It is interesting – the state sells the information and the company who bought the information is sued. What about the state who released the information? Seems to me that the state had the first responsibility to protect the information.
I always thought that the names and addresses of licensed drivers and vehicle owners were public record. And if the act prohibits the defendant from possessing the info without the owner\’s consent, how did the state release it in the first place?
If every clown newspaper reporter can get info on court records, criminal acts and any other record that is deemed \”public record\” under the \”freedom of information act\” then why can\’t a company pay for information from the state that is public record.
It is interesting – the state sells the information and the company who bought the information is sued. What about the state who released the information? Seems to me that the state had the first responsibility to protect the information.
I always thought that the names and addresses of licensed drivers and vehicle owners were public record. And if the act prohibits the defendant from possessing the info without the owner\’s consent, how did the state release it in the first place?
If every clown newspaper reporter can get info on court records, criminal acts and any other record that is deemed \”public record\” under the \”freedom of information act\” then why can\’t a company pay for information from the state that is public record.
When I read news like this I want to go back to law school. Just like George and Weazy, I want a piece of the pie.