Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): of the public record. In 1981, the General Assembly amended the definition of "public records,” to include the following language: "Provided, that compilations, lists, or other aggregations of information of a personal nature where the public disclosure thereof would’ constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, are hereby determined to be confidential and shall not be considered to be ‘public records’ within the terms of this Act, and shall not be supplied to private individuals or organizations.” See Act of Mar. 23, 1981, No. 608, § 3, 1981 Ark. Acts 1345, 1346 (1981). But that language was deleted in 1985. See Act of Mar. 21, 1985, No. 468, § 3, 1985 Ark. Acts 917, 918 (1985). 2 . See, e.g., Office of Lieutenant Governor v. Mohn, 67 A.3d 123, 132 (Pa.Commw.Ct.2013) (<HOLDING>); Governor’s Office of Admin, v. Purcell, 35 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a defendants use of a persons name and social security number without permission constituted the use of a means of identification without lawful authority (B) holding that basic identification data such as name age current address and social security number is not generally subject to miranda (C) holding that although the social security number in the information and the social security numbers in the previous convictions did not match the rest of the identifying information  the first and last name and date of birth  did match and was sufficient to establish the defendants identity particularly in light of the fact that the defendant did not claim he was not the individual named in the previous convictions (D) recognizing the  holy trinity of personal information ie persons name social security number and date of birth that are reasonably likely to result in identity theft and fraud and concluding that sufficient proof had not been presented to add home address to the holy trinity (E) holding a social security number is not private
Output (English): holding that although the social security number in the information and the social security numbers in the previous convictions did not match the rest of the identifying information  the first and last name and date of birth  did match and was sufficient to establish the defendants identity particularly in light of the fact that the defendant did not claim he was not the individual named in the previous convictions