Replies

The Statute (§338-18) is pretty clear on who is. Here's the list:

The list applies to part B of the statute. Other parts of the statute have different "lists," while Part D has no list ... it is open to the public.

It says nothing about "physical" inspection. ... the actual statute is even clearer in that issue:

Part B talks about inspection of records and certified copies of the records. Also, you completely missed this part of what you highlighted ... "except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted." The "exceptions" are the other parts of the statute and administrative rules that are sought by butter or myself.

As I said, it's not mere prurient interest.

You're misusing a word here. Best to go look it up before you embarrass yourself further. What you cite on public interest completely supports our efforts at transparency.

The UIPA manual also disagrees with you on that.

No, actually it doesn't. You're not quite understanding what you quoted. This talks about a maintaining confidentiality. HRS 388 doesn't protect a birth certificate's confidentiality ... just access to copies of certified records or physicial access by persons to inspect records in person. Other parts of the statute are for public health statistical records, public birth indexes (such as how birth announcements were listed in the newspaper) ... there's no confidentiality and certainly no court order in place ... and there's especially no confidentiality expected since Obama already released an alleged abstract of the record.

They give a really good example in the manual that would explain exactly why Obama's certificate should be released.

"A former University President had a significant privacy interest in the Board of Regents’ evaluation of his job performance. The public had a strong interest in scrutinizing the work of the Board of Regents as well as the President’s performance as a high level government official. Although the two rights were closely balanced, OIP found that the public interest outweighed the employee’s privacy interest."

"The list applies to part B of the statute. Other parts of the statute have different "lists," while Part D has no list ... it is open to the public."

And? They've already released the Index data covered by what you erroneously call "Part D." Do you want them to release it again?

As to the list applying "to part B of the statute," you are confusing what "part" means. When the statute refers to "this part" it refers to the entire "§338-18 Disclosure of records." That is the "part" of the statute. What you call "part B" is actually paragraph B of part 18 of §338.

"The 'exceptions' are the other parts of the statute and administrative rules that are sought by butter or myself."

There are no such exceptions relevant to your and butter's requests.

"You're misusing a word here. Best to go look it up before you embarrass yourself further. What you cite on public interest completely supports our efforts at transparency."

Oh no... I am using that specific word very deliberately. It's meant as mockery. That you did not notice is, well, delicious.

Changing the subject from "public interest" to "transparency" doesn't help you much, since you do not appear to understand what "transparency" means any more than you do "pubic interest." But releasing to you records in which you have no "tangible interest" does nothing to promote any efforts at transparency. It merely violates the law.

"HRS 388 doesn't protect a birth certificate's confidentiality "

What a goofy statement. The confidentiality protected is that of the registrant, not the certificate. The certificate is simply the document bearing the confidential information.

As to the hilarious example you used... the birth certificate of an infant hardly provides information relevant to the "performance... (of) a high level government official."

But then again, you wacky Birthers believe that newborn infants have "loyalties" to nations they won't even be aware of for years.

So your specious reasoning is only par for the course.