The Dark Side of Sunshine Laws

The American people, as a whole, have two conflicting values right now concerning access to public records.  On the one hand, they tend to agree with news outlets that public records should be highly accessible.  In fact, the more accessible the better, even to the point of putting them on the web and making them available to anyone who can type a URL.  On the other hand, Americans are scared to death of theft identity and loss of privacy.

The problem is that most citizens don't seem to make the connection between increased access to government records and loss of privacy.  A recent local example comes from our city's newspaper taking the city government to court because it refused to turn over copies of the seventy-five applications it received for the then-open City Manager position.  The City argued that most people reasonably expect a modicum of privacy when they apply for a job.  The newspaper countered that it was their job as the defender of the people's right to know to ensure that the good citizens of our city knew exactly who had applied for the job.  Then, they added, the people could decide for themselves if the City Council selected the best candidate for the position.

But there are deeper privacy issues than inadvertantly getting a job applicant in trouble with their current employer.  Job applications have social security numbers on them.  If job applications for the City Manager position were open record, then all job applications are.  If job applications are open record, then what's to stop someone from ordering copies of all of the applications received by the State of New Mexico in any given month and using it to harvest identities for criminal purposes?

And if job applications are open record, what about transcripts from background checks?  What about credit reports?

New Mexico has one of the most liberal open records statutes in the country.  Records kept by a government agency, either state or local, can be requested by anyone for any purpose.  The only time an agency is allowed to withhold the document is if it is part of an ongoing criminal investigation, if it is a "matter of opinion" in a personnel file, or if it falls into one of a handful of other very obscure categories that cover almost nothing.

That sounds great, doesn't it?  If asked if they support such a statute guaranteeing access to public records, most people would probably say "yes."

Now let's say you live in an apartment complex and you hear your neighbor in an argument with her very dangerous, violent boyfriend.  You call 9-1-1 and report what you fear could become a life-threatening situation, and the police come.  When they arrive, the police find that the argument has not yet turned physical, and both parties promise to stop arguing, so the police leave.

But the dangerous, violent boyfriend lets his anger fester.  Who was the busybody who called the police?  What business is it of theirs what goes on in his own apartment?  Someone ought to teach them a lesson.  So the next morning, he drives down to the 9-1-1 center and requests a copy of the call to 9-1-1 that led to his humiliation in front of the police.  It's not part of an ongoing investigation, because no charges were filed, and it certainly doesn't fall into any other protected category, so legally, the administrator at the 9-1-1 center has no legal option but to hand the tape over.  With that tape in hand, the dangerous, violent boyfriend can listen and hear exactly who turned him in.  Refused to give your name to the dispatcher?  That's fine, because he can olso request a copy of the information that comes across the system when you call 9-1-1, including the address, name, and telephone number of the caller.

Now he knows who called the police on him.  Who do you think he's coming after next?

How about a drug dealer who wants to know who turned him in?  What about a stalker that wants his girlfriend's new address?  What about someone who's just nosy and wants to know why there was an ambulance at your house last week?  Is this really the public's right to know?  Is this really in our society's best interest?

I'm not in favor of closed government, but before we open the floodgates of information any further, let's consider being more selective in what we make public and what can stay private.  If information is power, I'm not sure we want everyone armed with the informational equivalent of grenade launchers.