AG's privacy ruling puts onus on county clerks

[Das Texan]

AG's privacy ruling puts onus on county clerks


http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA022407.05B.privacy_ruling.1032097.html


Web Posted: 02/23/2007 10:29 PM CST

Polly Ross Hughes
Austin Bureau

AUSTIN — County clerks could spend six months in jail and be fined $1,000 for releasing records historically accessible to the public that contain Social Security numbers, according to the state attorney general.

Representatives of county officials statewide called the ruling "huge" in its implications, saying compliance could cost local taxpayers millions of dollars, including countless extra hours of labor.

Some even predicted possible lending delays for home buyers and those trying to close commercial real estate deals as public servants scurry to ensure records comply with state and federal privacy laws.

Attorney General Greg Abbott, responding to questions raised by Fort Bend County officials, said it is mandatory for county clerks and other government officials to remove Social Security numbers before distributing public documents.

The question arose because state public information law was amended two years ago to say county clerks "may" remove Social Security numbers on documents they archive and distribute to the public.

Abbott, citing other portions of state law and federal law, said Texans have a right to keep their Social Security numbers private. Therefore, county officials are required to delete them before releasing documents to the public.

For county clerks, these documents largely involve real estate titles and liens but also include birth and death certificates and marriage licenses.

County clerks, much like librarians or archivists, are the repository for many records the public files, said Elna Christopher, spokeswoman for the Texas Association of Counties.

Abbott's opinion could require combing through public records going back all the way to the 1930s, she said, when the Social Security system was created.

"No one knows what it's going to cost to do this," Christopher said. "It becomes another unfunded mandate."

Bexar County Clerk Gerry Rickhoff said his office met last week to discuss how to comply.

"We will honor what the attorney general has to say," he said, by redacting Social Security numbers by hand on documents requested in person, and by using a software filter to block numbers on public documents that are available online.

He said he doesn't yet have a cost estimate, "but we don't expect to have to go to taxpayers" or county commissioners to pay for the changes.

Abbott's opinion warns that disclosure of confidential information such as Social Security numbers is a criminal offense under the Texas Public Information Act.

Clerks are not required to redact Social Security numbers from original, certified documents, but they are required to remove the numbers and note they have done so when releasing them to the public, the opinion says.

"This opinion disrupts the whole real property transfer system we have," said Don Lee, executive director of the Texas Conference of Urban Counties. "There's a real possibility you won't be able to close on a house."

Harris County doesn't post records on the Internet, but it does offer public-access terminals with electronic images of original records, said David Beirne, a spokesman for the county clerk's office. Beirne estimated the cost there to comply would be at least $17.4 million for new software and servers to remove Social Security numbers from the electronic documents.

[email protected]

Express-News Staff Writer Tracy Idell Hamilton contributed to this report from San Antonio.





Fuck you Abbott. Fuck you to hell. Fuck you for enacting something like this overnight in an idiotic non realistic way. Fucker.

[Yonivore]

Maybe people will quit requiring your freakin' social security number on every freakin' transaction. That's not what it's for.

AG Abbott was just issuing an Attorney General's Opinion, as he's required to do when asked. He didn't just wake up one morning and say, I think I'll screw with people.

[Das Texan]

If you dont want it there, you can elect to not have it there.

What exactly is your social security number for? It never was created for identification anyway...


Abbott issued an opinion that is unrealistic to enforce and is both an economic burdon on counties and on the people that either work in the various counties or those who rely on the information for various industries in the state that have to do with property.

[Yonivore]

If you dont want it there, you can elect to not have it there.

What exactly is your social security number for? It never was created for identification anyway...
I agree. But, try and buy a house or transact some other business involving large sums WITHOUT your Social Security Number.

Nah, this is business' fault. They should have never started collecting that data to begin with.


Abbott issued an opinion that is unrealistic to enforce and is both an economic burdon on counties and on the people that either work in the various counties or those who rely on the information for various industries in the state that have to do with property.
Don't worry, they'll find a solution.

[Das Texan]

http://www.fortbendnow.com/news/2614/house-bill-prepared-to-neuter-attorney-generals-social-security-redaction-opinion


Legislature Ready To Neuter Abbott's Social Security Redaction Opinion
by Bob Dunn, Feb 27, 2007, 05 00 pm

Disturbed at a recent opinion by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott that has resulted in the removal of public real estate records around the state, two powerful industries are preparing to neuter that opinion, via the Texas Legislature.

Abbott opened a Pandora’s box when he issued a complex interpretation of the Texas Public Information Act last week. In it, he stated in part that Texas county clerks “must redact Social Security numbers of living persons from records” under their control “prior to making those records available on the Internet.”

Failure to do so, the opinion states, could amount to “distribution of confidential information under the PIA,” which “constitutes official misconduct and a criminal misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $1,000, confinement in the county jail for up to six months, or both.”

But sources say the title industry and oil and gas industry have championed legislation being prepared for a hearing Wednesday that would simply remove a section in the Public Information Act excepting Social Security numbers from provisions of the act.

Also, a spokesperson for Houston’s Stewart Title, one of the largest title operations in the country, said Tuesday evening the company is “contemplating filing litigation” as the result the changing access to public documents.

Faced with potential criminal action as the result of Abbott’s opinion, but with no way to immediately remove Social Security numbers from already existing records, Texas county clerks were advised by lawyers for the Texas Association of Counties to remove records from public access absent a strong written opinion by their county attorneys.

Unable to to obtain public real estate records vital to their businesses, title companies, mortgage companies, oil and gas companies and a host of other businesses have apparently grown concerned.

For example, the Texas Land Title Association said in an email to members that it is working with the Legislature on a “fast-track” bill to dissolve the paperwork bottleneck they believe Abbott’s opinion has caused. The oil and gas industry is pursuing a similar remedy.

In fact, sources say, both industries are counting on House Bill 2061, authored by Texas House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jim Keffer.

Keffer staff members said Tuesday more language will be added to the bill. In its current form, it simply repeals section 552.147 of the Texas Government Code, effective immediately if it receives a two-thirds member vote.

Section 552.147 is a portion of the Texas Public Information Act added by the 79th Legislature, which says: “(a) The social security number of a living person is excepted from the requirements of Section0 552.021.” and “(b) A governmental body may redact the social security number of a living person from any information the governmental body discloses under Section0 552.021 without the necessity of requesting a decision from the attorney general under Subchapter G.”

A spokeswoman for Keffer said the hope is that H.B. 2061 will render Abbott’s opinion moot, since it was issued in response to a question over whether language in Section 552.147 is mandatory or elective. If that section doesn’t exist, neither does a legal reason for Abbott’s opinion.

H.B. 2061 is scheduled for a hearing at 9 a.m. Wednesday before the House Energy Resources Committee.

Meanwhile, Wilson said Tuesday her office staff is redacting Social Security numbers and drivers license numbers from real and personal property records by hand as real estate records roll in – at a clip of about 2,000 documents per day.

She also said her staff is redacting private data by hand from documents requested by members of the public. But because of the unwieldy process, people are being limited to a maximum of 10 document requests per day.

And, they only can obtain copies of public records in person at the courthouse, because images of the county clerk’s real estate records have been taken off line.

A title industry official said Harris County real estate records also were taken off-line Tuesday, although that could not be independently confirmed late Tuesday afternoon. Access to real estate records has been denied or limited in counties across the state.

Wilson said she and an assistant have been manning four phone lines for the past two days, dealing with sometimes-heated attorneys, business officials and individuals trying to obtain records.

Between the phones and the manual redaction, “everyone leaves here at the end of the day with their tongues hanging out and their eyes pretty dry,” she added.


Fuck you Abbott. Solution, go over your damn head.

[spurster]

Redacting SSNs should have done all along. Of course it's stupid to make it all happen instantly, but public records should not be helping identity theft.