6 ms·

I could be wrong but maybe one is recursively enumerable and the other is not? i.e at a clerk you need to know what you’re looking for in contrast to a list of

by mruts 7y ago

I could be wrong but maybe one is recursively enumerable and the other is not? i.e at a clerk you need to know what you’re looking for in contrast to a list of records that you can just look through.

dvtrn 7y ago
The records are no less public in either situation? They can be accessed by anyone, regardless if they’re actively looking for a specific record or stumbling across one while scrolling through their local clerk database on a Saturday afternoon. I still don’t understand the conceit. If one were to say checking documents out from a central clerking office acts as a check or something against unauthorized and potentially unethical use of public records, well then yes absolutely I can see some merit. As delivered presently, not as much.
- mruts 7y ago
  So could you ask the clerk to produce every piece of information he has? Would he be obligated to give it to you?
  - dvtrn 7y ago
    Depends on the jurisdictions’ open records laws I would imagine yes they more than likely would be. Presumably if they have such statutes, some jurisdictions have provisions to catch such types “burdensome requests” and either slap a heavy fee for processing such a request and hopefully deter the requestor, or they appeal to a higher court when denying the request entirely But otherwise if a state has open records laws and you make a lawful request for a large body of publicly available records then I’m inclined to say by definition the clerk is required to provide them provided all requirements of the request are satisfied.
- nvusuvu 7y ago
  It allows voyeurism.
  - dvtrn 7y ago
    Of whom?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- lisper 7y ago
  > The records are no less public in either situation? They can be accessed by anyone No, that's not true. If you have to physically go to the county clerk's office then you have to physically be in the country. That is a significant barrier. An example that is even more salient than 911 records: if you make any political contribution in the U.S. you are require by law to give your home address which then becomes part of an FEC database that can be accessed by anyone on earth with an internet connection.
  - dvtrn 7y ago
    You're correct, it is a barrier, it makes things more difficult for the requester. How you request it or where you are when you make the request doesn't change the legal status of the record itself if a data set has been made public by your state legislature. If your local laws say you have to make the request in person, so be it. It's still an open record that can be queried and retrieved by members of the public. If your local law say you may make your request online at a specific web address, so be it. It is still an open record that can be queried and retrieved by members of the public. The mechanism or methodology of requesting a public record does not change a public record factually and legally being public unless local law says so (or FOIA if we're dealing with a federal agency, but since the context here is 911 calls, this is much more likely going to fall to a how a state legislature decides to protect/expose public records).
    - lisper 7y ago
      Everything you say is true. Nonetheless, as someone who makes political contributions, it matters to me whether a Rumanian hacker can get my home address while sitting in their basement in their underwear, or if they have to get a U.S. visa and travel to my home town in order to do it. That is a salient difference to me, irrespective of the legal status of the information.
      - dvtrn 7y ago
        You have a valid concern. I do not intend to dismiss it but I will offer this is why I put forward the caveat previously that absent legislation that acts as a buffer against unauthroized or illegal use of public records (which almost every state has provisions in their record keeping laws over already), the mechanism doesn’t change or alleviate these concerns.
- rubinelli 7y ago
  One can be used to automate extortion. For example, sites with mugshots popped up once they were online. If you got arrested for any reason and didn't want potential employers to see your mugshot in the first page of a Google search, you had to pay these sites an "administrative fee." Similarly, you could post 911 records with addresses if they were available with a simple request, and I can see how that could bring property prices down, depending on the kind of incident.
  - dvtrn 7y ago
    One can be used to automate extortion. So the difference is automation? Suppose someone used Microsoft Office to quickly template and print envelopes with the addresses of 10 different municipalities and stuffed them with boilerplate requests for public information, and then used the responses from those municipalities to carry out extortion. Should the law act differently towards the individual who mails a lawful open records request than the one who queries for records via HTTP if they used the same records, provided by the same municipalities and jurisdictions to carry out unlawful activity post hoc?
    - ghaff 7y ago
      I would have thought it obvious that friction is very much a part of the equation that has historically gone into deciding what information should be public, what should be formally sealed, and what should be actively expunged from the public record to the degree possible. Suppose I hire an investigator to conduct a (legitimate) investigation into a political opponent, high-level hire, etc. including past addresses, any arrests, mentions in newspapers or online, anything they've written, etc. They'll dig up a lot of information, some of which are public records and some of which is simply publicly available information. Are you seriously trying to argue that there is no difference between an in-depth targeted investigation of an individual and that same information being available about everyone to anyone on the planet with a press of a few buttons? Sure, you can argue that there is no privacy and people should just get over it. But there is a significant practical different between information that there's some friction to access and information that's indexed and freely available to everyone with a computer.
testvox 7y ago
You could just ask the clerk for all the records, this is what public records databases do. They drive around to all the court houses and make copies of all the public records, put them into one big database and sell access to it.
- dvtrn 7y ago
  Or if my city has a web application in front of this database I can not leave the house and do my research comfortably in my own environment. Still not seeing the privacy implication of driving for records and clicking for them when discussing a public record that by definition, is in the public interest carried out by wards of public service (public service answering points).
  - nitrogen 7y ago
    You have been highly active in this thread and it doesn't seem like you are trying to understand the other viewpoint. Do you have a personal stake or other underlying assumption in the matter that might be biasing you to a particular conclusion? If you don't see privacy implications to releasing recordings of e.g. people experiencing medical emergencies (medical records are otherwise clearly protected) then perhaps you need to reevaluate your understanding of what privacy means to different groups of people.
    - dvtrn 7y ago
      Do you have a personal stake or underlying viewpoint Yes. I work in a directly advisory position with various municipalities across the united States implementing online open records systems of engagement, among other systems of public accountability and answer these types of questions every day. I had been intending to avoid appealing to job titles in discussing the matter but this is my profession and the question of legal access and barriers to access weighed against public interest is a topic that happens in every meeting I sit in.
      - ghaff 7y ago

by mruts 7y ago

dvtrn 7y ago

The records are no less public in either situation? They can be accessed by anyone, regardless if they’re actively looking for a specific record or stumbling across one while scrolling through their local clerk database on a Saturday afternoon. I still don’t understand the conceit. If one were to say checking documents out from a central clerking office acts as a check or something against unauthorized and potentially unethical use of public records, well then yes absolutely I can see some merit. As delivered presently, not as much.

mruts 7y ago
So could you ask the clerk to produce every piece of information he has? Would he be obligated to give it to you?
- dvtrn 7y ago
  Depends on the jurisdictions’ open records laws I would imagine yes they more than likely would be. Presumably if they have such statutes, some jurisdictions have provisions to catch such types “burdensome requests” and either slap a heavy fee for processing such a request and hopefully deter the requestor, or they appeal to a higher court when denying the request entirely But otherwise if a state has open records laws and you make a lawful request for a large body of publicly available records then I’m inclined to say by definition the clerk is required to provide them provided all requirements of the request are satisfied.
nvusuvu 7y ago
It allows voyeurism.
- dvtrn 7y ago
  Of whom?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
lisper 7y ago
> The records are no less public in either situation? They can be accessed by anyone No, that's not true. If you have to physically go to the county clerk's office then you have to physically be in the country. That is a significant barrier. An example that is even more salient than 911 records: if you make any political contribution in the U.S. you are require by law to give your home address which then becomes part of an FEC database that can be accessed by anyone on earth with an internet connection.
- dvtrn 7y ago
  You're correct, it is a barrier, it makes things more difficult for the requester. How you request it or where you are when you make the request doesn't change the legal status of the record itself if a data set has been made public by your state legislature. If your local laws say you have to make the request in person, so be it. It's still an open record that can be queried and retrieved by members of the public. If your local law say you may make your request online at a specific web address, so be it. It is still an open record that can be queried and retrieved by members of the public. The mechanism or methodology of requesting a public record does not change a public record factually and legally being public unless local law says so (or FOIA if we're dealing with a federal agency, but since the context here is 911 calls, this is much more likely going to fall to a how a state legislature decides to protect/expose public records).
  - lisper 7y ago
    Everything you say is true. Nonetheless, as someone who makes political contributions, it matters to me whether a Rumanian hacker can get my home address while sitting in their basement in their underwear, or if they have to get a U.S. visa and travel to my home town in order to do it. That is a salient difference to me, irrespective of the legal status of the information.
    - dvtrn 7y ago
      You have a valid concern. I do not intend to dismiss it but I will offer this is why I put forward the caveat previously that absent legislation that acts as a buffer against unauthroized or illegal use of public records (which almost every state has provisions in their record keeping laws over already), the mechanism doesn’t change or alleviate these concerns.
rubinelli 7y ago
One can be used to automate extortion. For example, sites with mugshots popped up once they were online. If you got arrested for any reason and didn't want potential employers to see your mugshot in the first page of a Google search, you had to pay these sites an "administrative fee." Similarly, you could post 911 records with addresses if they were available with a simple request, and I can see how that could bring property prices down, depending on the kind of incident.
- dvtrn 7y ago
  One can be used to automate extortion. So the difference is automation? Suppose someone used Microsoft Office to quickly template and print envelopes with the addresses of 10 different municipalities and stuffed them with boilerplate requests for public information, and then used the responses from those municipalities to carry out extortion. Should the law act differently towards the individual who mails a lawful open records request than the one who queries for records via HTTP if they used the same records, provided by the same municipalities and jurisdictions to carry out unlawful activity post hoc?
  - ghaff 7y ago
    I would have thought it obvious that friction is very much a part of the equation that has historically gone into deciding what information should be public, what should be formally sealed, and what should be actively expunged from the public record to the degree possible. Suppose I hire an investigator to conduct a (legitimate) investigation into a political opponent, high-level hire, etc. including past addresses, any arrests, mentions in newspapers or online, anything they've written, etc. They'll dig up a lot of information, some of which are public records and some of which is simply publicly available information. Are you seriously trying to argue that there is no difference between an in-depth targeted investigation of an individual and that same information being available about everyone to anyone on the planet with a press of a few buttons? Sure, you can argue that there is no privacy and people should just get over it. But there is a significant practical different between information that there's some friction to access and information that's indexed and freely available to everyone with a computer.

testvox 7y ago

You could just ask the clerk for all the records, this is what public records databases do. They drive around to all the court houses and make copies of all the public records, put them into one big database and sell access to it.

dvtrn 7y ago
Or if my city has a web application in front of this database I can not leave the house and do my research comfortably in my own environment. Still not seeing the privacy implication of driving for records and clicking for them when discussing a public record that by definition, is in the public interest carried out by wards of public service (public service answering points).
- nitrogen 7y ago
  You have been highly active in this thread and it doesn't seem like you are trying to understand the other viewpoint. Do you have a personal stake or other underlying assumption in the matter that might be biasing you to a particular conclusion? If you don't see privacy implications to releasing recordings of e.g. people experiencing medical emergencies (medical records are otherwise clearly protected) then perhaps you need to reevaluate your understanding of what privacy means to different groups of people.
  - dvtrn 7y ago
    Do you have a personal stake or underlying viewpoint Yes. I work in a directly advisory position with various municipalities across the united States implementing online open records systems of engagement, among other systems of public accountability and answer these types of questions every day. I had been intending to avoid appealing to job titles in discussing the matter but this is my profession and the question of legal access and barriers to access weighed against public interest is a topic that happens in every meeting I sit in.
    - ghaff 7y ago