Privacy versus open records: panel seeks middle ground for online court records.

A constitutional balancing act is being juggled by the Supreme Court's Committee on Privacy and Court Records--and the group wants to hear from you.

In the Florida Constitution, there is both a provision for privacy and for open records.

And it is Jon Mills' job--as chair of this diverse group of lawyers, judges, court clerks, court administrators, and representatives of the First Amendment Foundation--to help find the middle ground when it comes to court records in this rapidly changing electronic age.

"First of all, transparency and openness of the court process is fundamental to our American justice system," said Mills, director of the Center for Government Responsibility and dean emeritus and professor of law at the University of Florida Levin College of Law.

"What we are dealing with is how information that is made part of court records and part of litigation and other issues not regarding litigation, how that information is made available to the public."

Vast amounts of information about individuals--everything from Social Security numbers misused for identity theft to personal financial records in divorce cases ferreted out by investment scammers to details about minor children a pedophile could seize--could be gleaned from Web sites and downloaded on home computers.

"What used to be something buried in a file in practical obscurity can now be available on the Internet to anyone," Mills said. "So there is a real and logical concern about the presence of information that would invade privacy."

On the other hand, Florida has a long proud history of Government in the Sunshine and its open records law, and public records are essential to the fair administration of justice.

If the information is available in a court case by personally sifting through the paper file at the courthouse, should it not be equally available on-line?

Good question, says Mills.

"Someone used as an example that there are cameras in the courtroom and there is sitting in the courtroom. You don't have the right to sit in the courtroom, because there are limits to how many people it can hold. So there is a self-limited access in giving information a certain way," he said.

"Are you entitled to get all the information the way you want it? Or are you only entitled to the information?"

He adds: "I supposed in a high-profile case, it may not make any difference."

And here's another good question from Mills: "Are these abuses imaginary?"

After all, the barn door was closed...