At a time when computer hacking and identity theft are all too common, its a bit uncomfortable to disclose personal information on forms and documents, but usually, theres little choice. Failure to provide the information requested can mean your submission isnt processed. So we offer the details our drivers license number, Social Security Number, and birthdate trusting the institutions were conducting our business will indeed ensure its protection.
But sometimes they dont. Last year, we found out that private voter data was transferred by Secretary of State Kris Kobach over an unsecured email in 2013 and then inadvertently released this fall by Florida officials working to fulfill an open records request.
As we reported then, Kobachs quest to discover voter fraud exposed sensitive data for nearly 1,000 Kansans when an official tried to compare partial Social Security Numbers sent via an unsecured email to election staff in Florida.
The Kansas House of Representatives were outraged and moved quickly to pass a measure that would require the redaction of all portions of an individuals Social Security Number on any document of record before it is made available for public inspection or copying. The bill passed with 117 votes in favor but was killed in the Senate leaving private data still vulnerable to release by the Kansas government.
Now, the states chief legal counsel is arguing what happened is permissible. Attorney General Derek Schmidt made the argument in a brief defending Kobachs release of Kansas voter information, including the partial Social Security Numbers and birthdates of 945 registered Kansas voters. He wrote that the U.S. Supreme Court has never held that there is a constitutional right to prevent government disclosure of private information, and thus Kobach shouldnt be prosecuted.
THIS IS WRONG. People dont want their private information in the public domain.
If Kansans cant be confident their government will protect their most sensitive information, how can we trust its capabilities in other areas of state government? Between voting records and income tax filings, the state possesses our most private information. It should never be subject to broad release, regardless of its a document available for public inspection or not. We dont believe that exposing the partial Social Security Numbers to election officials in Florida was the responsible thing to do and its wrong the states counsel is arguing its unprotected information.
With the cybersecurity challenges faced across the nation, we need to invest resources in training and technology that ensure the protection of identifying data. This is a harder sale to make to policymakers when the states own attorney general is arguing that the only data that needs protected is that which is vulnerable to public review.
The Legislature doesnt need to wait for the U.S.Supreme Court to determine if this information is protected. Were certain Kansans will make clear to their elected officials this is an important law to enact and it should be a top priority in January.
Topeka Capital-Journal
