Public access to government employees' birth dates and worker identification numbers would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.
(Okla. Pub. Employees Ass’n v. Oklahoma Office of Pers. Mgmt., 2011 OK 68). Opinion begins on Page 14.)
In coming to that conclusion, the seven-justice majority found no value in the public knowing the information but accepted as gospel the claim that access would cause identity theft and other harms.
"The information requested here could result in cases of identity theft and compromise of government computer systems yet bring little, if any, information to public attention which would enlighten Oklahoman citizens as to how their government runs, performs, or spends their tax dollars," they said. (Id. ¶ 3)
"There is simply no instance in which we can fathom how such information would advance the public's interest in assuring that the government is properly performing its function. (Id. ¶ 35)
"The purpose of openness in government is not fostered by disclosure of information about private citizens that is accumulated in various government files but reveals little or nothing about an agency's own conduct. (Id. ¶ 37)
"Rather, government agencies and the courts have a special obligation to protect the public's interest in individual privacy by acknowledging that public records are being harvested for personal information about individuals, contributing to a surge in identify theft, consumer profiling, and the development of a stratified society were individuals are pigeonholed according to the electronic trail they leave of transactions that disclose personal details." (Id.)
The case revolves around which information in a government employee's personnel file may be exempted under the state Open Records Act. A public body may keep confidential those personnel records "where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy such as employee evaluations, payroll deductions, employment applications submitted by persons not hired by the public body, and transcripts from institutions of higher education maintained in the personnel files of certified public school employees." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.7(A)(2))
In a one-paragraph dissent, Justice Yvonne Kauger, joined by Chief Justice Steven W. Taylor, saw the case as "a matter of statutory construction."
Kauger noted that although the Legislature had amended the personnel exemption three times since 1985, "it had never chosen to include the date of birth."
"If the Legislature desires to do so, it certainly can," Kauger wrote.
A 2009 attorney general had said the birth dates of government employees were presumed to be public information when contained in their personnel files and should be released upon request. Officials could refuse to release the information only if they determined that disclosing the birth date would constitute an “unwarranted invasion of privacy” that outweighed the public interest in disclosure. (2009 OK AG 33, ¶ 11)
Then-Attorney General Drew Edmondson told The Oklahoman:
My [personal] opinion is that an agency is going to have difficulty claiming the exemption as a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. My view is that the conditions under which birth dates would be confidential would be rare.Shortly after issuing the 2009 opinion, Edmondson released the birth dates of his employees.
In the opinion, Edmondson said public officials must balance the interests involved, "weighing the public's right of access to the records, which the Legislature has declared is substantial, against the employees' interests in nondisclosure." As part of that balancing,
A public body may determine that the ORA's public policy raises the question, 'How does disclosing an employee's birth date allow citizens to know what the government (or a particular employee) is up to, and whether he or she is properly discharging his or her duties?' If the purpose of the ORA is to 'ensure and facilitate the public's right of access to and review of government records so they may efficiently and intelligently exercise their inherent political power,' the operative question is 'how will knowing an employee’s birth date assist citizens in the exercise of that political power?’ (2009 OK AG 33, ¶ 10)On Tuesday, Justices Tom Colbert, Joseph M. Watt, James R. Winchester, James E. Edmondson, John F. Reif, Douglas Combs and Noma Gurich found that the balance between public interest and employee privacy "must tip in favor of privacy." (2011 OK 68, ¶ 35)
"We determine that when the balancing test is applied to the facts presented, where significant privacy interests are at stake while the public's interest either in employee birth dates or employee identification numbers is minimal, release of birth dates and employee identification numbers of State employees 'would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy,'" they said. (Id. ¶ 39)
They gave no weight to the public's interest in knowing the information. (Id. ¶ 35)
"Although state employees' privacy interests may be diminished somewhat by taking a position in an agency subject to public scrutiny, they do not surrender all privacy rights by taking a government employment," the majority said. "However, it is important to note that the policy of public disclosure is purposed to serve the public interest and not to satisfy the public's curiosity. Here, the information sought serves no valid public interest." (Id.)
But open government advocates fear that exempting government employees' birth dates and identification numbers from their personnel files would severely hamper the ability of Oklahomans to know and be fully informed about their government. State law already exempts public employees' Social Security numbers, home addresses and telephone numbers.
By barring access to the birth dates and employee identification numbers, the court has made it virtually impossible for the public to determine if government employees have committed crimes, evaded paying taxes, filed for bankruptcy or made political contributions. The public also will find it virtually impossible to track workers across government jobs.
But the seven justices discounted the ability of the press and public "to identify one state worker from another" as "too 'narrow and limited' on the public interest scale to tip the balance of interests in favor of disclosure." (Id. ¶ 34)
The justices also shrugged off the fact that birth dates are available in other public documents, such as voter registration records.
"The fact that information may be available to the public in some form or from another source does not dissolve the individual's interest in controlling the dissemination of information regarding personal matters," they said. (Id. ¶ 34)
In contrast, Drew Edmondson had publicly said it would be difficult to contend that birth dates are private when they are found in a number of public records.
Instead, the justices placed a great deal of weight on the fear of identity theft, saying:
Since September 11, 2001, the ramifications of identity theft have proven much more grave than previously thought. Identify theft, a huge problem in financial fraud, now has implications for national security.But a data privacy expert speaking at FOI Oklahoma Inc.'s 2010 Sunshine Week conference said keeping birth dates secret won't help protect workers' identities or safety because the information already is available elsewhere.
The growing problem of identify theft is facilitated when birth dates are combined with other personal information. Simply combining the release of a person's age along with other factors may make the individual vulnerable to those targeting a certain age range for scams.
With both a name and a birth date, one can obtain information about: an individual's criminal record; arrest record (which may not include disposition of the charges); driving record; state of origin; political party affiliation; social security number; current and past addresses; civil litigation records; liens; property owned; credit history; financial accounts; and quite possibly, information about an individual's complete medical and military histories; and insurance and investment portfolios. (Id. ¶ 32)
"What I would tell them is stop trying to shut the barn door after the horses are gone. It's a lack of understanding by policy makers to what an effective countermeasure is to identity theft," said Richard J.H. Varn, chief information officer for the city of San Antonio and executive director of the Coalition for Sensible Public Records Access.
Varn also emphasized that public records are not a source of information for identity thieves. However, exempting the birth dates from public records does create a privacy problem, he said.
When public identifiers are not made public, it is nearly impossible to distinguish among people with the same name. It leads to more false positives and false negatives, Varn told the National Freedom of Information Coalition conference in 2009.
For example, when The Oklahoman compared a state payroll data to the state sex offender registry, the newspaper found 778 state employees who shared first and last names with registered sex offenders.
"Without dates of birth, which are included in the sex offender registry, it is impossible to determine whether these workers may be sex offenders," the newspaper noted.
For years, The Oklahoman and Tulsa World have received birth dates of public employees. In 2010, for example, Oklahoma City Public Schools released birth dates for more than 5,000 district employees in response to The Oklahoman's open records request.
And the state of Oklahoma has made tens of millions of dollars selling personal information, including birth dates and other personal information of all state drivers, The Oklahoman and Tulsa World reported last year.
Where are the incidences of these records being used to steal people's identities?
Instead of relying upon facts, the seven justices emphasized that the Legislature had intended to create "a non-exclusive list of information" whose release would result in an unwarranted invasion of privacy when it created the personnel exemption to the Open Records Act. (Id. ¶ 39)
However, they ignored that legislators had not exempted birth dates when they blocked public access to government employees' Social Security numbers, home addresses and telephone numbers. And for the past two sessions, legislators rejected attempts to add birth dates to the list of exempted information.
The justices, instead, chose to add birth dates to the list themselves. That's called judicial activism: When a court takes the opportunity to solve what it perceives as a social problem rather than relying upon the legislative branch to do so.
In this case, the seven justices see public access to personal information in government records as a social problem. But their decision is based on their subjective fears rather than facts. By adding birth dates to the list of exempted information, they did what the elected representatives of the people had chosen not to do.
To find no valid public interest in access to the government employees' birth dates and identification numbers is nonsensical and insulting to the public's intelligence.
The ruling on Tuesday is a serious blow to the public's ability to act as a watchdog of its government's activities. The court's reasoning is an affront to the public's right to know and be fully informed about its government.
For more background on the case, click here.
Read reactions to the ruling.
Joey Senat, Ph.D.
OSU School of Media & Strategic Communications
The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the commentators and do not necessarily represent the position of FOI Oklahoma Inc., its staff, or its board of directors. Differing interpretations of open government law and policy are welcome.