless performance by
officers of the courts. The public needs
access to all documents, proceedings, and the names of
all attorneys involved in them. |
2 |
178 |
1/24/01 |
Sandown,
N.H. |
I do not feel that court documents should be public
info. on the net and available to all. Too many who view
them would not have the competence to understand their
meaning, and would be a source of public harm. |
1 |
179 |
1/24/01 |
Brian
Long
National Group President
Dolan Media Company
obo
Amer. Bankers Assoc.
850 Third Ave. S.
suite 1650
Minneapolis, MN. |
The ABA is
committed to open access to court records in paper or
electronic form and recognizes the need to
balance privacy concerns, but ease of access should
have no bearing on to whom access is given. Any changes
in access should occur only after careful
consideration. Financial institutions need access to
protect against fraud.
The ABA
supports open access through PACER or other account
based, web-based password protected systems;
Re: privacy and security implications, there are
legitimate concerns raised that can be addressed
through the sealing of portions of these files by court
order, recognizing, however that info. on individuals
filing for bankruptcy should be widely available, and
that access by creditors is necessary for the efficient
operation of the bankruptcy system;
Re: policy alternatives on electronic public access:
ABA prefers that it remain the responsibility of
parties in interest to move to protect their interests
by motions to seal, and notes that current law already
penalizes those who abuse personal info.;
Re: criminal cases:
there should be no distinctions between paper and
electronic files; judicial oversight and power to seal
provide sufficient protections for privacy concerns
(see attached appendices). |
4 |
180 |
1/24/01 |
Lemont,
IL. |
These court records should not be on the net. This info.
should stay in the courthouse, on paper, to protect individual
privacy and prevent fraudulent abuse and the threat of
identity theft. |
1 |
181 |
1/24/01 |
Mark
Bernsley, Esq.
15910 Ventura Blvd.
Encino, Ca. |
Access should be based on details, not documents- all
documents should be available, not all details. The purpose of
public access focuses on courts and judicial process,
not litigants. There should be 2 levels of access based
on involvement, not medium. Courts and parties
require documents and details, policy should be the same
with paper or electronic files. Templates exist for
developing and implementing policy, process and
procedures: see Rev. Proc. 2000-1, 2000-1 .4 of IRS
(procedures re: original and redacted document
versions; only redacted version is public)
General principles/procedures: parties may file
original and redacted versions. Any party served may
submit a revised copy to redact, or further redact
info. Courts could adopt rules or standing orders covering
routine redactions/matters; special rules re:
transcripts could provide for written submissions where
necessary. Motions to make info. public could be filed at any time
by anyone, forcing the court to weigh privacy against
public interest in disclosure. |
8 |
182 |
1/25/01 |
|
The first concern of courts should be justice. Electronic
access limits justice. Victims are less likely to
confront attackers and witnesses are less
likely to cooperate with police. The 1st amendment does not cover access to all documents (e.g.,
medical records). Court records should
be available only to those able to use them to further
justice. |
1 |
183 |
1/25/01 |
Craig M.
Husa,
Senior Vice President Courtlink Corp. |
Courtlink is a leading provider of electronic public
access to court records; open access is better than
restricted access. The public has many
legitimate needs for access to court records, expressed
through info. demands of law
enforcement, private investigators, insurance
companies, title insurers, financial institutions, insurance
companies, the media, security firms, tenant and
employment screening companies.
Courts are inadequately staffed to respond to all info.
requests Access levels differ between state and federal
courts., but commercial providers bridge gaps. |
4 |
184 |
1/25/01 |
Mercer
Island, WA |
Please keep web site open- essential for good policy,
enhancing public understanding and trust in the
process. |
1 |
185 |
1/25/01 |
Ethel
Zelenske
NOSSCR Govt. Affairs Office
Washington, D.C. |
National Organization of Social Security Claimants
Representatives (NOSSCR) is an org. of attorneys and
non-attorneys representing claimants for SSI benefits;
concerned re: electronic access to extensive personal
ID info. contained in SS files; favor alt. 3,
establishing levels of access to court files; exposure
of personal ID info. could have a chilling effect on
claimants willingness to pursue claims; agrees with
Social Security Administration concerns, and favor use
of s standing protective order covering SS cases;
further:
Civil case files:
favor alt. 3, establishing levels of access, and
restricting access via identity of person seeking
access, nature of the document, or both; do not seek
change in current policies re: paper files at
courthouses;
Criminal case files:
favor alt. 2, limiting access to
parties, counsel, and the court; personal info. re
victims and SS claims should not be available on the net;
Bankruptcy case files:
favor alts. 1, 2, or 3, insuring that personal info.
should not be posted on the net;
Appellate case files:
trial access rules should apply. |
3 |
186 |
1/25/01 |
Jodie Z
Bernstein
Dir., Bureau of Consumer Protection
Federal Trade Comm.
600 Penn. Ave.
Washington, D.C. |
Submitting prior comments offered to the Depts. of Justice,
Treasury, and Office of Mgmt. and Budget (the Study Agencies) for
their study of privacy issues in consumer
bankruptcy filings; net info. has transformed the concept of
public access, posing both benefits and risks to
consumers re: privacy; FTC has established, under the Federal
Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998 a
centralized repository for claimants and victim
assistance; key pieces of info. for identity theft are
the ssn and dob, both contained in bankruptcy filings;
Privacy and identity theft re: bankruptcy:
study agencies should consider crafting policy whether certain
personal identity data is required to be in the public
record, and whether tailored
restrictions on such data are appropriate;
consider noticing requirements to debtors re: how info.
will be collected and used, extent to which made
public;
Future practices re: collection, analysis and
dissemination of personal data: potential commercial
use of such data should be prohibited; |
9 |
|
|
|
trustees in bankruptcy owe a fiduciary duty
to the debtors estate;
any use of such data for any purpose other than admin.
of debtor's estate should require prior notice
and approval from debtor;
interplay of the bankruptcy code and efforts to protect
consumer privacy merit further
analysis. |
|
187 |
1/25/01 |
J.
Michael de Janes
ChoicePoint, Inc.
100 Alderman Dr.
Alpharetta, Ga. |
Court records contain info. that is used by business,
individuals, and government for a wide range of
socially beneficial purposes. Courts should
continue traditional access while restricting it as
necessary where need is compelling and clear. Continued
public access is important for greater good of society;
without certain i.d. info., can't match persons
to data, so can't guard against identity theft
and fraud; ChoicePoint identification and research
products are subject to important privacy protections
under state and federal laws, and self- regulatory and
internal policy protections; also insures that
subscribers are reasonably identified, meet
qualifications as appropriate users, and agree to terms
and conditions of access; ask that any policy proposals
that would restrict access to court files be
rejected. |
7 |
188 |
1/25/01 |
Terry
Francke
Gen. Counsel
Ca. First Amendment Coalition
Sacramento, CA |
Civil Case Files:
favor Proposal 1, (...all files not sealed will be
available both at the court house and
electronically...);
find impracticable proposal 2 (...define what document
should be included in the "public file"...)
which amounts to a shrinkage of the accessible paper
record, presumes what is necessary for an understanding
of the underlying case, and assumes that the range of
public and private info. don't overlap;
proposal 3 (...establishing "levels of
access' to certain electronic case info. ) is
also unsatisfactory, as it provides no on-line cue as
to what is available, does not address how case files
would be indexed or searchable, and does not address
fee issues;
proposal 4 (...seek an amendment to one or more of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure...) is unclear- if its
seeks to reduce the range of info., objections are
necessary- if it sets procedures for dealing with
sealing, ok as long as they do not merely codify zones of
privacy irrespective of case particulars;
Criminal Case Files:
proposal 1 (...do not provide electronic public access
to criminal files...) is unacceptable-the
total preclusion of remote access to criminal files is
inconsistent with the traditional presumption of public
access to the criminal justice system noted previously;
favor proposal 2 (...provide limited electronic public
access to criminal case files ...), but trust
exclusions are time-limited;
Bankruptcy Case Files:
all 4 proposals have some merit, but would recommend
the following amendments (in caps):
proposal 1 (...seek amendment to section 107 of the
Bankruptcy Code) |
12 |
|
|
|
1) specifying that only "parties in interest"
may obtain remote ON-LINE access to certain types of
information; 2) ... provide
protection from REMOTE ON-LINE disclosures based on
FACTUALLY SUPPORTED AND CLEARLY ARTICULATED privacy and
security concerns; 3); 4) ...protected from public
access and made available ON-LINE only to the courts
...;
Appellate Cases
urge proposal 2, if it means that access restricted at
the trial court level could be challenged at the
appellate level. |
|
189 |
1/25/01 |
Judge
James Starzynski
U.S. Bankruptcy Court
Albuquerque, N.M. |
Some of the proposals currently being considered would
have an
enormous impact on the court's case management
system. Remedies decreed without court input could be a
disaster. |
1 |
190 |
1/25/01 |
San
Antonio, TX |
There must be a balance cast between competing rights
of access and privacy. One solution would be
to create classifications of information/documents that
would be protected in the electronic database (e..g, a
"class A" document requiring the highest
protection might be shielded or screened depending on who is
requesting access) Lawyers would be required to obtain
a password based on their bar number, while others
would utilize some other kind of identification. |
1 |
191 |
1/25/01 |
R.
Daniel Lyons, Esq.
Downers Grove, IL |
All files not sealed should be open to the public
at the courthouse and electronically without fee. Judicial
documents kept in secret, and judicial censoring of
public info. is a very bad precedent to
set. |
1 |
192 |
1/26/01 |
Margaret
Gay
U.S. Bankruptcy Court
Albuquerque, N.M. |
Federal courts in New Mexico have been providing case
info. to the public through the internet since 1995,
including pdf images of the documents themselves. Electronic
access to court documents saves dollars and man-hours,
In six years the court has never received a complaint
about publication of these records on the net, and
believes the benefits outweigh the costs. It is imperative that
the Judicial Conference formulate policy on this issue
with the courts who can assess the practical effect of
policy determinations. After reviewing the
policy options proposed, we believe that they can have
serious unintended consequences on court operations and
should be carefully reviewed to insure that they are
locally feasible. We suggest:
ssns: efforts to curb the publication of these numbers
is futile- they are too widespread, and too necessary
to identification;
segregation of sensitive info.: such proposals would
significantly increase processing time in every case;
levels of access: introduce multiple levels of
complexity and put clerks on the line to make decisions
re: public info. |
2 |
193 |
1/26/01 |
New York
Times Co.
Legal Dept.
New York, N.Y. |
Electronic access to court records has solved many of
the problems and limitations relating to paper
records. We view the restrictions suggested within the proposals
outlined as unwise, unwarranted and constitutionally
suspect. If info. exists in court files that should be withheld from
public scrutiny, adequate measures exist through
sealing, although that standard is difficult to meet;
what seems impermissible s a matter of fairness and
constitutional law, is either of two kinds of
discrimination discussed in the proposals: by document
type (paper v. electronic), oar status of seeker. It should be
borne in mind that any regulation aimed at electronic
files may amount to regulation over all files, as paper
records may disappear in our
lifetimes. If there is to be court intervention in any event, a
case by case approach to every aspect of these is
issues warranted. We submit that
current law as practiced is adequate, and that current
rules can apply to files in the clerks office or on a
computer. |
4 |
194 |
1/26/01 |
Alice N.
Lucan, Esq.
Washington, D.C. |
Commentor represents the Daily News of Memphis, a legal
notice publication whose business basis is legal,
employment/tenant screening companies, law enforcement,
etc., whose use of data is limited by statute. Use of data in
this manner is a public service. We endorse the
comments submitted by the National Newspaper
Association and the Reporters' Committee for
Freedom of the Press. |
2 |
195 |
1/26/01 |
Bruce R.
Hulme
Assoc. of Licensed Detectives of New York
New York, N.Y. |
The association (ALDONYS) opposes restrictions on
public access for both civil and criminal files other
than those sealed by the court, although recognizing
that the electronic medium may warrant some
restrictions; with Pacer-type systems requiring
identification of the requestor and establishment of an
on-line account, consideration should be given to
attorneys, para legals and licensed investigators- as
part of justice administration , they should be given
considerations that are not provided to the general
public. |
2 |
196 |
1/26/01 |
Laura R.
Handman
Chr., Media Law Comm.
Arts Entertainment and Sports Section,
D.C. Bar
Washington, D.C. |
The Media Law Committee endorses the continuation of
the judiciary's present case-by-case courts
approach to sealing files; we also wish to emphasize
our commitment to maintaining transparency in our
judicial system, identifying 3 key issues:
Legal considerations: presumption exists in favor of
access to judicial records; any policy choices
curtailing wholesale access to records would raise
serious questions
Public policy considerations:
open records serve to educate the citizenry on our
system of justice and the basis of judicial actions; limiting
access based on mode or means of storage or status of
the seeker would be impractical and without sound
foundation;
Journalistic considerations:
media organizations rely on court records as source
material for news; better access assures better
accuracy. |
3 |
197 |
1/26/01 |
Rene P
Milam
Asst. Gen. Counsel
Newspaper Assoc. of America |
(Extensive comments-please see full text)
The NAA represents over 2000 newspapers,
and over 87% of daily U.S. circulation. They believe net
technology should fulfil broad rights of public access,
not as a rationale for scaling rights back. Courts
should maintain their current case by case approach to
sealing court files; no additional protection are
required at this time.
Importance of public access, remote access to court
record:
public/press learn substance of proceedings and
operations of judicial system; journalists are eyes of
the public in daily coverage, in-depth reporting
(citing numerous stories, in various categories, aided
by access, remote access and PACER access to court
records);
Existing court practices are adequate to protect
privacy interests:
(citing case law) bulk of info. available Does not
raise privacy concerns; litigants can request court to
seal; those who take advantage of bankruptcy protection
have no reasonable expectation of privacy; case by case
approach to sealing, requiring presence of
a compelling interest in order to shield records from
public view, is best approach; currently no reason to
believe this approach is not adequate; allowing
electronic access burdens no one, as its simple and
automatic; would result in dissemination of no info.
that is not already public;
Policy Alternatives: judiciary should re-creates same
access regime for electronic as now exists for paper
records;
alt. 2, creating limited "public' files is a
profound step backward;
also oppose alt. 3 (limited or no remote access to
electronic files but full courthouse access to both
electronic and paper files)-no reason to impose blanket
limitations on access, or limit across the board
(rather than case by case) access; concerns re:
criminal cases can be dealt with on a case-by-case
basis;
Electronic access should complement rather than
mitigate the important interests that are served by
openness; when competing interests of privacy and
access are weighed, judiciary should adhere to same
well-reasoned access policy that obtains for paper
records; urge public hearings if departures from longstanding
access policies are contemplated. |
16 |
198 |
1/26/01 |
Michael
Giordano
Special Projects Dir.
CARCO Group Inc.
St. James, N.Y. |
CARCO provides fraud deterrence/detection services,
employment screening, and auto fraud inspections;
produces over 2 million reports annually, and conducts
over 30,000 federal public records inspections;
Electronic access to court case files:
public access through PACER adequate; should be
available to authorized users without restrictions;
on-line system should contain all
identifiers available on paper files to facilitate
matching;
Potential privacy and security implications:
new technology may present opportunity for adverse
impacts on balance between rights and privacy, but
safeguards can be implemented; e.g., access
restricted to those entities registered with the records
repository; requiring info. on the purpose of the
search; using dial-up system rather than the internet;
require 28 bit encryption for browsers; add
subscriptions/fidelity bond requirements for access;
provide criminal and civil sanctions for violations;
Role of the judiciary:
medium of record storage should not effect the
presumption of access; believe current methods of
protection via protective orders or sealing orders are
sufficient for on-line and paper access purposes;
Policy alternatives:
Civil case files- support option 1, all document not
sealed are available electronically or on paper ;
Criminal case files- do not support option 1, closing
electronic access to criminal files; option 2 is a
reasonable alternative where complete access deemed
counter to needs of the majority providing electronic
access to some of the documents in criminal files;
Bankruptcy case file- do not support any restrictions
on access to info. in bankruptcy files; do support BR
107 as written;
Appellate cases- apply same access rules as at trial
level. |
7 |
199 |
1/26/01 |
Total
Info. Services Inc. (TISI)
Tulsa, Ok. |
TISI divisions are DAC; USMA; & RSI-separate
comments from each:
TISI on Criminal case files: concerned re: blanket
prohibitions which would harm the legitimate user and
the general public; security measures should be adopted
which would prevent improper access and institute
penalties for abuse; need fastest most convenient,
efficient method of access, which is electronic case
file access;
DAC Services: provides background checks on job
applicants; require timely, accurate info. to avoid
liability for negligent hiring; require access to
criminal records to screen divers for movement across
Canadian Border, and for general public safety
purposes;
USMA: provide background employment checks for
retailers; require access to protect retailers from
theft and protect public safety ;
RIS: employment background checks for aviation and
banking industries; same concerns as above (attached FAA
regulations). |
9 |
200 |
1/26/01 |
Sharon
Nelson, Esq.
Sensei Enterprises, Inc.
Fairfax, Va |
Competing interests of privacy and access must be
balanced- necessary to look at pros and
cons of access restriction:
Redaction: personal info. may be redacted but who would
perform? work hour and liability issues; burden, labor
intensive, and software in different applications for
systemic redaction not fully reliable;
Sealing: simple, economical, reliable - but how and
what?
by kind of case-identify by cover sheet;
system can seal;
by document- requires electronic holding area until
status of document can be decided; requests to seal
will undoubtedly skyrocket;
Charging for access: this will limit access, but by
economic discrimination; worse on pro ses, disabled;
Logging access: programming can temporarily stop data
miners, but they can devise end runs around such
restrictions; unwieldily on courts if they have to
perform verifications;
Restricting access: problematic; if to parties and
counsel, effectively seals all documents from public
access;
For discrete number of records: data miners will find
or program ways around such restrictions- if exceptions
for cause, human intervention necessary, and time
consuming ;
By kind of document: technically possible, but will
effectively seal many records, and not offer privacy
protection for others;
By area of law: same limitations as sealing approach above;
By motion of party: wide disparity of results; sealing
requests become automatic;
Recommend systematic sealing of documents in areas of
the law where privacy rights outweigh public access
rights. |
6
|
201 |
1/26/01 |
Mary J.
Obee
Chief Deputy Clerk
U.S. Bankruptcy Court
Oklahoma City, OK |
Judiciary has four areas of interest in providing
access to info.:
operational, for ease of case administration; to
increase trust in system; to maintain and enhance
compliance with the laws; and to allow the public to
evaluate the operations and efficiency of the laws and
the judiciary; while electronic documents take up less
space, the equipment and programs necessary to create,
store and view them are costly to initiate and
maintain; further if access is easy, more access
occurs- better for case administration in some ways,
also creates more necessity for responses and hearings;
Privacy and security implications:
increased possibilities of physical, psychological
harms, thefts of money and identity, ans loss of
privacy; while low risk for individuals, high risk that
data base will be used to initiate such harms and
risks; security concerns with electronic access over the net
are great; differentiated levels of access to records
could provide a workable solution;
Identification of alternative modes and means of
access:
mode of access can be thru dia-up or internet;
alternative access policies are no access, limited
access differentiated access by status, time, etc.;
Judiciary policy proposals:
not sure they are other than unlimited public access
upon presentation of a password/logon and payment of a fee; it
will be costly and difficult to design and implement a
usable unlimited access system; fees will help defray
costs; judiciary should make rules for access
consistent across all courts (system usage charts and
graphs attached). |
10 |
202 |
1/26/01 |
Princeton,
N.J. |
(comments pertain only to civil cases)
Possible chilling effect of putting all records on
line:
only about 15% suits go to trial-remainder of fillings
contain untested facts; if disseminated, they could
undermine the perception of fairness and trust in the
legal system (analogizes impacts to first health
records on the internet); when public loses control
over info. about themselves, they change behavior in
ways that may be harmful to society; two possible
effects: amplification and mosaic; both hold
deleterious potential;
Judiciary should not rely on outdated analytical
models:
old models of public versus private, or balancing of
interests approaches- both are outdated;
Limit the info. that can be sold:
court records are a mother-load of commercial value;
West, Gann, others already profiting; "litigants
do not give up their privacy rights simply because they
have walked, voluntarily or involuntarily through the
courthouse door'-Arthur Miller, 105 Harvard L.
Rev.427 *(1991); The federal
Privacy Study Commission (1977) long ago saw the
dangers of the erosion of individual liberties through
automation as the result of many small, innocuous,
incremental steps; urges the judiciary to limit access
to sensitive information in court files. |
5 |
203 |
1/26/01 |
Lewis
Bellardo
National Archives and Records Administration
College Park, MD. |
All policy alternatives seem valid and workable from a
records management perspective. He suggests that a
time be specified for vacating the seals on materials
included as part of the case files that
are scheduled for permanent retention. |
1 |
204 |
1/26/01 |
Richard
Gard
Amer. Court and Commercial Newspapers
Atlanta, GA |
We urge the courts to preserve the openness,
availability and completeness of public records no
matter what the medium of
storage. Much of the info. in the federal courts has already
been available for some time; do not in the name of
unstated fears, start down the slope of redaction ,
closure and secrecy; avoid blanket policies and punish
wrongdoers with the civil, criminal and regulatory
tools available. The credit and
finance industries rely on the free flow of accurate
and complete info.. It is also necessary
to allow the monitoring of the administration of
justice. |
3 |
205 |
1/26/01 |
Privacy
Foundation
Denver, CO |
The Foundation recommends a national commission conduct
a comprehensive study to determine access and privacy
issues. Comments were in 3 general info. categories:
confidential (juvenile; trade secrets, etc.); sensitive
but not confidential (ssn, credit card numbers, bank
accounts, etc.); with all others generally available
on-line; commission should determine what falls into
each, as well as impacts of technology on categories;
commission would explore technological solutions for
automatic redactions and the creation of a symbol
system to guide filers and users. |
2 |
206 |
1/26/01 |
Chicago
Bar Assoc.
Bankruptcy
and Reorganization Comm.
Chicago, IL |
Access to far-flung districts is a necessity, and significantly
reduces costs. Open access to public
records represents the ideal in the relationship
between the courts and the public. Debtors must disclose
much private, personal and financial info. to gain
relief- this info. can also facilitate the illegal or
improper. Monitoring access on-line is harder to do- registration
is one solution, but difficult to verify; internet
definitely accentuates existing concerns; exceptions to
sec. 107(a) may not adequately protect debtors, or
alleviate the "chilling" effect the risks of
exposure impose;
Creditors access cannot be restricted: aids in
detection of fraud; access to this info. reduces the
cost of goods and credit in general. Internet access and
bankruptcy practitioners: can provide clients with
betters service. It promotes equality
of access for attorneys.
Major issues/solutions: disclosure of risk of net
exposure must be explained to clients; the Conference
should conduct inquiries as to extent disclosure takes
place; onus of informing clients is on counsel;
Conference should conduct study re: costs to both
debtors and creditors of not providing a full ssn on
petitions. |
7 |
207 |
1/26/01 |
Senny
Boone
National Newspaper Assoc.
General Counsel
Arlington, VA |
NNA represents community newspapers, and recognizes concerns
over privacy. It is concerned that
proposals seek to curtail access rights on the basis of
the medium, the net. Records created at
taxpayer expense belong to the public. Access important to
proper functioning of the criminal justice system. Raising privacy
fears rather than establishing actual harm is an old
argument to restrict rights of access. Judges and parties
already have the tools to protect privacy in protective orders
and motions to seal.
Civil case files: only alt. 1 is supportable-all
documents not sealed should be available on the net and
at the courthouse;
Criminal case files: neither alt. is acceptable; too
much discretion accorded to court,
and contains presumption of harm where none is shown;
Bankruptcy case files: re: amending rule 107, unclear
why this is necessary-creditors need unfettered access
to info.- should be controlled by parties and judge;
Appellate proceedings: final rules should be consistent
with trial courts. |
5 |
208 |
1/26/01 |
Bill
Pusch
Acxiom Corp.
Little Rock, AR |
Acxiom provides data integration services to
business. This generation expects quick and free flow of info.,
instant responses.
Public access to case files- govt. operations involve
the courts, and public's
watchful eye essential. The balance between privacy and
access is handled adequately under FRCP 26(c)- judges
or parties may seal
Convenient public access is good policy: a cornerstone
of American democracy, and a right of citizens. Access by
commercial providers aids government entities who use
theirs services. PACER accounts are a good option as they
require log-ins, fees and passwords;
Civil case files: support alt. 1, all files not sealed
are available; judge and party control on a case by
case basis; do not support pubic file, r levels of
access, or FRCP amendment options;
Criminal case files: maybe less of need for info.
access here, and danger to on-going prosecution
efforts; alt. 2, providing limited access is a balanced
option;
Bankruptcy case files: bankruptcy is a useful tool,
necessarily limits privacy for relief; full disclosure
is necessary - do not favor any options presented;
Appellate case files: apply same rules that apply at
trial court levels; should be reviewable. |
5 |
209 |
1/26/01 |
Individual
Reference Services Group
Washington, D.C. |
This group is in the business of disseminating public
record info. Current court records
policies have served us well and we favor open record
access unless sealed. This is sufficient for
privacy protection, and no need to change has been
demonstrated, regardless of whether records in paper or
electronic form. |
2 |
210 |
1/26/01 |
Robert
Becker, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
|
Case files should be available to the public on-line to
the same degree they are available at the courthouse. The privacy "price"
remains the same no matter what the medium. FOIA and executive
branch access principles are not analogous to
courts. There is a strong presumption under the 1st amendment and common law of public access. Public and news media
have presumptive right of examination of civil and
criminal files. The Supreme Court has not
specifically addressed it , but federal appellate
courts have found a right of access;
The right of privacy is found in common law of recent
origin: because common law right to privacy is
inherently a matter of state law, and the states have
taken significantly different positions with regard to
it, federal courts should take extreme care in
fashioning rules regarding electronic access;
Strong presumption that court records are public, and
any claims to the contrary should be assessed on a case
by case basis; restricting access by the status of
seeker or medium of records are too restrictive of
1st amendment and common law interests; no evidence is
offered as to dangers of internet access to support any
restrictions; Supreme and lower federal courts have
never found that speculation as to dangers justify secrecy;
privacy concerns should be demonstrated under the
appropriate standard to the trial for issuance of
protective orders. |
19 |
211 |
1/26/01 |
The
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
Arlington, VA |
The Committee believes electronic access is
beneficial to the public. Limitations on access
may not deter any perceived infringements on privacy;
believe some of the proposed policies would limit
access that serves the public interest, and restrictive
policies would violate the 1st Amendment:
Great benefits to improved access: benefits accrue to
the public via the news media; information contained in
court records is of vital public interest; it is
important to establish a policy of openness now, before
courts transition into a fully electronic system.
There is a strong presumption of access to court
records: current law supports openness; privacy
interests are insufficient to overcome the presumption
of openness; the concept of "practical
obscurity" has been misconstrued; courts have
already accounted for the role of privacy through privacy torts. There is evidence
that the public accepts open access: examples of open
access set by other jurisdictions; the public has
strongly objected to limitations on electronic access
in other jurisdictions. Open access is vital
due to the nature of the federal judiciary as an
institution.
Records that are available to the public should remain
available to
the public, as new technologies develop and permit
quicker and more
efficient means of accessibility.
Analysis of Proposed Policies: concerned the judiciary
has framed options to limit access.
Re: civil case files: favor option 1, all documents not
sealed are available at the courthouse and on-line;
other options unacceptable as too sweeping, allow for
court editors, limit access based upon the identity of
individual or document sought, or allow for censorship
by court officials; also unlikely that broad rules
amendments would accommodate public's right to
access;
Re: criminal case files: concerned with both options;
public should have same access to documents on-line or
at the courthouse;
Re: bankruptcy files: recognize concerns re:
availability of ssn and bank account numbers, favor
options 2 or 3 (requiring less info. on petitions or
limiting personal identifying numbers to last four
digits); also believe that on-line access to these
records should be the same as at the courthouse;
Re: appellate files: on-line access should be the same
as access at the courthouse. |
23 |
212 |
1/26/01 |
Steven
M. Emmert, Dir.,
Government and Industry
Affairs
Lexis-Nexis
|
Majority of info. Lexis-Nexis disseminates is public in
nature. The Conference should preserve the current policy of open
access to records unless sealed or restricted by
statute or rule. Changing these policies would run
afoul of common law and constitutional rights of public
access, and result in greater administrative burdens on
court staffs. Courts retain
discretionary authority to deny access to certain
portions of criminal case files and information in
bankruptcy files
under rule 107. All indications are
that available legal tools (motions to seal and
protective orders) are adequate for privacy protection,
even in an
electronic environment;
Re: bankruptcy cases, if open access to all info. is
not practical, the Conference should
consider collecting only info. that is appropriate for public
consumption; but it must be
recognized that the category of interested parties is
broader than previously acknowledged, and that the
dissemination of this info. is vital to the smooth
functioning of our economy;
Individual privacy protection is not a basis for
curtailing historic right of public access: Supreme
Court has repeatedly struck down statutes imposing
liability for dissemination of info. in public records;
parties to litigation have expectation of personal
exposure unless protected by seal or protective order;
any decision to limit public right to access will
ultimately lead to loss of public confidence in the
courts. |
5 |
213 |
1/26/01 |
Criminal
Justice Legal Foundation
Sacramento, CA |
CJLF is a public interest legal foundation dedicated to
the rights of victims. The foundation is
concerned re: proposal to restrict criminal case file
info. Electronic access to these records a great
benefit to victims. The first criminal
case option's privacy concerns regarding these
records warrant limiting info. that is accessible, but
not a denial of access; the second option limitation of
access to parties, counsel, essential court employees
and the judge should also include victims; finally, the
criminal case elements of the plan adopted should address how
collateral review [habeas corpus] cases fit into the
framework. |
3 |
214 |
1/26/01 |
Jane E.
Kirtley, Dir.,
Silha Ctr. for the Study of Media Ethics and the Law
Minneapolis, MN
|
(Extensive Comments-please see full text)
After studying the proposals, we submit that the common
law, First Amendment and public policy principles at
stake weigh heavily against any limitations on public
access to electronic court records that are already
accessible in other forms. When genuine privacy
interests are truly threatened, the processes in place
for sealing those records are more than sufficient to
prevent unwarranted disclosure. It would be a mistake
to impose a new regime of court secrecy in which
categorical and preemptive determinations are made on
these matters. These decisions are
best made on a casebycase basis, upon motion by a party; it
is important for the courts and this Subcommittee to
recognize that people's rights or interests in
privacy are theirs to assert or waive. It is neither the
responsibility nor the role of judges to assert these
rights and interests on behalf of others, even though
judges must ultimately decide which records are to be
sealed and which are to be kept public. If proposals seeking to
restrict access are adopted, records will be withheld
peremptorily from electronic databases without any
particularized investigation into the strength of the
privacy interests involved;
Common law and constitutional issues: proposals for
restricting access contradict historical and legal
practices and precedents; the presumption of openness
can be reversed only by showing an "overriding
interest based on findings that closure is essential to
preserve higher values;" it is the duty of
citizens to ensure that their courts operate lawfully
and equitably, but these judgments cannot be made if
the public is denied access to the evidence; proposals
seeking to restrict access via electronic networks are
inconsistent with the presumption of openness
established by the Supreme Court and reiterated in the
circuit courts, and they are inconsistent with the
prevailing principle that access to government
documents should be granted without reference to the
identity of the person seeking those records;
mechanisms already in place for sealing records are
more than adequate to safeguard any legitimate privacy
interests;
Public policy considerations: there are abundant public
policy reasons for rejecting the more restrictive
proposals; first, these proposals are antidemocratic
and do not take seriously the desire and need for
access by private citizens, nontraditional journalists
and public interest organizations; moreover, there are
many organizations that, with sufficient access, could
engage in more direct public oversight of the courts
and contribute significantly to discussions of public
issues (alternative news organizations, news web sites,
public interest organizations, lobbying organizations,
victims' rights groups, lawyers'
associations, etc.); making judicial records available
on electronic networks would increase the fairness of
the court records system, facilitate greater scrutiny
of judicial conduct, and continue and enhance the
tradition of openness that is part of the culture and
law of the federal court system;
Practical Considerations: under Civil Case Proposal #2,
a series of new categories of records would have to be
created; this would impose substantial workload burdens
on judges that would not serve the public's
interest; similar problems are posed by Civil Case
Proposal #3, which would create a tiered system of
access in which access requests are evaluated based on
the identity of person seeking the records; not only
does this proposal raise serious equal protection
questions, it would place extraordinary burdens on
judicial records administrators; the Subcommittee
should reject any proposal that would place limits on
the accessibility of public records via the electronic
net. |
9 |
215 |
1/26/01 |
Anonymous |
Innocent individuals should not be harmed by inaccurate
false or personal statements made in court. Persons should not be
punished [as a result of] making sensitive data
available court. Court case info.
should be reasonably available to those with good cause
or a need to know; re: releasing the last four digits
of identification numbers, be aware that many use these
as pin numbers [for other accounts]. |
2 |
216 |
1/26/01 |
Mary
Alice Baish
Acting Washington Affairs Rep.
American Assoc. of Law Libraries |
AALL recognizes that the availability of legal
information to all people is a necessary requirement
for a just and democratic society. Our equally strong
belief is that public access through the Internet must be
tempered by privacy rights concerning personal
information held in government files and private sector
databases. There is a need to improve public access to court
information and case files: strongly urge the
Judicial Conference to set a common standard across all
federal courts to ensure that final decisions, not just
the slip opinions, are posted on the Internet for broad
public access.
Challenges of electronic public access: share
Conference's concerns that enhanced electronic
access to case files may provide individuals and
commercial entities the opportunity to disclose and
exploit personal information; we see potential harm to
individuals when: 1) commercial entities collect and
aggregate a variety of publicly available personal
information into personal profiles that are sold for
profit; and 2) publicly available personal information
leads to criminal activity, such as identity theft or
stalking;.we do not believe that the courts should
abridge First Amendment rights to public court records
even though there are complex privacy considerations;
Misuse of personal information causes harm: unfettered
public access through the Internet of an
individual's Social Security number, date of
birth, medical records, ethnic or racial
identification, credit card numbers or other financial
information can lead to a loss of privacy, to identity
theft or other crimes, such as stalking;
Striking a proper balance between access and
privacy: there is a need for national uniformity across the
federal court system and that the sealing of records on
a casebycase basis is not the optimum solution;
preferable for the Judicial Conference to institute
uniform practices for district courts; content of electronic
court files should be identical, whether they are
publicly accessible at the courthouse or the net; but
personal identifiers would be isolated into a private
file to which there would be separate levels of access
depending on the requestor's relation to the
court and his or her purpose;.
Options for Civil, Criminal, Bankruptcy and Appellate
case files:
Civil case files: do not support option 1, the
casebycase sealing of specific documents- believe that
national uniformity is a desired standard; do support
Option 2 to the extent that it would make available the
identical "public file," whether accessed
onsite or remotely through the Internet;
Criminal case files: support option 2, which provides
limited electronic public access to "public
file" documents while restricting access to
potentially harmful information to the parties,
counsel, certain court employees and the judge;.
Bankruptcy case files: broad public electronic access
to bankruptcy case files involves the greatest threat
to the misuse of personal identifying information;.
prefer option 4, requiring the segregation of certain
personal information from a "public file" by
collecting it on separate forms that would be
accessible only to the courts, the U.S. trustee, and
the parties;
Appellate case files; support option 2 which applies
the same access rules to appellate courts that apply at
the trial court level but allows a challenge by the
appellate court to any restriction. |
7 |
217 |
1/26/01 |
Ed
McCool, Esq.
Philadelphia, PA |
This should not be done just because it can be done.
Public need should be demonstrated first, and weighed
against substantial harm risks for abuse present on the
net. Risks
of mischief are too high. |
1 |
218 |
1/26/01 |
Chris
Hoofnagle
Staff Counsel
Electronic Privacy Information Center
Washington, D.C. |
EPIC is a public interest research center in
Washington, D.C. established to focus
public attention on emerging civil liberties issues and
to protect privacy. EPIC supports the
right of public access to judicial records found in
common law. Public access to
court records should be promoted. The public interest
would be best served by providing comprehensive free or
low cost access to all courts over the net.
Net access heightens risks to personal privacy and certain risks
of public access to ECF are readily identifiable. Unhindered
access to bankruptcy case files may result in a further
increase in identity theft [and other potential harms
and misuse]. The Court has
recognized legitimate privacy interests that quality a
right to access public records and other records held
by government; in re policy options, suggest:
Civil cases: of the four [options], the "public
file" alternative addresses both the access
interests and the privacy interests most
effectively- parties and court
officers will have full access to the entire case file;
a second redacted for sensitive personal information
will be available at the courthouse and online;. other
alternatives in the civil context suffer from
weaknesses that are more likely to result in privacy
violations;
Criminal cases: the second alternative addresses the
interests of public access and personal privacy
protection more effectively- limited public access
to electronic case files would be provided; sensitive
information such as preindictment documents,
presentence reports, plea agreements, and unexecuted
warrants would only be available to the parties and
court officers; the public would still have access to
the indictment and the final decision of the
court.
Bankruptcy files: in the last option, a system where
sensitive information would be segregated and collected
on separate forms protected from public access would
address the public access and privacy interests
involved most effectively;.
Appellate cases: recommend that the same access rules
apply that were employed at the trial court level;
EPIC recommends also that these approaches be
implemented on an experimental basis in several
different circuits. |
5 |
219 |
1/26/01 |
Trial
Lawyers for Public Justice
Oakland, CA |
Trial Lawyers for Public Justice is a national public
interest law firm prosecuting
cases designed to advance consumers' and
victims' rights, environmental protection and
safety, civil rights and civil liberties, occupational
health and employees' rights, and protection of
the poor and the powerless; urge the federal judiciary
to adopt an approach that would make court files
available through remote electronic means to the same
extent that those files are now available in paper
form;. conversely, limiting access to electronic case
files or presumptively sealing court records based on
content due to fears of technology would substantially
undermine the public's right of access to our
courts; TLPJ does not handle criminal or bankruptcy
matters, and therefore is not in a position to offer
comments with regard to public access re: criminal or
bankruptcy case files;.
civil cases: support adoption of the first policy option,
maintaining the presumption
that all filed documents that are not sealed are
available both at the courthouse and electronically;
proposals to limit public access to electronic files or
categories of information in court
records is contrary to policies underlying common
law and
the 1st amendment; to restrict access to
case files simply because they are electronic in form
– as contemplated by policy option number three
– would erect artificial barriers to public
access, be contrary to the policies underlying our
longstanding tradition and presumption of open courts,
and effectively undermine the common law and First
Amendment rights of public access to court
records; more troubling is the second policy option- it would
propose to eliminate entire categories of information
from the public record – consisting of both paper and electronic files; this approach
would be entirely contrary to current law;, which
clearly places the burden on the party seeking to seal
court records to make a particularized showing that its
interest in secrecy outweighs the presumption of
access, and requires a case by case balancing of
interests.
Privacy concerns even in this age of
technology may be
addressed under existing law, which provides for
protective orders where secrecy can be justified, and
for civil or criminal liability in instances of
negligent use or criminal use of private information.
|
5 |
220 |
1/26/01 |
American
Insurance Association
Washington, D.C. |
AIA feels posting most court case documents on the net would
return cost efficiencies to many litigants with little
or no foreseeable harm. It remains concerned re:
consequences of placing highly sensitive personal info.
on the net and urges the Conference
to examine policy options carefully. |
2 |
221 |
1/26/01 |
Dan
Rode, V.P.,
Policy and Government Relations
American Health Information Management Association
Washington, D.C. |
AHIMA is a professional association that represents
more than 40,000 specially educated health information
management professionals who serve the healthcare
industry and the public by managing, analyzing, and
utilizing patient care data and making it accessible to
healthcare providers. This group believes
the concepts in the notice ignore the need to keep
personal health information private and
confidential. As custodians of
personal health information, our members are required
by federal and state laws to maintain the privacy and
confidentiality of such records and information;
members work with courts to insure that the minimum of such info.
is placed in court records.
AHIMA is concerned that personal health
information that is legally required to be kept private
and confidential will become public due to the courts
potential open electronic system. Under the discussion
on civil case files, that "levels of access"
might be created so that in the case of medical records
or personal health information, such information could
be limited to only the direct parties in the case. This makes
sense and would meet most of our concerns;, however, we
believe that additional revision to the FRCP will be
needed to ensure that parties do not inappropriately
disclose personal information.
There are many federal privacy rules that we hope the
subcommittee will review to ensure maximum protection
of healthcare information;. trust the
Subcommittee will consider these rules, and
requirements for protecting such transmissions through
encryption, authentication, and other such security
steps associated with electronic data protection. |
3 |
222 |
1/01/26 |
Privacy
Rights Clearinghouse
Electronic
Frontier Foundation
San Diego, CA |
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse is a non-profit consumer
info. advocacy program; the Electronic Frontier
Foundation (EFF) is the leading civil liberties
organization, and both work to protect rights in the
digital world, joining
the PRC in submitting these comments;
PRC and EFF recognize the long tradition of open access
to public court records. As principles of open access
evolved in constitutional and common law, the state of
today's technology could never have been
envisioned; the PRC and EFF believe the potential for
both intangible invasions of privacy by those who have
no need to know and more tangible harms such as
identity theft outweigh reliance on a system that
provides full access to court records electronically.
Identity theft is a major concern of these groups. Individuals have the
right to control how their personal information is
disseminated and used. This right is
particularly important when the information at stake is
personal financial and medical information likely to be
included in civil, criminal or bankruptcy proceeding;
the fundamental right to privacy should not be
surrendered simply because an individual becomes a
party to a court proceeding. Increasing instances
of this crime are certain to be fueled by easy, online
access to names, addresses, telephone numbers, Social
Security numbers, and often personal financial
information
There is also potential for other frauds. Personal info. in
many court files leaves parties, witnesses, and victims
vulnerable to an array of frauds. There is an almost
certain prospect that easy online access to personal
information will prove a bonanza for not only identity
thieves, but predatory businesses such as unscrupulous
tele-marketers. Other scams directed
solely at those in desperate financial straits include
the foreclosure scam;
Unregulated on-line info. brokers: the sale of personal
information in the form of "credit
headers," direct marketing lists and public
records has long been big business. Widespread. use of
the Internet has meant that virtually anyone can
anonymously obtain the most personal details of an
individual's life without limitation on how the
information is used; personal information is often used
to create profiles of individuals-privacy issues
regarding public records become magnified as more and
more personally identifiable data are made available on
the net because the availability of such data allows
for more extensive profiling of individuals, allowing
corporations to create detailed dossiers about
individuals, which can lead to creation of markets for
secondary uses of that information that the consumer
could never have imagined.
Policy Alternatives
Civil case files: adoption of a combination of
alternatives 2 and 3 may be the best route toward
protecting privacy on-line; the Conference should
specify certain kinds of information (rather than entire
documents) that will always be excluded from the public
file; nor should personal financial information such as
account and access numbers, income, debt level,
investments and retirement fund balances or detailed
medical information be included in the public
file, leaving discretion to the trial court to make
additional exclusions if circumstances warrant (EFF
notes all of the above, but believes First Amendment
concerns still need to be factored in); PRC also
supports the concept of "levels of access" to
certain electronic case files, particularly while the
litigation is ongoing; PRC strongly urges the Committee
not to adopt a procedure that would treat electronic
and courthouse access equally (alternative 1), a
windfall for identity thieves and scam artists; PRC
does not believe reliance upon protective orders alone
will protect personal privacy and limit access to
sensitive information; if necessary, the Committee
should also seek amendments to the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure to account for privacy and security
interest;
Criminal case files: the PRC supports alternative
number 1 with regard to criminal case files, that is do
not provide electronic public access to full text
criminal case files; agree with the reasoning behind
alternative number 1, in particular the threat of
harassment of co-defendants and obstacles to law
enforcement and prosecution efforts; note, in addition,
the threat of harassment or even violence directed at
witnesses and victims may make individuals with very
important information to convey reluctant to
voluntarily come before the court;
Bankruptcy case files: we believe the same threats to
privacy and potential for illegitimate use of personal
information applies to bankruptcy case files as well as
civil and criminal case files;
Appellate case files: believe the same access rules
should apply to appellate case files and trial court
files;
Fees: although comments were not requested on the
question of fees for access, we think that the
Conference should consider dropping the public access
charge of $.07 for downloading and printing, or at
least consider further study on the issue. |
10 |
223 |
1/26/01 |
Anchorage,
AK |
Public access to court documents is acceptable, but
personal info. should be removed prior to their being
put on the net to avoid violations of an
individual's privacy. |
1 |
224 |
1/26/01 |
Lowell,
IN |
I don't feel that court decisions should be
available to the public in detail on the net. A filing name and
chapter number is sufficient-any other info. (ssn,
house address, full names) can be used for fraud and
endanger other household members well. |
1 |
225 |
1/26/01 |
Stuart
K. Pratt, V.P.
Government Relations Associated Credit
Bureaus, Inc. |
Most members are considered consumer reporting agencies
under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act and produce
a range of information products utilizing public record
for use in employment screening, credit decisions, and
identification and must have full access
to names, addresses and social security numbers to
comply with federal law and insure info. is
accurate. Ssns remain the most stable of identifiers and should
remain available for data base accuracy and accurate
data retrieval. |
2 |
226 |
1/26/01 |
Robert
F. McKew
V.P., Gen. Counsel
American Financial Services Corporation |
(Extensive comments-please see full text)
AFSC and its credit industry members appreciate the
opportunity to comment. There are those who
raise concerns about debtor privacy, and suggest that
information provided in adversary or contested matters
be subjected to restrictions At its core, the
underlying issue is whether open public access to the
records of bankruptcies is outweighed by the private
nature of the information recorded in those
records. Critics have suggested changes such as no longer
requiring certain information like the social security
number or credit account numbers, restricting
availability of sensitive information only to
identified parties in interest, and limiting the
availability of bankruptcy info. over the
internet. Any of these restrictions would adversely affect the
system. In
addition, the requirements of the U.S. Constitution
significantly limit any attempt to make bankruptcy
information inaccessible to creditors, other affected
parties or the public. Other, less
restrictive means of regulation, such as disclosing to
debtors that information they provide on the petition
is publicly available, may be beneficial. On balance, no new
regulation restricting access appears to be appropriate
I. Four Specific Questions Raised About Bankruptcy Case
Files:
A. Amending Section 107 of the Bankruptcy
Code:
an amendment to section 107 of the Bankruptcy Code to
specify that only "parties in interest" may
obtain access to certain types of information in
bankruptcy case files is not justified: 1) bankruptcy
proceedings must be open to public scrutiny by the
press and others both to better detect fraud and to
provide independent oversight of a process; restricting
access only to "parties in interest" would
preclude such oversight by the press and others; also
inappropriate for the federal judiciary to advocate a
policy that would preclude oversight of its functioning; 2) a
restriction of information only to "parties in
interest" is far too narrow, and would bar
bankruptcy information retrieval services, credit
reporting bureaus, academic, credit industry, debtor
group and think tank researchers; 3) restrictions on
access raise issues under both the First and the Fifth
Amendments; 4) the "gatekeeper" function that
would be necessary to separate who was a "party in
interest" from who was not would require a serious
and potentially inefficient governmental presence; 5) )
it has been recognized that because of the special
needs for information and public oversight, debtors
have had to give up some private information in order
to obtain relief; the electronic availability of
information does not change these needs nor justify new
restrictions;
B. Requiring less information on petitions, schedules
or statements:
reducing the amount collected would seriously impair
the ability of creditors, trustees, law enforcement
agencies and the courts to perform their assigned
functions, including checking on the accuracy of the
info. the debtor provides and the appropriateness of
the relief sought;
C. Restrict use of ssn, other account numbers to last
four digits:
ssn is a unique identifier absolutely crucial to the
work of creditors, trustees, law enforcement agencies;
full account numbers enable creditors to identify that
a particular customer is the one who filed bankruptcy;
final four digits simply would not perform this
function;
D. Segregate/restrict certain information from the
public file:
this means the restriction of information to
"parties in interest;" inappropriate for
reasons discussed above;
II. General Considerations
A. The first/fifth amendments constrain efforts to
restrict access:
bankruptcy is a judicial proceeding and
petitions/schedules are records of the bankruptcy
court; any effort to limit or restrict access to these
records by those affected will require legislative
changes and is unlikely to pass constitutional scrutiny
under the first amendment; fifth amendment right to due
process mandates that parties affected by the
bankruptcy process be able to access the
information;
B. The bankruptcy system is built upon open
access: the adversarial nature of the judicial process and the
scrutiny of the public regulate compliance with
restrictions on bankruptcy relief; without
open access to the information the debtor provides,
that function would be substantially impaired;
significant and costly changes would have to be made to
the bankruptcy system to assure its integrity, such as
substituting a large bureaucratic oversight and
monitoring presence in the bankruptcy process; the
bankruptcy system assumes that affected parties could protect
their interests because they had complete access to the
information- restrictions on information would
seriously undercut that assumption, and require massive
changes;
III. The
Social Security Number-abandoning use of the social
security number as a means of identifying the debtor or
limiting access to it would seriously impair the
system, debtor relief, and public oversight:
A. System
cannot function unless the ssn
continues to be required:
ssn is the only available unique identifier of
individuals maintained in the U.S.; it is the only
generally recognized way to unequivocally identify a
particular individual; trustees, officials, creditors
and other affected parties could not find and raise
cases of multiple and serial filing, or repeat chapter
7 filings within the 6 year period of limitation,
unless ssn used in prior cases was available;
B. Unless creditors, affected parties have access to
ssns, remedies such as automatic stay, post-discharge
injunction will not be effective; creditors will be
unable to comply with the restrictions and controls of
the Bankruptcy Code; the most important and expensive
functions creditors perform in trying to comply with
bankruptcy law is identifying a particular customer as
one who has in fact filed bankruptcy; name, address and
financial information alone are not sufficient; the
present bankruptcy system places a high premium on
absolutely accurate identification; if restrictions
were imposed precluding access to the social security
number, fairness as well as constitutional law would
require that those entities be relieved from
responsibility for complying with the automatic stay,
turnover responsibilities and the discharge whenever
they were unable to identify accurately their customer;
such a change would clearly reduce the value of the
automatic stay, the discharge, and bankruptcy relief in
general;
C. Credit
system, credit bureaus/other agencies must have
ssns: credit bureaus are recognized as the facilitators of
efficient credit granting, and it is clearly a
Congressional goal that the information they report be
accurate; credit bureaus rely primarily upon the
debtor's social security number as the crucial
identifier;.
D. Public record retrieval intermediaries and servicing
and collection agents all must have access to the
social security number if the credit underwriting and
collections systems are to work efficiently:
information from these sources is important to smaller
creditors who cannot support a large bankruptcy
management department; agents of the creditor such as
servicers and collection agents aid in efficient loan
administration and access to the ssn to effectively
administer cases.
E. Access to ssn could not be restricted just to
"creditors" and "parties in
interest" without seriously impairing the fairness
of the bankruptcy system, and the effectiveness of
debtor remedies:
some have proposed that access to sensitive information
be controlled by a "gatekeeper"- any
"gatekeeper" must be given explicit criteria
to separate those that have a legitimate interest from
those that do not, a standard not
available as a practical matter; creditor" and
"party in interest" categories are neither
unambiguous nor sufficiently inclusive of those
potentially affected by bankruptcy; for practical
reasons, therefore, the "gatekeeper" approach
is unworkable;
F. Public/researchers/creditor groups/think tanks must
have access to the social security number in order to
assure that accurate information about the bankruptcy
system will be available; public has legit. interesting
whether individuals have filed for bankruptcy;
restrictions on access to bankruptcy court records
urged by privacy advocates would leave no room for
research; developing exceptions to a general rule which
precluded the public access involves difficult judicial
decisions, and raises issues of
governmental control over the development of
ideas;
IV. The Debtor's Financial Information
Critics have urged that access to some or all of this
information be restricted. In particular, there
has been concern with access to credit account numbers,
but there has also been expressed concern that in the
schedules the debtor must disclose assets, liabilities,
income and expenses, family size, and expenditures of a
sensitive nature
A. Creditors/other
affected parties cannot be excluded from access to
debtor financial information: without access to debtor
financial info., affected parties cannot adequately
evaluate their position, either as against the debtor
or in relation to other, competing creditors; cannot
determine whether to object to exemptions, seek to lift
a stay or a section 707(a) or (b) dismissal motion, or
in some instances even whether and how to prepare a
proof of claim;
B. Credit bureaus,
public record intermediaries, servicing agents,
collection agencies, public, and press must have access
to this information: require this information to assist
both those creditors whose interests or property are
involved in the bankruptcy, and those creditors who
might in the future consider extending credit or enter
into other transactions with the debtor; the need to
maintain public confidence in the bankruptcy system
requires that bankruptcy proceedings not be carried on
in secret, and access for the press, academic and other
empirical research is critical;
V. Trustee Information
These officials often have considerable information
about the debtor's financial affairs and ability
to pay, and, in the case of Chapter 12 and 13
proceedings, plan performance; in Chapter 12 and 13
cases, the trustee is the person usually most informed
about the debtor's plan and its performance. In particular,
only that trustee has the information to determine if
the debtor is current on payments to the trustee
mandated by the plan, or the amount the trustee
considers to be still owing a creditor under the plan;
for those actually or potentially affected by the
debtor's bankruptcy (whether technically
creditors or not), this information is, at the least,
just as important as the public record information
available in the court files; unless such information
is openly available to those interested in the
bankruptcy proceeding, they will be seriously
obstructed in determining what steps, if any, they need
to take to protect their interests; the general public
likewise has an interest in monitoring how well
trustees are carrying out their responsibilities under
the Code;
VI. Other Considerations
A. There is no reliable evidence of quantifiable harm
re: privacy: unaware of evidence of
abuse under the present system of availability; of
bankruptcy information, either held by the courts or by
the trustees; some have suggest hypothetically that
information in bankruptcy records, and particularly the
social security number, might be used for the purposes
of identity theft or other fraud; identity theft in the
case of a person who filed bankruptcy unlikely because
the economic incentives for such theft are not there;
concerns do not justify restricting availability of
information about debtors who file for bankruptcy
simply to make it harder to offer credit to them;
others have suggested that the availability of bankruptcy
information should be restricted because it might be
used to discriminate in the granting of new credit- but
prior bankruptcy is an accurate predictor of future
repayment likelihood;
B. Restrictions on the development of more efficient
means of obtaining bankruptcy information are not
desirable: increased availability of bankruptcy court
records and trustee records by telephone, online and
through retrieval intermediaries has significantly
improved bankruptcy administration and increased the
efficient workings of the bankruptcy system; the
availability of this information to the public has made
possible better oversight of the bankruptcy system,
and, thus, furthered the ability of the bankruptcy
system to identify fraudulent and abusive use of
bankruptcy, and to evaluate proposed reforms.
Conclusion
In addition to the significant statutory and
constitutional impediments to restricting access to
bankruptcy information, as a matter of policy, such
restrictions would be neither feasible, fair, nor
consistent with appropriate public oversight. |
22 |
227 |
1/29/01 |
Seattle, WA |
Urge that comments, except where confidentiality is
requested, be posted ASAP on this web site. |
1 |
228 |
1/29/01 |
Brian K.
Long
National Group Pres.
Dolan Media Co.
Minneapolis, MN |
Dolan Media Co. is a leading collector of bankruptcy
info.; agree with need for a study; a one size fits all
approach will not work re: delicate balance between
individual privacy and the public's right to
know; believe judiciary's long-standing tradition
of open access should be maintained, and solution
should take into account five principles:
1) open access to basic court info.;
2) decision to seal records remains with presiding
judge;
3) continued access to all records by parties in
interest;
4) ability of duly authorized 3rd parties to stand
in the shoes of parties in interest;
5) realization that info. in sealed records remains a
legitimate subject of inquiry.
Civil case files: option 1 is the only option that
maintains access without placing undue admin. burdens
on the courts;
Bankruptcy case files: do not think any changes are
necessary; open access leaves total control with
assigned judge; access to ssn remains necessary;
Appellate case files: same access rules should apply as
at the trial court level. |
7 |
229 |
1/29/01 |
|
Agree with civil case option 3; access to ssn, Schedule
I info. on bankruptcy petition should be restricted;
names of debtor's dependent children should be
removed; attorneys filing electronically should inform
clients of public exposure; petitions on the net
adversely effect debtors through publicity, expose them
to harm via misuse of info., and deny them freedom in
the conduct of their affairs. |
1 |
230 |
1/29/01 |
Norma
Hammes, Pres.
National Assoc. of Consumer Bankruptcy
Attorneys
Washington, D.C. |
Attaching comments previously submitted to the
Executive Office of U.S. Trustees with regard to its
study of Privacy Issues in Bankruptcy Data; final
recommendations for policy, regulatory or statutory
changes:
a. sensitive data should be compiled on separate
documents available to creditors and the trustee, but
not to public;
b. serious penalties should be imposed on creditors who
use bankruptcy info. for any other or inappropriate
purpose;
c. trustee should be held liable for disseminating or
allowing inappropriate dissemination of sensitive
info.;
d. any entity owing hardware upon which any of the
info. described as protected is stored, or which
operates a web site containing such info., should be held liable
and subject to serious penalties if it accesses or uses
such stored data in any way. |
7 |
231 |
1/29/01 |
American
College of Trial Lawyers
National H.Q.
Irvine, CA |
College is dedicated to maintaining and improving
standards of trial practice, admin. of
justice and ethics of legal profession;
ACTL's Committee on Federal Trial Court
Procedure:
-sees no reason to distinguish between electronic
and paper files;
Parties can protect their privacy interests through
Rule 26 © protective orders. To extent that Rules
26 orders are deemed insufficiently protective or so
broadly necessary that individual orders are
impractical, the underlying privacy concerns seem
equally applicable to paper or electronic records. Accordingly,
whatever judgements are made with regard to privacy
concerns should be clearly set forth in the FRCP. |
3 |
232 |
1/30/01 |
Charles
H. Krumbein
Richmond, VA |
Bankrupts are reluctant filers. Identity theft is
increasing. Courts should protect
filers from abuse. Those with legitimate
interests should be allowed access by appearing at the
courthouse. Commentor agrees with
proposed policies except Bankruptcy policy option
2. Courts
should require full and complete disclosure with
safeguards for debtors. |
1 |
233 |
1/30/01 |
Mark J.
Mahoney
Harrington and Mahoney
Buffalo, N.Y.
|
The trend towards electronic case files is irreversible
and necessary for efficiency. There is scant
evidence of defendant misuse of criminal data, just
prosecution data that is not in the record, to
disadvantage of defense. A more full
development of electronic files will help address this.
Criminal case files: categories of info. need to have
limited access; sealing of record should continue; must
decide what is accessible at all, and whether public
info. should be treated the same at the courthouse and
on the net; challenges assumptions of options: that
criminal case files are "different;" that
these files are not extensive; that the
prosecution and defense attorneys
are usually located near the courthouse; that those
with legitimate needs can access at the courthouse;
favors option of limited electronic access to criminal
case files; PACER provides info. with a record of access
sought . |
5 |
234 |
1/31/01 |
Investigative
Reporters and Editors, Inc.
Missouri School of Journalism
Columbia, MO. |
IRE is a non-profit dedicated to improving quality of
investigative reporting, and addresses 3 issues:
1) common law, U.S. constitution, and statutory scheme
that provides for operations and funding of the federal
courts mandate full public access to electronic records
via the internet;
2) pay per view user fees for public access to court
records available on federal judicial web sites are
unjustified, unreasonable, and should be discontinued;
3) existing statutes, rules and regulations provide
adequate protection for privacy and confidentiality,
and new restrictions based upon novel
applications of "practical
obscurity" doctrine are unwarranted. |
7 |
235 |
2/5/01 |
Jeff
Schrag, Publisher
The Daily Events
Springfield, MO |
Court proceedings/records should be closed only in
extreme cases, and then only for a set time. Do not restrict
records that are currently public. If the problem is the
internet, then keep records off the net but open at the
courthouse. |
1 |
236 |
1/24/00 |
Dexter,
MI |
Access to distant court records via computer greatly
reduces burdens and disadvantages on remote parties in
interest. The proposal for modifications to Rule 107 to increase
judicial discretion to seal is inappropriate. Reducing filing info.
requirements on plans and schedules, as well as
restrictions on access all make ascertaining debtor
status and tracking compliance more difficult. This is
particularly true with regard to the integrity of
automatic stay provisions. All enhance the
likelihood of debtor abuse. The proposal to
restrict sensitive account numbers to last 4 digits has
some merit, but must be balanced against need to know
and on-going access needs of parties in interest. Segregation of
info. from public file could work for debtors against
larger public and creditors. |
3 |
237 |
12/20/00 |
Jeffrey
Keene
WBTV
Charlotte, N.C. |
Commentor is Investigative producer and understands the
need to protect some info. The debate is close
and he leans toward full disclosure. It is more dangerous for a
handful of people to make arbitrary decisions. The public
interest best served by unfettered flow of public
info. |
1 |
238 |
12/27/00 |
Colonial
Beach, VA |
Commentors sees 2 separate issues:
1) if new technologies present risks that were formerly
non-existent, than present rules regarding
disclosure/sealing need updating; when present rules
put into place, disclosure of info. like ssns, bank
account numbers etc. posed less risk; if litigants
exposed to more risk than anticipated then, rules,
procedures should be changed to mitigate it;
2) does additional risk justify discrimination with
regard to access? rules should not support concept of
wealth determining access; cannot justify withholding
info. from free or inexpensive access modes in order to
protect privacy, while allowing proximity or wealth to
determine access as under present system. |
2 |
239 |
12/20/00 |
Robert
L. Hartley
Henderson Daily Withrow and Devoe
Indianapolis, IN |
As neither completely restricted nor completely
unrestricted records access policies are tenable, the
following categorization scheme and procedures are
offered:
Info. will | |
