The Therapist
January/February 2008

The creation and development of the Internet is arguably one of the most significant contributions of the 20th Century. The Internet truly is a limitless body of information, opening vaults of data previously only privy to the select few. However, with this new technology comes the intricate and complicated legal problem of the right to privacy versus the First Amendment. Most of us have utilized the Internet to read a restaurant review, check out a professional’s licensure standing or even track down an old friend. At what point does our ability to access information, personal information, become a violation of personal privacy? This question is currently being debated throughout the country in the matter of online data vendors such as, Intelius.com, PeopleFinder. com, and ZabaSearch.com.

Companies such as these search public record databases, gather the information found, such as addresses, and provide the information on the Internet (often for a fee). CAMFT has been asked whether this practice is legal; however, this is a very difficult question to answer.

First, the online data vendors are simply accessing and searching “public records.” Public records are documents which are open to inspection by the general public. For example, the white pages or licensure records. Less known is that many court documents are often classified as public records including marriage and divorce records, lawsuits, liens, etc. To see what kind of information are open to the public, you can review the Public Records Act for more detail. Therefore, anything that is open and available to the public via the Public Records Act, is also available to the online data vendors. Second, the First Amendment protects a person’s right to speech absent a compelling governmental interest in silence.

Publishing “public documents” is a form of speech. In California, as well as other states, the legality and First Amendment protections of online data vendors is currently being debated. However, to date no governmental body has determined this business practice to be illegal, nor has any court of law held that there is a compelling governmental interest in silencing the First Amendment protections.¹

In addition to fears about privacy invasion, there are legitimate safety fears. due to the publication of certain professionals’ addresses and contact information. Psychotherapists have a genuine concern that the general public and/or their clients should not have access to their home addresses and phone numbers. However, until the government takes action on this issue, it remains unclear as to what protections or remedies are available to the psychotherapist who wishes to keep his or her address and phone number private.

What can you do if you are concerned about this issue?

• You can voice your opinion2 for or against privacy protection regulation to the following governmental bodies:

  1) Your state and federal legislators (www.congress.org);
  2) The California Attorney General (www.ag.ca.gov);
  3) The Federal Trade Commission (www.ftc.gov).

• You can try to opt-out of any online data vendor websites where your personal information is contained. Some websites are more user-friendly and accessible than others. Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, a consumer protection organization, has listed most of the vendors’ websites for easy opt-out information

You can be cautious about giving out personal information to third parties. Beth Givens, Director of Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, offered that “An individual who has clients that could be dangerous, should be taking privacy protections similar to those steps taken by a stalking victim.” Meaning, limiting the personal and private information you give out on a need to know basis only and/or using your work address or phone number whenever possible.

In today’s world, the Internet and constantly developing communication technology provides all of us with lightning-fast information and ever-expanding access to information. However, the obvious benefits of such seemingly unlimited access are not without risk: As more and more of our most sensitive and personal information is electronically stored, there is a corresponding need to exercise reasonable care in order to protect one’s privacy and to avoid the possibility of exploitation or other harm.

Catherine L. Atkins, J.D., is a Staff Attorney at CAMFT. Cathy is available to answer members’ questions regarding business, legal, and ethical issues.

References
1 There was a recent Washington state case, wherein a Washington resident published a public website called justicefiles.org. This website contained information about police officers and their names, addresses, and phone numbers. The superior court held that the First Amendment allowed the publication of this material on a public website stating: “[I]n the absence of a credible specific threat of harm, the publication of lawfully obtained addresses and telephone numbers, while certainly unwelcome to those who had desired a greater degree of anonymity, is traditionally viewed as having the ability to promote political speech.” City of Kirkland v. Sheehan, 2001 WL 1751590 (Washington Superior Court)

2 It is unlikely that your particular case or concern personally will be addressed; however, your voice will be heard and taken into account when the government bodies analyze the situation and need for potential legislation or regulation.

This article appeared in the January/February 2008 issue of The Therapist, the publication of the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists, headquartered in San Diego, California. This article is intended to provide guidelines for addressing difficult legal dilemmas. It is not intended to address every situation that could potentially arise, nor is it intended to be a substitute for independent legal advice or consultation. When using such information as a guide, be aware that laws, regulations and technical standards change over time, and thus one should verify and update any references or information contained herein.