Month: May 2020

Find out in the second in a series of blog posts related to transparency and privacy in digital court records authored by law professor and local attorney, Peter Guffin.

“Given the significant risk of harm to individuals stemming from data re-identification,” the author states, “it is imperative that the SJC account for data identifiability in determining which information in court records will be made accessible to the public through its soon-to-be-launched digital system.  Data identifiability is a factor wholly separate and distinct from the sensitivity of data.  It exists in varying degrees along the de-identification spectrum.”

More about the spectrum and why the Supreme Judicial Court is being asked to take a practical, risk-based approach to de-identification, aligning itself with most, if not all, of the privacy regulatory regimes in the U.S.  as it moves the Maine courts into a digital state can be found in Professor Guffin’s blog post:

Visit the Privacy Law Perspectives Blog for additional posts

https://www.privacylawperspectives.com/

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court is seeking public comment on the Maine Rules of Electronic Court Systems. The deadline for submissions is 4:00 pm EST on June 4, 2020.

More information and a copy of the Rules can be found on the court system’s website.

https://www.courts.maine.gov/news/article.html?id=3764980

https://www.courts.maine.gov/rules/amendments/2020_mr_03_recs.pdf

https://www.courts.maine.gov/rules/text/mrecs_2020-12-14.pdf

 https://www.courts.maine.gov/rules_adminorders/rules/proposed/2020-05-21_mrecs/notice.shtml

In Redaction and Re-identification Risk, Attorney Peter Guffin, Pierce Atwood’s Privacy and Data Security Practice Group Chair, explains that

“[i]n today’s big data world, given the sophistication of data handlers, it is well-recognized that de-identification alone is not enough to prevent re-identification of individuals, and the SJC’s reliance on it promotes a false sense of security.  The risk of re-identification of individuals from purportedly de-identified databases is significant. ….

In its proposed electronic court records access rules, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) imposes on litigants new and extensive filing obligations, including requiring litigants to redact certain categories of sensitive personal information. Regardless of what one might think about the wisdom of placing this burden on litigants, it is important to ask what the SJC hopes to achieve by this requirement.  Even assuming full compliance, which is doubtful, redaction as a de-identification technique, without more, would be wholly inadequate to protect the privacy of Maine citizens. ….

In crafting rules addressing electronic court records access, given the significant risk of re-identification, the SJC will need to do much more than simply impose redaction responsibility on litigants if it hopes to protect the privacy of Maine citizens.”

See the full post below

This post is part of a series examining privacy and transparency issues in the context of public access to digital court records building on Peter Guffin’s essay “Digital Court Records Access, Social Justice and Judicial Balancing:  What Judge Coffin Can Teach Us”

The full series can be found at:

The Privacy Law Perspectives Blog

https://www.privacylawperspectives.com/?utm_source=vuture&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=%7Bvx:campaign%20name%7D

Digital Court Records Access: Social Justice and Judicial Balancing
Peter J. Guffin, Esq.

The Full Volume 72 No. 1 (2020) is available from the Recent Issue Link below: https://mainelaw.maine.edu/academics/journals/maine-law-review/recent-issue/