[Adam]

Camron, I think we've about exhausted this from my perspective, so I'll just offer this before I bow out.

Even public information can be considered sensitive and private when it's compiled in a manner that is easily attainable by those without proper clearances. I would also venture to guess that not all states have such information so easily available. Yes, there are police blotters in most newspapers, but if someone applies for an official's license in Denver, we won't be able to dig up old newspaper articles to find out if he's ever been arrested and/or convicted. It would be too cumbersome and labor-intensive.

That's how public information can remain, for the most part, private. In effect if not in theory.

And regarding your response to M&M, my problem is not with someone who may refuse to work with another person with a history they find objectionable. You could refuse to work with someone because he's Republican for all I care. It's the sharing of that ill-gained information I object to.