I will send a personal e-mail to Robert and ask him to redact the information I provided, as I have made my point.
If your point was a statement that you have no concern about your own personal information being published on the internet, yes you have. If your point was that none of us should be concerned because you are not, then no you haven't made your point. In any case, I am glad someone has convinced you to request the removal of your personal information. Jeb Bush made the same decision in Florida recently. He had his social security number redacted from an online document where it had resided since the county published it. Right beside his SS # are those of the couple the Bush's sold their property to.

1.) It would be unprofessional and unethical to post my work on the internet, but not for the reason you cite.  My clients have paid me for a service.  I protect the information that I send to my client because I have added value to it (by collecting and writing search notes), which they have purchased.  To post it for free perusal on the net would be a theft of their purchase.  If I wish to do search work during my off hours on a random name or property, and post those search notes and copies on the internet, there is nothing inherrently unethical, unprofessional, or illegal about it.  

The question was not whether or not you would publish your search notes Charles it was whether or not you would publish the information that you call "public information" and a "commodity". 

2.)What is Public Record, is Public Record.  You have made this contention several times now without backing it up in anyway beyond stating your own opinion. While you have a right to your opinion and a right to state it here. Why should we assume your opinion is the correct one? You have quoted no articles, no cases. But I am curious. What is your definition of public. The Public Records acts were written so that we could keep an eye on the government. Not so that individuals or companies could keep track of the public. Who are the public Charles? I looked up a couple of definitions from legal dictionaries.

PUBLIC - By the term the public, is meant the whole body politic, or all the citizens of the state; sometimes it signifies the inhabitants of a particular place; as, the New York public. From the Lectric Law Library http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p199.htm
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Who is the public? I don't think of the Indian Outsourcing companies or their Chinese allies as part ot the American Public. I don't think of forein terrorists as part of the American public. Do you? Should they be allowed the same equal access into the private lives of Americans as those who live in the community? Given that the American Public Records acts were addressed to the American people don't you think they were refering to the citizens of their jurisdiction?

The clerk's ethical and professional obligation ends with the accuracy and the physical protection from tampering of the Public Record.  They have no professional obligation, nor athority (regardless of ethics),
As the laws stand now you are correct. However this is being changed all over the country. The legislators here and in many other states are not going to disregard ethics. Not when it comes to the safety and security of their constituents.
 to prevent the release of the information contained in the public record, in any format, regardless if that information may harm an individual or not.
Exactly my point and the point of legislators all over the country who are closing the security leaks as they find them. The law is catching up to the technology.

IT IS POSSIBLE TO GATHER AT LEAST 80% OF INFORMATION ABOUT THE ENEMY."  Nowhere in the training manual did it ever talk about the internet.
Nowhere in what has yet been released by the DOD did the manual mention the internet. But the al Queda manuals were found on computers in Afghanisan and London. We already knew they were using the internet and in fact have monitored much of their actions on the world wide webb. Surely you are not suggesting they do not use the internet?
"The bandwidth-intensive Paul Johnson beheading video is first uploaded for display on al Qaeda-sympathetic sites worldwide on the hijacked server of a legitimate California geographic information company." Aparently a public information site. Who Owns This Place?  Al Qaeda’s war rages online http://www.publicsectorinstitute.net/ELetters/EGovernment/v2n9/OnlineWar.lsp

Rumsfeld concludeds that they access the internet,
Yes and it is a reasonable conclusion. What is your conclusion? Is their some reason you believe they would choose to expose themselves by walking into separate courthouses and digging out of the paper public records what they can so easily obtain on the internet from anywhere in the world? Only on the internet can they pretend to be a member of the American public entitled to our public records. Why would they bother to use any other method? Throughout this conversation I have cited cases where terrorists, identity thieves and stalkers have all accessed the public records online. You can say the same records are available in person and this is true. But the cold fact is this is not their access point to these records. The access point they are using is the Internet. Can you cite any articles or cases where they went to the local court house to get the information they needed?

and spoke about DOD OPerational SECurity (Capatilized for reference above) of posting missions on the DOD Website (it's real short).
Actually, Secretary Rumsfeld has quoted this portion of the al Qaeda manual many times. The reference you cite here is the one where he addresses ways to make the DOD Website more secure. It doesn't apply to the thousands of other sources to the public data available on the internet and is certainly not where Ramzi  Binalshibh, the Yemeni-born coordinator of the 9/11 attack stole the California identity he used. Or the identities stolen by his 18 known accomplices, now known to total well over 50 from five different states.

Throughout this conversation you have offered only your personal opinion and information. It would be helpful if you could offer any articles or cases that support your opinion.