Genealogists Fight Closing of Public Records

The following was written by the Keep Genealogical Records Open Workgroup:

Genealogists fight closing of public records as guise in war against ID theft and terrorism

A group of genealogists announced today that they have begun a project to educate governmental leaders and the public that closing or restricting access to many public records will have little impact on preventing an enormous identity theft problem or terrorism attacks in the United States.

“Federal and state governments have been closing or trying to close many public records or limiting the public’s access to them, especially vital records--birth, marriages, and deaths,” explains Jean Foster Kelley, CG (Certified Genealogist) of Tampa, Florida. “They want to protect people’s privacy, prevent identity theft, and prevent terrorism,” she says. “But we find there’s no evidence that open public records contribute to identity theft or terrorism to any measurable degree."

Instead, she says, restrictions actually prevent many genealogists, news people, and others who have legitimate reasons to see the records from freely viewing them.

She says she and four other genealogists formed the Keep Genealogical Records Open Workgroup (KGROW) to prepare a position paper to combat the “war on public records” movement that has swept the country since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The group plans to solicit support for its paper from the Association of Professional Genealogists, the news media, and other organizations later this summer and fall.

Kelley is co-chair of KGROW along with Dick Robinson, CG (Certified Genealogist), of Boynton Beach, Florida. Other members are: Alvie L. Davidson, CG (Certified Genealogist), Lakeland, Florida; Melinde Lutz Sanborn, FASG (Fellow, American Society of Genealogists), Derry, New Hampshire; and Frederick E. Moss, JD, LLM, Plano, Texas. KGROW is a project of the Florida Chapter of the Association of Professional Genealogists (APG). APG is the world’s leading professional genealogical organization of some 1,700 family history and related professionals.

Since 2001, most states have tightened public record laws, and more records are threatened every year. A 2006 Associated Press survey showed that states passed 616 new laws restricting access to public information, including vital records, and approved 284 laws that loosened public records access.

Comments

[Infinite Ancestors]

The debate isn't anywhere as simple as "open is good; closed is bad". Ask instead what records are needed, by whom, and for what purposes? Do I want genealogists to be able to access birth, marriage, and death records of deceased persons, particularly after some period of time has passed? Surely I do. Do I want marketing companies to be able to electronically access bulk birth and marriage records of living persons and resell that information to all comers? No way in heck!

Let's be smart about what records are open, to whom, and with what legally-enforceable restrictions.

[David Eaton (nhexile)]

If we become so obsessed with security that we can no longer
study and research our heritage to what purpose then is all of this which is being enacted in the name of preserving our
liberty and way of life ? Such Orwellian 'doublethink' is
surely not the way to go.

[Dennis Gries]

What is interesting is that some states post extensive datasets of deaths, especially, and some do not. I see no reason why every state cannot post a dataset of deaths, to the extent that they already have an electronic database. This set would have complete names, date and county of death, and date of birth or age.

This would allow researchers to determine if a death probably took place in a state, and then proceed to contact the county or local researchers for further assistance, or as appropriate, request a death cert.

This should be a goal of any Workgroup, and of genealogy groups and hobbyists around the country.

Of course, the SSDI of any living person should not appear on any publicly accessible record, nor should the cause of death appear on a provided death cert (exceptions of course).

Newspapers are provided lists of marriage licenses, deaths, births, etc by local governments, and publish them, reaching the interest. We need to understand that privacy goes so far. I recall that after the birth of our children, we had many solicitations, and the only source could have been the hospital or the PA Dept of Health. Perhaps there now are restrictions.

If a marketing company can use the info, good for them. Pay for junk mail, but don't call me or about 75% of households - we're on the do not call list, and I occasionally report the violators.

[Ingrid]

What am I missing on the debate? Anytime I have sent for records for my family, I have to have a valid photo ID, and in many cases, proof as to the relationship between myself and the person. Eg. With my paternal grandfather, I had to show my dad's birth and death certificate, and mine, to show me to my father to his father. I really don't mind doing that and more if it means I can access records for my family history.

[Trudy Kennedy]

Vital Records must remain available to family researchers for many reasons, but since the subject has already been broached, cause of death and the attending physician's report on Death Certificates are this topic of choice. Responsible genealogists have always acquired copies of original Death Certificates and any accompanying medical reports as part of their research. The cause of death and other long-term diseases in parents, grandparents, great grandparents and blood relatives may provide clues to identifying possile hereditary conditions or diseases that may appear in you, your children and grandchildren. With the mapping of the human genome, that information is more valuable today than ever before, especially as relates to research into prevention and cure utilizing technology and scientific tools that were never before available.

Read more and follow the directions to prepare a Family Health Portrait: United States Department of Health and Human Services, U. S. Surgeon General's Family Health Initiative http://www.hhs.gov/familyhistory/ - "Health care professionals have known for a long time that common diseases - heart disease, cancer, and diabetes - and even rare diseases - like hemophilia, cystic fibrosis, and sickle cell anemia - can run in families. If one generation of a family has high blood pressure, it is not unusual for the next generation..."

[Nan Hankenhof]

I am not a professional researcher, just one of may ordinary persons trying to find my "family members' of the past. I have for many years collected or "bought" Birth and Death Certificates. I felt this was a great way to connect with my deceased members and in turn help my living members. Especially when it connects to the Cancer situations in our daily lives. My "disgust" is with in the name of Homeland Security". The State of Ohio has raised the cost of these certificates to a distorted price. What I use to pay for an non certified copy of birth or death Certificates $1.00, has now gone up to $18.00 and must be a certified copy only. Who in the world would use these certificates from the mid to late 1800"? Most of the address do not exist , and their were no Social Security Numbers on them. The only people interested in these copies are genealogists and they are being taken advantage of in every way as I see it!
I do hope in time that the people of this country can claim their right to information back again.

[Marissa Warkentin]

I think this discussion is going the wrong way. Instead of arguing about what we DON'T want for the future of vital records access, I think we need to put together a plan for what we DO want and a backup plan for what we're willing to put up with if we have to (like proving the relationship or whatever it happens to be).

If you go in without a plan for what you want to accomplish you'll likely end up getting stuck with something you don't want because you didn't say what you wanted, just what you didn't want.

[L. Sewright]

I actually agree with restricting access to information on parents and grandparents to close family members only. I have had no problems receiving genealogical information when I have sent for it and have only had to provide a driver's license and list relationship and reason for use of the record. I have had trouble with very distant family relations, though, who have obtained genealogical information on my direct family line and posted it to the Internet, sometimes on living individuals! I think most of the information they obtained was through other family members; but privacy is an issue that also needs to be addressed by Ancestry, Rootsweb and other genealogical websites that allow people to post family details, even on living individuals, just because they say "it's a matter of public record"--or anyone listed on the 1930 census is fair game. I'd like to see more hue and cry pushing for this kind of restriction on internet posting by both individuals and government jurisdictions (municipal, county, state, federal).

[Steve Franklin]

How does a 'live' person get on the SSDI?

[Cedric Wyndham]

Thanks Dick for this article, & those who ave also contributed.
The problem extends beyond the USA. NSW has had an online index of BDMs for many years, but as the years have passed they have not put additional records up, so the birth records which are supposed to be for anyone born over 75 years ago only go up to 1905 (I think the indexing was done prior to the Internet, then put up without updating).
Now there is talk that they will increase the time periods, ie remove some of the records. And if you object no-one will even listen - looks like we are just following the US lead.

[Michael Pollock]

Dick, you did not include a contact e-mail address, and I have been unable to find any website related to this venture. I would like to add my name to their effort, both literally and figuratively.

This situation is not as simplistic as many of the other comments I have read suggest. For example, here in Virginia, one is often refused a copy of a birth or death certificate to which I believe most commenters would agree a person is entitled to receive because the Health Dept. defines "family member" strictly as parent, child or sibling. I once witnessed a colleague being refused a copy of her grandmother's death certificate because the death fell within the 50 year restriction on access. Never mind this colleague, though "very well preserved", was clearly the decedent's NEAREST LIVING RELATIVE.

Another example was when I was refused a copy of a birth certificate for an individual whose estate I was representing. Virginia law does stipulate the legal counsel of either the individual or a person otherwise entitled to a vital record is also entitled. I was refused the birth certificate even though I had: 1)a copy of the individual's death certificate; 2)a copy of the letters of administration on his estate; c)a copy of the contract for my services between myself and the attorney representing the administrator of the estate; and 4)a power of attorney from said attorney to me delegating me authority to apply for and receive on his behalf any pertinent legal documents needed in this matter!

Before identify theft became a concern, it was not unusual for an individual's date and place of birth to be published in professional and other types of directories, so the next logical step to closing/refusing to open vital records is to remove every book from every library, both public and private, which has such information and burn/destroy it.

The problem occurred because banks and other entities use "mother's maiden name" as a security feature. Thus, it would make more sense to force banks and other entities to stop suggesting use of the same. Another would be to institute passwords that would both be case-sensitive, and require the use of numbers and symbols as well as letters, with an exponential increase in the security of the same, excepting, of course, someone writing the same down on a piece or paper or allowing spyware on his/her computer so the same may be more easily stolen. I am particularly impressed with the security setup at my alma mater, Georgetown University. It suggests a series of possible passwords, one being one's favorite professor and also requires a minimum of 10 characters with at least one symbol and one number. The beauty of this system, at least for me, is that my favorite professor at Georgetown was someone from whom I never took a course AT Georgetow

[Dick Eastman]

You are right: there is no address or contact info. That is the announcement exactly as written by the Keep Genealogical Records Open Workgroup. I did not add to or delete anything from the announcement.

Most of the members of that group are "high profile" genealogists. I am sure that some quick searches on Google will reveal contact information for most of them.

- Dick Eastman

[Terence L. Day]

Part of the problem is that many agencies, county commissioners, etc., are starting to consider public records as a cash cow revenue stream, or to discourage access altogether. This even extends in some jurisdictions to a prohibition on researchers snapping digital photos of records; requiring them, instead, to pay for a clerk to make a photo copy, which may not be all that legible.

[Linda Hiatt Fullerton]

Just yesterday on a CBS morning show, it was announced that 25 to 50 percent of Identity Theft was perpetrated by either a parent, sibling or relative of the person whose identity was stolen. Isn't that interesting? I participated in sending emails to every single elected official in the Indiana State Legislature two years ago trying to educated them that closing birth and death records in the name of Identity Theft was ridiculous. Fortunately, the measure was defeated. The lady that had proposed the law in the first place said she was overwhelmed by the ferosity of genealogists. Keep up the good work people.

[Russell Thorne]

This is just another exercise to deny the legitimate interest of those of us with peaceful intent with those of criminal intent and the politicians cannot tell the difference by drafting good law.

[Alvie L. Davidson CG]

To all readers, this contact information about KGROW was not posted with the position paper so here it is:

For more information, contact:
Alvie L. Davidson, information officer
KEEPING GENEALOGICAL RECORDS OPEN WORKGROUP (KGROW)
4825 N. Galloway Rd
Lakeland, FL 33810-6722
Day phone: (863) 858-6745
Email: mailto:floridasearch@tampabay.rr.com