PER CURIAM:

¶ 1 Although the above styled and numbered causes were consolidated in the trial court, they were appealed under separate numbers. On October 26, 2010, an order issued in case No. 108,841 making the causes companion cases for purposes of the appeal and requiring that separate records be filed. Today, we withdraw our order of October 26th and consolidate the matters for resolution by a single opinion.1

¶ 2 One first impression issue is common to both causes: whether public employees' dates of birth are open records, subject to public disclosure, under the Open Records Act. The second first impression issue, raised only in cause No. 108,841, is whether employee identification numbers are also public records which may be released. Both questions require us to consider whether the information release would be a "clearly unwarranted invasion" of Oklahoma's public service, state employees' personal privacy under 51 O.S. Supp.2005 § 24A.7(A)(2).2 Because the issues presented are questions of law, our review is de novo.3

¶ 3 We determine that the legislative language utilized in 51 O.S. Supp.2005 § 24A.7(A)(2) indicates the Legislature intended to provide a non-exclusive list of examples of information, release of which may amount to a clearly unwarranted invasion of State employees' personal privacy; and, that where a claim is made that disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy within the meaning of the statute, application of a case-by-case balancing test is utilized to determine whether personal information is subject to release. Here, the information requested could result in cases of identity theft and compromise of governmental computer systems yet bring little, if any, information to public attention which would enlighten Oklahoma citizens as to how their government runs, performs, or spends their tax dollars. Therefore, we determine that when the balancing test is applied to the facts presented, release of birth dates and employee identification numbers of State employees "would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" under 51 O.S. Supp.2005 § 24A.7(A)(2).4 Our decision is supported by the reasoning of: the United States Supreme Court and other federal courts considering virtually identical language found in the Federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA); the overwhelming majority of state courts construing language similar to that found in Oklahoma's statute; and the Attorney General's persuasive opinion.

RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶ 4 In response to a request by Senator Debbe Leftwich, the AG issued an opinion on December 8, 2009. The opinion provides that: 1) a public body has discretion to determine that disclosing a personnel record indicating the date of birth of the public employee is an unwarranted invasion of the employee's personal privacy under the Open Records Act, 51 O.S. Supp.2005 § 24A.7(A)(2); 2) in making the determination, the public body may weigh the employee's interest in non-disclosure against the public's interest in having access to the record; and 3) where the employee's interest in non-disclosure is dominant, birth dates should be kept confidential while releasing the balance of the requested personnel record.5

¶ 5 This cause arises out of two requests to obtain public information under the Open Records Act. On February 19, 2010, the Oklahoman submitted a request to the OPM specifically seeking disclosure of the names and corresponding birth dates of all state employees. The Tulsa World filed a similar request on May 26, 2010, also seeking release of employee identification numbers. The OPEA filed two petitions in district court on March 29th and June 21st, respectively. The first filing named as defendant the OPM; and the second suit was filed against the OSF. A legislative staff member and other entities were allowed to intervene in the first suit and the trial court allowed an amicus filing.6 When the two suits were consolidated, the Tulsa World was allowed to intervene.

¶ 6 From July through September, 2010, all parties filed for summary judgment. The trial court sustained the summary judgment motions of OPM and OSF in an order filed on September 21st. It found that: employee identification numbers were not subject to disclosure by any state agency; the Attorney General correctly stated the law regarding the release of state employees' birth dates requiring a balancing test to determine if such a release amounted to an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; and utilization of the balancing test did not violate the equal protection clause. The trial court also determined that the records of legislative staff are protected from release by 51 O.S. Supp.2005 § 24A.3(2).7

¶ 7 Appeals were filed in both causes in October of 2010. Shortly thereafter, we were asked to retain the causes and to stay the effectiveness of the trial court's order. On December 9th, the motions to retain were granted. That same month, the motion to stay enforcement of the trial court's order was granted effective until further order of the Court. On January 11, 2011, the causes were ordered stayed during the pendency of the appeal.

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS

¶ 8 Two preliminary issues which must be considered before we may determine the primary questions presented: whether the release of birth dates and employee identification numbers constitutes a "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" within the meaning of 51 O.S. Supp.2005 § 24A.7(A)(2). The first is whether these matters may be included within the confines of the statutory language itself. Second, if they may fall within the confines of the statutory exemption, what test is employed to determine whether release is appropriate.

¶ 9 1) Title 51 O.S. Supp.2005 § 24A.7(A)2 contains a non-exclusive list of examples of information, release of which, the Legislature considers to be a clearly unwarranted invasion of State employees' personal privacy.

¶ 10 The OPEA contends that the birth dates and employee identification numbers of state employees are exempt from disclosure pursuant to 51 O.S. Supp.2005 § 24A.7(A)(2)8 allowing public bodies to keep records confidential where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The publishers disagree, asserting that the only matters the Legislature considered as those which would invade a public employee's privacy are those specifically listed in the statute, i.e. employee evaluations, payroll deductions, employment applications submitted by unsuccessful job applicants, and school employees' transcripts from institutions of higher education, coupled with the per se exemptions of subsection D,9 employees' home addresses, telephone numbers, and social security numbers.

¶ 11 In determining whether a statute applies to a given set of facts, we focus on legislative intent10 which controls statutory interpretation.11 Intent is ascertained from the whole act in light of its general purpose and objective12 considering relevant provisions together to give full force and effect to each.13 The Court presumes that the Legislature expressed its intent and that it intended what is expressed14 in statutory enactments and that it does not perform vain and useless acts in carrying out its legislative drafting responsibilities.15 We employ rules of statutory construction only where the legislative intent cannot be ascertained from the statutory language.16

¶ 12 In subsection A(2) of title 51 O.S. Supp.2005 § 24A.7, the Legislature directed public bodies to keep personnel records confidential, disclosure of which "would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy such as" employee evaluations, payroll deductions, employment applications of unsuccessful candidates, and transcripts from institutions of higher education of school employees. Subsection D of the same section provides that public bodies "shall keep confidential" home addresses, telephone numbers, and social security numbers of public servants. The examples given in subsection A(2) and the specifically enumerated items listed in subsection D are per se prohibited from disclosure.17

¶ 13 When the Legislature sought to specifically enumerate items that it intended to be kept confidential in all instances, it used mandatory language18 providing that public bodies "shall keep confidential the home address, telephone numbers and social security numbers" of its employees. Nevertheless, its utilization of the phrase "such as" in a statutory provision is not a term of strict limitation. Rather, it is utilized to indicate that there are other matters intended to be included within the statutory limits which are not specifically enumerated by the legislative language.19 The phrase indicates a descriptive, non-exclusive list of matters of the same or like kind.20

¶ 14 Undoubtedly, the Legislature provided examples of information in 51 O.S. Supp.2005 § 24A.7(A)(1), release of which it would consider to be a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. In utilizing the term "such as" preceding the examples, it left open for consideration whether other matters of like or similar import might also be withheld providing a general exemption when, as here, a public body asserts that the requested information constitutes a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.21 Therefore, we determine that 51 O.S. Supp.2005 § 24A.7(A)(2) contains a non-exclusive list of examples of information, release of which the Legislature considers to be clearly unwarranted invasions of State employees' personal privacy.

¶ 15 2) Where a claim is made that disclosure of information under 51 O.S. Supp.2005 § 24A.7(A)(2) would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personnel privacy, application of a case-by-case balancing test is utilized to determine whether the information is subject to release.

¶ 16 The OPEA and OSF advocate the adoption of a balancing test for determination of whether birth dates and employee identification numbers are subject to release under the Open Records Act. Under such a test, the public body must weigh the employees' interest in non-disclosure against the public's interest in obtaining the information.

¶ 17 The publishers argue that application of a balancing test to determine whether a public employee's personal information outweighs the public's right to know is inappropriate. They contend that, if such a test is utilized, the news-gathering functions under the First Amendment would greatly overcome only a slight imposition on the personal privacy of public employees. The publishers point to a Court of Criminal Appeals' decision and to a Court of Civil Appeals' opinion providing that no balancing test may be utilized as support for their allegations. Those cases and the publishers' assertions are unconvincing.

¶ 18 Two Oklahoma cases support the contentions that utilization of a balancing test to determine whether employee birth dates or identification numbers are subject to release under the Open Records Act is inappropriate. Nevertheless, at best, those decisions are persuasive only and do not bind our independent review of the issue.

¶ 19 Nichols v. Jackson, 2001 OK CR 35, 38 P.3d 228 involved a petition for the sealing of records in a criminal proceeding. Although the cause was first filed in this Court, exercising our superintending control,22 we transferred the matter and certified the question to the Court of Criminal Appeals. As stated, the issue certified to the Criminal Court required that the threshold issue to be settled was whether the criminal defendant's request for wholesale closure of the proceedings or sealing of records was necessary to protect the defendant's right to a fair trial.

¶ 20 The Criminal Court held that the First Amendment right of access by the press to non-confidential court records precluded wholesale closure of the proceedings or sealing of the records. In reaching this result, provisions of the Open Records Act were considered. Relying on a Court of Civil Appeals' case, State ex rel. Oklahoma State Bd. of Medical Licensure and Supervision v. Migliaccio, 1996 OK CIV APP 37, 917 P.2d 483,23 the Criminal Court determined that the Open Records Act contains no provision allowing a court to balance an individual's interest in having records remain private and the public's interest in having access to the records.

¶ 21 In the same breath that the Court of Criminal Appeals indicated no balancing test would be allowed, it stated:

Thereafter, in answering the question certified, the Criminal Court made it clear that it had, despite its pronouncement concerning Migliaccio, balanced Nichols' rights to counsel, due process, and fair trial against the public's right to know. The opinion provides in pertinent part:

¶ 22 The Court of Criminal Appeals has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over criminal cases.24 Nevertheless, unlike this Court, it has no general superintending power over the lower courts and no jurisdiction to review our decisions.25 Its opinion regarding the Open Records Act relies on a Court of Civil Appeals' opinion with merely persuasive value;26 and, the opinion itself appears internally inconsistent, decrying the application of a balancing test yet ultimately utilizing the same test to determine the cause.27

¶ 23 It is this Court's responsibility to apply a general analysis of the constitutional and statutory norms applicable here.28 Therefore, we determine that Nichols is inapposite to our decision today and specifically overrule State ex rel. Oklahoma State Bd. of Medical Licensure and Supervision v. Migliaccio, 1996 OK CIV APP 37, 917 P.2d 483, to the extent that it conflicts with this opinion.

¶ 24 The AG recommended public bodies utilize a balancing test weighing the public's right to know against the employee's right to privacy in determining whether public employees' birth dates should be released. In analyzing the weight to be given to the Attorney General's opinion, we note that, like opinions of the Court of Criminal Appeals and the Court of Appeals, the writings are considered as persuasive authority. Here, however, the Attorney General's analysis carries more weight in determining the issues before the Court. It does so because the Legislature has not acted since the opinion was promulgated. Undoubtedly, it did not do so because it understood that this Court considers the Legislature's silence as acquiescence or approval of the law as expounded in an Attorney General opinion.29 Therefore, we presume that the Legislature agrees with the Attorney General that it may be necessary to balance the public's right to know against the employee's right to privacy when it is alleged that the information requested would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under 51 O.S.Supp. 2005 § 24A.7(A)(2).

¶ 25 The United States Supreme Court has recognized the privacy interest in keeping personal facts away from the public eye. It has also acknowledged that, in some instances, the duty to avoid unwarranted disclosures is rooted in the Constitution.30 Even where an event is not wholly private, the Court accepts that an individual may have some interest in limiting disclosure or dissemination of the information.31

¶ 26 The Federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) contains almost identical language to Oklahoma's Open Records Act providing that "files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" may not be released for public scrutiny. In considering the federal act's language, the United States Supreme Court has determined that such statutory language requires the implementation of a balancing test where the individual's right to privacy is weighed against the public's right to know.32

¶ 27 A number of other federal and state courts considering statutory language similar to that found in 51 O.S. Supp.2005 § 24A.7(A)(2) and in the FOIA align themselves with the Supreme Court's reasoning. These courts recognize that once a protectable privacy interest is established, proper application of the Open Records Act requires a comparative weighing of the antagonistic interests—here, the privacy interest of the public servant versus the policy of openness for the public good.33 These courts acknowledge that the interests at issue must be considered on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the public's right to know predominates over the public employee's privacy interest. Where a privacy interest is established and disclosure would not significantly serve the principal purpose of disclosure, i.e. ensuring public confidence in government by increasing the access of the public to government and to its decision-making processes, disclosure is inappropriate.34

¶ 28 We find the analysis of the Supreme Court and other jurisdictions with statutory language similar to that found in 51 O.S. Supp.2005 § 24A.7(A)(2) persuasive. Therefore, we align ourselves with those courts and with the reasoning of the Attorney General and determine that where a claim is made that disclosure of information under 51 O.S. Supp.2005 § 24A.7(A)(2) would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, application of a case-by-case balancing test should be utilized to determine whether personal information is subject to release.

¶ 29 Under the facts presented, where significant privacy interests are at stake while the public's interest either in employee birth dates or employee identification numbers is minimal, release of such information "would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" under 51 O.S. Supp.2004 § 24A.7(A)(2).

¶ 30 The Supreme Court has held that information such as place of birth, date of birth, date of marriage, employment history, and comparable data are protected from disclosure as matters which constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.35 The vast majority of courts considering the issue of whether birth dates should be excluded from public disclosure under statutory language similar to that found in 51 O.S. Supp.2005 § 24A.7(A)(2) and in the FOIA align themselves with the Supreme Court's reasoning and hold that "disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."36

¶ 31 Similarly, employee identification numbers, when balanced against the public's right to know, have been determined to be information whose release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.37 Such information has been found to provide little, if any, knowledge to the public which would provide a better understanding of routine day-to-day governmental operations.38 Publication of the numbers has been considered to be highly offensive, because the disclosure could lead to public scrutiny of individuals concerning information unrelated to any governmental operation while constituting impermissible invasions of privacy.39 Furthermore, as has been argued here, public employees' identification numbers may provide unauthorized access to information contained on government computers.40 Finally, utilization of employee identification numbers has been shown to provide additional insight into financial dealings leaving individuals subject to identity theft.41

¶ 32 Since September 11, 2001, the ramifications of identity theft have proven much more grave than previously thought. Identity theft, a huge problem in financial fraud and theft cases, now has implications for national security.42 The growing problem of identity theft is facilitated when birth dates are combined with other personal information.43 Simply combining the release of a person's age along with other factors may make the individual vulnerable to those targeting a certain age range for scams.44 With both a name and a birth date, one can obtain information about: an individual's criminal record; arrest record (which may not include disposition of the charges); driving record; state of origin; political party affiliation; social security number; current and past addresses; civil litigation record; liens; property owned; credit history; financial accounts; and quite possibly, information concerning an individual's complete medical and military histories; and insurance and investment portfolio.45 The release of a state employee's name along with an employee identification number may provide access to other exempt personal information.46 These same numbers may provide unauthorized access to information contained on government computers.47

¶ 33 This Court has acknowledged the confidential status of personal financial records.48 The Oklahoma Legislature has recognized the rights of individual citizens to protection from the problems arising from identity theft. It has made it a felony for "any person to willfully and with fraudulent intent [sic] obtain the name, address, social security number, date of birth, place of business or employment" and other information with the intent to utilize the personal identifying information for the individual's benefit.49

¶ 34 Although the publishers disclaim any intention of publishing the birth dates of State employees, they assert that providing the date of birth information is important to their ability to identify one state worker from another. This argument has been considered too "narrow and limited" on the public interest scale to tip the balance of interests in favor of disclosure.50 Additionally, the fact that information may be available to the public in some form or from another source does not dissolve the individual's interest in controlling the dissemination of information regarding personal matters.51

¶ 35 Although state employees' privacy interests may be diminished somewhat by taking a position in an agency subject to public scrutiny, they do not surrender all privacy rights by accepting government employment.52 However, it important to note that the policy of disclosure is purposed to serve the public interest and not to satisfy the public's curiosity.53 Here, the information sought serves no valid public interest. When balanced against the invasion of privacy sought by the publishers to obtain public employees' dates of birth and employee identification numbers, the balance must tip in favor of privacy. There simply is no instance in which we can fathom how such information would advance the public's interest in assuring that the government is properly performing its function. Therefore, we align ourselves with the reasoning of the United States Supreme Court, the majority of jurisdictions considering the issues presented, and the Attorney General and determine that, when the balancing test is applied to the facts presented, release of birth dates and employee identification numbers of State employees "would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" under 51 O.S. Supp.2005 § 24A.7 & (A)(2).

CONCLUSION

¶ 36 Openness in government is essential to the functioning of a democracy. The greatest threat to privacy comes from government in secret.54 In order to verify accountability, the public must have access to government files.55 Such access permits checks against the arbitrary exercise of official power and secrecy in the political process.56 It gives private citizens the ability to monitor the manner in which public officers discharge their public duties and ensures that such actions are carried on in an honest, efficient, faithful, and competent manner.57

¶ 37 The purpose of openness in government is not fostered by disclosure of information about private citizens that is accumulated in various government files but reveals little or nothing about an agency's own conduct.58 Rather, governmental agencies and the courts59 have a special obligation to protect the public's interest in individual privacy by acknowledging that public records are being harvested for personal information about individuals, contributing to a surge in identity theft, consumer profiling, and the development of a stratified society where individuals are pigeonholed according to the electronic trail they leave of transactions that disclose personal details.60

¶ 38 In enacting 51 O.S. Supp.2005 § 24A.7(A)(2), the Oklahoma Legislature sought to construct an exemption which would require a balancing of an individual's right of privacy against the preservation of the basic purpose of Oklahoma's Open Records Act. The device adopted to achieve that balance was the limited exemption where privacy was threatened for the clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

¶ 39 We determine that the legislative language utilized in 51 O.S. Supp.2005 § 24A.7(A)(2) indicates the Legislature intended to provide a non-exclusive list of examples of information, release of which may amount to a clearly unwarranted invasion of State employees' personal privacy and that where a claim is made that disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy within the meaning of the statute, application of a case-by-case balancing test is utilized to determine whether personal information is subject to release. We determine that when the balancing test is applied to the facts presented, where significant privacy interests are at stake while the public's interest either in employee birth dates or employee identification numbers is minimal, release of birth dates and employee identification numbers of State employees "would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" under 51 O.S. Supp. 2005 § 24A.7(A)(2).61

AFFIRMED.

COLBERT, V.C.J., WATT, WINCHESTER, EDMONDSON, REIF, COMBS and GURICH, JJ., concur.

TAYLOR, C.J., and KAUGER, J., dissent.

KAUGER, J., dissenting, with whom TAYLOR, C.J., joins.

¶ 1 This is a matter of statutory construction. The statute involved is the human resources statute within the Open Records Act. Although the Legislature has amended 51 O.S. supp. 2005 § 24A.7 three times since its inception in 1985, it has never chosen to include the date of birth.1 If the Legislature desires to do so, it certainly can.2