While listening to editorial page editor of the St. Petersburg Times, Tim Nickens, I had a couple of concerns. First, in regards to Nickens stating that any random person could obtain public records without identification. Second, that it is not mandatory to give their reasons for using those important documents. All a person needs is a body, an idea of what they want to view, and then a card to charge for the cost of copies. However, I believe that they should make it mandatory to check-out people wanting to view records in order to better monitor who is using them appropriately.
My concern didn't spring up until the end of Nickens' speech when the class had to answer a question to a scenario of a woman who calls an office to request public documents. Upon arrival, she is then told that she must fill out a form [probably for identification purposes] in order to obtain the records; which left the question of could the woman be denied if she refuses? Nickens’s answer was that she had every right to refuse because it is not mandatory to fill out a form to identify who wants the records and their reason for using them.
However, my question is why isn’t it mandatory when you have no idea who wants to use the information for good use instead of evil? Nickens said that when someone physically goes into the office/courthouse to request a document, that more than likely the person has good intentions of using the record. But who’s to say that just because someone went and made an effort to view the record or request copies of that record personally that they have good intentions? What about those who have good intentions but are physically disabled and can’t make it to the courthouse to retrieve those copies? What about those people who may want to use public documents to scandalize a person’s reputation, and was given consent to use the documents because they "physically" went to request to view them?
I do understand that not everything [juvenile records, victim of sexual offenses, etc] can be openly viewed by the public. However, in my opinion, governmental records and etc that are made open to the public shouldn't be viewed by any regular "Joe" but for the eyes of governmental and business oriented purposes only. I feel that there should be more limitations and that agencies should make it mandatory to submit a form of identification in exchange of public records. I don't believe that the agency should keep track of people in order to ridicule those who use the public records, but should do it to just keep records safe from those who seek to do harm instead of good.
My concern didn't spring up until the end of Nickens' speech when the class had to answer a question to a scenario of a woman who calls an office to request public documents. Upon arrival, she is then told that she must fill out a form [probably for identification purposes] in order to obtain the records; which left the question of could the woman be denied if she refuses? Nickens’s answer was that she had every right to refuse because it is not mandatory to fill out a form to identify who wants the records and their reason for using them.
However, my question is why isn’t it mandatory when you have no idea who wants to use the information for good use instead of evil? Nickens said that when someone physically goes into the office/courthouse to request a document, that more than likely the person has good intentions of using the record. But who’s to say that just because someone went and made an effort to view the record or request copies of that record personally that they have good intentions? What about those who have good intentions but are physically disabled and can’t make it to the courthouse to retrieve those copies? What about those people who may want to use public documents to scandalize a person’s reputation, and was given consent to use the documents because they "physically" went to request to view them?
I do understand that not everything [juvenile records, victim of sexual offenses, etc] can be openly viewed by the public. However, in my opinion, governmental records and etc that are made open to the public shouldn't be viewed by any regular "Joe" but for the eyes of governmental and business oriented purposes only. I feel that there should be more limitations and that agencies should make it mandatory to submit a form of identification in exchange of public records. I don't believe that the agency should keep track of people in order to ridicule those who use the public records, but should do it to just keep records safe from those who seek to do harm instead of good.
No comments:
Post a Comment