Representatives of every major law enforcement entity in Oklahoma today announced their opposition to the blanket release of all state employees’ birthdates and Rep. Randy Terrill (right) assailed what he deems the "privacy pirates" at The Oklahoman.
They warned the mass release of that information could help criminals track down and attack law enforcement officials.
“Our personnel deal with dangerous individuals in the course of our official duties, regularly encountering the most violent criminals who have much to lose,” said Commissioner of Public Safety Kevin Ward. “The blanket release of our employees’ dates of birth to anyone who files an open record request – potentially including many of those criminals – could then subject our employees or their families to unwarranted intimidation or retaliation for doing their job.”
“I’ve been in drug enforcement for 23 years and we deal with some of seediest underworld characters this world has to offer,” said Darrell Weaver, director of the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics. “I strongly oppose heading down this slippery slope of allowing anyone to obtain the identity and birthdates of our employees – especially undercover agents. It is unacceptable. As an administrator, I have to protect my employees. I believe strongly that allowing my employees’ personal information to be disseminated, especially if it gets in the hands of the kind of people we deal with at OBN, would be a grave mistake.”
“Our agency deals with thousands of inmates and even more offenders on probation,” said Justin Jones, director of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections. “As a result, any request for an employee’s date of birth should only be for a specific request and a specific case – blanket approval to release all employees’ private information goes way beyond the reasonable expectation of personal sacrifice these public servants have shouldered.”
“Over 100 of our employees have voiced concern because once you have a person’s full name and date of birth, you’re two-thirds of the way there if you want to steal someone’s identity,” said DeWade Langley, director of the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation. “In addition, we are very concerned about employee safety, and making it easier for criminals to track our employees by giving them our employees’ dates of birth is of great concern to us.”
“There are so many different situations that can arise where the blanket dissemination of this information could be used to harm someone,” said Trent Baggett, acting executive coordinator for the District Attorney’s Council. “It could be used by an abuser to locate a former partner in a domestic violence situation. An assistant district attorney prosecuting gang cases could have his personal information provided to the defendant’s family, which could put that DA or his family in a compromising situation. This employee information should be provided in a surgical fashion only on a case by case basis.”
“All employees, regardless of whether they work for a public or private entity, have certain expectations of privacy. Employees in the public sector recognize information regarding position, salary and longevity should be made available to taxpayers. However, providing an employee’s birth date to anyone would be careless, which is why a vast majority of companies in the private sector would not provide such information on their employees,” said Oklahoma Homeland Security Director, Kerry Pettingill. “In the wake of April 19, 1995 and September 11, 2001 we should all be reminded that we have enemies - both foreign and domestic. At the homeland security office we are particularly sensitive to this issue because of the work we do on a daily basis. We should not make it easier for criminals to perpetrate crimes against our country or the employees of our state. Releasing the dates of birth for state employees would make them vulnerable to the very crimes we strive to prevent.”
“Our biggest concern is family and personal safety. The threat represented by an aggrieved member of the public one of our troopers may have dealt with in the past is of great concern,” said Russell Knoke, president of the Oklahoma State Troopers Association. “To simply dump all troopers’ birthdates out there without regard to their personal and family safety is not acceptable.”
“Government should be a shield for law enforcement agencies by protecting the employee from retaliation from those who would obtain personal employee information and do harm to the employee or their families,” said State Fire Marshal Robert Doke. “As a governmental agency the administration is responsible to provide a certain level of security to our employees. Not only are we required to provide each employee with a safe work environment, but we must also meet a certain level of criteria in providing an expectation of privacy from the prying eyes of those who seek to gather our most private and personal information.”
Doke noted that state agencies could also face civil litigation for actual and/or punitive damages from state employees who suffer identify theft occurs after the dissemination of personal information by state agencies.
“I do not want to take any action that would violate our disclosure obligations under the Open Records Act, or subject our agency to liability for attorney fees if we are unsuccessful in defending our decision not to disclose these birth dates,” said A. Keith Burt, director of the Oklahoma ABLE Commission. “However, as a state law enforcement agency, I am concerned about the potential adverse consequences that could be suffered by our employees if these birth dates are disclosed to the public. I want to protect the privacy interest of our employees to the greatest extent possible.”
“The Council on Law Enforcement Education and Training (CLEET) is opposed to the release of personal information of state employees because of the harmful impact it will have on peace officers across the State of Oklahoma. In Oklahoma today, there are 14,000 active and reserve peace officers, and 9,000 private security guards and investigators. The release of personally identifiable information opens the door to the records of over 23,000 law enforcement and private security personnel. CLEET is committed to the protection of peace officer’s confidential information and preserving the integrity of each officer’s training and certification records. Most importantly, CLEET is opposed to any action, including the release of information that has the potential to compromise the ability of peace officers to protect and serve the public,” said Dr. Larry Birney, CLEET executive director. “As law enforcement professionals we respect the public’s right to know and obtain information. However, we also believe that Oklahoma has a legitimate interest in preserving the confidential information of law enforcement personnel. The distribution of this information could compromise State security by providing access to information that could be useful to international terrorists, domestic terrorists, and common criminals. While the intent behind this request may not be malicious, there are individuals who can and will use this information to do background checks and obtain information on Oklahoma peace officers and their families.”
“We polled our employees within the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner and have determined releasing the dates of birth of our employees isn’t a good idea because of the sensitive nature of the work we conduct we fear it may jeopardize the safety of our employees,” said Tom Jordan, chief administrative officer for the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner.
The Oklahoman recently requested the blanket release of all state employees’ birthdates. The newspaper’s corporate parent also owns a direct-mail marketing firm.
Under existing state law, taxpayers are able to learn the name, job title and salary for all state workers, but birthdates aren’t mentioned in the Open Records Act.
“OPEA welcomes the support of the state’s law enforcement community in refusing to release this information,” said Oklahoma Public Employees Association Executive Director Sterling Zearley. “The release of this information would adversely impact public safety and our law enforcement agencies ability to perform its job. These concerns could quickly translate into new crime victims as well as jeopardizing current and ongoing law enforcement operations.”
Terrill and state Sen. Debbe Leftwich have filed legislation that would prevent the mass distribution of all state employees’ birthdates.
“This is a blanket request for the birthdates of nearly 40,000 state employees,” said Terrill, R-Moore. “This is not a case where there has been an allegation of corruption or impropriety involving a specific employee or group. There has not even been a hint of any wrongdoing involving anyone. This is just a fishing expedition based on the presupposition that every state employee is a criminal, crook, thief or wrongdoer just waiting to be discovered by the data miners and privacy pirates on a newspaper’s payroll.
“The paper’s request tramples on fundamental equal-protection and due-process rights, as well as public-safety concerns. As policy makers, it is our duty to protect those fighting for all of us on the front lines of the war on crime, instead of sacrificing them on the altar of yellow journalism.”
“State government employees include everyone from janitors to undercover narcotics agents,” said Leftwich, D-Oklahoma City. “While the threat of identity theft is a real concern for every worker, there are even graver, potentially life-threatening consequences for those working in law enforcement if the state is forced to unveil their personal identifying information and the location of their families.”
They warned the mass release of that information could help criminals track down and attack law enforcement officials.
“Our personnel deal with dangerous individuals in the course of our official duties, regularly encountering the most violent criminals who have much to lose,” said Commissioner of Public Safety Kevin Ward. “The blanket release of our employees’ dates of birth to anyone who files an open record request – potentially including many of those criminals – could then subject our employees or their families to unwarranted intimidation or retaliation for doing their job.”
“I’ve been in drug enforcement for 23 years and we deal with some of seediest underworld characters this world has to offer,” said Darrell Weaver, director of the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics. “I strongly oppose heading down this slippery slope of allowing anyone to obtain the identity and birthdates of our employees – especially undercover agents. It is unacceptable. As an administrator, I have to protect my employees. I believe strongly that allowing my employees’ personal information to be disseminated, especially if it gets in the hands of the kind of people we deal with at OBN, would be a grave mistake.”
“Our agency deals with thousands of inmates and even more offenders on probation,” said Justin Jones, director of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections. “As a result, any request for an employee’s date of birth should only be for a specific request and a specific case – blanket approval to release all employees’ private information goes way beyond the reasonable expectation of personal sacrifice these public servants have shouldered.”
“Over 100 of our employees have voiced concern because once you have a person’s full name and date of birth, you’re two-thirds of the way there if you want to steal someone’s identity,” said DeWade Langley, director of the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation. “In addition, we are very concerned about employee safety, and making it easier for criminals to track our employees by giving them our employees’ dates of birth is of great concern to us.”
“There are so many different situations that can arise where the blanket dissemination of this information could be used to harm someone,” said Trent Baggett, acting executive coordinator for the District Attorney’s Council. “It could be used by an abuser to locate a former partner in a domestic violence situation. An assistant district attorney prosecuting gang cases could have his personal information provided to the defendant’s family, which could put that DA or his family in a compromising situation. This employee information should be provided in a surgical fashion only on a case by case basis.”
“All employees, regardless of whether they work for a public or private entity, have certain expectations of privacy. Employees in the public sector recognize information regarding position, salary and longevity should be made available to taxpayers. However, providing an employee’s birth date to anyone would be careless, which is why a vast majority of companies in the private sector would not provide such information on their employees,” said Oklahoma Homeland Security Director, Kerry Pettingill. “In the wake of April 19, 1995 and September 11, 2001 we should all be reminded that we have enemies - both foreign and domestic. At the homeland security office we are particularly sensitive to this issue because of the work we do on a daily basis. We should not make it easier for criminals to perpetrate crimes against our country or the employees of our state. Releasing the dates of birth for state employees would make them vulnerable to the very crimes we strive to prevent.”
“Our biggest concern is family and personal safety. The threat represented by an aggrieved member of the public one of our troopers may have dealt with in the past is of great concern,” said Russell Knoke, president of the Oklahoma State Troopers Association. “To simply dump all troopers’ birthdates out there without regard to their personal and family safety is not acceptable.”
“Government should be a shield for law enforcement agencies by protecting the employee from retaliation from those who would obtain personal employee information and do harm to the employee or their families,” said State Fire Marshal Robert Doke. “As a governmental agency the administration is responsible to provide a certain level of security to our employees. Not only are we required to provide each employee with a safe work environment, but we must also meet a certain level of criteria in providing an expectation of privacy from the prying eyes of those who seek to gather our most private and personal information.”
Doke noted that state agencies could also face civil litigation for actual and/or punitive damages from state employees who suffer identify theft occurs after the dissemination of personal information by state agencies.
“I do not want to take any action that would violate our disclosure obligations under the Open Records Act, or subject our agency to liability for attorney fees if we are unsuccessful in defending our decision not to disclose these birth dates,” said A. Keith Burt, director of the Oklahoma ABLE Commission. “However, as a state law enforcement agency, I am concerned about the potential adverse consequences that could be suffered by our employees if these birth dates are disclosed to the public. I want to protect the privacy interest of our employees to the greatest extent possible.”
“The Council on Law Enforcement Education and Training (CLEET) is opposed to the release of personal information of state employees because of the harmful impact it will have on peace officers across the State of Oklahoma. In Oklahoma today, there are 14,000 active and reserve peace officers, and 9,000 private security guards and investigators. The release of personally identifiable information opens the door to the records of over 23,000 law enforcement and private security personnel. CLEET is committed to the protection of peace officer’s confidential information and preserving the integrity of each officer’s training and certification records. Most importantly, CLEET is opposed to any action, including the release of information that has the potential to compromise the ability of peace officers to protect and serve the public,” said Dr. Larry Birney, CLEET executive director. “As law enforcement professionals we respect the public’s right to know and obtain information. However, we also believe that Oklahoma has a legitimate interest in preserving the confidential information of law enforcement personnel. The distribution of this information could compromise State security by providing access to information that could be useful to international terrorists, domestic terrorists, and common criminals. While the intent behind this request may not be malicious, there are individuals who can and will use this information to do background checks and obtain information on Oklahoma peace officers and their families.”
“We polled our employees within the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner and have determined releasing the dates of birth of our employees isn’t a good idea because of the sensitive nature of the work we conduct we fear it may jeopardize the safety of our employees,” said Tom Jordan, chief administrative officer for the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner.
The Oklahoman recently requested the blanket release of all state employees’ birthdates. The newspaper’s corporate parent also owns a direct-mail marketing firm.
Under existing state law, taxpayers are able to learn the name, job title and salary for all state workers, but birthdates aren’t mentioned in the Open Records Act.
“OPEA welcomes the support of the state’s law enforcement community in refusing to release this information,” said Oklahoma Public Employees Association Executive Director Sterling Zearley. “The release of this information would adversely impact public safety and our law enforcement agencies ability to perform its job. These concerns could quickly translate into new crime victims as well as jeopardizing current and ongoing law enforcement operations.”
Terrill and state Sen. Debbe Leftwich have filed legislation that would prevent the mass distribution of all state employees’ birthdates.
“This is a blanket request for the birthdates of nearly 40,000 state employees,” said Terrill, R-Moore. “This is not a case where there has been an allegation of corruption or impropriety involving a specific employee or group. There has not even been a hint of any wrongdoing involving anyone. This is just a fishing expedition based on the presupposition that every state employee is a criminal, crook, thief or wrongdoer just waiting to be discovered by the data miners and privacy pirates on a newspaper’s payroll.
“The paper’s request tramples on fundamental equal-protection and due-process rights, as well as public-safety concerns. As policy makers, it is our duty to protect those fighting for all of us on the front lines of the war on crime, instead of sacrificing them on the altar of yellow journalism.”
“State government employees include everyone from janitors to undercover narcotics agents,” said Leftwich, D-Oklahoma City. “While the threat of identity theft is a real concern for every worker, there are even graver, potentially life-threatening consequences for those working in law enforcement if the state is forced to unveil their personal identifying information and the location of their families.”