Opinion | When Minnesota’s court files went digital, privacy got lost

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of guest commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

If you’ve ever been part of a court case in Minnesota, from a divorce, property dispute, traffic violation or even from changing your name, your information is likely just a few keystrokes away from anyone with an internet connection.

This doesn’t just pertain to recent filings. As decades-old records are digitized, it applies to court cases you may have long since forgotten.

Most Minnesotans don’t realize how much the Minnesota Court Information System (MNCIS) puts at the fingertips of the public. The same records that once sat in paper files behind courthouse counters and that required an in-person visit or fee to see are now searchable online from a phone or laptop free of charge, by anyone from Minneapolis to Mumbai.

Minnesota court files began to go online in phases, with the initial online access to some public documents becoming more readily available outside of a courthouse or court library in March 2021. Now anyone, anywhere in the world, can access names (including the names of children or spouses), addresses, judgments and, in some cases, even one’s employer and salary.

Sure, court records have long been publicly accessible, but before online access people had to want the information badly enough to get in their car, find parking and request it from a clerk. They often had to sit in a room sorting through folders and paying to print copies. The shift to digital changed that, making what seemed to be semi-private information instantly public.

Additionally, in my role on the Minnesota Commission on Judicial Selection, I have reviewed court filings online to better understand how attorneys who apply to be judges reason, write and advocate.

That online access is invaluable. But it also reveals more than people realize. I’ve seen the files of people “convicted of a petty misdemeanor” because they were late paying a parking ticket or didn’t renew their car registration on time. I’ve seen divorce records listing both parties’ places of residence, their date of birth, their children’s names and dates of birth. I’ve seen the details of wills for parties in probate cases. I’ve also seen the before and after name changes for adopted children and for transgender people.

You can see all of this, too. But easy access puts some people at risk.

A person who was a victim of a street crime might have their home address listed in a civil suit. A person who legally changed their name to escape domestic violence or to align with their gender identity could have both identities permanently connected in this searchable database.

That access can empower stalkers, scammers and data-mining companies. Background-check services scrape MNCIS data regularly. Predatory lenders search for people in financial distress. Data brokers resell what used to be obscure court information for pennies per record.

The people who rely on our courts deserve to leave them without becoming public exhibits.

Recently, several advocacy groups, including the Minnesota State Bar Association, OutFront Minnesota and Gender Justice, petitioned the Minnesota Supreme Court to limit public access to gender-affirming name-change records. Their petition argues that these documents can expose deeply personal information, including old names, addresses and medical details that can be used to harass or harm individuals.

However, I believe limiting certain personal information from the online database should extend beyond name changes. And to some extent it does. There is no public access to statements from victims of abuse, nor to records from child protection and juvenile cases. But too much information is still public. It’s TMI about ourselves, our families and our children.

We can fix this without locking out journalists, watchdog groups, law enforcement or the general public. One approach: tiered access. Basic docket information such as case numbers, dates and outcomes could remain public online, but sensitive documents and full court orders could require users to create accounts, log in, and, in some cases, pay a nominal fee to access.

Such small steps would deter casual snooping and automated scraping, while still allowing those with legitimate reasons to review full files.