All online images of documents were yanked, starting Thursday after further concerns the clerk’s Web site was “spoon-feeding” criminals Social Security numbers, despite last week’s removal of federal tax lien documents for the same reason.
An Arkansas privacy advocate alerted Montrose County Clerk and Recorder Fran Tipton Long last week that Social Security numbers contained on liens and personal property records were displayed in full on the site, under the OnCore system.
|
Advertisement |
But Betty “BJ” Ostergren said it wasn’t enough. She was able to pull up other documents containing Social Security numbers — including the SSN of a court official. It took her but moments to do so, she said.
Ostergren, the founder of The Virginia Watchdog, has battled her home state for years over its display of SSNs on public sites.
A federal judge in August ruled the law was unconstitutional in terms of existing information on Ostergren’s site.
In Montrose, Ostergren found residents’ SSNs in power of attorney documents and other personal property records.
“I called her (Long) and said, ‘You have a problem,’” Ostergren said. “She couldn’t believe it.”
Long said she determined additional documentation on the site that shouldn’t be displaying SSNs.
“Until I can get it rectified, I’m pulling all images off the Web site,” she said.
“(Having) some names (on the site) is not good. I have to get them all off of there.”
The site index of documents will remain, Long said.
Long intends to redact the sensitive information before re-posting the documents online. That process could take quite some time and will cost the county in terms of extra staffing or new software.
Additionally, she has to heed such regulations that apply to online records. Some of those regulations prohibit the full redaction of SSNs, while a 2006 Colorado law instructs clerks not to disseminate SSNs.
“We do have the 2006 law and at the same time, a lot of rules where we can’t do redaction. The good part of this is, you can still see that there is a document (available) if you’re researching,” Long said. “Unfortunately, you will have to come into our office to see if that’s the document you’re looking for.
“But we are diligently trying to find a solution to this problem. Protecting citizens’ identities is Priority 1 in this situation here.”
Ostergren said she was still concerned about Colorado because she was also able to locate some Social Security numbers on the Secretary of State’s Web site — even though they were to have been removed last year.
There, she found the SSN of the same Montrose-area court official, along with that of his wife.
“I told these people (SOS) a year ago what they were doing. I would say they have not done a very good job and it’s really sad,” Ostergren said, and added it appeared as though the SOS “missed a lot” of numbers. “I’m mighty disappointed,” she said.
On her Web site, she lambasted Secretary of State Mike Coffman and also Gov. Bill Ritter, whose office, she said, declined to get involved.
“We’re still trying to get to the bottom of it,” SOS spokesman Rich Coolidge said of the situation Friday. “There’s always a concern. It continues to pop up on our Web site. The secretary is committed to reducing the risk.”
Coolidge said new processes require documents to be examined for SSNs and sensitive information before they are scanned for the Web site. Additionally, the SOS has software programs to catch what human beings might miss.
“As these kinds of issues come up, people can contact us directly. We’ll redact the information right there.”
Long said the documents under her custodianship are still public records that must be released when requested.
“We’re in a catch-22. We’re trying to help people do their research, but because of rules and regulations for records, we can’t have (electronic) research capability without releasing critical information,” she said.
“We have to find a mitigation measure somehow.”
Ostergren said she’s been able to find 21,000 Social Security numbers from online, public records in the past six years. That, she said, “spoon-feeds criminals.”
“I’m a full believer in open records. I like having records available, but I draw the line when they have Social Security Numbers,” Ostergren said.
“I think it’s reckless, dangerous and stupid for public officials to have that on a Web site. One of these days, we’ll make the whole country wake up.”
• Be respectful of others, the writer and the subjects in the story.
• Be relevant. Keep your comments on point.
• See the guidelines for TalkAbout. Perhaps your comment is best for that community forum, available from the home page, instead of commenting on a particular story.
Comment posters are responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide. We urge comment writers to treat this as a public forum where manners matter. We encourage a collegial, non-insulting tone. All readers comments must be approved by our staff before posting to the Web site. Be aware, in accordance with the Communications Decency Act and provisions upheld in judicial appeal, that you are responsible for comments posted on this Web site. Montrose Press is not liable for messages from third parties.
DO NOT POST:
* Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo.
* Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
* Personal attacks, insults or threats.
* The use of another person's real name to disguise your identity.
* Comments unrelated to the story.
Opinions, advice and all other information expressed in montrosepress.com's reader comments represent the individual's own views and not necessarily those of the Montrose Press. Montrose Press does not endorse and is not responsible for statements, advice or opinions offered by anyone other than authorized Montrose Press spokespersons.
Thank you for your comments!