Regulation Bars most Public Access to Birth/Death Certs for 70-100 Years

[Mind_your_head]

<snip>
Sometimes it's the small abuses scurrying below radar that reveal how profoundly the Bush administration has changed America in the name of national security. Buried within the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 is a regulation that bars most public access to birth and death certificates for 70 to 100 years. In much of the country, these records have long been invaluable tools for activists, lawyers and reporters to uncover patterns of illness and pollution that officials miss or ignore.

<snip>

The draft lays out how some 60,000 already strapped town and county offices must keep the birth and death records under lock and key and report all document requests to Washington. Individuals who show up in person will still be able to obtain their own birth certificates and, in some cases, the birth and death records of an immediate relative, and "legitimate" research institutions may be able to access files. But reporters and activists won't be allowed to fish through records, many family members looking for genetic clues will be out of luck, and people wanting to trace adoptions will dead-end. If you are homeless and need your own birth certificate, forget it: no address, no service.

Consider the public health implications. A few years back, a doctor in a tiny Vermont town noticed that two patients who lived on the same hill had ALS or Lou Gehrig's disease. Hearing rumors of more cases of the relatively rare and always fatal disease, the doctor notified the health department. Citing lack of resources, it declined to investigate. The doc then told a reporter, who searched the death certificates filed in the town office only to find that ALS had already killed five of the town's 1,300 residents. It was statistically possible, but unlikely, that this 10-times-higher-than-normal incidence was simply chance. Since no one knows what causes ALS, clusters like this one, once revealed, help epidemiologists assess risk factors, warn doctors to watch for symptoms,and alert neighbors and activists.

<snip>

Some of state officials around the country are questioning whether the new regulations themselves illegally tread on states' rights. But the feds have been coy. Richard McCoy, public health statistic chief in Vermont, one of the nation's 14 open-records states, says, "No state is mandated to meet the regs. However, if they don't, then residents of that state will not be able to access any federal services, including social security and passports. States have no choice."

<end snip>



emphasis in article is mine

Read more here... http://www.alternet.org/rights/32242/

or here: http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2488/

[donsu]

1. I posted this info a wk. ago and got not one reply ????

and now you post and get no replies.

how odd

[Lindsay]

3. After a while, ya just run out of things to say

and sit there shaking your head.

Send in the fascists? Don't bother - they're here.

[Mind_your_head]

8. I didn't notice it when you posted it last week..... (sorry)

...or perhaps I didn't think/understand what the ramifications of this would be. Perhaps that's what is happening with this post (although I'm glad to see a few folks are reading it now).

Another explanation, as Lindsay said above, there's just so much 'goings on' you just don't know what to say anymore!

edit: to change 'below' to 'above'

[mimitabby]

12. these things fly by so fast

i have posted "great" stuff which flew by too without posts.
that's why people vote for posts, to make them sticky.
there are a lot of us and we have a lot to say.
Further, I am a genealogist, and got most of my info by writing to vital statistics
in a lot of states. The new rules has made this much harder to do as well.

[Gormy Cuss]

2. Why it's clear this is not about privacy.

One can argue that birth records should be kept private with an eye to reducing ID theft or revealing personal, potentially embarrassing information without a valid reason, but open access to death records would cut the risk of fraud by making it difficult to assume the identity of a deceased person. It would be hard to argue that revealing personal info after death would harm the individual (one could argue that family members might be harmed by release of the information, but not the dead person.)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

4. Yes, not releasing birth records would be an attempt to

prevent the ploy of assuming the identity of a child who died shortly after birth, but not releasing death certificates? What's with that?

[WinkyDink]

5. Death certificates are used by historians/

sociologists/anthropologists to discern patterns of dying/disease/survival rates. Invaluable, e.g., for info on the Medieval plagues. Or the 1918 influenza pandemic. Or life-spans in general.

Thus, one must conclude that Bushco is up to no good in some disease/related area or another (G.E. foods? Mad Cow? DU? Bird flu? Secret biological experiments? Environmentally-caused cancers?) such that it desperately wants to hide the truth about clusters/patterns/outcomes.

I don't think for a second that OUR rights to ANYthing (e.g., identity) are their concern.

[Skidmore]

6. Yeah, and it really puts a damper on genealogical research.

[Mind_your_head]

7. It's not about privacy or SECURITY

This regulation is not about privacy or security. In fact, it actually will incur even MORE identity theft. I hope that you will read the entire article, if you haven't already, in order to understand what many of the ramifications would be. It will not protect one from identity theft, it will make it MORE LIKELY. This regulation will also certainly be VERY HELPFUL to CORPORATIONS who would like to hide their misdeeds, regarding pollutants and poisoning of people.

It states further in the article:

<snip>
But while the public loses access to records, the federal government gains a gargantuan national database easily cross-referenced in the name of national security. The feds' claim that increased security will deter identity theft and terrorism is facile. Wholesale corporate data gathering is the major nexis of identity theft. As for terrorism, all the 9/11 perpetrators had valid identification.
<snip>

For anyone's info (I had to look this up myself):

Main Entry: fac·ile
Pronunciation: 'fa-s&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French, from Latin facilis, from facere to do -- more at DO

1 a (1) : easily accomplished or attained <a facile victory> (2) : SPECIOUS, SUPERFICIAL <I am not concerned ... with offering any facile solution for so complex a problem -- T. S. Eliot> b : used or comprehended with ease c : readily manifested and often lacking sincerity or depth <facile tears>

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/facile

[Gormy Cuss]

10. The right to privacy is a pet issue of mine, as is corporate abuse of data

If you're interested in the ID theft phenomenon I recommend reading David Lazarus's columns in the SF Chronicle (www.sfgate.com.) He was victimized by it and has been a crusader ever since. He makes it VERY clear that business mishandling of sensitive information is the most likely source of ID fraud these days, not theft from the mailbox or shoulder-surfing, or the other low tech ways that used to be the main culprits. While we're all carefully minding our credit cards and SSNs, and shredding documents, the businesses with access to such data are using printouts to wrap newspaper bundles (recent Boston Globe problem,) letting employees or vendors store unencrypted data on laptops, failing to put up sufficient firewalls to prevent hacks on their main databases, etc.

As for the W new rules, it is part of an effort to control access to information, pure and simple. They are against public access to everything it seems.

[MadHound]

15. Believe me, this isn't going to cut down on fraud one iota

Insurance companies and others will still need access to death certificates. Thus, they will write in on their insurance company letterhead requesting a death certificate. Most states, when they receive such a request send both the birth and death certificate. This procedure isn't going to change under this new law.

It just means that those who want a fake ID will continue to either rip off or forge insurance company letterhead.

[Gormy Cuss]

18. Not just insurance companies.

You are correct, that by precluding access to everyone else the law isn't addressing fraudulent use of identity.

The uncomfortable truth is that wide scale ID fraud is the product of excessive data collection and mining by business without regulation to require protection of privacy. Under the new rules, business entities will still have free rein to access these data under the flimsiest of excuses, just as they now get away with requiring SSNs in order to do business.

[moc]

21. Also, most record releases are de-identified...(m)

I currently have 10 years of linked birth-death records for the state of Texas. There are no identifiers on the records (no name, address, etc). I gave birth in Texas during the time period of the records, and I couldn't even find my own record in the data file. (I tried.)

[Coyote_Bandit]

9. I just recently purchased my birth certificate

to get a new passport. Did it by phone with charges made to a debit card. Was asked to provide (1) mother's maiden name, (2) father's name, (3) date of birth, (4) location of birth, (5) my full birth name, (6) reason I needed the birth certificate, (7) mailing address, and (8) current legal name. Nobody verified who I was. Nobody had to identify themselves or sign for the birth certificate or the passport when they were delivered - they won't even do that if you request that it be done. I suspect any mediocre detective or enterprising identity thief can still rather easily obtain the necessary information to create and document a stolen identity. The first four items of information can usually be obtained (or deduced) through reading newspaper birth announcements. A fair amount of the same information is available through census records. And any genealogist will tell you that there are many, many sources for such information. And, let's not forget that marriage records are still publicly available. I can't see that this has much effect on deterring stolen identities.

As for death certificates. Well, what *is* the purpose? Being able to access death records is one thing that truly could reduce some of the problems with stolen identities.

[mopinko]

11. part of the nola coverup nt

[MountainLaurel]

16. Among other coverups

[converted_democrat]

13. When will this go into effect?? n/t

[Mind_your_head]

17. If you read the original article (which was written 2/14/06) it states

In These Times has obtained a draft of the proposed regulations now causing widespread concern among state officials. It reveals plans to create a vast database of vital records to be centralized in Washington and details measures that states must implement -- and pay millions for --before next year's scheduled implementation.

[Oilwellian]

14. This has everything to do with...

increased deaths due to Bush's lax environmental policies. I remember reading an article a few years ago about Bush, while governor, shutting down access to death certificates in a suburb of Houston. The reason he did this was the number of increased deaths in the area after he allowed his corporate cronies to pollute with little oversight. The number of deaths went up so dramatically, there was a public outcry and he stopped all investigations.

If you Google deaths and pollution, you will find that many environmental groups use public death records as a means to find patterns of death in highly polluted areas.

[moc]

19. As a public health researcher who analyzes linked birth-death records

This is a BIG problem. The US currently has the highest infant mortality rate of any developed country in the world. A major contributing factor are birth rates of very preterm infants (i.e., those born more than 2 months early), and preterm birth rates are on the rise, not decline. Not having access to these data would cripple maternal and child health prevention and intervention projects.

I need to follow up with my maternal and child health colleagues as well as my contacts at the March of Dimes. Thanks for the heads up. This is very disturbing.

[Gormy Cuss]

23. Yes, it is against public health to prohibit blind access to these records

I've dealt with millions of confidential records in my career (policy research.) We had so many layers of safeguards against breaking confidentiality that it sometimes impeded reporting interesting results because we were required to suppress data if it risked assurances of anonymity. We worked for foundations and government agencies and these limits were routine because the clients required it.

Contrast that with the largely unfettered use of all sorts of data, including medical history, by private businesses for the purpose of marketing, assessing credit worthiness or insurance eligibility. None of that will change under this new rule.

[Avalux]

20. Scary. People could disappear - no record.

Wouldn't be able to prove they were ever born or died. :scared:

[Pachamama]

24. That's precisely what it means....

and the implications and what can happen to people who "disappear" is really scary and really "real"....

:scared:

"Your missing your sister...did you really have a sister?" :eyes:

[bobbieinok]

22. in former East Germany it was illegal to request info abt any aspect

of pollution......people were even sent to jail over this

In 91 I was part of a seminar for teachers of German; we spent one day touring the worst pollution sites in one part of the former East Germany. In one town people every day had to sweep up the pollutants falling on their lawns; many children were being treated for 'obscure' skin diseases.

BUT according to our guide, anyone--even a doctor--who tried to find out about the possible pollution causes of the diseases was in big trouble with the government. NO ONE was allowed to ask what the local factories might be spewing into the air.

Of course, we Americans in the group found this very strange and were grateful we lived in a society where the government did not keep such secrets from its people. None of us could have imagined the content of the OP happening in the US in just 15 years.