Date of Birth: Redacted
Jan 9th, 2008 by JamieB
Yesterday we discussed the House’s addition of the word “legal” to the definition of a record in Senate Bill 1. Today, let’s look briefly at the additions of “dates of birth” and “telephone numbers” to the blanket exemptions.
Here is how SB 1 reads now (capital letters indicate additions made by the House to the Senate Bill it received last December):
Section 708(b)(6), page 25, lines 14-21: Exceptions. In the case of a public record, unless disclosure is otherwise required OR AUTHORIZED by law, the following are exempt from access by a requester under this act: (6) (i) The following personal identification information:
(A) A record containing all or part of an individual’s A PERSON’S DATE OF BIRTH [and] home, cellular or personal telephone NUMBERS.
Stop me if I’ve told you this before . . . but I went a few days ago to pick up my cholesterol medicine at the drug store, and the pharmacist asked me my date of birth. I don’t think he was prying into my private life. He just wanted to make certain that he was giving the prescribed controlled substance to the right person. I suppose I could have told him that information was none of his business, but . . . heck, my dog tags contained more information than that.
Anyway, newspapers – at least responsible ones – use that information regularly to identify the subjects of their reports – including to make sure that they have correctly identified people charged with a crime. They would be irresponsible not to, just as the pharmacist would be irresponsible not to make sure he was giving the drugs to the right person. There are a lot of John Smiths out there, and identifying the wrong one can make someone’s life miserable.
As for telephone numbers, there are phone books in paper and on-line that make that information available to anyone who wants it. Don’t get me wrong, I am as fierce an advocate for personal privacy as anyone, but it seems to me counterproductive to declare off-limits information that is already all over the public domain.
Finally, the amended bill states that: NOTHING IN THIS PARAGRAPH SHALL
A) PREVENT AN AGENCY FROM PROVIDING ACCESS TO THE DATE OF BIRTH OF A DECEASED PERSON FOR GENEALOGICAL PURPOSES.
No, it isn’t that the legislators care less for the privacy of the deceased than the living. It is, I guess, a testament to the power of the genealogical lobby that that data is deemed to be public. And well it should be. It would be tough on history teachers, for example, if they had to keep under wraps the birth dates of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King, and it would be tough to know when to celebrate their holidays.
The most compelling reason to keep dates of birth in the public domain is that they are necessary to distinguish among people of the same name.
They are critical for precisely identifying voters, loan recipients, social service benefit recipients, criminals, and many others.
How better to distinguish “Robert Thompson” who is a crook from “Robert Thompson” the honored veteran from “Robert Thompson” a salesman on the county voter rolls?
Sure, middle initials may help identify individuals. And addresses often pinpoint a person. But nowadays, people move so often, within the same city or far afield, that addresses alone often are not sufficient to conclusively identify an individual.
We all like to think that we are unique. That may be. But our names are not nearly as distinctive as we lead ourselves to believe.
The are 80 “Robert Thompsons” in the Philadelphia metropolitan area. There are 246 in Pennsylvania.
In the U.S., there are are 53 Bill or William DeWeeses. There are more than 300 Sam Smiths. There are 12 Dominic Pileggis.
To thwart voter fraud, to correctly identify borrowers, to accurately identify criminals (separating them from law-abiding citizens of the same name) — in other words, to precisely identify individuals for a multitude of reasons — dates of birth are essential.
Ernie Schreiber, Lancaster, Pa.
(Not the Ernie Schreiber in Los Angeles, CA; Sun City, FL; Somerville, MASS; Glen Burnie, MD; Bellevue, NE; Marlton, NJ; Orient, OH; Justin, TX; Lake Jackson, TX, or Wausau, WI. ) (And not the detective in Canada, either.)