Governor Dayton, Secret Agent Man

When I saw a tweet two days ago by Tom Scheck of Minnesota Public Radio stating that Governor Mark Dayton was going on a no name mission out of state on Wednesday, I tweeted this:

"On a secret trip, to a secret destination, to meet with a secret company, to offer secret $$$ goodies? #secrecy"

This morning when I got up to read the PRINT papers I saw huge letters on the the Star Tribune B section which said:

 "Secrecy is Job 1 on this jobs trip"

I thought of the mid 60's theme song of Secret Agent Man as I read the story.  Now Governor Dayton is no John Drake, the character played by Patrick McGoohan.  But Governor Dayton likes to play with the secrecy cloak when it comes to economic development.

I do not know how often Governor Dayton and public officials make announced and unannounced trips these days.  But the reason why this is of interest is because of the shenanigans of secrecy that went on with the Baxter deal, basically, a big time public subsidy for Baxter International to expand here in Minnesota.  As the public knows there were sworn oaths and written declarations of secrecy on that deal.  It was like a bunch of kids taken blood oaths and cross their hearts motions not to say anything. Even as the piece of legislation was being talked about at a public hearing on the subsidy proposal many legislators did not know it was for Baxter International.
 
Governor Dayton worked in tandem with Governor Perpich on a number of economic development proposals.  But with many of those proposals there was a penchant for secrecy, more secrecy then what was necessary. The one big proposal that I still remember and Governor Dayton still does because he was the point person for it was the competition for the first Saturn car plant in the United States in the mid 1980's.  The State of Minnesota was hot in the competition.

It was the subsidy package of all subsidy packages.  The package if I remember right included possible land, property tax abatement, grants and loans, fast track process to get through the local and state processes, basically promising public heaven and earth.  But it was all kept secret by Commissioner Dayton at the time.

Eventually, the proposal became public because there was an outcry by the public.  There were also other factors such as the Department of Administration saying basically you cannot keep all the data in the Saturn proposal secret.

Governor Dayton taking up flight and bringing secrecy into his comings and goings like yesterday,  has brought the possible spin of a cloak-and-dagger farce as it did with the Baxter situation.  As Bob Hume said in the Star Tribune story, there were three options.  They chose to release limited information.  Mr Hume, director of Q Branch, did not suggest for the Governor to go the route of baseball cap, dark sunglasses, and fake beard. 

With the Governor mentioning on Tuesday he was going on a no name mission for a purpose, there was some hint of the cloak of secrecy being lifted, but not enough.

Governor Dayton is a good man as many of the people who have served as our Governor have been.  Generally, people who have served as Governor see a whole wide world of possibilities and want to bring some of that to Minnesota.  Many of the Governors I have known and observed have known how a piece of the world can fit in with piece's of our state.  But does it have to be done in secret? No.  There can be more sunshine.

Sorry, just cannot get that song out my head:

"Secret agent man, secret agent man
They've given you a number and taken away your name......................

Does the FBI want your Minnesota DL or ID picture?

I have been reading about efforts of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) to find out about the FBI's initiative to have agreements and understandings with states to where states share photographs from their own photo databases.  You know that photo that was taken when you got your Minnesota drivers license or when you applied for your Minnesota ID, well it's digitally ready for facial recognition.  And the FBI wants it for their Next Generation Identification (NGI) Facial Recognition Program, without your consent.

EFF has gotten through public record requests and the Courts information about NGI and it efforts across the county.  Two such documents that EFF have received are memorandums of agreement with the states of Hawaii and Maryland with the FBI being their partner.

FOX9 did a story or two how the Minnesota Department of Public Safety (DPS) is using facial recognition to catch fraud with drivers license.  DPS got millions of Federal dollars to make all of our photos in their DL databases "facially recognizable" ready.

Well I wanted to find out if the Minnesota Department of Public Safety is in discussion with or making contact with the FBI on the Next Generation Identification and want to vacuum all our "photos".  So I did a data practices request and this is their response:

July 5, 2013

Rich Neumeister

RE: Data Practices Request in regards to sharing Minnesota DL/ID photos with the
FBI

Dear Mr. Neumeister:

Thank you for your data request regarding the above referenced matter. In it you
request all government data that the Department of Public Safety may have with
the Federal Bureau of Investigation in doing a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) with the FBI in sharing and giving access to Minnesota driver's license and ID
photos.
I have spoken with representatives of the Driver and Vehicle Services Division and
the Department does not have any such Memorandum of Understanding.
Consequently, there is no data responsive to your request. Again, thank you for
your email, and should you care to discuss it further, please contact me.

Sincerely,

E. Joseph Newton

General Counsel

Restore the 4th Amendment (In Minnesota)

It was great to see thousands, if not tens of thousands of Americans rally across the USA in support of the 4th Amendment which many Americans consider a most precious of the Bill of Rights.  There were a number of Minnesotans who rallied at the Hennepin County Building Plaza yesterday. The emphasis of the rallies where to wake up Americans of the need to watch government and its doings in the collection of millions, if not billions of bytes of our personal data and to set high standards when the US Government wants our personal data.

But it is also important to "restore the 4th Amendment" on the local and state level, specifically here in Minnesota.

Many people may not know this, but we have a 4th Amendment equivalent which is in the Minnesota State Constitution. In our state Bill of Rights, it is Section 10.  The 4th Amendment of the US Constitution has been interpreted by the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in a number of ways which has set out limits as to what privacy means.  But our State Constitution can be interpreted to give us Minnesotans more rights and protections than what the Federal Constitution does.  For example:

You may have heard about roadblocks being set up with the yellow horse saws with local police stopping every car and asking to see an ID, possibly registration, but also at the same time seeing if there may be any indications that may lead them to suspect you for something.  Many times in other parts of the country roadblocks have been set up to check for impairment in driving (drunk driving), check for registration, among other reasons.  The United Supreme Court in a case said that roadblocks are constitutional per their view of the 4th Amendment for purposes of sobriety checks.

But our Minnesota Supreme Court interpreted our State Constitution, Section 10, in Ascher v Minnesota Department Public Safety Commissioner in 1994 and stated that we have more protection of our privacy in certain roadblock situations which makes them illegal and unconstitutional.

Another way to "restore the 4th" is in state statute.  Many of you have heard of the Jones case decided by SCOTUS last year.

The case basically says that the 4th Amendment of the Federal Constitution requires a search warrant which is the highest protection for privacy from the government when they want to put a tracking device on you car.

But did you know in Minnesota we were only a couple of states that had a law that protected our privacy when tracking devices are placed on cars.  This came about because of work I did with Senators Randy Peterson, Gene Merriam, and Fritz Knaak, and Representative Pugh in 1989.  The statutes are 626A.35 through 626A.39  Our state statute was even cited in the briefs used by the parties in the Jones case.

I illustrate the above as examples, how we in Minnesota can restore the 4th Amendment and the protections it envisions for us in Minnesota.  Whether it be through state laws at the Legislature or through the state courts we can make a difference.

There are a number of privacy and civil liberty issues that confront us immediately in Minnesota. Some are of the following:

Whether it be the use of familial DNA, the collection and use of DNA when arrested which in Minnesota you need a search warrant to get based on Court of Appeals decision which is different than the recent SCOTUS decision. (There may be attempts in Minnesota Legislature to change law to make it easier to collect DNA).

Or even how Minnesota law enforcement agencies have easy access to many of our personal emails, documents,  and personal papers in the "cloud" through a simple use of an administrative subpoena or a simple court order (not a search warrant) based on a legitimate need for a law enforcement inquiry.  A very low standard.  There is no 4th Amendment protection for Minnesotans in some of their emails, "personal papers", and documents when they are held by third parties in the electronic storage and communication business.

Restore the 4th in Minnesota. 

NSA spy apparatus is J Edgar Hoover on steroids

On page 63, of Robert Ludlum's, "Chancellor Manuscript", he describes J Edgar Hoover's penchant for information and rationale for collection of data.

"Every paper, every insert, every addendum related to Security crossed Hoover's desk.  And as we know, 'Security' took on the"Every paper, eve widest possible range.  Sexual activities, drinking habits, marriage and family confidences, the most personal details of the subjects' lives---none were too remote or insignificant.  Hoover pored over these dossiers like Croesus with his gold."

Ludlum describes in the fictional book, a 20th Century version of how a government agency hand powered their files to use for the purposes of national and domestic security.  But the National Security Agency's (NSA) version for gathering data and rationale for collection is so grandiose in comparison to what J Edgar Hoover did.  A similarity with the fictional Hoover (I contend real Hoover) and the NSA is the broad definition of "security".  Hoover had and the NSA has as their principle "we must collect everything we can" for the good of the state.  

I can picture old J. Edgar in heaven or hell salivating and rubbing his hands together and saying aloud, "If I only had this type of technology that NSA has."

The existence of NSA's broad scale intelligence gathering system disclosed by the Washington Post and The Guardian is no surprise to me.

We just have to review our government's (local, state, and Federal} history from Hoover's early days of collecting data when he was an employee of the Bureau of Investigation, to  military intelligence wiretapping Eleanor Roosevelt during World War 2, to the US Army intelligence spying on protesters in the sixties, and where even Minnesota State authorities kept collected data on innocent people during World War I to keep track of subversives -- often better known as German immigrants.

Now the NSA has a history of surveillance and spying since its birth in the early fifties.  Their efforts is documented in the Church Committees Volume 5 - The National Security Agency and Fourth Amendment Rights.  The NSA had two unique programs called Shamrock and Minaret.  One intercepted electronic communication, the other project dealt with telegraphic communication.

In comparison today with NSA's PRISM, there is none. The early programs of Shamrock and Minaret were very limited.  PRISM and it's sister program of phone number collection is a souped-up and wild behavior of filing, documenting, and preserving much more information about who an individual associates with, what they may think, and the coming and goings of their lives than Hoover could have ever dreamt of.

Now if Robert Ludlum wrote his book in 2013 maybe he might say something like this:

"Every e-mail, every video, every stored data related to Security crossed NSA's computers.  And as we know, 'Security' took on the widest possible range.  Sexual activities, drinking habits, marriage and family confidences, the most personal details of the subjects' lives---none were too remote or insignificant.  NSA pored over these electronic records like Croesus with his gold"

The Tubby Smith opinion intertwines with Minneapolis cops off duty behavior

The Sunday Star Tribune had a front page fold story which talked about cops and their off duty behavior.  Minneapolis Police is launching an investigation into alleged misconduct.  The article goes on to say there may be "questions about how closely the department monitors the widespread practice of off duty work and whether those jobs conflict" with rules and policies. But who monitor's the supposed watchers, the Minneapolis police administration?

Supposedly, the public, right?  The public was able to find out until 2008, public data, as to how much public employees got who did activity with a private business because of their public position.  But that all changed in 2008 when the Department of Administration did an opinion known as the "Tubby Smith" opinion.

The opinion basically says any kind of recompense or pay that public employees get from private parties who are in a relationship with a private party because of their public job is not public. For decades until 2008 the data was public.

In real terms, what does this mean.  It means a cop who works for someone and who wears the city uniform the amount he makes is not public.  The Director of a division of state agency who oversees an industry, but who on the side consults with the same industry, may be known to his bosses, but the public does not know what goodies or pay the person may get.  I could go on and on.

A coalition of bi-partisan legislators tried to overturn the Department of Administration opinion, but the legislation never came for a vote on the floor because of heavy pressure by law enforcement unions.  It just sat on the floor til adjournment.

So what do we have in Minnesota highlighted by the Star Tribune story today.  We have people who get paid by private interests who have a relationship for recompense or pay because they are a public employee or position they hold in government and may be in collision and competition with the public interest. This is troubling.  With recompense or pay being public data gives the public the ability to gauge what the tenor and depth of the relationship may be.

If the Minneapolis Police cannot do oversight over their off duty officers, the public needs to have the ability to do so with public data that should be available.  That can start with making "remuneration" data public again.

Can you "permit to carry" at St Paul Union Depot without note to Sheriff?

I went to the St Paul Union Depot this past week.  Hung off Door 1 entrance was a big sign with 17 rules plastered on it.

Number 7 of the 17th rule for the St Paul Union Depot, a multi-million dollar rehabilitation/restoration of a historic public building states that members of the public who have "permit to carry" need to do the following "carrying of firearms except as permitted under 609.66 sub.1g(b)"  I looked and said what does that mean?

So I looked up Minnesota State Statute 609.66, subdivision, 1g(b).  The specific section is the following:

(b) Unless a person is otherwise prohibited or restricted by other law to possess a dangerous weapon, this subdivision does not apply to:
(1) licensed peace officers or military personnel who are performing official duties;
(2) persons who carry pistols according to the terms of a permit issued under section 624.714 and who so notify the sheriff or the commissioner of public safety, as appropriate;

This means if you have a permit to carry and are carrying a pistol you have to send a note to Sheriff Bostrom of Ramsey County before you go into the St. Paul Union Depot. Very similar if you wish to do so at the Minnesota Capitol, you would send a note to the Commissioner of Public Safety.

My understanding of the "Permit to Carry" law allows a law-abiding citizen to generally enter a public building with a pistol if they are permitted under the law 624.714.  Of course there are exceptions for schools and court houses (Ramsey County Court House) under judicial order and other situations.

I knew the policy (Rule 7) was wrong.  Many people who are law-abiding could run into possible felony charges because of what the rule stated if they violated it, on the other hand, people would not be able to ascertain their legal rights to permit to carry if the rule was wrong..

I decided to call Ramsey County Sheriff Spokesperson, Randy Gustafson.

I asked Mr. Gustafson if the Sheriff has received any letters from permit to carry holders to comply with the law when they visit the St Paul Union Depot per Minnesota State Statute 609.66, subdivision. 1g(b).  He was surprised by the question it seemed.  He had not heard of the rule for the Depot, but he was aware of the Minnesota Capitol situation.  He indicated he would get back to me.

Since the St Paul Union Depot is owned and operated by Ramsey County I decided to contact them. I eventually made contact with Josh Collins, Communications Manager at Ramsey County Regional Rail Authority

I stated to Mr. Collins that I think your rules in regards to "permit to carry" is wrong for the Union Depot.  It is denying people their legal rights per 624.714 (Permit to Carry law).  Can you tell me why you have the policy of having to send a letter to Sheriff Bostrom?  He stated he would get back to me.

Low and behold, Mr. Gustafson got back to me the following day. The Sheriff's spokesman stated the "Sheriff's office was not involved in crafting or reviewing.....the building rules."  Mr. Gustafson also indicated he made contact with Mr. Collins.

Later on that day, Mr Collins left voice mail stating that they had the "wrong code" on their rules.  It was not their intention to "overly restrict" the public building.  He did admit that the County does not have the authority to implement the notification provision for the St Paul Union Depot.  It was an "innocent mistake."  Possibly by someone taking the sign that was being used at the Court House, he stated.  The signs at the St Paul Union Depot will be changed to reflect what the law is.

Over the years since the "Permit to Carry" law passed I have seen a number of times numerous public buildings with postings which say no firearms, period.  In other words, even though legal to have a permit to carry in a public building you are told you cannot, even though you can.  This just happened recently several months ago with a public library..  Had sign posted which said no firearms.  I said to the head person that it was wrong to post that sign because it causes confusion for the law abiding person who has every legal right to do so per the state statute.  There was no real comment, but the person knew I was right.

No matter what your view is on "permit to carry" laws, I illustrate my experience in this post with a much broader point in mind.

That point is to question policies and rules that you think are not correct. If the rules and policies are contrary to law or your constitutional rights, say something, do something, if not, a good possibility no one will.

Minnesota Supreme Court decides who the public is for hearing----its not you or me

Last week I spoke with Don Gemberling, a volunteer with Minnesota Coalition on Government Information. (MNCOGI)  I said to him I got the legal briefs for the Timberjay v Johnson Controls case which the Minnesota Supreme Court will hear on May 6, 2013. I said I was very much looking forward to attend.  He then stated bad news.  The public is not allowed to attend the hearing.  I reacted, What!  Gemberling said he received a media advisory from the Supreme Court saying the court hearing was to be at Roseville High School, but there was no detail how the public can attend.  He then got the message the hearing is not open to the general public based on correspondence he had with Court personnel.

I thought what the Minnesota Supreme Court stated to Mr. Gemberling was nonsense and illogical.  To keep the public from going to a court hearing.

A principle I strongly believe is the right to an open court principle, or the right of the public to have access and to view their judicial system. Today, the Minnesota Supreme Court is not honoring that principle.

I wanted to go to the Timberjay hearing because of the major issue of importance the case will decide.  Basically the point of discussion is: Whether or not data collected, created, received, and maintained by a private person which is doing a government duty or function comes under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.

I decided to call Jeff Shorba, Minnesota State Court Administrator and Dawn Torgerson, Deputy State Court Administrator and find out about this bad policy of not allowing the general public access to attend the hearing.  Left voice mails.  I did get a response from Lissa Finne, Court Information Officer via email indicating that the hearing at Roseville High School is part of the Supreme Court Traveling Oral Argument program.  Ms. Finne did not answer the question I left with Mr. Shorba and Ms. Torgerson, How can the general public and I attend the hearing on May 6th?

The response I got from Ms. Finne after leaving her a message and sending an email was very doublespeak.  She sent me back an email stating the Court is not excluding the public from the hearing.  The email also stated that "members of the public who are unable to attend for personal reasons or because the courtroom (Roseville High School auditorium) is full" can watch it on web cast or online.  But this is where the nonsense took a turn for more nonsense.

I then emailed back and stated how can I as a member of the general public get in line to view the court case in person.  It is not open to the general public when there is no opportunity for the public to stand in line to go to the hearing.  The response as follows:

Dear Mr. Neumeister,

Seating for this argument in the auditorium is reserved for the students, faculty and parties.

Regards,

Lissa Finne

So what does the statement mean in a previous email I received from Ms. Finne that said: "members of the public who are unable to attend for personal reasons or because the courtroom (Roseville High School auditorium) is full"  Who of the public is she's talking about?  I am willing to stand in line at 6:00AM to get a seat.

In other words, there is no opportunity for the general public to attend the argument hearing. The Minnesota Supreme Court closes access to the general public for a case on "public access" to predesignated public. (students, faculty, and parties) The people who the Minnesota Supreme Court chooses.

After I got the last email from Ms. Finne I decided to try again to see if there was a way for the general public to attend.  I called Jeff Shorba asking that he call me.  He did. I stated my concerns and that at least there could be a first come basis seats for the general public.  He stated basically that this is not his bailiwick.  So I asked who's is it?  He suggested that I speak with Commissioner Rita Coyle DeMeules.  I never knew the Minnesota Supreme Court had a Commish!  I spoke with the Commissioner about my concerns and about how I could attend the hearing and there could be some seats for the general public.  She said she would talk to the Court.  She called back and basically stated the Court said no to general public access to the hearing and that I and the general public can view it via web cast.

A public hearing about public access, but general public cannot attend because the people have been preselected as designated as general public by the Minnesota Supreme Court.

While it is commendable that the Court has chosen to hold this hearing on a public access matter before a segment of the public, the public is ill-served if the Court can pick and choose the individuals who can and cannot attend.

I urge the Court to reconsider it's position, and to allow full public access to this hearing as it does for every oral argument at the Judicial Center.