I agree Kevin. I've never understood how someone in sitting in a  Nigeria scam school or squatting with a laptop in a cave in Afghanistan should be allowed access to what our financial institutions must protect and hold confidential.

It was a question that wasn't asked at the time when the Open Records and Sunshine acts were written. I think it is reasonable to assume the "Public" referred to in the original laws was intended to mean anyone living in or visiting the jurisdiction of the local authority. I find it hard to believe that any of these legislators intended anyone to demand all of the public record. I believe they intended to make accessible any specific document available to any member of the community who appeared in person and asked for it.

This must have been the public the legislatures had in mind. But look what's happened since the digitization and bulk release of our public records.

The Indian Outsource companies claim it is their right to compile records on American private citizens through their easy access to over 200 counties that currently publish the documents online and bulk public records provided by their clients. They are very proud of their ability to quickly pass these records to their allies in China and The Phillipines.

Identity thieves no longer need to dig through trash looking for social security numbers or drivers licences. They don't need to steal your wallet. Why bother? All the information they need is available in bulk from any one of over 22,700 public record sites offering the information they need online.
 A 2003 Federal Trade Commission Survey showed 27.3 million Americans had been victims of identity theft in the previous five years. Many of the public records sites claim your records are safe with them because they demand identification before release. I am not reassured.

Stalkers have found the bulk release of the public record very convenient for annonymously tracking down their victims anonymously.

Terrorists are making quick use of this easy access we are granting them through the digitized public record. An Al Queda training manual found in Afghanistan reads, "Using public sources openly and without resorting to illegal means, it is possible to gather at least 80 percent of all information required about the enemy."

Can there be any doubt that these uses were not the intent of the men and women who wrote the Public Records Acts? Can there be any doubt that the only way to stop this abuse of the public records is to stop the bulk sale and distribution of the digital record?