tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-89322313169925556972024-03-17T22:03:48.586-05:00Open SecretsA look at government, privacy and information in MinnesotaRich Neumeisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01026237058992305593noreply@blogger.comBlogger259125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8932231316992555697.post-19599346998156148692023-03-13T22:28:00.002-05:002023-03-13T22:28:44.290-05:00Surveillance tool on public to be passed by Minnesota Legislature?<p>As the Minnesota Legislature considers imposing a street surveillance system through the use of authomatic law enforcement speed cameras at the behest of the state's largest City, Minneapolis, policymakers and the public need to ask some tough questions.<p>
<p>What are the type of cameras that local law enforcement agencies will use? Speed cameras are license plate readers. They can do two functions, one to read license plates and the other to issue a ticket based on speed. Will the cameras purchased be able to do both functions? The technology is there to do so.<p>
<p>One could have a speed cam on the street, collecting license plate numbers, location data on individuals who are licensed to that vehicle. Then when it notes the vehicle went past the speed limit, it issues the ticket to you. Which you will get in the mail Below is information on what license plate readers are and what they can do.<p>
<p>https://www.aclu.org/other/you-are-being-tracked-how-license-plate-readers-are-being-used-record-americans-movements?redirect=technology-and-liberty/you-are-being-tracked-how-license-plate-readers-are-being-used-record<p>
<p>The legislation is House File 2098 the companion is Senate File 2026 and it is below, the House File.<p>
<p>https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?number=HF2098&type=bill&version=0&session=ls93&session_year=2023&session_number=0<p>Rich Neumeisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01026237058992305593noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8932231316992555697.post-2332084696182979432019-11-05T20:10:00.000-06:002019-11-05T20:10:00.475-06:00Facial Recognition in Minnesota <b>Below are my comments which I have submitted to the LCC subcommitee on Data Practices for their hearing on Thursday, November 7, 2019.</b><br />
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
I will not be able to attend the meeting of the LCC subcommittee on Data Practices, but I wish to make brief comments and direct members to information.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
A number of years ago I read abou<a href="https://www.wired.com/2001/02/call-it-super-bowl-face-scan-i/">t new technology being used at the 2001 Superbowl in Tampa, Florida.</a> As thousands of fans entered the stadium, cameras with 'facial recognition' were being tested secretly. News reports later told about it. Ever since I have been involved in following the technology and its implications.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
The state of Minnesota is involved with facial recognition technology. First,<a href="https://www.lcc.leg.mn/ertf/meetings/102113/DPSfacialrecognitionproject.pdf"> with digitization of millions of driver license photos with facial recognition standards. </a> Same is with the <a href="https://sps.x.state.mn.us/sites/bcaservicecatalog/Shared%20Documents/MRAP%20Service%20Description.pdf">booking and arrest photos that the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension collects in the Minnesota Repository of Arrest Photos know as MRAP.</a> Both of these actions have happened within the last decade.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Comparison with photos (recognition purposes) has happened with these state databases in two significant ways. There has been an active use of the<a href="https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/256.01"> drivers license photo base in dealing with fraud (Minn statute 256.01 subdivision 18d and e) in the human services area.</a> MRAP has been used by law enforcement agencies in the past. I have done data requests with the Department of Public Safety on this topic which has given me information about their programs.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
The MRAP program has increasingly over the years NOT been used for the purpose of comparing photos with facial recognition. In conversations with officials I've been told they are looking at new software.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Tony Webster did a data request to Hennepin County Sheriff covering biometrics and the use of it which facial recognition is a part of. What Mr. Webster discovered was that Hennepin County Sheriff Rich Stanek was in midst of researching and implementing facial recognition without policymakers and public knowledge. Mr. Webster did a story on this: "Hennepin County Sheriff circumvents state to expand facial recognition database" Link: <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://tonywebster.com/2016/06/hennepin-sheriff-facial-recognition/&source=gmail&ust=1573088341985000&usg=AFQjCNGJqM0jW0arHy-TlPUEB0DOr9DJoQ" href="https://tonywebster.com/2016/06/hennepin-sheriff-facial-recognition/" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">https://tonywebster.<wbr></wbr>com/2016/06/hennepin-sheriff-<wbr></wbr>facial-recognition/</a></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<a href="http://www.startribune.com/facial-recognition-technology-comes-out-of-the-shadows/382954891/"><br /></a></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<a href="http://www.startribune.com/facial-recognition-technology-comes-out-of-the-shadows/382954891/">Local media also reported on this issue brought to attention by Mr. Webster's piece</a>.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Facial recognition technology challenges First and Fourth Amendment principles to their core. Nothing new as Minnesota policymakers have discovered with avalanche of new technology such as Stingray, license plate readers, for example. There are no restrictions or regulations in Minnesota with use and deployment of this particular technology. A recent paper entitled, "Facial Recognition and the Fourth Amendment" by Andrew Guthrie Ferguson gives some insight on implications of this new technology. <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id%3D3473423&source=gmail&ust=1573088341985000&usg=AFQjCNFhRRp2l2ogiO9mz50F50O7RCEl2Q" href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3473423" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">https://papers.<wbr></wbr>ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?<wbr></wbr>abstract_id=3473423</a></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Racial bias in use of facial recognition is being discussed across the country by policymakers, law enforcement, and the public. In the City of Detroit debate is happening per the New York Times - "As cameras track Detroit's residents, debate ensues over racial bias <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/08/us/detroit-facial-recognition-cameras.html&source=gmail&ust=1573088341985000&usg=AFQjCNGkpAIH4Hs-8EmOwOlUR4Oxsw48lQ" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/08/us/detroit-facial-recognition-cameras.html" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">https://www.nytimes.com/<wbr></wbr>2019/07/08/us/detroit-facial-<wbr></wbr>recognition-cameras.html</a> </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
The Center on Privacy and Technology at Georgetown University (Washington DC) has done research on facial recognition. It focused on states use of facial recognition and extensive research on the topic in their study - "The Perpetual Line-Up: Unregulated Police Recognition in America" You find attached to this email the report and profile of Minnesota. The report is long, but has recommendations for legislatures and Congress. This is the link to those recommendations: <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.perpetuallineup.org/recommendations&source=gmail&ust=1573088341985000&usg=AFQjCNEaR6nG4-_CiMteVlhDU8IN-xJqWw" href="https://www.perpetuallineup.org/recommendations" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">https://www.<wbr></wbr>perpetuallineup.org/<wbr></wbr>recommendations</a></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
The Center recently released two additional reports:</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
- Garbage In, Garbage Out: Face Recognition on Flawed Data <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.law.georgetown.edu/privacy-technology-center/publications/garbage-in-garbage-out-face-recognition-on-flawed-data/&source=gmail&ust=1573088341985000&usg=AFQjCNHZOUOckoCSgg5eb_0hZEx8inhnTg" href="https://www.law.georgetown.edu/privacy-technology-center/publications/garbage-in-garbage-out-face-recognition-on-flawed-data/" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">https://www.law.<wbr></wbr>georgetown.edu/privacy-<wbr></wbr>technology-center/<wbr></wbr>publications/garbage-in-<wbr></wbr>garbage-out-face-recognition-<wbr></wbr>on-flawed-data/</a></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
- America Under Watch: Face Surveillance in the United States <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.law.georgetown.edu/privacy-technology-center/publications/garbage-in-garbage-out-face-recognition-on-flawed-data/&source=gmail&ust=1573088341985000&usg=AFQjCNHZOUOckoCSgg5eb_0hZEx8inhnTg" href="https://www.law.georgetown.edu/privacy-technology-center/publications/garbage-in-garbage-out-face-recognition-on-flawed-data/" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">https://www.law.<wbr></wbr>georgetown.edu/privacy-<wbr></wbr>technology-center/<wbr></wbr>publications/garbage-in-<wbr></wbr>garbage-out-face-recognition-<wbr></wbr>on-flawed-data/</a></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
The United States House of Representatives had a hearing on facial recognition this past summer. One of the pieces of research done was by the General Accounting Office in a report entitled: "Face Recognition Technology" The report deals with the federal government initiative of having a a connected database of photos among the states that can be used for facial recognition. A number of states have agreed to this with the federal government, some have banned used of drivers license photos, other states have current laws restricting use of of drivers license photos. The report is attached.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
This is the first time that a body of the Minnesota Legislature is taking up the topic of facial recognition on it's own without being intertwined with other initiatives. Today's meeting is not to be one of reaching what the law to be, but the beginning of discussion with the public as to what the law should be.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
It takes time and examination to answer the serious questions this new technology challenges us with.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
I wish to thank Clare Garvie (Center on Privacy and Technology at Georgetown University) and Freddy Martinez (Open the Government) for providing information that was used in this comment.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Feel free to contact me for any questions or want more information.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Rich Neumeister</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Attachments which I sent to the subcommittee are below.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<b>Perpetual Line-Up: Unregulated Police Face Recognition in America</b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<a href="https://www.perpetuallineup.org/sites/default/files/2016-12/The%20Perpetual%20Line-Up%20-%20Center%20on%20Privacy%20and%20Technology%20at%20Georgetown%20Law%20-%20121616.pdf">https://www.perpetuallineup.org/sites/default/files/2016-12/The%20Perpetual%20Line-Up%20-%20Center%20on%20Privacy%20and%20Technology%20at%20Georgetown%20Law%20-%20121616.pdf</a></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<b>Minnesota profile on Facial Recognition</b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<a href="https://www.perpetuallineup.org/jurisdiction/minnesota">https://www.perpetuallineup.org/jurisdiction/minnesota</a></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<b>GAO Report-Face Recognition Technology</b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<a href="https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/699489.pdf">https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/699489.pdf</a></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
</div>
<br />
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">
<br /></div>
Rich Neumeisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01026237058992305593noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8932231316992555697.post-81609398123431192072019-07-24T20:04:00.002-05:002019-07-24T20:04:53.083-05:00Minnesotans have no meaningful 4th amendment protections with cops use of dronesThere was a meeting today of the Minnesota Legislative Coordinating Commission, subcommittee on Data Practices. They <a href="https://www.lcc.leg.mn/sdp/meetings/20190724/sc5562.pdf">discussed a proposal to regulate drones used by law enforcement</a>.<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In my view, the proposal is anemic and opaque. Other words, does not give robust accountability in use of drones by law enforcement, gives weak privacy protections for residents of Minnesotan's with their deployment and surveillance use, and transparency of their operations is clouded.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I was not able to be at the meeting, but I provided written commentary. You will note my analysis is very specific to the proposal. You can read my comments below, but it's also IMPORTANT to see the draft proposal which is linked above.</div>
<div>
<b style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><br /></b></div>
<div>
<b style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><br /></b></div>
<div>
<b style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Written commentary for July, 24th 2019 meeting of the LCC Subcommittee on Data Practices </b></div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<br />My name is Richard Neumeister. Since the late 1970's I've been involved with privacy and open government issues on the local, state, and federal level. I have worked with and helped Minnesota legislators develop public policy on various issues and topics.<br /><br /><b>Drone regulation </b><br /><br />The Minnesota Legislature has been grappling with drone legislation for the last five years. I lobbied on the proposals in the first year or two, but since 2016 I've been on the sidelines.<br /><br />It is my intention to generally lay out my concerns today in written commentary on the suggested draft. SC 5562 can be characterized as an opaque and anemic idea or a robust and accountable suggestion to protect Minnesotans privacy and to keep law enforcement in check in using drones (UAVs).<br /><br />I believe it tends to be towards the opaque and anemic.<br /><br />It is important that policymakers and residents get this legislation right to protect Minnesotans privacy and civil liberties.<br /><br /><b>Search warrant important</b><br /><br />It is essential that we not allow this new technology - with enhancements such as thermal imaging, zoom lenses, sensitive microphones, and other tech add-ons to be used without a search warrant.<br /><br />The draft bill does not make clear whether the proposal updates decades-old Fourth Amendment case law as it applies in aerial surveillance. Law enforcement has argued there is no Fourth Amendment protections when hovers a UAV over an individual’s property with a camera. They base that on old court decisions by the US and Minnesota Supreme Courts.<br /><br />As with the tracking warrant legislation which I was involved with in 2014, the main objective was to overturn old case law and statutory language and to give robust Fourth Amendment protections for Minnesotans with their location data as they used their ‘personal devices’ (cell phones, etc) in their daily lives.<br /><br />Does this proposal do that? Does it overturn decades-old case law and allow Minnesotans to have 21st century privacy protections when drones with enhanced technology are used? There needs to be clarity on this point. For example,<a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1985/84-1513"> in <i>Ciraolo</i></a>, a case decided by the US Supreme Court, the court ruled that a person does not have a right to privacy from warrantless aerial surveillance from a plane flying 1000 feet over one’s home and curtilage. Law enforcement has argued the same with the use of UAVs.<br /><br />In the bill language, a “law enforcement agency” is defined basically as either a police or sheriff agency. But there are other government entities that enforce rules, regulations, and law. UAVs can be easily used by those other entities as well, but it appears that the definition excludes them. For example, licensing, residential, or zoning agencies could use drones for enforcement purposes. Do not the residents of Minnesota have Fourth Amendment protections in those kind of situations?</div>
<div>
Change to Subdivision 2<br /><br />In subdivision 2, I believe that the word ‘may’ should be changed to ‘shall’. To be made clear, the term ‘probable cause’ should also be added.<br /><br /><b>Problems with Subdivision 3 </b><br /><br />Do some of the subdivision 3 exceptions swallow the search warrant protection created in subdivision 2? Very possibly.<br /><br />Paragraph (a) is a recognized exception to the Fourth Amendment.<br /><br />The degree of privacy intrusion under paragraph (b) may turn on the enhanced software that a drone mau use in the surveillance and monitoring of a public event.<br /><br />What is most troubling is paragraph (f), which allows a drone to be ‘borrowed’ by any government agency that wishes to use it.<br /><br />Let’s say a City wants to see how people are complying with certain rules of what homeowners can have in their backyards. The local agency requests the use of a drone to hover over backyards (1000 feet up) with enhanced technology to ‘see’ what’s there. Should not the Fourth Amendment protect the homeowner in this situation? I believe so.<br /><br />Subdivision 3 exceptions of (b), (d), (e), and (f) and when data is collected to where it may show a violation of law that evidence should not be used against the subject. I do not think subdivision 6 does that with the subdivision 3 exceptions.<br /><br />When reviews subdivision 3 exceptions, one will note that there are different documentation standards among the paragraphs, or none at all.. It is important for the public to know when a UAV is used. This needs to be reviewed to insure responsibility and answerability to the public.<br /><br /><b>Subdivision 4</b><br /><br />There should be some discussion about subdivision 4. I have some ideas for additional language for accountability and transparency,<br /><br />I recommend that language in paragraph (d) should be changed from ‘may’ to ‘shall’. I also recommend that language be added to cover ‘enhance’ technology, so that the latter part of the sentence may read ‘with facial recognition or other bio-metric-matching, and enhanced technologies unless……’ This change would provide Minnesotans with robust 21st century privacy protections.<br /><br /><b>Subdivision 5 </b><br /><br />I need to review subdivision 5 closely over the next month or so. It needs to be clear on what is public and what is not. I am interested to see what currently would be public and what would not become available to the public if this language was passed.<br /><br /><b>Subdivisions 9 </b><br /><br />I am concerned about subdivision 9. The language in subdivision 9 mirrors language from the tracking warrant statute.<br /><br />The concerns I have with paragraphs (c) and (d) in particular: Paragraph (c) allows a prosecutor to request that data not be filed. In paragraph (d), it is specific that only upon the commencement of a criminal proceeding, the warrant application and supporting material must be filed. But what if there is no commencement of any criminal proceeding? How in that situation does the warrant and supporting data ever become public? I believe this is happening with a number of tracking warrants. What is the trigger to make sure that in these circumstances the search warrant data is eventually public?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Final comment</b><br /><br />Minnesotan's should be able to live in security and freedom from surveillance that is not justified. The proposed bill does not provide robust protection against surveillance techniques enhanced by technology. Abstruse advances enable law enforcement and government to go beyond our expectations without many times public and policymakers making the rules with which they should abide by. </div>
<div>
<br />Over my four decades of involvement with privacy matters, it has been law enforcement that is the institution that wishes to make their own rules, have the least accountability, and be hush-hush on what they may be doing that compromises our privacy. There is a balance that needs to happen. I will continue to strive for that and I have done so in the past.<br /><br />Please contact me if there are any questions with what I have shared with you or want specific ideas to ensure that the drone proposal is one that manners the respect of our civil liberties.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Rich Neumeisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01026237058992305593noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8932231316992555697.post-43782363701856860652019-01-06T19:05:00.000-06:002019-01-06T19:46:42.570-06:00Free workshop in Chanhassen on how to get government info<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
On Wednesday, January 30, 2019, Saint Paul-based non-profit Public Record Media (PRM) will host a free Freedom of Information (FOI) workshop at the Chanhassen Library (Carver County) in Chanhassen, Minnesota. The event will run from 6:30pm-8:00pm. The library is located at 7711 Kerber Blvd. in Chanhassen, Minnesota.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The workshop will explore how members of the public can use the Minnesota's Data Practices Act to obtain government records on a wide range of issues - from property records, to police reports, to school board plans and government budgets. The presentation will feature comments by Rich Neumeister, a long-time record requester and open government advocate.</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
PRM is hosting this January event in light of the City of Victoria being in the news last week on a recent decision by the Minnesota Commissioner of Administration that says the mayor of Victoria's Facebook content is not considered government data. The opinion causes questions if social media communications of public officials are government data and are accessible to the public.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The event is free to the public. Participants are encouraged to bring ideas for their own public record requests. </div>
</div>
Rich Neumeisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01026237058992305593noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8932231316992555697.post-6449915995771091232018-05-16T19:06:00.000-05:002018-05-16T19:06:51.342-05:00Hurried, tacky, and sloppy way to revoke health privacy protections at LegislatureVoiding Minnesota's strong health data privacy protections with<a href="http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/amend/A18-0960.htm"> an amendment by Representative Zerwas to SF 3019 on the House floor tomorrow (</a>Thursday May 17th) is foolish and senseless.<br />
<br />
Of all the votes in the Minnesota Legislature on privacy this session, this is the ONE the public needs and legislators need to pay attention too. The amendment slays Minnesotan's robust right to consent where your most sensitive health data shall go. The proposal is poorly designed and done in a hustled way by business and health industry interests.<br />
<br />
The attempt by the author is to do away with one of the best health data privacy protection/rights in the country and replace it with parts <a href="http://code%20of%20federal%20%201.10regulations%2C%20title%2045%2C%20part%20164%2C%20subpart%20e/">of the HIPAA regulations.</a> Important to understand the premise, that HIPAA, a federal regulation sets a minimum floor of privacy protections and rights, but allows states to be more protective of your information or provides you with more rights.<br />
<br />
When I pressed Representative Zerwas, who is the author of the original bill, and corporate and health industry lobbyists I did not get a coherent and detailed rationale. What one hears for this change: will save money and give coordinated care. (questionable) Also said the proposal will not damage your health data privacy, because you have the federal government minimum standards to rely on.<br />
<br />
But proponents of the amendment are wrong in their surety that adopting HIPAA standards and ditching our state protections will fill the gap of privacy protections. <br />
<br />
Our current law assures you have control where your most sensitive data goes to and for what purpose. For example, you do not want your mental health data to be seen or sent to the foot doctor, you have that choice and right. Minnesota law allows you to CONTROL where your health data goes.<br />
<br />
Slapping down Minnesota's consent provision jeopardizes your privacy to where your health data can be widely disseminated and be used for purposes without your knowledge and consent.<br />
<br />
Who decides where, for what purpose, and to whom your personal health data is used and dispersed, you or the business and health interests?<br />
<br />
If the proponents want to ditch Minnesota's consent and privacy protections show how HIPAA has same robust protection with consent and privacy protection.<br />
<br />
Instead, what is proposed on the floor of the House is deletion of about 13 words of our current law and replace it with some twenty words referring to a federal regulation. The regulation is pages long and I am sure many of the House members have not read and understand.<br />
<br />
The regulation with its broad language and definitions encompasses many activities that many people are not familiar with and allows for health data to be strewed about which individuals may want to control and not so easily be strewn about.<br />
<br />
There has been no hearing on the Senate side on the original bill or amendment. In the House only one hearing in a health committee. The bill has not been heard in the Civil Law and Data Practices Committee.<br />
<br />
To be clear, can there be changes to Minnesota law to accommodate concerns and issues, yes, but not in this manner. Trading this amendment for the loss of our states protections is a bad exchange. If this proposal along with others can be discussed in a rationale and comprehensive way, it would be better for us.<br />
<br />
The place for this rationale and comprehensive discussion is the Legislative Commission on Data Practices and Data Privacy. With suggestions to be made for January 2019 when the Legislature comes back. Many questions and issues can be discussed in a way that all parties will get their say.<br />
<br />
The commission can explore many questions and issues such as:<br />
<br />
How can state law deal with the wishes of an individual patient to not have certain sensitive data be shared with others?<br />
<br />
Can coordination of care and individuals right to control where their data goes co-exist within state law? (Note: Over the years when issues arose they have been addressed within our state law on health data)<br />
<br />
How can penalties and rights for patients be more enhanced on a state level where there are violations of privacy rather than rely on a federal agency?<br />
<br />
These are just some examples of points of questions that need and can be explored.<br />
<br />
Minnesota has had a comprehensive health data privacy law which has been recognized nationally. Why would we want to lower our standards? Do not think the HIPAA regulations give you a comfortable feeling of reassurance that sensitive health data is a matter between you and your doctor, you'll be duped. The federal regulations set standards for privacy where health, business, and public interests often prevail over the patients desire for confidentiality.<br />
<br />
Do not abrogate Minnesota's privacy/consent provisions in this hasty and sloppy way.Rich Neumeisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01026237058992305593noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8932231316992555697.post-42720339262947432222018-03-03T19:44:00.001-06:002018-03-03T19:44:10.468-06:00Will you lose privacy protection and rights with your most sensitive data?<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Roboto, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.6; margin-bottom: 1.25rem; padding: 0px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility;">
The right of consent, which is a cornerstone of our<a href="https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=144.291"> Minnesota Health Records Act,</a> which gives you the ability to manage your most sensitive health data, to keep it private, where it goes, and what it can be used for is about to be taken away. By whom?</div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Roboto, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.6; margin-bottom: 1.25rem; padding: 0px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility;">
Out of view from the public, the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, Minnesota Business Partnership, Minnesota Council of Health Plans, Minnesota Medical Association, Minnesota Hospital Association and some legislators are working hard to do just that. To be substituted by what is known as HIPAA, the federal law.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Roboto, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.6; margin-bottom: 1.25rem; padding: 0px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility;">
There has been an enormous push of cunning by special interests at the Capitol to lead some policymakers into an unseeing acceptance by business and health lobbyists assertions that HIPAA will increase their constituent's privacy protections and rights.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Roboto, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.6; margin-bottom: 1.25rem; padding: 0px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility;">
Telling to you straight, what the proposed legislation SF 2975 and House companion does is opposite, it guts your right of consent to release of your health records and replaces it with <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/45/part-164/subpart-E">Code of Federal Regulations, title 45, part 164, subpart E.</a> </div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Roboto, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.6; margin-bottom: 1.25rem; padding: 0px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility;">
SF 2975 by Senator Pratt:</div>
<h2 class="section_number" style="background-color: white; border-bottom: none; border-image: initial; border-left: 0px; border-right: 0px; border-top: 0px; display: inline; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 20px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 2em; vertical-align: baseline;">
Section 1. </h2>
<div class="first" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #333333; display: inline; font-size: 16px; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: 20px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-indent: 4em; vertical-align: baseline;">
Minnesota Statutes 2016, section 144.293, subdivision 2, is amended to read:</div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Roboto, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.6; margin-bottom: 1.25rem; padding: 0px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "times new roman", serif;"></span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "times new roman", serif;"></span></div>
<div class="subd" id="bill.0.1.1" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: "times new roman", serif; font-size: 16px; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-indent: 4em; vertical-align: baseline;">
<h2 class="subd_no" style="border-bottom: none; border-image: initial; border-left: 0px; border-right: 0px; border-top: 0px; color: black; display: inline; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 20px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span class="pl" id="pl.1.7" style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: inherit; left: -999px; line-height: 1em; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"></span>Subd. 2.</h2>
<h3 class="headnote" style="border-bottom: none; border-image: initial; border-left: 0px; border-right: 0px; border-top: 0px; color: black; display: inline; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: 20px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Patient consent to release of records.</h3>
<div class="in" style="border: 0px; display: inline; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 20px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-indent: 4em; vertical-align: baseline;">
A provider, or a person who receives a <span style="font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; text-indent: 4em;">health records from a provider, may not release a patient's health records to a person without:</span></div>
</div>
<div class="subd" id="bill.0.1.1" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: "times new roman", serif; font-size: 16px; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-indent: 4em; vertical-align: baseline;">
<div class="in" style="border: 0px; display: inline; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 20px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-indent: 4em; vertical-align: baseline;">
<br /></div>
<div class="in" style="border: 0px; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 20px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-indent: 4em; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span class="pl" id="pl.1.9" style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: inherit; left: -999px; line-height: 1em; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"></span>(1) a signed and dated consent from the patient or the patient's legally authorized representative authorizing the release;</div>
<div class="in" style="border: 0px; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 20px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-indent: 4em; vertical-align: baseline;">
<br /></div>
<div class="in" style="border: 0px; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 20px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-indent: 4em; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span class="pl" id="pl.1.11" style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: inherit; left: -999px; line-height: 1em; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"></span>(2) specific authorization in law<ins>, which includes Code of Federal Regulations, title 45, part 164, subpart E, for those entities and individuals subject to Code of Federal Regulations, title 45, part 164, subpart E</ins>; or</div>
<div class="in" style="border: 0px; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 20px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-indent: 4em; vertical-align: baseline;">
<br /></div>
<div class="in" style="border: 0px; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 20px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-indent: 4em; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span class="pl" id="pl.1.14" style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: inherit; left: -999px; line-height: 1em; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"></span>(3) a representation from a provider that holds a signed and dated consent from the patient authorizing the release.</div>
<div class="in" style="border: 0px; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 20px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-indent: 4em; vertical-align: baseline;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Roboto, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.6; margin-bottom: 1.25rem; padding: 0px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility;">
My understanding is that Representative Zerwas will be the House author.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Roboto, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.6; margin-bottom: 1.25rem; padding: 0px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility;">
This new language, underlined, (CFR, title 45, part 164, subpart E) gives right of access to your health data to many more players that are known as covered entities and business associates without your consent and specific knowledge. The proposal allows for more wider dissemination and access of your health data to institutions and government.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Roboto, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.6; margin-bottom: 1.25rem; padding: 0px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility;">
You may ask yourself, why does Mr. Neumeister care. I have been around a long time, since late 70's, through the 2010's at the Minnesota Legislature. Have dealt with special interests at the Legislature, helped policymakers build our strong privacy protection and rights and defend those rights and protections, and will call out organizations such as those I mention in the 2nd paragraph of this post who try to do things that are not right to Minnesotans and done with slight of hand.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Roboto, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.6; margin-bottom: 1.25rem; padding: 0px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility;">
I still remember one of the biggest fights of my non-paid career at the Legislature. I fought over two years to where we as Minnesotans could get access to our medical records and get copies of them. (1986-1987 sessions) The Minnesota health industry with such notables as the Minnesota Hospital Association and Minnesota Medical Association opposed that simple right. The same mindset it appears they have today.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Roboto, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.6; margin-bottom: 1.25rem; padding: 0px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility;">
Are there fixes that can be made in this area of law? Yes, but not done in a "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead"<span style="color: #545454; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"> </span>mentality that pillage the protections and rights we now have in our state law.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Roboto, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.6; margin-bottom: 1.25rem; padding: 0px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility;">
HIPAA sets a floor of standards of how health records are to be handled, but allows states to be more protective of your information or provides you with greater rights. This is what Minnesota law does</div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Roboto, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.6; margin-bottom: 1.25rem; padding: 0px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility;">
Do not expect HIPAA to give you comfortable feeling of reassurance that sensitive medical data is a matter between you and your doctor, you will be deluded. The federal regulations as proposed in this bill and others that I have seen set standards for privacy and rights where health industry, business, and government interests often prevail over the patients desire for confidentiality. And this should NOT be.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Roboto, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.6; margin-bottom: 1.25rem; padding: 0px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility;">
Contact your legislator!</div>
Rich Neumeisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01026237058992305593noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8932231316992555697.post-2667274713087032322018-02-27T11:38:00.000-06:002018-02-27T11:38:00.933-06:00Off to Woodbury to talk transparency and accountability<br />
<div class="hq gt a10" id=":3k" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; clear: both; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 15px 0px; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">
</div>
<br />
<div class="ii gt " id=":2s" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #222222; direction: ltr; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 5px 15px 0px 0px; orphans: 2; padding-bottom: 5px; position: relative; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">
<div class="a3s aXjCH m161d83f720c97c07" id=":2r" style="overflow: hidden;">
<div style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">
<div style="color: #323333; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 21.6px;">
<span>On </span><span class="aBn" data-term="goog_1384276900" style="border-bottom: 1px dashed rgb(204, 204, 204); position: relative; top: -2px; z-index: 0;" tabindex="0"><span class="aQJ" style="position: relative; top: 2px; z-index: -1;">March 22, 2018</span></span>, Saint Paul-based non-profit Public Record Media (PRM) will host a free Freedom of Information (FOI) workshop at the R.H. Stafford Library in Woodbury, Minnesota. The event will will run from<span> </span><span class="aBn" data-term="goog_1384276901" style="border-bottom: 1px dashed rgb(204, 204, 204); position: relative; top: -2px; z-index: 0;" tabindex="0"><span class="aQJ" style="position: relative; top: 2px; z-index: -1;">6:30pm-8:00pm.</span></span><span> </span> The R.H. Stafford Library is located at 8595 Central Park Place in Woodbury, Minnesota 55125.</div>
<div style="color: #323333; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 21.6px;">
Seating is limited. RSVP by calling Public Record Media at<span> </span><a href="tel:(651)%20556-1381" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank" value="+16515561381">651-556-1381</a>, and leaving a message with your name and contact information.</div>
<div style="color: #323333; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 21.6px;">
The workshop will explore how members of the public can use Minnesota's Data Practices Act to obtain government records. Each year - in conjunction with long-time data advocate Rich Neumeister - PRM hosts FOI workshops across the state, with the aim of training people about how to use the state's data access laws for research, education, and fostering government accountability. </div>
<div style="color: #323333; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 21.6px;">
PRM is hosting its March event in Woodbury in light of the city's recent appeal to the Minnesota Legislature to make changes to the Data Practices Act - including eliminating the laws' long-standing provision that allows the public to inspect data at no cost. Under current law, public requesters have the option to review data at government agencies for free, as opposed to paying for copies of data.</div>
<div style="color: #323333; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 21.6px;">
The event is free to the public. Participants are encouraged to bring ideas for their own public record requests. </div>
<div style="color: #323333; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 21.6px;">
Public Record Media is a Minnesota-based non-profit organization that conducts public record-centered publication, legal work, and education. </div>
</div>
<div class="yj6qo">
</div>
<div class="adL">
</div>
</div>
</div>
Rich Neumeisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01026237058992305593noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8932231316992555697.post-17292850277115611582017-09-11T23:35:00.000-05:002017-09-11T23:35:06.243-05:00Minnesota law enforcement held accountable with use of Tasers?This evening I did a program on how to use the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act to gain access to body camera video. In the discussion there was a question asked, if a Taser or an energy-conducted weapon is used to stun
or subdue a person is that video public?<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=13.825">Under current Minnesota law (13.825) substantial bodily harm is a standard that is used to allow public access</a> to body camera video. Therefore I made a request to the City Of Minneapolis as follows:<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">"Dear Mr. Carl:</span><br />
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
<div style="font-size: 12.8px;">
Pursuant to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, I wish to review and inspect all government data documenting use of tasers (energy conducted weapons-ECW) by the Minneapolis Police Department from 2015 through July, 2017. The request to review and inspect all government data would include, but not limited to, any body camera footage or documentation specific to the use of the ECW.</div>
<div style="font-size: 12.8px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: 12.8px;">
Any questions do not hesitate to call or contact me.</div>
<div style="font-size: 12.8px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: 12.8px;">
Regards,</div>
<div style="font-size: 12.8px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: 12.8px;">
Rich Neumeister"</div>
<div style="font-size: 12.8px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: 12.8px;">
We will see what happens.</div>
</div>
Rich Neumeisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01026237058992305593noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8932231316992555697.post-73821112464488291422017-08-29T11:52:00.000-05:002017-08-29T11:52:05.876-05:00How to get bodycam video with Minnesota law<div style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 18px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 1.2em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
On September 11, 2017, Saint Paul-based non-profit <a href="http://www.publicrecordmedia.org/">Public Record Media (PRM)</a> will host a Freedom of Information (FOI) workshop at the North Regional Library in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The event will be held in the library’s North Regional Meeting Room, and will run from 6:30pm-8:00pm. The North Regional Library is located at 1315 Lowry Ave. N. in Minneapolis.</div>
<div style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 18px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 1.2em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
The workshop will explore how members of the public can use Minnesota’s Data Practices Act to obtain government records of interest to them. Body camera footage will be used as an example of government data that requesters can obtain, and a discussion of issues related to body camera footage will be held. The presentation will feature comments by Rich Neumeister, a long-time record requester and open government advocate. </div>
<div style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 18px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 1.2em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
The event is free to the public. Participants are encouraged to bring ideas for their own public record requests. RSVPs are encouraged by calling 651-556-1381, as space is limited.</div>
<div style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 18px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 1.2em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Public Record Media is a Minnesota-based non-profit organization that conducts public record-centered publication, legal work, and education. Since 2014, PRM has hosted public record trainings throughout the state.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Rich Neumeisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01026237058992305593noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8932231316992555697.post-24381817960151604402017-01-15T23:18:00.001-06:002017-01-15T23:18:28.028-06:00Mr. N goes to WashingtonI have been coming to Washington DC since 1972. When I first came to the District of Columbia, Richard Nixon was President, there were demonstrations in the streets about the war, the Vietnam War; environmental issues started to get the whole attention of Congress with the passage of the Clean Water Act of 1972 (later in the year); Watergate had not happened yet; and J Edgar Hoover was still alive.<br />
<br />
Man, time has gone fast. I have come to the City to work, live, and visit over the last 45 years and still inspired and excited to be here. But, to where I can have the most impact on policies and laws it is at the local and state level. That is where my heart is. Yes, Mr. Neumeister has come to Washington for another time. But the purpose is to teach people about the possibilities they can have to make a difference. I know they can.......<br />
<br />Rich Neumeisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01026237058992305593noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8932231316992555697.post-21980320765904508162016-12-12T22:46:00.000-06:002016-12-12T22:58:35.812-06:00Secrecy of Stingray tracking of Minnesotan's is because of ignorance, carelessness, or complicityA step to bring more sunshine and accountability to rapid new and secret technology used by law enforcement to the public and Minnesota Legislature has fallen short. It was more of a document of bewilderment rather than anything else.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=626A.17">By statute every two years the Minnesota Court Administrator's office must file a report </a>to the Minnesota Legislature about electronic surveillance activities that law enforcement does in Minnesota. Such detail as from previous reports indicated specifically for what crimes, what was used, and so forth. The 2016 report which was released last month was a very abbreviated version from the ones over the past few decades. Just <a href="https://www.leg.state.mn.us/docs/2016/mandated/161111.pdf">compare the 2016 report </a>with any of the others from previous years, quite a difference. <a href="https://www.leg.state.mn.us/docs/2014/mandated/141118.pdf">Here is the one from 2014</a>.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But what was different and very clear there was hardly anything about "tracking warrants" mentioned. A t<a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_OkFLQ9BEd0VW9VUGdrTkk1ZUJYMmFQNWhGMnlCOXN6MDM0/view">racking warrant is a court order </a>based on probable cause t<a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/09/meet-the-machines-that-steal-your-phones-data/">hat gives law enforcement the right to track individuals using devices named such as StingRay, KingFish, and FishHawk</a>. This<a href="https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=626A.42"> is based on a law passed by the Minnesota Legislature in 2014 after it was discovered by the public </a>and the Minnesota Legislature that Hennepin County Sheriff and the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension had these devices. <a href="http://www.startribune.com/bca-agreed-to-fbi-terms-on-secret-cellphone-tracking/284945781/">The Bureau of Criminal Apprehension spent hundred of thousands of dollars on these devices and kept it secret from policymakers and public for nearly a decade.</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What these devices do and with their software is track an individual down to within feet of their exact location. With add-on of software could intercept content of communication between people. <a href="http://stmedia.startribune.com/documents/BCA+Cellular+Exploitation+Equipment.pdf">It is so "secret" on these matters even today the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension refuses to release even the amount they are paying for these surveillance devices to the Harris Corporation.</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The report released last month was the first one since the implementation of the new law. There was no detail about tracking warrants, particularly, how many times the Stingray and their brothers were used and for what purposes. And the reason why?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Tracking warrants were to be unsealed after the order was no longer needed for investigative purposes. There could be extensions for continued sealing but as it was clear in the 2014 legislation, eventually it would be public and even the subject of the surveillance would be notified. But for nought this has never happened......they all remain sealed and secret.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The promise of scrutiny by the public and Minnesota Legislature of secret law enforcement surveillance activities with use of hush-hush high-tech technology by the 2014 law has been nixed. <a href="https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=626A.42">(The law had a reporting mechanism to be a part of the every two year report, subdivision 5)</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It appears that law enforcement and the Minnesota courts could be participating in a culture of secrecy either out of ignorance, carelessness, or just plain complicity in not wanting to follow the law.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
For more background on this issue please check out these news pieces by the Fox News affiliate Channel 9 and done by reporter Tom Lyden:</div>
<div>
<a href="http://www.fox9.com/news/140103744-story">State of Surveillance: Stingray warrants sealed despite change in state law</a></div>
<div>
<a href="http://www.fox9.com/news/222823275-story"><br /></a></div>
<div>
<a href="http://www.fox9.com/news/222823275-story">New report details tracking warrants in Minnesota</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Rich Neumeisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01026237058992305593noreply@blogger.com491tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8932231316992555697.post-24088155896749219902016-11-28T13:13:00.002-06:002016-11-28T13:15:18.472-06:00Hennepin County Sheriff systematic destruction of emails and data <div style="background-color: white; color: #500050; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
This is an email I sent off to a number of people today:</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #500050; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #500050; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
"This is a unique document attached to this email by the Sheriff of <span id="m_1602238540280534357m_-3374571656888157634m_4989806523177050207m_7221707395751148674gmail-m_2384231128019583392gmail-:1my.1">Hennepin</span> County. It highlights a number of reasons why to destroy emails, one being to "mitigate risk". Could that mean finding out about questionable behavior such as their facial recognition program implementation which the public and <span id="m_1602238540280534357m_-3374571656888157634m_4989806523177050207m_7221707395751148674gmail-m_2384231128019583392gmail-:1my.2">Hennepin</span> County Commissioners did not know about? There other examples I know and can think of.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #500050; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #500050; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
Another part of the policy says that emails saved for "legitimate law enforcement / business purposes. Granted one can designate their communication any way they want......but this is not a classification for secrecy or make data not available to the public. Important that this new designation not be used as a preventive move for people to get access to public data.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #500050; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
<span style="font-size: 12.8px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #500050; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
<span style="font-size: 12.8px;">The technical destruction may happen or begin December 1st, 2016.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #500050; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #500050; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
So why a public interest?</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #500050; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #500050; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
It appears that the Sheriff wants to obliterate the past and control what the public should have access to. (30 day destruction and by having less data to go through based on a request)</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #500050; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #500050; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
Emails have the ability to spell out rationale for policies and initiatives. Absence of documentation on concerns and issues can hinder the public right to know, but also ability to see and understand why.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #500050; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #500050; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
Emails can detail a trail of individuals and the appropriate ones that have been informed of a problem, situation, or responsibility. The Flint water crisis is an example that shows this through Michigan authorities release of emails. As so happens many times the public becomes belatedly to knowledge or discover bad or questionable action done by government. This why data such as emails matters a great deal.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #500050; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #500050; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
Data such as emails matter in the context of financial accountability, but also of historic framework: putting together how something came about, for example, the Sheriff's facial recognition program or the social media surveillance program known as <span id="m_1602238540280534357m_-3374571656888157634m_4989806523177050207m_7221707395751148674:4bs.4">GeoFeedia</span> that appears the agency is involved with.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #500050; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #500050; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
Information matters, but when that data is destroyed in such a short time as the Sheriff Rich <span id="m_1602238540280534357m_-3374571656888157634m_4989806523177050207m_7221707395751148674:4bs.5">Stanek</span> is doing, even <span id="m_1602238540280534357m_-3374571656888157634m_4989806523177050207m_7221707395751148674:4bs.6">Hennepin</span> County, the ability of oversight and the power to take the data, a way of self-governing accountability is not achieved.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #500050; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #500050; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12px;">Rich <span id="m_1602238540280534357m_-3374571656888157634m_4989806523177050207m_7221707395751148674:4bs.7">Neumeister"</span></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #500050; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #500050; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12px;">The link for the Hennepin County Sheriff destruction of email policy.</span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #500050; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12px;"><a href="https://www.blogger.com/goog_1196328046"><br /></a></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12px;"><a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_OkFLQ9BEd0Uk1BaFlzanEtVWtLZHA5eVVtUzBxSjFuQkln/view?usp=sharing">https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_OkFLQ9BEd0Uk1BaFlzanEtVWtLZHA5eVVtUzBxSjFuQkln/view?usp=sharing</a></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #500050; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #500050; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #500050; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #500050; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
<div style="color: black; font-family: georgia, times, "times new roman", serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 15px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 5px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, times, "times new roman", serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 15px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 5px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, times, "times new roman", serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 15px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 5px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #500050; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
<br /></div>
Rich Neumeisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01026237058992305593noreply@blogger.com60tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8932231316992555697.post-5261086725920175622016-10-23T10:01:00.000-05:002016-10-23T10:06:32.408-05:00FOIA, Trump/Clinton, and you.This campaign cycle we have been hearing comments from the presidential candidates and their surrogates saying the media coverage is rigged or efforts by a non-profit organization is a "right-wing" conspiracy against them. Such entities like the New York Times, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-revealed-book-reporting-archive/">Washington Post,</a> and<a href="http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-new-emails-show-hillary-clinton-contacts-bryan-pagliano-raise-new-questions-sworn-testimony/"> Judicial Watch</a> are using public record laws to look into Donald Trump's and Hillary Clinton's past.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div>
Holding individuals who want to lead the nation accountable is a fundamental thing to do. This is why efforts using state and federal freedom of information laws has been under attack, it makes the candidates and their operations uncomfortable to answer the questions which the documents raise.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Nevertheless, you can also use the tools of freedom of information laws on a local and state level. In Minnesota, it is known as the <a href="https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=13">Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.</a> Now I do not expect the reader of this post to read the law (linked above) and do a data request. There are easier ways to understand the law and your rights to lift the veils of secrecy of government.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
How to request information from a agency or entity of a local or state government:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="http://www.ipad.state.mn.us/opinions/docs/datarequestmain.html">http://www.ipad.state.mn.us/opinions/docs/datarequestmain.html</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The Inf<a href="http://www.ipad.state.mn.us/">ormation Policy Analysis Division which is part of the Minnesota</a> Department of Administration offers the above suggestion. They also offer advice <a href="http://www.ipad.state.mn.us/docs/howtorequest.pdf"> with a model letter how to ask for information from the government.</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
A simple letter by a citizen to a government agency can cause government and what it does to be exposed and ingenuous. This is an example which I did in September of 2013.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">"Pursuant to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act I wish to inspect and review all government data about the cell phone location tool known as the (</span><span class="il" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">Kingfish</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">) including, but not limited to, such items as protocols, procedures, legal thresholds, Attorney opinions, evaluations, correspondence, and results of use."</span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This elementary request for public data sent off responses <a href="http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/minnesota-bca-gets-f-chicanery-stingray/">that found an agency lying to the public and the Minnesota Legislature about<span style="color: #545454; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="background-color: white;"> "</span></span></a>StingRay."</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
To hold accountable government is just like holding candidates answerable who want to run for the highest elected office in the land.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h3 class="r" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 18px; font-weight: normal; margin: 0px; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap;">
</h3>
</div>
Rich Neumeisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01026237058992305593noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8932231316992555697.post-42436448786320427422016-08-09T10:39:00.000-05:002016-08-09T10:39:51.269-05:00Body cameras, attitude, legislature, and what's nextIt has been a long time since I last wrote on these pages. One huge reason why was my experience this past legislative session on the issue of body cameras. I have said to many it was the most bitterest experience I had at the Minnesota Legislature in being there for four decades. As many of you know I do not get paid for the work I do at the People's House. It was time to reflect and assess, which I have done. Like a "firebird" I have raised myself from the ashes of the past legislative session. I will still be involved in the process, but with a different focus and effort<br />
<br />
What have I been up to. Here is a sample. Communication I sent to interested parties today:<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">Next Monday, August 15, 2016, Public Record Media will be holding a free workshop for the public at the Duluth Public Library, 520 West Superior St. From: 6:30pm to 8:00pm</span><br />
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
<span style="font-size: 12.8px;">This email is a follow up with more detail in which you may have an interest in to share with others or use in an announcement on Facebook or other type of media.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
This will be our third year coming to Duluth. The response from the residents of the Duluth community has been unbelievable. We have had continued interest from the community with communication from them with questions about freedom of information laws and how to use it since our first time in the Zenith City, in 2014.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
This year we are a taking a different approach to our program, not necessarily a broad program explaining what freedom of information is. But focusing on specific elements of the law with two presenters.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
JT Haines, Duluth attorney, who has worked with Public Records Media as counsel in past. He will explain important points about the use of the law to get access to public data. He has focused as part of his past duties on proposed mining operations in northern Minnesota, such as Twin Metals and NorthMet projects. He will share his experiences</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
The other presenter will be Rich Neumeister, an advocate for open government and an avid requester of public records. The presentation by Mr. Neumeister will focus on the new body camera law which was passed by the Minnesota Legislature. The law took effect on August 1, 2016. Many people believe that the use of body cameras will bring transparency and accountability to the public on the use of police powers. On the other hand, there are umpteen people who believe that the law is so geared towards law enforcement that there is in reality no clarity or onus. Are they tools of surveillance and investigation............or a gadget to monitor how police do their duties?</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
Another topic covered in the program will be about the concept of inspection when one goes to the government agency to see and review the data individuals have requested. In Minnesota law, it is very clear that people have a right to inspect data about their government or data that government has on them. But in recent years, various agencies and entities are putting roadblocks for the public to get access to government data. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
<br /></div>
Rich Neumeisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01026237058992305593noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8932231316992555697.post-88380935070905569382016-05-21T09:45:00.000-05:002016-05-21T14:50:50.862-05:00Governor Dayton, veto the body camera billLess than several weeks after the determination that Jamar Clark's death (shooting by Minneapolis officer) was justifiable by Hennepin County Attorney Freeman, the Minnesota Legislature will be passing a bill that will nearly make all body camera footage unavailable to the public without going through indomitable barriers and court.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The Conference Committee which reached agreement is being lauded by Senator Latz and Representative Cornish as a balanced bill for transparency, accountability, and as a vehicle of building public trust. What was not mentioned is the impediments that the individuals including the subjects and public will have in getting access to the footage. Also not cited are the added protections it yields to officers who may be under inquiry, likewise the secrecy of officers bad behavior which the public will never know about or see.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The calls for greater accountability and transparency. nationally and locally with the use of body cameras, is being hacked to zero by th<a href="https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?number=SF498&version=0&session=ls89&session_year=2015&session_number=0&type=ccr">e SF 498 Conference Committee report. (agreed upon bill)</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Language in the bill allows an officer to review footage which can be evidence before they do a report or make a statement. A practice that community groups and organizations from NAACP to American Civil Liberties Union oppose. Made-to-measure statements done by officers is the fear that critics have of this provision. Tainting the evidence. Officers under investigation for wrong doing would be able to review their own evidence (body camera footage) before the investigators could question them in a formal report or statement setting.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The City of Minneapolis are endowing hundreds of body cameras to their officers to build trust, accountability, and transparency. This action can show that there is nothing to hide as their officers do their duties on the public streets and be answerable. But this is for nought. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The body camera footage is the document, the 21st Century document, the public should be able to have access to the video in situations such as arrest and general use of force situations. To control body camera video with barricades of judgment and construing such words as what is "substantial bodily harm" or "common sensibilities" means the body cam footage is secret and defeats the purpose of the cameras.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There are parts of the legislation that allows for narrow public access but it is blocked with mechanisms of interpretation by the same agency that the public may have interest in to see if they are doing their job. Why it is important for clear and unfettered access for the public in specific bearings, such as officer shootings and demonstrable use of force.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The deployment and use of body cameras and what the governing rules should be are knotty and arduous. But what the Legislature will be passing is not what it should be. Without significant input from grassroots organizations, and the greased passage of bill by the Minnesota House in last 10 days ending with the Conference Committee report yesterday, the bill is the one that law enforcement wants and is chuckling behind the scenes saying......we have fooled the public on this one!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Even so, under current law police departments such as Duluth and Burnsville, as example, have implemented body camera programs and have made accountability and transparency a preference with protecting people's privacy. Minneapolis is set on doing body cameras whether or not the law changed. Instead, of rushing through this drastic and exorbitant legislative proposal, the Legislature may want to hold back, but I do not see that happening.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So, who does the responsibility sit upon, the Governor. Governor Dayton can either sign or veto the body camera bill. I urge him to veto the bill and the public should also. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As I said in a previous post:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;"><a href="http://opensecretsmn.blogspot.com/2016/05/however-its-still-secret-police-bill.html?spref=tw">"The legislation on body cameras this session should die. Efforts should be put in motion immediately to draft a change to law for the 2017 session. That legislation should deal with the actual issues in a candid, pithy, and unclosed approach."</a></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<div>
Governor Dayton can take the lead in doing this by having a task force appointed with various groups and interests represented in a fair and open matter. With this action the Governor ensures that Minnesotan's will realize what the use of body cameras will do and the power of this new technology and what robust safeguards are needed. Senate File 498 is not it, the legislation makes law enforcement who have considerable power over the lives of Minnesotan's the least accountable to the public with this new tool.</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
NOTE:</div>
<div>
These are all the posts I have done on body cameras sorted by date.</div>
<div>
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/goog_539178716"><br /></a></div>
<div>
<a href="http://opensecretsmn.blogspot.com/search?q=body+cameras&max-results=20&by-date=true">http://opensecretsmn.blogspot.com/search?q=body+cameras&max-results=20&by-date=true</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Rich Neumeisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01026237058992305593noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8932231316992555697.post-62366383702675450912016-05-07T17:24:00.002-05:002016-05-07T17:31:56.948-05:00Minnesota law enforcement neuters police oversight and accountability Minnesota law enforcement ambitious attempts to improve community trust, transparency, and accountability with use of body cameras took a turn for the worse, with law enforcement agencies and interests themselves lobbying legislators to turn the bill to make it hard to trust, less transparent, and no accountability to and for the public. (say one thing do another)<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This week the Sena<a href="https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?number=SF498&version=3&session=ls89&session_year=2015&session_number=0">te passed their body camera bill passed the bod</a>y.<a href="http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/cmte/home/?comm=89005"> In the House, there is a scheduled hearing for the House version which is similar. </a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Lobbyists and lawyers from the Minnesota Police Chiefs Association, League of Minnesota Cities, Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association, along with others from similar interests have been putting on great pressure to pass their "owned" bill on the issues that really matter. (Some funded directly or indirectly by taxpayer dollars) The legislation allows for secrecy of documented police behavior on public streets when they are on duty. Sets up barriers for subjects and the general public to gain access to body camera videos. Even the limited footage allowed to the general public allows agencies with broad discretionary power not to release. No specific consent or notice to film you and your abode when agents of government come into your home in non-emergency situations with digitally enhanced cameras, among some of the goodies law enforcement interests got.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="http://www.leg.state.mn.us/senatemedia/saudio/2015/cmte_jud_021915.MP3" style="background-color: white; color: #015782; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px; text-decoration: none;">As top cop lobbyist, Dennis Flaherty states in public testimony last year before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the use of body cameras is a "new paradigm" which can make officers "more accountable and transparent to the public we serve." but in the same testimony he states "making data public really serves no public purpose." </a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Appears that Minnesota Police Chiefs Association are on the same side with the<a href="http://www.leg.state.mn.us/senatemedia/saudio/2015/cmte_jud_021915.MP3" style="background-color: white; color: #015782; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px; text-decoration: none;"> </a>Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association.....promise transparency and accountability with use of body cameras, but then undercut with doing action and talking out of both sides of their mouths.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Nothing new. Have seen it many times. Are legislators really going to buy into these efforts by the special interests of law enforcement without knowing the full ramifications and consequences of these unique bills?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This is the first attempt in 35 years to mass a major shift of police information that have been public to become secret at the Minnesota Legislature with hardly any policymakers asking the tough questions. I asked Rep. Cornish when bill was introduced last year about if he would be open to changes. The die was already cast with him telling me whatever the cops want that is what it will be.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I was hoping for changing the culture of how law enforcement works in Minnesota with greater oversight, community trust, accountability. and transparency with body cameras. It basically is going to be used as an investigative and surveillance tool.</div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">It is important that any body camera law not be used to shield a policeman's nightstick, gun, or power to be used in secret without accountability and transparency. The body camera issue is complex and the legislation needs to be looked at in detail. This has not happened.</span></div>
Rich Neumeisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01026237058992305593noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8932231316992555697.post-53866765264877322912016-05-04T22:42:00.000-05:002016-11-02T13:15:35.016-05:00When the police enter your home with bodycamsMost of us in Minnesota have come to realize, our home, abode, 'our place' is the "very core" of the Fourth Amendment for the protection of our privacy. It's where an individuals expectation of privacy is at its highest.<br />
<br />
But this is being challenged by new technologies, such as the body camera. The body camera which is digitally enhanced, possibly high definition, with the ability of what is captured to be magnified, zoomed, looked at and reviewed over and over again. The body camera systems also have other enhanced features such as facial recognition and LIVE-stream. The video is grabbed and stored by government, in this case, law enforcement.<br />
<br />
Body cameras have the ability to diminish the domain of your guaranteed privacy without your consent, knowledge, or wherewith all. Sizes of body cameras range from the size of a fist to a large button, and technology is even making them smaller with wider angles. <br />
<br />
Law enforcement is of the view you consent to have them come into your home, whatever appendages like a body camera they have on whether you notice it or not they can record.<br />
<br />
Should law enforcement officers need your specific consent when they knock on your door in non-emergency situations, to record you and the inside your home? My answer is yes.<br />
<br />
A POLICE OFFICER CANNOT ENTER YOUR HOME WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT, UNLESS there is legal warrant or exigent circumstances exist. The law is clear that (1) they must have consent and (2) they must seek at the time they are seeking entry. There is no guessing about what or when. Should officers be able to record and tape in your home without your permission, when they are there for non-emergency services and you give them acceptance to come in your home? My answer is no. Specific consent should be needed.<br />
<br />
If one invites an officer in your home in a non-emergency call for service, law enforcement does not want the duty to ask your specific permission to videotape. That is the issue. If they must request CONSENT to enter, why are the Police Chief's and other law enforcement interests so opposed to getting CONSENT to create potentially a permanent record of your place of sanctuary????<br />
<br />
With the ease of body cameras of their size and where they can be placed and even without your knowledge, in non-emergency situations, when in your home the device is filming as a continuous "search" (protected by the Fourth Amendment) of anyone or anything that hits it's lenses. The sensitive ears on these devices also pick up the words.<br />
<br />
Again this is non-emergency calls such as about dogs barking, cars parked too long on the street, noisy neighbors, writing reports and taking statements which is the great majority of service calls to a home.<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 12.8px;"> </span></span>The police are not calling on you to see if you are drug dealer, or do money laundering, or suspect in a crime.<br />
<br />
If two officers come to your home without a warrant or not in exigent circumstances with body cameras rolling continuously their "search" is not limited to the circumstances of what brings them there.<br />
<br />
When officers are invited in the home, they do like most of us when one visits someone's house, discovers things visually. Such as the book that is on the end table or the weird piece of furniture one may have. And one may remember it.<br />
<br />
But Minnesotans don't expect law enforcement officers to look at their letter on one's desk, glimpse long into the various rooms that they may pass............But this is what body cameras literally do.<br />
<br />
A quick glance in the living room or the bedroom on the way to the kitchen may not inform much with the human eye. But the digitally enhanced, body camera, possibly high definition, with the ability of what is captured to be magnified, zoomed, looked at and reviewed over and over again can.<br />
<br />
This is the nub of the question. Should government be able to come into your home with a body cam on a non-emergency situation and videotape your words and whatever it sees which far exceeds the rationale for law enforcement being there in the first place without your specific consent to record. Can they do with a body camera running the very thing a warrant protects against - record forever the exact details of your place of abode. It is technical slight-of-hand to capture evidence.<br />
<br />
With body cameras there is intrusion in our homes that is different and unforeseen. Granted these tools can be used to help law enforcement. But should they be used in non-emergency situation in our homes without specific consent to record, without a warrant, and not in exigent circumstances.<br />
<br />
Law enforcement takes the position that all videotapes will be all private that are filmed in the home, therefore we do not need to get consent or even a strong notification which can enhance an individuals choice. I disagree with the premise just because the body cam videos are private one does not need consent specific to record in the home.<br />
<br />
We live in the 21st Century. The Fourth Amendment to have real meaning with new technologies such as body cams which is an investigative and surveillance tool needs application of its true context and spirit<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 19.84px;"> "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly ...</span><br />
<br />
Law enforcement has made it clear in the body camera debate at the Legislature, their position, is that you have NO expectation of privacy IN YOUR OWN HOME. When you invite an officer in your home in a non-emergency situation if you do not know or not notice (remember the size range from large button to fist size of body cameras) or do notice...bye-bye to your Fourth Amendment right to specifically consent to be recorded.<br />
<br />
A body camera captures more nuts and bolts (views and hears) than a human eye and ear. Captured to the cloud or server the body camera footage which the government has can be used and reviewed over and over again. <br />
<br />
The home has had a deep and protracted appreciation of <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-1147.ZC1.html">"special protection as the center of the private lives of our people."</a> The Legislature should affirm and acknowledge this and require consent specific to body camera filming in non-emergency situations. Let the Fourth Amendment be realized with this new tech tool, the body camera, draw a firm line at the entrance to the home if there is no warrant or exigent circumstances, consent should be clear cut to record the intimate specifics of an individual and contents of their home.<br />
<br />
It is the ordinary citizen who will be fooled by the officer’s friendly demeanor and failure to notify or to request consent to filming. Those in the know, such as lawyers, will condition their consent to an entry on such things as turning the body cam video off, staying in one room, and leaving upon demand. All legal restrictions that most Minnesotans will not think of.<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #545454; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: x-small; line-height: 18.2px;">.Updated May 5, 2016</span>Rich Neumeisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01026237058992305593noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8932231316992555697.post-23160678212544510212016-05-03T10:08:00.000-05:002016-05-03T10:20:49.431-05:00Senator Latz, tell the whole story<div style="background-color: white;">
There is no question the issue of body cameras is an intricate and complex one. Secondly, as someone who has been at the Legislature lobbying for four decades I am very much aware of behavior of this institution and the elected officials who make it their workplace.</div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
When there is a convoluted issue which SF 498 presents to policymakers, for many they may chose to ignore the bill or take partial interest, but for sure they rely on a Senator or two to understand and to explain the bill. With body cameras, work has been done on this issue by Senator Ron Latz. </div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
A Chief Author of a bill in my judgement there is a special responsibility to be clear and concise what their bill 'truly does'. In the case of SF 498, Senator Latz did not do this.</div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
As someone who has been involved in the body camera issue since the fall of 2014 I am very much aware by current law a fair amount of video from body cameras are not available to the public and will never be.</div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<a href="http://mnsenate.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=551">As a leader of the effort, Senator Latz on the floor yesterday was not as candid as he could have been. One of the first statement's, the Senator said, "All of the data collected by the devices is public, anyone can access the footage" This is not true.</a></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
Under current law, video dealing with sexual assault, child abuse, vulnerable adults are among other classifications that video would never be released to the general public. Secondly, law enforcement has vast discretionary authority to not release the data in many situation and be available to the public. <a href="http://www.ipad.state.mn.us/docs/bodycamdata.pdf" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">This is a guide issued by the Department of Administration which states the current law.</a> Matter of fact the City of Burnsville have had body cameras for six years, Duluth has had them for two years, both under current</div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
Senator Latz throughout his advocacy of the bill has used the argument "all data" will become public if the Legislature does not act. I confronted him about his statements off the floor last year and stated it was misleading. In public testimony it was clearly stated by representatives of <a href="http://www.mncogi.org/">Minnesota Coalition on Government Information</a> that current law makes private many of the situations used and described as examples. He continued to even ignore that.</div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
Again, when he stated it yesterday "All of the data collected by the devices is public," I was stunned.</div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
The Senator is entitled to do what ever he wants to do, but when the person is not forthright on a dominant rationale for the bill, sunshine needs to be brought to it.</div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
I disagree with the Senator that the bill is balanced. And discussion can be done on it's merits, but do not obfuscate and instill fear with not being accurate and on the level.</div>
Rich Neumeisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01026237058992305593noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8932231316992555697.post-9376359585635134212016-05-01T17:26:00.000-05:002016-05-01T17:27:12.376-05:00However, it's still a secret police bill (body cameras)When I read the Latz/Cornish (<a href="https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?number=SF0498&session=ls89&session_year=2016&session_number=0&version=latest">SF498</a>/HF430) body camera legislation for the first
time, two points came to mind, it was written by police interests for
the police and it was barren of any accountability/transparency
mechanisms for the public. In other words, a secret police bill.<br />
<br />
I
called it a terrible piece of legislation to both legislators when I
saw them to discuss their proposal. One legislator was very direct to
me whatever the cops want that is what it will be. To the Senator I
said it was important for three things for the bill: (1) ability for
people to know when they are being filmed, and using a mechanism such as
consent or a strong notice provision (particularly when in home); (2)
videos from body cameras filmed in public should remain public with
current privacy protections in law; and (3) to address the fast paced
technology of body cameras such as facial recognition, live stream, and
the video becoming the "document of record."<br />
<br />
There
were some revisions on the Senate side, but still tilts towards
secrecy. Currently, the Senate bill does not allow the public general
access to any body camera video other than when a dangerous weapon is
used, or use of physical coercion that causes substantial bodily harm,
and it's in a public place. In other words, almost all body camera
video will never be accessible to the public.<br />
<br />
Nevertheless,
even with modifications the bill is still dangerous. The main problem
it had, it still has. It maintains to deserve the tag what I said in the first paragraph, it's a secret police bill.<br />
<br />
The
legislation places overwhelming power with law enforcement agencies. It
allows them to interpret language and be discretionary which makes it
hard for the public to get access to body camera videos even in what the
current Senate bill proposes. Even places barriers for the subject of
the video to get access. The bill gives the impression that there is
transparency to make police accountable with use of body cameras, but it
provides little.<br />
<br />
The bill sets out guidelines for the
benefit of the law enforcement agency, not for the purpose of why body
cameras are being adopted in the first place:. As Mayor Hodges so
clearly stated about body cameras they "bring increased accountability
and transparency for both the police officers and for the public." The
bill builds it's wall to help the police agency, but not necessarily
the public.<br />
<br />
The proposal is is below par and awkwardly
written. It is confounding and and allows interpretations from
the agency view to make it defective even for the limited release of
body camera videos which the bill proposes It suppresses access to
public data.<br />
<br />
The bill clearly states, for example, the
video would be released to the public if there was physical coercion
when there is substantial bodily harm and if in public, but at the same
time an agency could say it does not meet their definition of what
"substantial bodily harm" is therefore the video is not released. So
where does that leave the public and the promise of transparency and
accountability.<br />
<br />
The law enforcement agency can do almost whatever it wants to do with the body camera video collected and stored.<br />
<br />
For
example, when an officer enters your home with a body camera it
collects and gathers a great amount of "government data". What
magazines you read which are on your table, the way you live, the food
you may eat which is on the kitchen counter, are among the details it
captures. The role of the body camera is to file and save for another
time. Not to rely on the human eye and memory, but to rewind and
enhance the digital film to really see what is going on in your home.
All done without your specific consent to film or possible knowledge of
the camera.<br />
<br />
An officer told me off-the record how law
enforcement agencies are looking forward to the treasure trove of videos
they will get for intelligence purposes and parallel investigations.<br />
<br />
There
is no requirement in the bill for a specific consent provision or
notification for body cameras filming in your home when there is not a
warrant or emergency situation.<br />
<br />
In another section of
the Senate bill, it provides that body camera video in an inactive
criminal investigation are to be private. In other words, for example,
video that documents arrests, incidents that involve use of hold
restraints and use of Tasers, even evidence used such as statements by
witnesses will not be available to the public. It appears also body
camera video used in evidence in court where there is a conviction would
not be available to the public.<br />
<br />
The likely and probable abuse of police power hidden from the public is real. And daunting.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.kare11.com/news/investigations/kare-11-investigates-the-get-out-of-jail-free-card/61519057">A recent KARE 11 report highlights what law enforcement officers can do and if it was on body camera video the public or news media would never know with the Senate bill or Cornish's. Two officers found an individual in a car appeared to be under the influence. </a>They found out he was a cop. Rather than cite or arrest him he got the treatment of “Professional Courtesy.” An attitude given to other officers who find themselves in precarious situations as this officer was. Per the KARE 11 report: "He was not taken into custody. No mugshots were taken. His car was not
towed. Instead, the Blaine officers helped him arrange a ride home."<br />
<br />
The "average Joe" would not get this kind of treatment, but maybe the Mayor, a police chief, local politician may, but we would never know if body cam videos are private and secret.<br />
<br />
The bills will close down the ability for the public to oversee if law enforcement are doing their duties in a professional and constitutional manner. If the public was interested to see if a law enforcement agency or it officers has or is doing racially biased policing (such as the Metro Gang Strike Force) you are out of luck. No public access.<br />
<br />
It precludes and bars access to most of the body camera video that documents the most routine of police actions such as arrest, stop and frisk, searches, and stopping of motor vehicles. One would not be able to see if the pursuit was justified or if the use of force was necessary based on the resistance by an individual. No public access.<br />
<br />
Basically, all video in the public venue such as an arrest would be private and not available to the public. How police operate on behalf of the public with the power they have should be able to be scrutinized for accountability. The Latz/Cornish bills do not allow that.<br />
<br />
The Senate bill strengthens law enforcement officials to refuse copies of the video even to those who have a right to it: the subjects. Because of confused draw up of the bill a subject of the video could be denied a full documented copy of the video because of other subjects right to consent before release. If no consent from other subjects, that part of the video is redacted, even the police officer who actions are part of the video tape, it appears if there is no consent.<br />
<br />
The Latz/Cornish bills are skewed towards law enforcement interests not the public interest. The bill seems to say government of law enforcement, by law enforcement, and for law enforcement. The bill makes the public and media go through hoops and court to get the most basic of video to oversee agencies that have great power to arrest, detain, and compromise individual liberties and rights.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.leg.state.mn.us/senatemedia/saudio/2015/cmte_jud_021915.MP3">As top cop lobbyist, Dennis Flaherty states in public testimony last year before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the use of body cameras is a "new paradigm" which can make officers "more accountable and transparent to the public we serve." but in the same testimony he states "making data public really serves no public purpose." </a><br />
<br />
Law enforcement need privacy for delicate matters. There is no question in that. Current law recognizes that with a number of classifications already for victims and other situations. The law allows law enforcement a fair amount of discretion already.<br />
<br />
But the Latz/Cornish bill is not the approach and policy to take. It is not an appropriate start for legislation on an issue as complex and intricate on the use of body cameras by Minnesota law enforcement. And which has a profound impact on our rights of liberty and privacy. The elemental philosophy underlying the bill is perilous and alarming. And with three weeks left in session, the legislation cannot be fixed.<br />
<br />
The legislation on body cameras this session should die. Efforts should be put in motion immediately to draft a change to law for the 2017 session. That legislation should deal with the actual issues in a candid, pithy, and unclosed approach.<br />
<br />
The data
that law enforcement agencies are concerned about can and will be
protected under current law til January. As evident by the City of Burnsville who have had body cameras for nearly six years. Secondly,<a href="http://www.ipad.state.mn.us/docs/bodycamdata.pdf"> with recent guidance on body cameras by the Information Policy Analysis Division in regards to the Data Practices Act law enforcement have a lot of tools in their toolkit to keep data from public and the media if they so desire.</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Rich Neumeisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01026237058992305593noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8932231316992555697.post-15253178956514043202016-03-20T18:24:00.000-05:002016-03-20T18:24:06.109-05:00Hennepin County Sheriff watching us from afar with drones?It was not the public that got the first chance to see a drone being flown under the auspices of the Hennepin County Sheriff last Thursday. (March 17, 2016) But a number of specially invited people including policymakers. A legislator confirmed being invited, but did not attend because "too busy" at the Capitol.<br />
<br />
The acquisition of a drone by the state's largest populated county raises issues that the public has a right to weigh in on. For example, the broad expansion of surveillance of individuals that greatly increases what <a href="http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-04/20-plain-view.html">"plain view"</a> and public visibility means. <br />
<div class="bodytext">
<br />
Does the Sheriff' have rules and policies for his own, leased or possible drones? If Hennepin County Sheriff has policies are they like swiss-cheese with holes that allows for exploitation of these unmanned aerial vehicles with our privacy rights and civil liberties? Did the Sheriff get the drones with own appropriated dollars
from the County specifically approved by elected Commissioner's?
Homeland Security grant? Or a deal with a vendor for free or low cost?<br />
<br />
With no state law on the books yet for drones, will the Sheriff and supposedly
other law enforcement agencies who may have them in Minnesota get search warrants? What is the role of Federal Aviation
Administration regulations and authorization which were just recently
released? <br />
<br />
Under leadership of Sheriff Stanek, <a href="https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/bca/Pages/default.aspx">(also BCA)</a> there has been past purchases of sophisticated <a href="http://www.startribune.com/this-time-stanek-lands-kingfish-phone-tracker/88977177/">technology such as the KingFish (cell-phone surveillance device)</a> which can and has compromised individual privacy rights. <a href="https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/?id=278&year=2014&type=0">One reason for law change by the Minnesota Legislature in 2014.</a><br />
<br />
Special invitees got notice about Sheriff Stanek's new tech toy, but no member of the media or public. It was clearly emphasized by the Sheriff, no media or public were to be allowed This is not unusual behavior of law enforcement. I know because of decades of experience in trying to get data from law enforcement to bring sunshine to their activities. <a href="http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/minnesota-bca-gets-f-chicanery-stingray/"> My most recent long fight was with the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension on the Stingray. </a> If law enforcement does not have to tell the public on these kind of matters, they won't.<br />
<br />
The behavior of the Hennepin County Sheriff on this issue and other government entities who may be doing the same, absolutely, sending a message to the public, you have no right to know!</div>
Rich Neumeisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01026237058992305593noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8932231316992555697.post-37937921326099933102016-03-06T07:32:00.000-06:002016-03-06T07:32:21.761-06:00Preparing for FOIA birthdayToday I will be interviewed to give my viewpoint about "Freedom of Information." (FOIA) The interview is part of a film that is being done in celebration of the Federal Freedom of Information law which will celebrate it's 50th birthday on July 4, 2016.<br />
<br />
President Lyndon Baines Johnson signed the bill with some reservations. He made that clear in a formal message attached to the bill:<br />
<br />
"This bill in no way impairs the President's power under our Constitution to provide the confidentiality when the national interest so requires. There are some who have expressed concerns that the language of this bill will be construed in such a way as to impair Government operations. I do not share that concern.<br />
<br />
I agree with LBJ, FOIA has been an important tool to keep government accountable and scrutinized without damage. The government is still here.<br />
<br />
<img alt="President Lyndon B. Johnson is pictured. | AP Photo" height="216" src="http://images.politico.com/global/2012/07/120703_lbj_signsbill_ap_328_605.jpg" title="President Lyndon B. Johnson is pictured. | AP Photo" width="400" /><br />
<br />
1966: President Lyndon B. Johnson signs into law the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). <br />
AP Photo Rich Neumeisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01026237058992305593noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8932231316992555697.post-52870973490048300482016-03-05T18:34:00.001-06:002016-03-05T19:32:12.333-06:00What's Minneapolis position on the body cam bills at Legislature?<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
Minneapolis is a key player with their influence at the Legislature. Where they stand on the various bills going through the Legislature - for strong transparency and accountability for the public or very limited transparency and accountability for the public. Are the elected officials speaking or the law enforcement officials of Minneapolis?<br />
<br />
I sent this email to City Council members. I was only able to find four email addresses out of the 13 Council members.<br />
<br />
"My name is Rich Neumeister. I 've
been in the forefront of many privacy and open government issues for
nearly 4 decades at the Minnesota Legislature. I am a citizen who
lobbies for no money. My public record what I have done speaks for
itself.<br />
<br />
I want to encourage you to take interest on what is
happening at the Legislature on the issue of body cameras. Being the
state's largest City you will have the most body cameras appendaged to
officers gathering "government data" (videos). Many policymakers in
your City have stated that you are interested to develop trust with
communities in Minneapolis with the police department in using the
powerful tool of body cameras.<br />
<br />
Even Mayor Hodges stated: "I am proud to support body cameras for all
officers: they are an essential tool for holding officers accountable
for their behavior, making corrections when necessary, and building
community trust, for police officers have the potential to increase
public trust in law enforcement, reduce the risk that citizens will not
be victims of excessive force and protect officers from unfounded
accusations of abuse."</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<br />
But these goals - which the Mayor has announced and which many in law
enforcement and in the political arena support - are being squelched by
special interests or even by the same parties who say they support
"transparency and accountability" at the Minnesota Legislature.<br />
<br />
There
are three bills on the issue that 3 legislators Rep. Scott, Rep.
Cornish, and Senator Latz are involved with. Good article in the Pioneer
Press today, on those bills and related issues. <a href="http://www.twincities.com/2016/03/04/why-cant-these-3-police-body-camera-bills-find-any-common-ground/" target="_blank">http://www.twincities.com/<wbr></wbr>2016/03/04/why-cant-these-3-<wbr></wbr>police-body-camera-bills-find-<wbr></wbr>any-common-ground/</a><br />
<br />
So
what is Minneapolis's position on these bills? Specifics? The
Latz/Cornish bills downgrade accountability and transparency. As top
cop lobbyist, Mr. Flaherty states in public testimony last year before
the Senate Judiciary Committee, the use of body cameras is a "new
paradigm" which can make officers "more accountable and transparent to
the public we serve." but in the same testimony he states "making data
public really serves no public purpose." He and his organization,
Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association, support the
Latz/Cornish versions of the body camera bill with very little
transparency which then allows "hollow" public accountability. The
Minnesota Police Chiefs Association is basically of same persuasion.<br />
<br />
I encourage you as policymakers to speak out on what the City's position through your lobbyists on this important issue.<br />
<br />
It is my intent to make sure that if body cameras are to be used by
Minnesota law enforcement, they are not a front for accountability which
would create more distrust, and continue the legacy of decades of
"tension and hostility" in the communities where law enforcement
officers serve. I hearten you to do the same. There are grievances because of abrasive/abusive
practices and behavior, "further aggravated by the lack of effective
mechanism" to deal with complaints against law enforcement. Body
cameras are being proposed to be an effective mechanism for oversight.<br />
<br />
But oversight will be hollow and vacant if the laws that regulate the
power of this law enforcement tool do not provide real transparency.<br />
<br />
I
also support a consent provision which allows people to say no in being
filmed in their home, which is the very core of the Fourth Amendments
protections in non-emergency situations<br />
<br />
Any questions, contact me."</div>
</div>
<br />
Rich Neumeister <br />
<br />
<div class="yj6qo ajU">
<div class="ajR" data-tooltip="Show trimmed content" id=":13d" role="button" tabindex="0">
<img class="ajT" src="https://ssl.gstatic.com/ui/v1/icons/mail/images/cleardot.gif" /></div>
</div>
Rich Neumeisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01026237058992305593noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8932231316992555697.post-77745644089272611442015-12-03T21:10:00.000-06:002015-12-04T05:57:36.736-06:00"People" need to show at Legislature on body camerasBeing a member of the public influencing legislation at Minnesota Legislature, one truism stands out: LAWS ARE MADE BY THOSE WHO SHOW UP!<br />
<br />
When it comes to body camera use by Minnesota law enforcement, it's judicious to have agile and sharp legislation in how the cameras and the recording are used. Questions of many for ourselves to ask can be ones like these: Can I say no to an officer filming me in the privacy of my home? Can the public review the the tapes to see if their is a pattern of racial bias and profiling? Who gets to see the videos and under what situations? How will they achieve accountability/transparency or is it just another cop tool to be used against the public in secret?<br />
<br />
Over the past year since legislation has been introduced on body cameras, <a href="https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?number=SF498&version=1&session=ls89&session_year=2015&session_number=0">SF 498</a> (Senator Ron Latz) and the companion bill <a href="https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?number=HF430&version=0&session=ls89&session_year=2015&session_number=0">HF 430 </a>(Representative Cornish) there's been several public legislative hearings on the bills. All were in the Senate. The House decided not to hold a hearing on HF 430.<br />
<br />
Who appeared at the hearings to testify on the body camera bills were the<a href="http://www.mnchiefs.org/"> Minnesota Chiefs Police Association, </a><a href="http://www.mppoa.com/home.php">Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association</a>,<a href="http://mna.org/"> Minnesota Newspaper Association</a>, <a href="http://www.mncogi.org/">Minnesota Coalition on Government Information </a>and the<a href="http://www.aclu-mn.org/"> American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota.</a> There were other interested parties on the edges such as the<a href="http://www.lmc.org/"> League of Minnesota Cities</a> and the <a href="https://netforum.avectra.com/eWeb/StartPage.aspx?Site=MSA&WebCode=HomePage">Minnesota Sheriffs Association.</a><br />
<br />
These are all established and traditional groups with salaried lobbyists except for one. Several are pushing for secrecy, less access to the public to body camera videos, and body cameras to be used as a surveillance and investigative tool. Others are pushing the use of these tools for accountability and transparency. Some are mixed. But my point being is that there is really no grassroots community organizations "at the table" who represent people in a unique way "in the community." sharing their viewpoint on body cameras last session.<br />
<br />
There is quite a difference of opinion between a representative of law enforcement who compares a can of mace and a body camera as being the same (law enforcement tool) and lobbies for secrecy of body camera videos, with the person or community who sees police behavior that is abrasive and abusive or sees and experiences racial bias and profiling.<br />
<br />
If the general public and communities viewpoints are not heard, are they being represented by the groups above, maybe yes, maybe no. But my educated guess on the whole they are not..... <br />
<br />
Going back to my first point, "LAWS ARE MADE BY THOSE WHO SHOW UP"<br />
<br />
Who shows up to the hearings to testify and to meet the policymakers to share viewpoints determines what the law will be. <br />
<br />
So what can you, community/grassroots groups, and individuals, do in the near future.<br />
<br />
(1) Attend the first of many legislative committee hearings on the body camera issue. Testify yourself or have your group do it. The first one hearing (TENTATIVELY scheduled) will be on Wednesday, December 16, 2015 in Room 200 of the State Office Building. Tentatively for the morning. To confirm the date and time contact Senator Latz's office at 651-296-8065, or Representative Cornish's office at 296-4240. The hearing has not been listed, but one can go to this link to find out, formally when it is. <a href="http://www.senate.mn/schedule/schedule.php?ls=&type=upcoming&date=12/03/2015"> http://www.senate.mn/schedule/schedule.php?ls=&type=upcoming&date=12/03/2015 </a> Change of plans do happen. Plans are for a joint committee hearing of two House Committees (Public Safety and Civil) and Senate Judiciary.<br />
<br />
(2) Bone up on the topic of body cameras. To help understand what is happening in Minnesota on issues of body cameras, a good start would be to the <a href="http://The Legislative Commission on Data Practices and Personal Data Privacy"><span class="st">The <i>Legislative Commission on Data Practices</i> and Personal Data Privacy.</span></a> The Commission decided to have an opportunity for parties to make comment and who provided material. The material and the audio of the meeting are here: <a href="http://www.lcc.leg.mn/lcdp/meetings.html">http://www.lcc.leg.mn/lcdp/meetings.html (December 1, 2015 meeting).</a><br />
<br />
(3) Follow through on the issue of body cameras when the Legislature convenes in March, but most important start meeting with policymakers and like minded individuals/groups to help shape the legislation.<br />
<br />
There are parties demanding the release of any video of Jamar Clark's shooting death be public. If such a tragedy happened like that again or other kinds of abusive and abrasive behavior by law enforcement, in the future, there could be law saying the body camera video is secret to the public. <br />
<br />
Other bad behavior by officers also would be under wraps by the legislation without the public having the opportunity to see.<br />
<br />
A quote from Justice Arthur Goldberg states: "If law is not made more than a policeman's nightstick, American society will be destroyed."<br />
<br />
It is important that any body camera law not be used to shield a policeman's nightstick, gun, or power to be used in secret without accountability and transparency. The body camera issue is complex and the legislation needs to be looked at in detail.<br />
<br />
I have written several posts on body camera issues and concerns. These are linked here :<br />
<br />
<a href="http://opensecretsmn.blogspot.com/search?q=body+cameras">http://opensecretsmn.blogspot.com/search?q=body+cameras </a><br />
<br />Rich Neumeisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01026237058992305593noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8932231316992555697.post-71109156578693886982015-11-30T19:25:00.001-06:002016-02-03T20:19:27.374-06:00The promise of body cameras?There is a history of a dual standard of law enforcement using abrasive/abusive police practices in our country and communities. There has been report after report detailing the long history of police prejudice and bad behavior. Social research in the field has substantiated this behavior for decades. So what are law makers doing about it?<br />
<br />
Out of the blue has come an idea which is advancing across the country: body cameras.<br />
<br />
The idea is being pushed by law enforcement as a concept to bring accountability. But they also want to use it primarily as an investigative tool.<br />
<br />
Many
of the proponents echo what Mayor Hodges has stated in her public
comments. Hodges has said: "I am proud to support body cameras for all
officers: they are an essential tool for holding officers accountable
for their behavior, making corrections when necessary, and building
community trust, for police officers have the potential to increase
public trust in law enforcement, reduce the risk that citizens will not
be victims of excessive force and protect officers from unfounded
accusations of abuse."<br />
<br />
The mayor also stated that body cameras: "bring increased accountability and transparency for both the police officers and for the public."<br />
<br />
But these goals - which the Mayor has announced and which many in law enforcement and in the political arena support - are being squelched by special interests or even by the same parties who say they support "transparency and accountability" at the Minnesota Legislature.The Senate proposal - which made its way to the floor as an amendment to the license plate reader bill and passed the Senate - is one which in broad terms does not allow public access to body camera videos. The legislation takes the current presumption of public access to police body came video and turns it upside down. One criticism of the approach that the Minnesota Senate took is that there was not a collegial group discussion in the committee process about what privacy protections are already in current law.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?number=SF0498&session=ls89&version=latest&session_number=0&session_year=2015">Senate File 498 (the Senate body cam bill)</a>, says that data are
not available to the public except in very limited situations. I take
the position that in some cases the data will be secret. Privacy in
some scenarios is another word for secrecy. Videos collected by police
would not be available to the public except in very limited situations.
For example, ta<a href="http://www.startribune.com/minneapolis-officer-shoots-wounds-person-after-altercation/349782511/">ke the recent incident of Jamar Clark's shooting</a>. The
standard in the current bill is if the incident involved a dangerous weapon,
which was the case, and took place in a public place, which it did, the
data would be public......but if the incident happened in a house, it
would not be available to the public.<br />
<br />
If body cameras are to be a tool to persuade the public that law
enforcement can be trusted, accountable, and transparent, the Senate
approach is the inappropriate way. To make sure that law enforcement officers and police administrators are doing their job appropriately, public data is needed. Proponents of the Senate bill say one just has to get consent of the individual to get access to the video. Many people are not going to give consent for a number of reasons. The court process laid out to gain access in the bill is just as high as the "blue wall" which many in the public perceive and believe there is.<br />
<br />
There is power with the use of the body camera,. Who has that power - the guidelines and rules - is what the legislation is all about.<br />
<br />
Many actions of law enforcement would be secret under the Senate proposal. For example, arrests, use of force, detainment, stop and frisk, and testimony. In those cases, body cameras would become worthless tools for public accountability.<br />
<br />
When the<a href="http://abc7.com/news/police-officer-pulls-off-ledge-to-safety-in-body-cam-video/1013120/"> Duluth Police Department released body camera video of how a law enforcement officer saved an individual from suicide, </a>I had this thought :if the Senate bill was law, there would be many videos released showing officers doing their duties well, but many others would be kept in the dark, when an officer's duties fall short.<br />
<br />
There are issues to consider about public disclosure of body camera videos, but it is important to take the current law in consideration. Many private situations are already addressed. Specific concerns can be addressed, but the Senate bill did not take the made-to-measure approach. This is one significant reason among several why it is opposed by several organizations and advocates for transparency/accountability such as the The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, the <span class="st"> Minnesota Coalition on Government Information, and the Minnesota Newspaper Association.</span><br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2015/04/how-politics-data-privacy-defy-party-labels-minnesota"><span class="st">The Minnesota House did not move on a bill this past session.</span></a><span class="st"><i></i></span><br />
<br />
Significant large issues need legislative addressing and discussion:<br />
<br />
- Fourth Amendment/First Amendment issues. (consent in home/surveillance)<br />
<br />
- Role of contractors and vendors.<br />
<br />
- Advancement and changing of technology with body cameras. ( such as live stream, facial recognition, miniaturization) <span class="J-JK9eJ-PJVNOc" data-g-spell-status="2" id=":wu.3" role="menuitem" style="background: yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%;" tabindex="-1"></span><br />
<br />
- Use of body camera video for secondary purposes by law enforcement. <br />
<br />
- Enforcement and compliance of policies. ( such as same standards across he state or different for each agency)<br />
<br />
- Retention. (how long should video be kept, ie)<br />
<br />
- When body cameras are on and off.<br />
<br />
The list is not final, and issues will arise as discussion, information, and knowledge is gained by the public and policymakers.<br />
<br />
It is my intent to make sure that if body cameras are to be used by Minnesota law enforcement, they are not a front for accountability which would create more distrust, and continue the legacy of decades of "tension and hostility" in the communities where law enforcement officers serve. There are grievances because of abrasive/abusive practices and behavior, "further aggravated by the lack of effective mechanism" to deal with complaints against law enforcement. Body cameras are being proposed to be an effective mechanism for oversight.<br />
<br />
But oversight will be hollow and vacant if the laws that regulate the power of this law enforcement tool do not provide real transparency.<br />
<br />
Update: February 3, 2016<br />
<br />
Since this post has been published an alternative bill (Rep. Peggy Scott) on body cameras has been a subject of a Joint-Committee hearing among the others. The draft bill is listed among the Senate version and current House bill.<br />
<br />
<h3 style="color: #666633;">
<a href="http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/cmte/Home/?comm=89005" style="color: #666633;">Civil Law and Data Practices
</a><br />House Civil Law and Data Practices, House Public Safety and Crime Prevention and Senate Judiciary Joint Hearing </h3>
<b>Room: </b>Room 200 State Office Building <br /><b>Chair: </b>Rep. Peggy Scott, Rep. Tony Cornish and Sen. Ron Latz <br /><h3>
Agenda:</h3>
<div class="showbills" id="div_20482_89005_added_1_2015" style="display: inline;">
<table class="cal_bills"><colgroup><col style="width: 95px;"></col><col style="width: 15%;"></col><col style="width: 70%;"></col></colgroup><tbody>
<tr><td><a href="http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/bills/billnum.asp?Billnumber=HF430&ls_year=89&session_year=2015&session_number=0">HF430</a><img alt="Info" class="downarrow" src="http://www.leg.state.mn.us/graphics/arrowdown.gif" /></td><td>Cornish</td><td>Portable recording system provisions added, and audio and video data captured by a law enforcement officer classified.</td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="3"><br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
Informational hearing on policy related to police-worn body cameras<br /><br />
<a href="http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/bills/billnum.asp?Billnumber=HF430&ls_year=89&session_year=2015&session_number=0" title="Information for HF430">HF430</a>
<br />
<a href="http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/bills/billnum.asp?Billnumber=SF498&ls_year=89&session_year=2015&session_number=0" title="Information for SF498">SF498</a>
<br />MG 108 (attached)<br /><br /><b>Committee Documents: </b><br /><a href="http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/comm/docs/5b8270ea-96ed-4692-80f4-45d305dd01a4.pdf">ScottBodyCameraBill.pdf</a><br />
<br />Rich Neumeisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01026237058992305593noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8932231316992555697.post-14775959303834455362015-11-17T20:34:00.001-06:002015-11-17T20:34:48.644-06:00Who has power with body cameras, the cops or you?The Minnesota Legislature is being pushed hard by law enforcement interests to make much body camera video unavailable to the public The Senate has already passed a bill making secret a fair amount of body camera video. Law enforcement is pushing hard for secrecy because they want to keep from the public the ability to monitor police prejudice, abusive/abrasive behavior and practices, and the dual standard of law enforcement that is in our community. Bottom line, law enforcement does not want the public to have the power to do the oversight of accountability of law enforcement with the new tool of body cameras.<br />
<br />
There is power with the use of body cameras, in viewing hours of body camera videos, I see how it can be used by the public to truly use as a tool to have appropriate control over conduct by police, to help eliminate of abusive and abrasive practices by cops, and to counteract the dual standard of law enforcement in our community which has permeated for years. The videos I watched would all become secret if the Senate's version of the body camera bill becomes law.<br />
<br />
A representative of law enforcement recently compared body cameras to cans of mace - making the point that they are both tools for police. The body camera is not just any tool, however. It may be a tool for law enforcement, but it is also a tool for public accountability - but only if the data is available to the public.<br />
<br />
There is power with the use of body cameras, who has that power and the rules of it is going to be front and center next legislative session. Right now law enforcement may have an edge to have less public accountability, less transparency, and have the power with the use of body cameras, unless the public gets involved. <br />
<br />
Personal note:<br />
If anyone is interested to have me speak to a group, organization, or anyone on the issue of body cameras contact me: ranneu12@yahoo.com or follow me with a message on Twitter @richneumeister<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Rich Neumeisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01026237058992305593noreply@blogger.com0