Is your neighbor a registered sex offender? If you live in Hawaii, the answer is a click away. Does that new hire have a drunken driving conviction? Try Rapsheet Online. Is your ex- filing for bankruptcy? The information may be readily available.

Paul Grabowicz?s series "Researching People on the Internet" makes the point that researching a person?s background on the Internet has never been easier. Twenty years ago, the ability to gather and republish information about a person was constrained in comparison: following a lead, interviewing witnesses, going to the library -- the stuff of reporting -- was time-consuming, hard work. Today that detective work is quickly disappearing as journalists rush to online databases for background research. 

		When a database can pinpoint an individual?s address, telephone number, party registration, social security number, and more, the question has to be asked: ?Is this a good thing??

Although Paul doesn?t say so, Paul?s observations about the availability of public records online demonstrate the true potential of the Web: near instantaneous access to millions of pages of background information at your fingertips. A reporter?s dream! 

Given the breadth of information available, it?s no wonder that privacy rights activists are concerned about what can be learned about you online. For example, Robert Gellman and the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse sound the alert and provide information to consumers about the ongoing debate over your right of privacy in public records.  

The Right of Privacy in Public Information 

Private database companies such as Dunn & Bradstreet (business reports), Martindale-Hubble (law directory), and the UD Registry (unlawful detainers) typically solicit the information that they compile from the individual or from others who know them or their reputation. These services mediate what information they choose to report, so their databases can include matters of opinion or conjecture. Consequently, it is hard to cry ?foul? about the data collected. 

In contrast, governmental agencies compel the collection of names, birth dates, social security numbers, property addresses, mortgages, physical descriptions, phone numbers, convictions, bankruptcies, and more. Few individuals would expect this data to end up being available to any fool with a computer. Yet public access to this information is a hallmark distinction of the United States.

Public records, the things that must be recorded, registered, filed with the court, or that have been disclosed by the individual, are nearly universally available in each of the United States. Unlike the United Kingdom, where you had to justify a need to see the document, the United States rejected that restriction from the very earliest days of the republic. In short, once disclosed to the governmental agency, with limited exceptions, the information becomes accessible to anyone who makes a request. 

Arguably the leading modern case in favor of public access to this data is Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc. (1978) 435 U.S. 589. Nixon was a post-Watergate lawsuit in which Warner et al. sought access to the tapes President Nixon made of conversations regarding the Watergate break-in and cover-up. In Nixon, the Supreme Court acknowledged the ?general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.?  

If the public has a right to access the records of our government, doesn?t that right extend to the medium of the Internet? The answer appears obvious. But, Nixon was decided in the time of paper files, type-written briefs, and hand-written docket entries. There can be little doubt that Justice Powell writing in 1978 could have had very little appreciation for a digital storage and retrieval system like Internet system existing some 24 years later. Nevertheless, his opinion applies with equal force to digital media as we enter the Twenty First Century. 

As Paul?s articles point out, sources abound that repackage the government?s detailed data making it easily searchable. Some databases are free, others for a fee or subscription, but most providing more information about an individual than you?d believe. For example, take a look at the detailed information culled from the voter rolls in Texas and available to anyone with a computer. You may ask the phone company to keep your number unlisted, but if it is listed on your property voter registration or tax bill, chances are its available online. 

How Good Is That Site? 

When a database can pinpoint an individual?s address, telephone number, party registration, social security number, and more, the question has to be asked: ?Is this a good thing?? Indeed, measured by an individual?s loss of privacy, potentially misleading and inaccurate personal details, and the increasing risk of identity theft, the Internet?s promise of unrestrained streaming data can also turn a person?s life and lifestyle into shards. How do we balance these competing interests?  

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing in a dissenting opinion in Arizona v. Evans (1995) 514 U.S. identified the further problem with bad data:  

Widespread reliance on computers to store and convey information generates, along with manifold benefits, new possibilities of error, due to both computer malfunctions and operator mistakes ... computerization greatly amplifies an error's effect, and correspondingly intensifies the need for prompt correction; for inaccurate data can infect not only one agency, but the many agencies that share access to the database.  

For journalists, the ability to rely upon quality data is paramount. So, who can you trust? And, what happens when the data turns out to be inaccurate? 

Libel Within The Database 

Printing a false statement of fact is libel. Libel is going to be measured in part by the quality of the reporter?s investigation. When the reporter did the legwork physically, he or she was able to justify the report through thorough fact investigation. Can the same be said when the reporter relies on an informational database?  

In reporting, as in law, nothing takes the place of competent fact investigation. How competent was the source of that information? While most governmental entities will be immune from suit for inaccurate reporting, that is not true for republishers, compilers, and the reporters who use those databases.  

Read the site?s small print! Most searchable databases will not stand behind the accuracy of the available information. If they won?t warrant the accuracy of the information without a multi-page disclaimer, is this a risk worth taking?  

To decrease the risk, the internet-savvy journalist should research on sites known for their accuracy; check if other sites can corroborate the data; and maintain records of the research. If the data is still suspect, then the reporter can always research the old-fashioned way -- by sifting through the files at the County Courthouse. 

Can We Put The Genie Back In the Bottle? 

Reacting to the perceived privacy issues, some States have taken steps to reduce the chance of truly private information from reaching the public. For example, a few years ago, California stopped public access to DMV records without justification (Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 1798.26), and also limits access to voter registration materials unless an applicant demonstrates ?scholarly, journalistic, political or governmental purposes? as determined by the Secretary of State. (Cal. Elec. Code Sec. 2194)  

In Washington State, Washington?s governor has issued an Executive Order requiring state agencies to ?establish procedures and practices for the handling and disposal of public records and copies to provide reasonable assurances that those [records] containing personal information are properly safeguarded.? In other words, the files are sanitized before being made available.  

Will legislation prevent dissemination of private information? It?s unlikely. But, addressing the general dissemination of the data collected by state agencies is a better approach because it addresses the root issue; whereas legislation that prohibits access to the information on the Internet only punishes the Internet user. 

So, while the quick speed of the Internet may make an easier job of conducting background research, nothing will take the place of thorough follow-up investigation. Background research by computer is revolutionizing the way that journalists work. But, just as before, relying solely upon someone else?s research, database, or even government records, is a recipe for disaster.

Michael S. Overing teaches Internet Law at the USC Annenberg School for Communication. He is a practicing attorney in Los Angeles County, California. He frequently assists individuals and businesses with Internet and media-related legal issues.

Edward C. Wilde is a practicing attorney and "of counsel" to the Law Offices of Michael S. Overing, A Professional Corporation.  He was lead counsel on behalf of the defendant in Comedy III v. Gary Saderup, the landmark California Supreme Court case interpreting the role of the first amendment and the right of publicity.

Read the OJR DISCLAIMER here.