That is, assuming that parties who redact documents do a decent job, this list gives us a (very rough) idea of what kinds of sensitive information can be found in PACER documents. It’s reasonable to assume that the distribution of redacted sensitive information is similar to the distribution of sensitive information in general. Still, I think we can draw some interesting conclusions from these statistics. To reiterate the point I made in my last post, I didn’t have access to a random sample of the PACER corpus, so we should be cautious about drawing any precise conclusions about the distribution of redacted information in the entire PACER corpus. Here is the distribution of the redacted documents I found. Many of them could be classified automatically (for example “123-45-xxxx” is clearly a redacted Social Security number, and “Exxon” is a false positive) but I examined several thousand by hand.
#REDACTED FOR PRIVACY SOFTWARE#
Out of the 1.8 million documents it scanned, my software identified around 11,000 documents that appeared to have redactions. The more common method (around two-thirds of all redactions) involves replacing sensitive information with strings of XXs. This method sometimes fails, but most of these redactions were done successfully.
One is the “black rectangle” redaction method I described in my previous post. To this end, my software looked for two redaction styles. In addition to researching the problem of “bad” redactions, I was also interested in learning about the pattern of redactions generally. In my research on privacy problems in PACER, I spent a lot of time examining PACER documents. The Court noted that this “would be in line with the trend” of the recognition of the Right to be Forgotten in cases involving “women in general and highly sensitive cases involving rape or affecting the modesty and reputation”. The Court held that it “should be the endeavour of the Registry to ensure that any internet search made in the public domain, ought not to reflect the petitioner’s daughter’s name in the causetitle of the order or in the body of the order of this court”. He clarified that the request was limited to the digital records on the High Court’s website, and that he understood that if a copy of the order was applied for directly to the Court Registry, his daughter’s name would be reflected as per procedure. He submitted that his daughter’s name should be removed from the cause-title of the order as well as any other areas in the body of the order that it may appear. The wife’s father argued that his daughter believed that the order would appear in search results of an internet search on her name, which would “have repercussions even affecting the relationship with her husband and her reputation that she has in society”. The primary question before the Court was whether it should order the Court Registry to mask the wife’s name in the court’s digital records relating of the June 2015 order. The judgment was delivered by Justice Byrareddy, as a single-bench judgment of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore. In 2017, the wife’s father filed a petition on his daughter’s behalf, requesting that the High Court Registry mask her name in the cause-title and body of the June 2015 order. On June 15, 2015, the High Court quashed the proceedings, and the cause-title and body of the order displayed the wife’s name, as per procedure. The following year, the wife and husband entered into a compromise and she agreed to withdraw her criminal complaint, and the husband filed a petition before the High Court of Karnataka to quash the criminal proceedings. She had also brought a civil suit seeking to annul her marriage. In 2014, a wife in Bangalore, India, filed criminal charges against her husband, including for various fraud offences, kidnapping/inducing a woman to compel her marriage, and threatening death for extortion under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The High Court acknowledged the “right to be forgotten”, particularly in cases involving sensitive issues of modesty and reputation, and ordered that the wife’s name be redacted from all online versions of the order. However, the wife’s name was prominent on that order and the online version of the court order would appear when her name was searched on internet search engines, which could jeopardize her relationship with her husband and her reputation.
After a wife had initiated various legal proceedings against her husband the two agreed on a compromise and obtained a court order quashing all charges. The High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore, India ruled that the Court Registry should redact the name of a wife from the order confirming the withdrawal of criminal charges she had laid against her husband.
0 kommentar(er)
