That is how I would describe the vital records statues in Wisconsin using just two words.
Each chapter of law in state statue has a specific purpose. Statue 69.21 mandates the action to prevent fraud. 69.24 spells out the penalties.
Is keeping the pre 1907 records under this chapter necessary? Doubtful. And keeping them bound by that chapters language is largely considered overbearing and inconsistent with sunshine laws.
The signature and date at the registrar are the key elements define a vital record, and thus make it bound by the vital records rules of these chapters. The pre 1907 records do not fit this modern definition.
What is the purpose of keeping the pre 1907 record classified as vital records in that they need to be protected from potential fraudulent use? Is it not a complete contradiction that anyone can obtain a certified version of these records?. (The part about needing to show a direct tangible interest like you would for post 1907 records is exempted on the pre 1907 records.) Since they will issue them certified to anyone; I'd argue their continued status under Chapter 69, under which, records are supposed to be protected from fraudulent use is clearly not happening or are of no concern. Thus they no longer have a justified reason to continue to under under those rules as they are no longer fulfilling the stated purpose. Again I rate this overbearing.
Can an uncertified record (typically used in genealogy), that bears no seal or embossment, and is printed on non security paper and is marked "not for identity", be used to commit fraud in this modern area where electronic verification of events largely outweighs paper records? Likely not. This law is seen by most as overly broad in treating certified and uncertified records the same in terms of fraud potential & penalty.
Should penalties exist without taking the intention of the person into account? Clearly there are other reasons to copy a such a document aside from committing fraud with it. Should language be the same between certified and uncertified versions of the records? Again the law is likely overly broad in this area.
On a death record the cause of death is restricted for 50 years (outside of next of kin), whereas the rest of the record is not. How come after 50 years you still cannot copy or share electronically a copy of this record that was issued to you? Seems to me prior lawmakers have concluded that after just 50 there is nothing deemed private anymore. Seems overbearing to me and these should be harmonized.
In 1997 was it necessary to make the law more stringent? To make it specifically illegal to make the document available to the public in electronic format. Yet by 1997, water marking on special paper and embossing were a already established for certified document issuing. We rank this also overbearing.
------------------------------
Why when the laws were last changed in 2016 was the concept of a rolling restriction date, rather than a fixed year ignored? This was suggested by Attorney James Hawkins. Seems like a lack of accountability going on if you ask me, which is also very overbearing.
Why am I unable to get any elected official to do their job and solicit the official opinion of the Attorney General on this stuff? Is it not clear to people that there should be another person beside the WRDA and lawmakers providing guidance to craft a law that takes consideration in balancing the public's right to information (transparency) against the individual's right to privacy (security)? Is it not obvious to everyone that right now the law appears very inconsistent and imbalanced? It also at least partly appears to focus on protecting a government asset by some inappropriately used legal mechanisms. Seems like a lack of accountability going on if you ask me, which is also very overbearing.
No comments:
Post a Comment