When are public facts private?

E-mail this article Print this article

That is the question before King County Superior Court Judge Robert Alsdorf, who heard arguments yesterday regarding a Web site that lists names, ranks, salaries, home addresses, phone numbers and Social Security numbers of some local police officers.

The arguments boil down to whether gathering information that already is publicly available and presenting it in a specific political context is an invasion of privacy.

Alsdorf said he expects to release a written decision early next week.

"(The creators of the Web site) did not rub the steam off somebody's window, root through their trash, to find these Social Security numbers," argued Elena Garella, the Seattle attorney who represents Bill Sheehan, who provides the server space for the Web site. "This information was widely available from public and commercial sources. That's undisputed."

Social Security numbers, addresses and home phones already are floating through cyberspace and being swapped and sold by credit-card companies, banks and telemarketers, she said. The information also is available in county tax assessors' records, bankruptcy files and courthouse records, she added.

Sheehan and co-defendant Aaron Rosenstein, who authored the Web site, merely tapped the veins, Garella said.

Stephen Smith, a Seattle attorney representing the city of Kirkland, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of its police officers, argued the danger is in computerizing, itemizing and distributing the information in a single source.

"The disclosure of private information for a legitimate purpose does not waive any rights to privacy," said Stephen Smith. Police officers may voluntarily give out their Social Security numbers, for example, in a city document, but "there is not permission to assemble that information next to the fact that you are a public employee."

Besides, Smith said, the information is not in the public interest. Sheehan and Rosenstein said they created the site to hold police officers accountable.

City officials would like to see police officers' unlisted home addresses, phone numbers and Social Security numbers removed for the safety of officers who fear the information could be used by anyone seeking revenge, especially through identity theft.

In the weeks since information appeared on the Web site, several police officers say they already have received harassing telephone calls.

"The impact on these officers is enormous," Smith said. "This is changing the way they live."

By narrowly defining their objection, Kirkland police officers avoided the tangled First Amendment discussion.

"The vast majority of the content on the defendant's Web site would be unaffected," Smith wrote in his argument. "They would remain free to post names, salaries, business addresses and telephone numbers. They also could continue to offer criticism of the city, its police and other political speech."

Sheehan himself claims the Web site is "not a vendetta."

Garella said an injunction would not accomplish what the city was seeking.

"You'd have to shut down all of Mr. Sheehan's sources, commercial sites, the government, in order for the court's injunction to be effective," she said. "The city would be better served using their money and political clout to affect legislative change."

Michael Ko can be reached at 206-515-5653 or at mko@seattletimes.com.