To: Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts

We, the undersigned, call for immediate action to safeguard personal privacy by mandating the redaction or encryption of addresses in all publicly accessible court documents.

The Issue:

Court documents, often available to the public to ensure judicial transparency, frequently contain sensitive personal information, such as home addresses. When left unredacted, these addresses expose individuals—especially victims of domestic violence, minors, and private citizens—to risks of harassment, stalking, identity theft, and physical harm. The public availability of such data, particularly through online court portals, amplifies these dangers in the digital age.

Why It Matters:

Addresses are primarily needed for court proceedings (e.g., serving notices) and rarely serve the public’s interest in judicial oversight. Leaving them unredacted prioritizes accessibility over safety, disproportionately harming vulnerable populations. Modern solutions, like redaction or encryption, can balance transparency with privacy.

Our Demands:

• Mandatory Redaction: Require that all addresses (e.g., home, business if sensitive) be redacted from court documents before public release, replacing them with placeholders like “[Redacted]” or “City, State.”
• Encryption or Hashing: Implement secure systems to encrypt or hash addresses in court databases, ensuring only authorized personnel can access them while public records remain private.
• Retroactive Protection: Establish a process to redact or seal addresses in existing public records, prioritizing high-risk cases (e.g., domestic violence, minors).
• Automated Tools and Training: Fund and deploy AI-driven redaction software and train court staff to efficiently protect sensitive data without compromising transparency.
• Clear Guidelines: Enact uniform rules requiring filing parties to submit redacted versions of documents and provide templates to ensure compliance.

Benefits:

• Protects individuals from harm while preserving public access to court records.
• Aligns with existing privacy protections, like those for Social Security numbers in federal courts (Rule 5.2).
• Builds public trust in the judicial system by prioritizing safety.

Call to Action:

We urge the Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts to enact policies and allocate resources to protect personal addresses in court records. Privacy is a right, not a privilege. Act now to prevent harm and modernize our courts for a safer future.