The rules, aimed at addressing privacy concerns, also required the immediate removal of all images of court pleadings that were available over the Internet for some counties.

Personal information required to be redacted from all court filings, be it paper or electronic form, included dates of birth, street addresses, Social Security numbers and financial account numbers.

Using court records: The data restrictions drew concerns from media groups and private businesses, including those that broker data such as Atlanta-based ChoicePoint.

ChoicePoint spokesman Chuck Jones said the company was "deeply committed" to protecting personal information and privacy.

But, Jones said, ChoicePoint was "concerned that any restrictions of access to public records will prevent us from helping employers and nonprofit organizations en sure the safety of the work place and vulnerable populations, including children."

Data broker companies want as many personal identifiers as they can get to ensure their information doesn't implicate the wrong person, said Alan Carlson, president of the Denver-based Justice Management Institute.

"They want to get the information that's in court records, but they want to make sure it's the right John Smith," said Carlson, who helped co-author a model policy on court records access.

What to make public? Carlson said courts across the country are wrestling with which records to make public and which to keep from the public eye.

"Everybody is going to say no Social Security numbers," Carlson said. "And then you have more variety about birth dates and where people live and financial account information."

He said courts are split on what personal identification information should be made available over the Internet.

"Certainly the trend is restrict all that stuff, either redact it or keep it out of the documents," Carlson said.

Identity theft concerns typi fy most reasons for restricting some court records.

"There are documented cases where people's identity were stolen from the court," Carlson said. "How big a problem it is, I don't know."

Getting interested parties involved: Meanwhile, Maryland court officials continue to consider changes to public access rules. One issue in particular -- whether images of court records should be made available on the Internet -- will have to be tackled in the near future, Rankin said.

And as for advice for any courts considering revising their public access rules?

"It's so important from the beginning to figure out which organizations, which industries, or what parties have an interest in using information from court records and get them at the table as early in the process as possible," Rankin said.

"I think you would end up with a better result. It introduces a whole lot of controversy and conflict, but it also helps give everyone a fuller appreciation of how complex the issues are."

Curtis Killman 581-8471
curtis.killman@tulsaworld.com