First Amendment
Judge Allows Privacy Advocate to Post Social Security Numbers
Posted Aug 28, 2008 7:54 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
A federal judge has ruled the state of Virginia cannot force a woman to remove Social Security numbers of high-profile individuals from her website that she legally obtained from public records.
The woman, Betty "BJ" Ostergren, is a privacy advocate who is posting public property records to show how easy it is to obtain personal information, Computerworld reports. Officials whose Social Security numbers ended up on Ostergren’s website include former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell.
U.S. District Judge Robert Payne of Richmond, Va., struck down a law that barred the publication of Social Security numbers in an Aug. 22 opinion (PDF posted by the ACLU). Payne said a bar on publication of information in the public domain violates the First Amendment as applied to Ostergren’s website.
He said his ruling would have been "very different" if Ostergren had listed only the Social Security numbers rather than posting the records themselves.
Ostergren is represented by the ACLU of Virginia, the group said in a press release.
- How B of A’s GC Got Fired: Leave Now, and Leave Your BlackBerry Behind
- Schools Ranked by 'Super Lawyers' Produced
- Law Firm Price Wars Break Out as Some Try ‘Loss Leader’ Bids for Work
- Five Questions for Law Firms Abandoning Lockstep Compensation
- Judge Jails 2 Attorneys for Contempt in 4 Days
- Reed Smith Will Ask Nonequity Partners to Pony Up Possibly 15% of Pay
- Court Deputy Ordered to Apologize or Face Jail After Taking Lawyer's Paperwork
- Skadden Jumps on the Bonus Bandwagon
- ABA Executive Director Resigns
- Nasty Attitude to Co-Worker, Naughty Word in E-Mail Cost 2 Their Jobs
Should Supreme Court Justices Be Able to Review News Accounts Before Publication?
Comments
Ellen Barshevsky
Aug 28, 2008 6:56 PM CST
Here I think BJ is being silly. Two wrongs do NOT make a right. And just because the social security numbers were on a website does NOT mean BJ should publish them again. That is silly. The judge should NOT simply strike down a law he doesn’t like. Who says this is right? I think there is a big problem these days with identity theft and this judge is just making it worse. Why do judges think they can get away with making such bad decisions? Just because they dont have to get elected? That is also very silly.
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.