3 ms·

In the United States, if you register to vote your name, age, address, and the names of people who live at the same address all end up on https://voterrecords.c

by petilon 10y ago

In the United States, if you register to vote your name, age, address, and the names of people who live at the same address all end up on https://voterrecords.com https://voterrecords.com and they don't let you remove it. If you are 40+ this may subject you to age discrimination--you may not even make it to the interview stage. I am now looking into how I can unregister to vote. If you fill in an application to rent an apartment, or purchase property, your information ends up on the internet. Our laws need to be updated for the internet age. There is public interest in knowing who owns the property at a certain address, but the reverse lookup of the same information--where does a certain citizen live--should be made illegal without the permission of the citizen.

adventurer 10y ago
The site has a link at the bottom of user pages to opt-out. They keep you listed but remove your address and telephone number.
- petilon 10y ago
  The opt-out is for information they added on top of what is in your voter record. They don't let you opt out of information that's in your voter record.
  - nommm-nommm 10y ago
    Because your voting record is public information.
    - krishanath 10y ago
      Sure, but we need new laws on how public information can be used. Just because you want to register to vote shouldn't mean your date of birth can now be made freely available to identity thieves and potential employers who can use the info to discriminate against you.
      - krapp 10y ago
        >Just because you want to register to vote shouldn't mean your date of birth can now be made freely available to identity thieves and potential employers who can use the info to discriminate against you. Yes it does - that's exactly what "public" information is. Maybe you can argue that some information shouldn't be public, but some things can't be hidden, like your date of birth or your name or your DNA, and those things are up for grabs by anyone who can collect them, for better or worse.
        krishanath 10y ago
        Again, the government should not collect citizen's personal information and make it "public" information. Even when certain information is known about a private citizen, there should be laws governing what is allowed use of that information and what isn't. Certain uses should require a release from that citizen.
        krapp 10y ago
        But that information was public, more often than not, before the government collected it.
        nommm-nommm 10y ago
        Newspapers even published birth announcements. Dunno if this is opt in or opt out
      - nommm-nommm 10y ago
        There's two schools of thought here - that the day you were born is somehow confidential or that the public has a vested interest in knowing who is on the voter roll.
  - adventurer 10y ago
    Maybe partially, but street address is definitely public info.
ghaff 10y ago
That site appears to only cover some states. I'm not sure how your proposal would work in any case. If a database record with your name in it exists (because you bought a house, have a telephone number, got married, got arrested, etc.) looking up any permutation of that data is just a search. I don't know how you make that illegal. It's true that some laws/decisions about what constitutes public data arguably made more sense when finding that data required making the effort to physically look through the physical files of some town clerk who was probably out for lunch. However, this has been a topic of discussion since companies started selling databases on CD-ROMs and nothing much has changed. So I'm inclined to think that genie is well out of that particular bottle.
- petilon 10y ago
  It shouldn't be "just a search". In other words, it should be possible to go to a web site, enter an address and find out who owns the property at that address. But the same site should not allow the user to enter the name of a citizen and get the address where that citizen lives, or who else lives at the same address. So businesses who possess the data should not be allowed to just dump the entire data into Google's search indexes, they can only allow certain narrow searches.
  - ghaff 10y ago
    So, again, you're basically proposing that even though data is legitimately in the public domain, somehow people should be prevented from connecting that data with a search. Good luck with that.
    - krishanath 10y ago
      The government should not put citizen's personal information in the "public domain". When government collects personal information about its citizens there should be laws governing what is allowed use and what isn't.
      - ghaff 10y ago
wyager 10y ago
> There is public interest in knowing who owns the property at a certain address, but the reverse lookup of the same information--where does a certain citizen live--should be made illegal without the permission of the citizen. This is not possible. The most you can do is make it slightly inconvenient to invert the Address -> Resident lookup. I'm also not sure "public interest" is a valid justification to violate privacy in this way at all. Perhaps one shouldn't be able to look up who owns an address without some rigamorole.
- duaneb 10y ago
  Charge $10 to look up the owner of the property would probably look fine.
wtmt 10y ago
It's a lot worse in India. One can look up voter information in one's constituent area and find the names, ages and addresses of the hundreds or thousands of people living there. Many government enterprises also put up subsidy related information for public view along with detailed personal information in the name of "transparency". With the unique biometric identification system (Aadhaar) being pushed heavily for various uses (not just subsidies alone, which is what it was intended to curb leakages in), the lack of a national privacy law, and the attorney general recently claiming in court that "privacy is not a fundamental right", things have never looked bleaker. The central (federal) government and state governments don't care about privacy and privacy protections. It seems like the masses, many of whom don't know much or don't care much, are being coerced into systems that can be heavily misused by those in power.

by petilon 10y ago

adventurer 10y ago

The site has a link at the bottom of user pages to opt-out. They keep you listed but remove your address and telephone number.

petilon 10y ago
The opt-out is for information they added on top of what is in your voter record. They don't let you opt out of information that's in your voter record.
- nommm-nommm 10y ago
  Because your voting record is public information.
  - krishanath 10y ago
    Sure, but we need new laws on how public information can be used. Just because you want to register to vote shouldn't mean your date of birth can now be made freely available to identity thieves and potential employers who can use the info to discriminate against you.
    - krapp 10y ago
      >Just because you want to register to vote shouldn't mean your date of birth can now be made freely available to identity thieves and potential employers who can use the info to discriminate against you. Yes it does - that's exactly what "public" information is. Maybe you can argue that some information shouldn't be public, but some things can't be hidden, like your date of birth or your name or your DNA, and those things are up for grabs by anyone who can collect them, for better or worse.
      - krishanath 10y ago
        Again, the government should not collect citizen's personal information and make it "public" information. Even when certain information is known about a private citizen, there should be laws governing what is allowed use of that information and what isn't. Certain uses should require a release from that citizen.
        krapp 10y ago
        But that information was public, more often than not, before the government collected it.
        nommm-nommm 10y ago
        Newspapers even published birth announcements. Dunno if this is opt in or opt out
    - nommm-nommm 10y ago
      There's two schools of thought here - that the day you were born is somehow confidential or that the public has a vested interest in knowing who is on the voter roll.
- adventurer 10y ago
  Maybe partially, but street address is definitely public info.

ghaff 10y ago

That site appears to only cover some states. I'm not sure how your proposal would work in any case. If a database record with your name in it exists (because you bought a house, have a telephone number, got married, got arrested, etc.) looking up any permutation of that data is just a search. I don't know how you make that illegal. It's true that some laws/decisions about what constitutes public data arguably made more sense when finding that data required making the effort to physically look through the physical files of some town clerk who was probably out for lunch. However, this has been a topic of discussion since companies started selling databases on CD-ROMs and nothing much has changed. So I'm inclined to think that genie is well out of that particular bottle.

petilon 10y ago
It shouldn't be "just a search". In other words, it should be possible to go to a web site, enter an address and find out who owns the property at that address. But the same site should not allow the user to enter the name of a citizen and get the address where that citizen lives, or who else lives at the same address. So businesses who possess the data should not be allowed to just dump the entire data into Google's search indexes, they can only allow certain narrow searches.
- ghaff 10y ago
  So, again, you're basically proposing that even though data is legitimately in the public domain, somehow people should be prevented from connecting that data with a search. Good luck with that.
  - krishanath 10y ago
    The government should not put citizen's personal information in the "public domain". When government collects personal information about its citizens there should be laws governing what is allowed use and what isn't.
    - ghaff 10y ago

wyager 10y ago

> There is public interest in knowing who owns the property at a certain address, but the reverse lookup of the same information--where does a certain citizen live--should be made illegal without the permission of the citizen. This is not possible. The most you can do is make it slightly inconvenient to invert the Address -> Resident lookup. I'm also not sure "public interest" is a valid justification to violate privacy in this way at all. Perhaps one shouldn't be able to look up who owns an address without some rigamorole.

duaneb 10y ago
Charge $10 to look up the owner of the property would probably look fine.

wtmt 10y ago

It's a lot worse in India. One can look up voter information in one's constituent area and find the names, ages and addresses of the hundreds or thousands of people living there. Many government enterprises also put up subsidy related information for public view along with detailed personal information in the name of "transparency". With the unique biometric identification system (Aadhaar) being pushed heavily for various uses (not just subsidies alone, which is what it was intended to curb leakages in), the lack of a national privacy law, and the attorney general recently claiming in court that "privacy is not a fundamental right", things have never looked bleaker. The central (federal) government and state governments don't care about privacy and privacy protections. It seems like the masses, many of whom don't know much or don't care much, are being coerced into systems that can be heavily misused by those in power.