I wonder how this new law would affect those in our industry from amassing online "thin-title plants." Who would have thought that Ostergren would find herself on the same side as those other "private entities" who are publishing the same information?  Of course, I have to imagine that the legislators created some kind of loophole to allow them to continue to operate - otherwise, I think they would have beat her to court!

I appreciate the link to the complaint, David.  I don't have time to read it right now, but I will.  I'm sure it will be very interesting.

The clerk of Fairfax County has now doubled the on line fees so that he can fund the redaction process- the County Board requires this but won't fund it- they gave the clerk the option of increasing the fees and being able to use the extra money to accomplish the task or just shut down the system. What an option- now those of us that subscribe to that on-line system are paying for what the citizens should be paying for- all as a result of sloppy document preparation and control- since SS numbers are NOT to be on any recorded documents- it is the document preparers and control personal to see to it that this does not slip through- the clerks can hardly be held to scanning each page of every document offer for recordation-It is a task that the respective clerks are having a tough time dealing with that after the fact.

Ms Ostergren's web site only makes the errors of many government sites all the easier to find the information ,as she publishes it for the ID thieves instead of making them have to look for it.

While Virginia has attempted to secure the sites with their internal regulations and procedures- it is a work in progress, some times much better than some states and sometimes lacking in certain areas- all to be learned from- the counties I have experienced do not allow access to personal information such as details of criminal activity, divorce records, traffic violations and or other personal data that might be used to compromise one's identity. This is a continuing quest to protect ones personal identity and records from criminal activity and actions. As an abstractor and title examiner , I do not envision any reason to use the personal information that I may or may not acquire as a result of doing my job- it is something that just stays with the work and goes no further, end of data  transmission.

I'm not sure about a loophole. I think the intent of the law was to stop Ostergren and the legislature fully intended for it to be selectively applied - And that's the rub and the reason for the lawsuit. Virginia has been out to get Ostergrin for years ever since she pulled down the first county website. She accomplished a lot just by sending a copies of documents she downloaded from the county websites to people whose SSN's were exposed.

What really ticked them off was when she posted exact copies of county documents that contained the legislators own private information. That's when they decided to write what I've been told was nicknamed the "Stop Ostergren Act" .

I wonder if the "thin plant" operators even realize they will be in violation of Virginia law after July 1 if Ostergren fails to get an injunction. It certainly appears to me that the law should be applied equally. The thin plants have much more to lose at $2500 per incident than Ostergren. Some of those sites are displaying millions of SSN's

Steve

now those of us that subscribe to that on-line system are paying for what the citizens should be paying for-

Tell me again Steve, exactly why is it that the citizens of Fairfax county should be paying your business expenses to access to their documents online?

all as a result of sloppy document preparation and control- since SS numbers are NOT to be on any recorded documents

Do you blame the document preparers of the past who filed documents with SSN's before the recent law you cite was written? The clerks could have avoided these problems simply by not putting older records on the Internet at all or not posting document  images at all. I realize that this option removed when State legislators rushed to seize an asset belonging to County taxpayers and force them to give it away on the Web.

Even so, Clerks who did not wish to exploit their constituents identities online could have resisted. The clerks in NY told the Governor to take a hike when he attempted to force them to provide Driver's Licences to illegal aliens.See New York clerks protecting our borders

the counties I have experienced do not allow access to personal information such as details of criminal activity, divorce records, traffic violations and or other personal data that might be used to compromise one's identity.

Those counties should be commended Steve but they have missed a huge resevoir of data identity thieves can use publishing document images of probate, mineral leases, tax liens, judgements and power-of-attorney documents.

David: I pay for access to the county's web site- the citizens have never paid for my access- what I said was that the Clerk has now doubled the on line "fees" so that they can pay to redact those documents that violate the rules as far as exposing personal data on line. I do believe that the citizens of Fairfax are getting a free ride on this by making those of us that are subscribers to the on line system fund their "fix it " projects. When this system first started the monthly fees were $250 per month- over the years it was reduced to $75/mo and then for the last few years only $25/month- now it is back up to $50/month- all of which were in line with what the General assembly recommended. This is just the fee for this one county and there are hundreds of subscribers to each one- I can only afford to be a subscriber to 3 or 4 at this time and that is difficult in the current economic environment- having to pay out thousands of dollars for a CO title is not the way to make ends meet.

As far as sloppy document preparation and control it is evident that those people don't have any interest in protecting the ID of their customers- especially when they are instructed to hand write the DL# or SS# on the notary page as proof of having witnessed that persons identity and they are one and the same-when the current laws have forbidden recording any document with that information on it- and of course the BIG offender of SS#'s is the IRS- they don't have any interest in protecting anyone's ID- only filing liens and its associated revealing information.

current laws have forbidden recording any document with that information on it- and of course the BIG offender of SS#'s is the IRS- they don't have any interest in protecting anyone's ID- only filing liens and its associated revealing information.

Yes, current laws do forbid they also have no effect or protection for the milions of documents already filed. Those documents were never a problem until they were posted online. Legislators and county clerks were well aware of the existense of SSN's and other sensitive information in older documents and the fact they had no way of controlling the information they contained. If officials had a sincere interest in protecting their constituents over the convenience of outside parties they could have simply refused to post older (or any) documents online. In fact this is exactly what most concientious officials outside of Virginia have done.

I know there are a number of states/counties that have little or no restrictions as to access to their county records- these are even worse than Virginia, in my opinion. They have made available everything that is in their offices to the public on the internet web sites. These counties and offices should or hopefully have started to make access restricted , at least in some small fashion to protect what little there is left of their constituents personal information.Although, if what you say on here about ID theft being as out of control as you do, there is no hope for any of them anymore. They might as well just give up!!

Your right Steve, some states offer even less protection to their citizens than Virginia. Florida is bad and Arizona may worse.  The very worst states are those mandate the clerks publish online. The more records online the more local citizens are put at risk.

Various counties and states (like Virginia) take the position that merely charging a nominal fee for a remote access subcription will turn identity thieves away. Identity thieves aren't likely to register under their own names or pay for the services. That's what happened in the Choicepoint debacle that saw a quarter of a million Americans loose their identity.

Subscription sites, like those in Virginia, might work if services were limited to residents as are other services provided by the county.  At least then counties would know if they are serving their taxpayers or serving serving taxpayer assets to someone outside their jurisdiction. It's a system that works for just about every other service provided by the county - Law enforcement, financial aid, and education for example are only provided within the jurisdiction. Taxpayers really should be asked to provide services to someone thousands of miles outside the county jurisdiction. Even state universities charge a much higher fee for out-of-state tuition.

It's hard to imagine how anyone came up with the idea that the county is obligated to provide services to anyone outside its jurisdiction. All can say is, the idea probably originated from someoone who intended to profit at taxpayer exapense.

if what you say on here about ID theft being as out of control as you do, there is no hope for any of them anymore. They might as well just give up!!

If what you mean by "give up" is to stop serving their constituents information to people thousands of miles away, then yes, you are right. They should give up. The primary function of government is to serve and protect the people within its jurisdiction. Putting public records online with  or without a subscription best serves those most distant from the county and places all those who live within the jurisdiction at risk.

I looked up the ID theft incident by state and while Arizona has the highest per capita- Texas outshines the rest of the country in over all exposure. 
Here is the link to that data:
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/ss/factsfigures.pdf 
another report also has the states in a little different order
http://www.money-zine.com/Financial-Planning/Debt-Consolidation/Identity-Theft-Statistics/
(just to be fair to Texas)

I am sure that Texas is a mecca for ID theft and the clerk's there have thrown open all their public records for all to have at will- as you have pointed out a number of times with the Fort Bend clerk, nothing was beyond her desires to publish everything about everyone that lived in her county.

And by "give up"  I was referring to the potential victims of the theft- not the governments-they are going to do what they will, no matter what you or I think or want-just the way it is- we are on the roller coaster and just hanging on til the end.

It always seems to me that one thing is never addressed in these sorts of public debates, and that is the responsibility of private Citizens to enforce their own rights to privacy a priori.  That is to say that it is common for people to attempt to enforce their Civil Rights after (often long after) they have voluntarily submitted their personal data to public agencies instead of deciding beforehand to protect that data.  I refer to the ability of anyone to hold their home and unsececured property (car, boat, plane, etc...) in a family trust which can protect their individual names from disclosure on the title, tax and assessment records.  I refer to their ability to operate a non-statutory partnership, sole proprietorship, or business trust instead of a state-registered LLC, LP, corp., LLP, etc.  I refer to the right to NOT vote which indeed is an absolute right to be private as well.

The fact that a notary advises you to put your ss# on a power of attorney or some other record, does not mandate that you do so.  As a point of fact, it is your duty to know your own rights and be an effective advocate for yourself as nobody else will do so for you.  

Another point is that when you engage in public records, you go from being a private State Citizen, to being a member of the Public and subject to publicity, publication and all the other things that public life brings (see the root meaning of these words).

Americans seem to address the issues of their democratic "Rights" but appear to rarely own up to their democratic responsibilities, which are integral to a free society.  This appears to be the case here.  Public information is maintained by my tax dollars too.  Each of the public agencies that hold these records, regarless of state or county, receive federal funding and federal benefits. Every one of them traffics in these public records and uses federal reserve notes to do so.  As such I and every American has a vested interest in being able to access public records. 

they have voluntarily submitted their personal data to public agencies instead of deciding beforehand to protect that data. 

No matter who provides personal data for the public record (and it is most often NOT the citizen), publishing those records online serves no useful purpose for the average citizen but opens the door to exploitation by criminals all over the world.

Americans already have easy, secure access to public records through the courthouse doors. Foreign criminals and  terrorists seldom cross that threshold if they don't have to.  It's much easier and safer for criminals to legally access the records through remote, anonymous acccess provided by careless government websites. Criminals of all kinds silently cross our borders, steal our identities, investigate our infrastructure and  plan terrorist attacks far out-of-reach of  Amercian law enforcement . In fact, terrorist training manuals say 80 percent of the information they need to attack us can be found in our public records.

Distribution of public records via the internet at taxpayer expense is a naive and dangerous approach that has little value to most Americans while allowing foreign thugs to exploit our freedom , attack us at will and silently disappear into the vastness of the World Wide Web without so much as a "thank you sucker!"