Skip to comments.Does Wisconsin Circuit Court Access Make It Too Easy To Check Your Past?
Posted on 08/07/2006 1:02:47 PM PDT by Scrooge1970
There is a debate going on about the ease of searching someones court records in Wisconsin.
www.Wisconsin-Circuit-Court-Access.com even lists the Classification Codes to search the WCCA database for specific types of court case.
Should there be restrictions limiting the use of this database?
"Should there be restrictions limiting the use of this database?"
There are restrictions. If you read the information on the next page, you'll see that only information that is declared public information by law can be searched.
I have no problem with public information being available to the public. Do you?
I have the site on my favorites!
Just signed up today to discuss a site like this?
"I have the site on my favorites!"
I use sites like this one all the time. If I'm about to engage a contractor to do work for me, I ALWAYS check available court records for that contractor.
There are many other uses of this type of site. Court records are PUBLIC information. That means the PUBLIC has access to them. Putting it on the internet makes it easier for the PUBLIC to have access to PUBLIC records.
About the only folks who don't like this access are those with something they'd rather not be public.
These records, and death records, are the TWO sources of info Democrats despise (they don't want their candidates outed, and they don't like the voter pool to be searched)
Someone just pointed out that you just signed up today. Perhaps you'd like to tell us why you're concerned about public access to court proceedings.
Personally, I like having access. I can do research on those who I interact with. I can check out a new neighbor to see if he's a thief or a drug dealer, then take necessary precautions. I can check contractors before signing on the dotted line. If I had adult children, I could check on the people they're dating.
Such sites have many uses. They publish public information and make it available to the public. That's me...Joe Public.
I think there is a distinction between publicly available and too avalable.
This is happening right now with divorce information. Many divorces contain super sensitive information such as credit card numbers, ss#'s, and children's information.
There is no reason for this to be made universally public.
Just because information can be splattered across the internet does not mean it should be splattered across the internet.
I was able to prevent a convicted child molester from moving in next door to a family in a duplex. Yes, there were other red flags, but court access certainly helped. Top it all off, he was just being released! Gave me the creeps. Irony of it is that we had to have other reasons to say "no". Had plenty of them but supposedly we couldn't use the site to rule against someone.
Ooops, forgot to say that I did call the local PD just to see if they knew he was moving here. They didn't as of then. He is on the site that shows sex offenders now. I keep my eye on that site too.
That sounds like a very good use of the site. I know that if I were a landlord, everyone who wanted to rent from me would get checked.
I also notice that the original poster has not bothered to return and check for replies. Oh, well...
Big surprise. not
"I posted a reply to another thread on this site that had a similar topic. So I signed up to see how FreeRepublic Works. I love it so far. As far as me agenda goes, I have none but my own self interest.
I see. Well, I have my own self interest in mind, too, when I use such sites to check on people.
John Galt? He's a fictional character. I pay no attention to fictional characters. Ayn Rand is an interesting writer to read, of course, but "Atlas Shrugged" is not one of my favorites.
Might I ask why you ask me about John Galt? I fail to see the relevance.
"Big surprise. not
Well, it turns out that he has returned to the thread. He asked me if I knew who John Galt was, and I'm still trying to figure out his point.
In terms of sensitive information - I have yet to find anything that has raised any sort of concern. If you want to worry about open databases that go too far, check out the corporation searches in Delaware, Massachussetts and other East Coast states. I've come up with SSN's, bank information and any of a number of sensitive records while running market research using freely available corporation records.
Sorry. I will watch the thread closer. I just checked the thread on my break and found a lot of comments.
I want more states to follow Wisconsins example and put all public information online.
"PS. Who is John Galt?"
Also probate records for geneological research.
And by getting creative you can compare circuit court access records, Dept of Neighborhood service records and tax records to find out whether or not crimaliens have taken advantage of the state's WHEDA program to get below market home loans.
I just thought you may have read the question before.
Me? Sure. I'm familiar with John Galt, although I am not a taker of John Galt's Oath. In fact, I find it an offensive oath.
I will give you the example of a man and his children as to why I find it offensive. A good father does, indeed, live his life for them. A good father will willingly give up his own life to protect them.
There's nothing wrong with selfishness, per se. However, John Galt's Oath extends selfishness to be the goal of life. That is wrong. Men often live their lives, and often give their lives, for the sake of other men.
There are a whole bunch of soldiers right now, living their lives for principles which they know may cost them their lives. Those principles include the sake of others.
John Galt is a fictional character. He is a flawed character. Those who idolize that fictional character are missing something, as was Rand.
Welcome to Free Republic!
I looked up MineralMan files.
Either you traveled with the Donner party and ate two democrats (found not guilty) or you skipped paying your boarding rent in Detroit in 1901 and made off with the landlord's gold pocketwatch and two suits. (Warrant not served yet)