From: <djg2120@columbia.edu>
  To  : <cpc@emoglen.law.columbia.edu>
  Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 12:33:19 -0500

State justices studying privacy vs. technology

State justices studying privacy vs. technology

By Dara Kam

Palm Beach Post Capital Bureau

Thursday, March 02, 2006

TALLAHASSEE — Twenty-five years ago, Florida became the first state
in the nation to allow cameras in courtrooms, based on a Florida
Supreme Court ruling.

The state's highest court also requires all its documents to be
submitted electronically and it even provides gavel-to-gavel
coverage of oral arguments live on the Internet.

 Against the backdrop of these technological advances, the Supreme
Court on Wednesday held the first of three informal public hearings
as it considers recommendations on how to balance privacy rights
with the state's open-records laws in an electronic age.

What the justices finally decide could result in yet another
landmark decision by establishing a statewide, integrated court
system in which most court records would be made available
electronically.

Based on questions asked by Chief Justice Barbara Pariente and
others, the system might be similar to one that federal courts use
to allow registered users to obtain information through the
Internet for a nominal fee.

But such a scenario is still a long way off.

First, the judges have to figure out how long it will take each of
Florida's 67 counties to acquire the technology to make such a
system viable.

They also have to clarify confusion about which of the thousand-plus
exemptions to the public-records laws apply to court records.

And they have to decide which court records should be available and
which should be kept private, and whether records made available
over the counter should be different from those made available
electronically.

Two years ago, the Supreme Court issued a moratorium prohibiting
putting all but a limited number of court documents online.
Meanwhile, a court-appointed committee came up with recommendations
on how to ensure both privacy and openness.

The recommendations include one that would make even fewer records
available online until the court comes up with a policy. Media,
title-search and background-screening companies object to this
recommendation.

"This is simply a stalling process. We need to move ahead. The
moratorium is like stopping issuance of a driver's license because
you're afraid somebody's going to get into an accident," Manatee
County Clerk of Court "Chips" Shore told the judges Wednesday.

Shore has created a system that electronically redacts confidential
information from court documents, which Pariente said she wants to
see become a "model for the rest of the state."

But some family law judges and lawyers object to putting court
documents online, saying that such documents often contain intimate
details of people's lives and shouldn't be open to the voyeurism of
others.

"It's a minefield," said 5th District Court of Appeal Judge
Jacqueline Griffin, who also served on the Committee on Privacy and
Court Records, appointed by the Supreme Court. "I have sat in my
office in Daytona Beach and read things that made me want to cry.
I've read things that make me want to throw up.... It's simply a
mistake."
http://tinyurl.com/zt6k7
          
Daniel Grimm
djg2120@columbia.edu


-----------------------------------------------------------------
Computers, Privacy, and the Constitution mailing list