Vicki...your input was helpful and important and convincing. Thanks.

I am not an OK resident, but I am a private investigator, and a CITRMS - Certified Identity Theft Risk Management Specialist. I have seen the difficulties caused by the restriction of information. The public is rapidly losing its ability to safeguard, defend, and obtain justice. When I do a background check, for instance, I can no longer tell my client with any degree of certainty if the applicant has a civil or criminal history. Our courts are eliminating so many personal identifiers that unless the applicant has a really unusual name like mine, I sometimes can’t tell which cases pertain to that applicant. A dangerous criminal can slip through the cracks if his name is common enough, simply because we can’t effectively locate and verify his record. At times Innocent people are denied jobs because they happen to share a name with a criminal, and no further identifying information is available. KUDOS & THANK YOU for reconsider restricting records. I can certainly understand why you were considering it, but the repercussions far outweigh the benefits.

Although I agree fully that the Supreme Court is not for the purpose of making laws, could this particular issue fall within their jurisdiction since it is in regard to court records?__________As for the records being posted online...I feel some conflict. After all, wasn't it still possible to check court records at the Courthouse? I did not realize such access had also been withdrawn. _____Personally, I think that if it is important enough and someone's business to actually check these records, it should be worth the time and effort to do it through the more time consuming and more official method of checking them at the Courthouse. ____Online records are nice and convenient, yet..offer a way for any and everyone to casually snoop. If someone knows a person's name, the records can be checked online with the click of a mouse ...and maybe simply for the "entertainment" of that particular day. Then another and so on and so forth. The ease of accessing this kind of sensitive information can become a habit and a vehicle for abuse. Consider the numbers of people and the motives of people tapping into these records. The dates of divorces...and marriages...whether or not one was ticketed for a traffic stop...etc. ....all of this information can be used for the purpose of fraud. The vast numbers of those tapping into the records is mind boggling. On the other hand, the records at the courthouse, though public, will be scrutinized so extremely less and most often for official purposes that the potential for abuse is greatly lessened. Some are simply seeking "juicy" information about acquaintances and neighbors...some are seeking identities to snatch. A few really need to know. If public records are made public...even via the former method...that seems enough. More seems to open up doors for abuse and the possibly for the violation of the individual's general right to privacy. Sure...if you have committed a violation of the law, you lose some right of privacy. However, the internet is very loose. Does the world really need to know? I think it is preferable to have those seeking court records to obtain them from the courthouse. If it's one's business to know, one can make the larger effort to find out through official channels ...at the courthouse. ________ If there is a need for this information, it can be obtained....but without making it merely a form of "child's play". If we are too lazy to go to the trouble of going to the courthouse or if doing so seems a bit "uncomfortable," it seems to me, we probably really don't need to know.

It's interesting the Supreme Court got their own little lesson in the Constitution -- this time taught them by the public. You cannot make public records secret or infringe upon the public's right to know what happens at the courthouse. I will not commend them for rescinding this order. They should not have entered it in the first place.

I think it is a good thing that the Okla. Supreme Court is reconsidering limiting access to court information. It is important for birthdates and addresses to be available. However, I would not object to them withholding social security numbers.

Suckity, suckity suckups. Losers. Har har har.

Justices bowed to political and media pressure. They should all resign. They are unfit to serve.

Re: "That these justices collapsed in the face of media pressure hardly commends them."

Justice Steven Taylor did not collapse. He voted against it.

Had they waited until Justice Opala was in town and present, he absolutely would have voted against it.

It's appalling that the Supreme Court would vote to shut down freedom of information on a system they, themselves, built. That's just wild!

Just to clarify, these justices do not necessarily make the law. However, in this instance, they do determine rules for their online network. Thus the name Oklahoma Supreme Court Network, otherwise known as oscn.net.

Ronnie makes the most valid point of all. Law-making judges suck and need to go. That these justices collapsed in the face of media pressure hardly commends them. What kind of idiot identity thief wants to steal the info of a crook? Not be the best credit ratings, generally speaking. Besides, this was killing M's lovelife. Not everyone can afford Match dot com.

The Court has made an excellent decision to rescind its ruling. I think it is fair that the Court continue to consider this before making such a broad decision. The order would have negatively affected more people than it would have helped. I also am in the legal field and can say that online records tremendously save me time and our clients money. Furthermore, to not use the advantages of technology would only revert us to the society we lived in 25 years ago. I commend the Court on this one.

I feel posting the birth date is an accurate way to validate a person's identity. I agree the SSN should not be posted online. However, I have found a lot of information online about people I had dated. You do notice I stated "had" because when you see the person is being sued/convicted because of not paying bills, felonies, and several misdemeanors also lying about not being married before, it protected me and my kids. Hopefully it will protect others in the future. The same can go for men who are dating women. You can find the information which can save not only emotional distress but your life! Plus as a person who used to work for a law firm, it's pertinent when verifying documents have been filed and getting copies of something that has already been paid for!

I think they did the only thing that was right to do. The supreme court is not a law making entity, they are suppose to make sure that laws are being followed correctly. By overstepping their part of the government they in fact took out our law making governments role, which is the house and senate. Thats just my opinion, either way I am glad it was overturned.

As a paralegal, I am more than willing to redact personal identifying information from pleadings, but when it costs $300.00 to get a copy of a file, that not only hurts the lawfirm it hurts your bill and possibly the quality of the attorney's work.

Good decision. The rest of you idiots are going to have to find more tin foil for your hats!

I agree with Joe. And better yet, let their medical information be pasted on the OSCN for all to read. Having the dockets on-line was good enough but not the documents and personal information.

I think they realized how much leg work it was to track down records by foot. With the cost of gas it would be astronomical!!!

Now Joe, don't be so quick to react. I think birth dates should be allowed but not the social security numbers. I use the site frequently. It sure helps if there's someone out there stalking you.

I can't believe they rescinded this order. I think each of them, along with those who complained, should have to post their birthday and social security numbers on the court site.