Gov. Olene Walker's announcement last week that Utah would permanently withdraw from the controversial terrorism and crime database called MATRIX was a welcome decision.

The intent of the Multistate Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange may have been good, but concerns about individuals' privacy have never been sufficiently answered. Walker also had concerns about the ongoing funding of the database, which would combine government and commercially available information on citizens and others in order to fight crime and terrorism.

Another reason for Utah's departure from the program, as articulated by state legislative leaders, was that former Gov. Mike Leavitt did not consult them before committing the state to the database. As a governor who espoused the virtue of public dialogue with his trademark "Enlibra" processes, Leavitt should have involved many players in a discussion before doing this. Now director of the Environmental Protection Agency, Leavitt has refused to answer questions about MATRIX, which also has been disappointing.

Although the MATRIX issue did not surface until well after Leavitt's departure, he owes Utahns an explanation about authorizing the state's involvement. Two other states have dropped out of the process, leaving only Florida, Connecticut, Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania in the program.

The good news is that Walker, with the advice of a committee that studied the issue after Utah's participation was revealed in Deseret Morning News reports, has now pulled the plug on Utah's participation in MATRIX. The database, created by Seisint Inc. of Boca Raton, Fla., has purged Utah data, including names, dates of birth, addresses, driver's license numbers, license plate numbers, car descriptions, driver's license photographs and Social Security numbers.

Law enforcement agencies have access to much of this information already, but critics were particularly concerned that the database would include credit histories, marriages, divorces and fingerprints. This information would be available on all people, not just those accused or convicted of crimes.

While police agencies have endorsed MATRIX because it helps them to more quickly connect the dots in criminal investigations, the potential for privacy violations tips the scale in favor of abandoning it, as Walker has done. Again, it needs to be noted that Walker inherited this mess. She is to be commended for empaneling a committee to weigh the relative merits and risks of MATRIX and taking decisive action once the committee's recommendation to withdraw was handed down.