J.   Officers’ Social Security Numbers Off Limits for Web, Trial Court Rules

     A trial court in King County, Wash., has upheld the right of Web site operators to publish certain personal information regarding public employees.  In  City of Kirkland v. Sheehan, No. 01-2-09513-7SEA (Wash. Super. Ct., May 10, 2001) (slip op.), the court held that the publication of names, addresses, birth dates, and telephone numbers is constitutionally protected.  However, the court said that the social security numbers of public employees -- in this case police officers -- held a special position as personal identifiers not normally revealed to the public; the court thus ordered the Web site to take down any social security numbers it had published.

     The case began after the plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction in King County Superior Court.  The Web site they sought to enjoin contained several forms of substantive political argument.  The site listed the forms of personal information described above, stating:

So the next time anyone in our criminal justice system takes any action, we hope they think of this site first, then act knowing that they too are locatable and accountable at a much more personal level than ever before and in doing so, treat every citizen, criminal and hero alike, with the utmost respect and dignity.  That is the kind of attitude can (sic) only foster respect and cooperation between all members of our society. 

     The superior court first examined the development of case law surrounding the publication of traditionally private information.  It discussed the role of personal privacy at the time our nation was founded, concluding: “Our Founding Fathers appear to have given little direct thought in the writing of the Constitution to any need to take action to protect one’s privacy from other citizens.  At that time, citizens were effectively required to keep their distance from each other through the basic and relatively simple laws of trespass and libel.”  City of Kirkland, slip op. at 2. 

     It also noted the existence of real-life barriers that protected personal information from being invaded or broadly published by others, with widespread information dissemination only occurring when the matter was of public interest.  The Founders concentrated on protecting the rights of the people against the government, not against other citizens.  Of course, the Internet has changed all this, creating a situation that was unimaginable 200 years ago.  The superior court took stock of what it called a “pervasive modern-day public and private means of electronic intrusion into a person’s home and daily life.”  Id. at 3. 

     The important thing to note about the case itself was that no challenge was raised to the legality of the defendants’ access to the plaintiffs’ private information.  The only question presented in the motion for preliminary injunction was whether the plaintiffs could, by asserting a right to privacy, stop the dissemination of any or all personal information possessed by the defendants.

     The superior court reviewed the State of Washington’s laws regarding privacy.  The only provision of the state constitution regarding privacy appears to relate to possible government intrusion into private affairs.  Art. I, Sec. 7 (“No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.”).  The state has a law providing access to government information, but nothing regarding access by private persons to private information. 

     Federal constitutional law offered no help to plaintiffs either, as it skews toward protection of publication, not privacy.  The superior court took note of the fact that “injunctions are rarely granted to stop the exercise of free speech except in those rare circumstances where it poses an immediate danger to others, such as uttering direct and credible threats to kill or injure.”  City of Kirkland, slip op. at 4.  The U.S. Supreme Court has addressed privacy only in the context of a “penumbra” of rights surrounding the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth amendments, which generally still protect only the citizen’s right to be free from governmental intrusion.

     The superior court made special mention of a recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  That ruling dealt with the question of injunctive and monetary relief against persons and organizations running a Web site that published photographs, addresses, and other personal information about doctors and others who provided or supported abortion services.  Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette, Inc. v. American Coalition of Life Activists, 244 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2001).  In that case, a U.S. district court had granted both forms of relief, but the decision was overturned by the court of appeals.  (See Chapter G in this section.)  The superior court concluded its review of federal law as follows: “The First Amendment prevails except where there is proof of a compelling interest which can overcome it.”  City of Kirkland, slip op. at 5. 

     Armed with this background, the superior court analyzed the facts of the case.  The plaintiffs argued that publication of the personal information caused stress to themselves and their families, which required that they undertake enhanced security measures involving a not-insignificant expenditure of funds.  The superior court agreed there was at least some infringement on their privacy rights: “It is true that defendant’s site is free, and is available world-wide.  That necessarily means that at any time anybody anywhere in the world could obtain access to plaintiffs’ private information.  It is hard to conceive of a broader invasion of privacy than freely disseminating the information to the entire world and rendering it instantaneously accessible to all.”  Id. at 6. 

     On the other hand, it was also clear to the superior court that this was political speech entitled to the highest degree of protection.  In the absence of a specific threat of harm, the publication of lawfully obtained addresses and telephone numbers -- while certainly unwelcome to the plaintiffs -- is traditionally viewed as having the ability to promote political speech, as it may arguably expose wrongdoers and/or facilitate the peaceful picketing of homes or worksites.  However, the superior court took a different tack with regard to social security numbers, which do not provide a similar opportunity to promote substantive communication. 

     The superior court found a compelling interest in keeping social security numbers private, because access to these identifiers allows a person, agency, or company to obtain personal information and seize another’s assets more efficiently and effectively.  This was a power originally available only to the government and one that was subject to direct constitutional restraint.