Ok, no one attacked you Jonathan, ad hominem or otherwise.
 
especially when you consider that you are going to comment on whether MY searches are accurate...
I don't think I commented on your searches. I have no knowledge of your searches. I did comment on the accuracy of online sources and quoted specifically from their disclaimers which state clearly they do not warrant them as accurate. I did not find any disclaimer on the four sites you said you used and stated as much. It was refreshing to find an online source that did not disclaim it's own accuracy. Maybe I just didn't look hard enough.

In every reference I made it was to the accuracy, completeness, and security of the sources, not the searcher. You acknowledge the four township sites in NYC are only have complete images back to 2003 and indexes to 1981. As to security, there is none that I saw.

Would it matter if all of the information were password protected and the only way to view it was through a security check run by Homeland Security? NO
You are correct. From a standpoint of security it would not matter. ChoicePoint was password protected and identity thieves gained their own passwords by posing as legitimate businesspeople whose identities they had previously stolen. George Mahon University was a password protected system. Last January hackers broke into their "secure" system and stole the identities of 30,000 students. George Mason is a public university located in Fairfax, Va . It is also It also is home to the Information Security Institute, the Lab for Information Security Technology and the Center for Secure Information Systems, which has been designated a "Center of Academic Excellence" by the U.S. National Security Agency. So no, it would not matter from a security standpoint. If it is online, it is not secure.

I AM questioning the motives of people who are rebeling against online information. It is clear that they have little to no knowledge base as to what is available to searchers in certain municipalities via the Web, and their arguments against it prove this.
I have stated my motivations many times. They are often inaccurate and incomplete and their own disclaimers prove this. They are not secure identity thieves and the recent thefts of ChoicePoint, Hamilton Ohio and several sites in Florida illustrate this. Even the most secure password protected site is not secure from hackers and the case with George Mason University illustrates this. The citizens who They consented to their documents being viewed and copied where they filed them placed their records in the trust of the townships and counties. To my knowledge no citizen has ever consented to their private information being published over the World Wide Webb by the government or anyone else. I don't think they really care if it will save you an hour long commute.

And yes, I am also motivated by the fact that this is not good for the independent abstractors or for the employee abstractors. They are citizens too but even more than this, they are my peers. You say it would be stupid NOT to use the online services. Will it be equally stupid for your employer not to use your services when your employer learns the "same" source can be accessed over the internet by foreign outsource companies for pennies against your salary? Will your employer think it is stupid when foreign outsource companies take his clients? Or will he think it was a mistake to embrace an online policy that exposed the citizens, the communities and the industry to unneccessary risk?

only you drove your sorry ass to the buildings to do what I am doing from my office - so in the hour it took you to even get to the buildings,
I am not sure if that could be described as an ad hominem attack. What was it, some kind of ad assofmine attack? In any case, I dissagree with your online examination as to the condition of my backside. I will admit it was convenient and fast. It was extremely inexpensive. I expect it was worth what I paid for it. But if it's all the same to you Jonathan, I think I'll ask my local doctor for a second opinion.