Comments on: California AG Interprets Public Records Act to Allow Real Property Addresses On the Internet http://pibuzz.com/2008/05/29/california-ag-interprets-public-records-act-to-allow-real-property-addresses-on-the-internet/ Private Investigator Blog - Public Records, Internet Search - PI Buzz Thu, 17 May 2012 19:35:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: California AG Interprets Public Records Act to Allow Real Property … http://pibuzz.com/2008/05/29/california-ag-interprets-public-records-act-to-allow-real-property-addresses-on-the-internet/comment-page-1/#comment-307714 California AG Interprets Public Records Act to Allow Real Property … Wed, 11 Jun 2008 09:55:33 +0000 http://pibuzz.com/2008/05/29/california-ag-interprets-public-records-act-to-allow-real-property-addresses-on-the-internet/#comment-307714 [...] Go to the author’s original blog: California AG Interprets Public Records Act to Allow Real Property … [...] [...] Go to the author’s original blog: California AG Interprets Public Records Act to Allow Real Property … [...]

]]> By: Tamara Thompson http://pibuzz.com/2008/05/29/california-ag-interprets-public-records-act-to-allow-real-property-addresses-on-the-internet/comment-page-1/#comment-304477 Tamara Thompson Mon, 02 Jun 2008 17:59:48 +0000 http://pibuzz.com/2008/05/29/california-ag-interprets-public-records-act-to-allow-real-property-addresses-on-the-internet/#comment-304477 The President of the California Assessors Association, Mike Strong (Sutter County Assessor; MStrong (at) co (dot) sutter (dot) ca (dot) us), doesn’t agree with my reading of the Attorney General opinion. Here’s the text of his email to me: <blockquote>Here is what the AG opinion says (with my emphases added): CONCLUSION Where a county maintains a comprehensive database of property-related information that may incidentally contain the home addresses and telephone numbers of persons who are elected or appointed public officials, but who are not identifiable as such from the data, Government Code section 6254.21(a) does not require the county to obtain permission from those officials before transmitting the database over a limited-access network, such as an “intranet,” “extranet,” or “virtual private network.” A limited-access network is just that – limited. The terms “intranet,” “extranet,” or “virtual private network” all apply to restricted or limited access networks. The internet is not a limited-access network and the AG opinion, therefore, does not change or reinterpret Government Code section 6254.21(a), as it applies to database information available to the general public via the internet.</blockquote> The President of the California Assessors Association, Mike Strong (Sutter County Assessor; MStrong (at) co (dot) sutter (dot) ca (dot) us), doesn’t agree with my reading of the Attorney General opinion. Here’s the text of his email to me:

Here is what the AG opinion says (with my emphases added):

CONCLUSION

Where a county maintains a comprehensive database of property-related information that may incidentally contain the home addresses and telephone numbers of persons who are elected or appointed public officials, but who are not identifiable as such from the data, Government Code section 6254.21(a) does not require the county to obtain permission from those officials before transmitting the database over a limited-access network, such as an “intranet,” “extranet,” or “virtual private network.”

A limited-access network is just that – limited. The terms “intranet,” “extranet,” or “virtual private network” all apply to restricted or limited access networks.

The internet is not a limited-access network and the AG opinion, therefore, does not change or reinterpret Government Code section 6254.21(a), as it applies to database information available to the general public via the internet.

]]> By: Could County Assessors Be Wrong? http://pibuzz.com/2008/05/29/california-ag-interprets-public-records-act-to-allow-real-property-addresses-on-the-internet/comment-page-1/#comment-304476 Could County Assessors Be Wrong? Mon, 02 Jun 2008 16:58:16 +0000 http://pibuzz.com/2008/05/29/california-ag-interprets-public-records-act-to-allow-real-property-addresses-on-the-internet/#comment-304476 [...] I’m stealing this quote from Tamara at PI Buzz because it sums it up quite well: As a practical matter, we believe that a broad and overly literal reading of section 6254.21(a) would lead to unworkable results. Some public agencies…might conclude that they were forced to refrain from making any property-related database accessible to any internet technology, no matter how secure or limited the network, due to the possibility that the data could contain home information of public officials. Other public agencies… might conclude that they were forced to review and redact their databases… Such an identification process would be difficult, time consuming, and inevitably incomplete. Furthermore, the resulting revised property databases… would no longer be comprehensive and would therefore be of diminished utility to users. We are hesitant to conclude that the Legislature could have intended such impractical results. [...] [...] I’m stealing this quote from Tamara at PI Buzz because it sums it up quite well: As a practical matter, we believe that a broad and overly literal reading of section 6254.21(a) would lead to unworkable results. Some public agencies…might conclude that they were forced to refrain from making any property-related database accessible to any internet technology, no matter how secure or limited the network, due to the possibility that the data could contain home information of public officials. Other public agencies… might conclude that they were forced to review and redact their databases… Such an identification process would be difficult, time consuming, and inevitably incomplete. Furthermore, the resulting revised property databases… would no longer be comprehensive and would therefore be of diminished utility to users. We are hesitant to conclude that the Legislature could have intended such impractical results. [...]

]]>