Balancing openness, security post-9/11

The balance between openness in government and national security has made a significant swing toward security in the post-9/11 world, an understandable reaction to the terrorists' attacks on American soil.

But as organizers of Sunshine Week point out, a lack of information about the workings of our government poses risks to America as well. The challenge is to find creative, satisfactory solutions to ensure an open government and yet safeguard information that could be used by people trying to harm us.

In Nevada, one such debate centers on a proposal to keep off county assessor records the names, addresses and property values of homes owned by police officers, judges and several other categories of public employees.

As it was described, Assembly Bill 142 seemed like a good idea - why give criminals the addresses of police and judges? But the bill does far more than that.

It could remove from public access the property information for all public officials - including appointed ones to any board or commission - and thousands of state employees, from park rangers to social workers to some Department of Motor Vehicle employees. All they have to do is apply.

It would deny the public such information, but not the government. Any time another government agency needed access to the name and address of anybody on the list, it could get it. So could any licensed private investigator.

If the concern is the ease of obtaining such information from the Internet, then judges and police officers who fear retribution from criminals could apply to keep it off government-run Web sites. But there's no reason to limit it further, or to extend the privilege to other government workers.

The wide-ranging implications of AB142 only begin to suggest the problems created when government tries to put a lid on common-knowledge information. More worrisome is the sheer amount of information it collects about the very people with whom it is unwilling to share.