| Despite an opinion to the contrary issued last month by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, the Texas House of Representatives Monday approved a bill that would allow county officials to release Social Security numbers under the Texas Public Information Act.
Abbott's opinion ruled it illegal for county clerks to post on their Web sites public records containing sensitive information such as Social Security numbers. Under pressure from businesses reacting to the choked-off flow of county records, Abbott temporarily abated that ruling last Wednesday, which prompted Fort Bend County Precinct 3 Commissioner Andy Meyers to travel to Austin to oppose the bill.
Its approval by lawmakers Monday would change existing law to declare that a Social Security number is not confidential, should the Senate also pass the bill.
Abbott's original ruling had county clerks across the state scrambling, with many closing their doors for fear of prosecution for making sensitive information available via the Internet.
Monday's bill states sensitive information can be published on the Internet by county and district clerks without them being criminally liable. It also requires them to redact Social Security numbers from documents only if requested to do so.
If the bill passes in the Senate, county clerks will not have to remove sensitive information from documents being posted on the Internet and sold to vendors worldwide.
"I tell you what, identity thieves all over the world are having a good laugh at Texas right now," said retired private investigator David Bloys, who specializes in frauds, stalking cases and political investigations.
Bloys has spent the past couple of years trying to get legislation passed that would prevent county clerks' publishing of documents on the Internet and their bulk sale to vendors.
"I don't think I've ever been more disappointed in Texas," he said Tuesday morning. "What Texas did in passing this bill is to say that every Texan is open game anywhere in the world - and it wasn't necessary."
Bloys said he believed county clerks across the state "deserved to know" they would not be prosecuted for those documents already published, "but Texans deserve to know that we won't make the mistake of exposing them to danger."
Bloys also said the state's county clerks "basically staged a sit-down and said, 'If we can't have it online, we're not going to have it at all,' and basically shut down the economy in Texas. They blocked all access."
Fort Bend County Clerk Dianne Wilson said Tuesday morning she had not had an opportunity to read the final version of the bill passed by the House.
She also said Commissioners Court has postponed her request for redaction software to next week's agenda "to see what the Senate does" regarding the bill.
Meyers could not be reached for comment Tuesday morning, but last week he told the Fort Bend Herald he has opposed from the beginning Wilson's decision to make accessible on the Internet some 15 to 20 million records belonging to county residents.
He also said Wilson's office has the funds to pay for redaction software in the form of a "slush fund" established about 15 years ago with money to restore old records.
Meyers said there is a provision in the Social Security Act that states if an individual is required to provide his or her Social Security number on a document, that number is protected by federal law.
Prior to Monday's vote by the House, State Rep. Charlie Howard, R-Sugar Land, told the Herald the state was facing a situation where, "what we've got now is a bunch of counties that have not followed the law; not taking the time and effort and expense to redact those numbers."
"We have got to get a resolution that protects private property rights, which is your Social Security number," he said, adding the industries that need to look at the records do not need the Social Security numbers to accomplish their jobs.
"If clerks in Texas are criminally liable," Howard predicted before Monday's vote, "I think you'll probably see something that does not hold criminal penalties for a short period of time...a time for the clerks to do what the law calls for, a grace period."
|
