A Virginia district judge has ruled that a new state law barring online posting of Social Security numbers is unconstitutional in the case of a privacy advocate’s current and past online postings, repeatedly citing the General Assembly’s shortcomings as a factor in his ruling.
B.J. Ostergren has posted public documents containing Social Security numbers — some of prominent political figures — on her Web site to demonstrate the relative ease with which anyone can access such private information in the state.
In 2007, the General Assembly passed a law requiring county clerks to make land records available online by July 1, 2008, and redact Social Security numbers from the records by 2010, provided the state passed funding for the task. However, the legislature has not approved the funding, so many confidential numbers remain posted online.
“The Virginia law which required redaction of Social Security numbers from land records already online allowed the clerks of court a period of three years to accomplish the redaction task,” wrote District Judge Robert E. Payne in his decision calling the state law “unconstitutional” in Ostergren’s case. “Even that deadline was not to take effect unless funding to support the effort was provided by the legislature, and the record shows that the funding was not provided by the General Assembly.”
Payne called for further briefings from both Ostergren and the state Attorney General’s Office to determine whether to stop future postings of confidential information by Ostergren or others.
The lapse by the General Assembly concerned Mike Stallenwerk, chairman of the Fairfax County Privacy Council.
“It’s the pot calling the kettle black,” he said. “It’s all part and parcel to the issue that the General Assembly wants to talk about privacy, but they don’t want to do it.”
The judge told the American Civil Liberties Union, which represented Ostergren, and the state to agree on an injunction for Ostergren by Aug. 31, said Kent Willis, executive director of the Virginia ACLU. If no agreement is made, the ACLU must give the judge a brief stating its case, to which the state has the opportunity to respond by Sept. 20. In turn, the ACLU has until Sept. 30 to reply to the state’s brief, after which the judge would make a final decision, Willis said.
“We are reviewing the court’s decision and will not comment on this ongoing litigation,” said J. Tucker Martin, a spokesman for State Attorney General Robert McDonnell.
