Who's watching Santa Claus?

This weekend, one of the world's biggest spies with one of the globe's sophisticated surveillance systems will be visiting Minnesota.  He is a huge "intelligence" gatherer of data on people.  He keeps lists.  I wonder if he has an enemies list or intelligence system?. He does "black bag" operations through chimneys.

But at the same time, many people invite him into their homes for milk, cookies, and a possibly a bit of peppermint schnapps to keep him warm.  Watch out he may be collecting data on you.

He is able to fly unimpeded through the air.  He is equipped with the latest GPS tracking equipment to observe people who may be "naughty or good".  There are also reports he may be getting a very sophisticated camera through the help of the Pentagon.  Somewhere up north, he has a very large computer detailing our moves and aspects of our lives, and labeling us as associates, persons of interest, and suspects.  Remember, he knows "where you are sleeping".  OH! OH! and HO! HO!

With the ability to monitor our actions and movements, he revels in having this ability.  Supposedly, he only uses it for good.

As I looked more into this character and his activities I could not find any GAO or Legislative Auditor reports. No reports on his activities or how he uses his surveillance system.  I could not find any legislative or Congressional hearing as part of the oversight process.

He has many informers and different ways which makes it easy for people to get on a "list".  I wonder what the threshold is for a person to get on the list.  I wonder how you got off the list.

I have learned a lot about this gentleman, and recently saw a "news report" by Ray Stevens, which is entitled, "Santa Claus is Watching You"

I encourage Santa Claus to be guided by the Fair Information principles:

1. There must be a way for a person to find out what information about the person is in a record and how it is used.
2. There must be a way for a person to prevent information about the person that was obtained for one purpose from being used or made available for other purposes without the person's consent.
3. There must be a way for a person to correct or amend a record of identifiable information about the person.
4. Any organization creating, maintaining, using, or disseminating records of identifiable personal data must assure the reliability of the data for their intended use and must take precautions to prevent misuses of the data.
5. Any organization creating, maintaining, using, or disseminating records of identifiable personal data must assure the reliability of the data for their intended use and must take precautions to prevent misuses of the data.

These principles are good for a start, but Santa and his operations need more accountability, transparency, and openness.  Santa has a different view than a great number of other people how you achieve that.  There needs to be a checks and balances to his activities.



From: http://shmarky.deviantart.com/

My privacy rights negated by "blackmail"

As I churn through my "early" autumn years of life, I am more apt to visit the doctor.  I did that today.  As I got to the check in desk I was given a single piece of paper and asked to sign.  I locked on to the words, "Notice of Privacy Practices"  I thought it was a form to sign to acknowledge understanding of the notice..  I felt there was no need to sign such a form.  And I stated that.

A few minutes later after some quick discussion by the clerk and someone else it was told to me, no signature, no service.  I said you cannot refuse service, and asked to speak with a supervisor.  Katie, her name was.  Right off the bat, she stated no service will be refused, but I would be treated as a self pay.  In other words, I would have to pay an upfront $150.  She then went to explain that the form was more than a notice, but an overall consent to share my medical information with others.

I then took a closer look of the "document".  It was a broad consent form to share my data with a broad range of parties for research, quality care reviews, and for other purposes outside for payment of my insurance and treatment.

I thought to myself ok.  I went through my "summer" years working on Minnesota medical privacy laws at the Legislature so I have an understanding of our law and what I think our rights are.

So I said to Katie, I will consent to the parts of the form that I think are appropriate, such as giving my information to third party administrators that help process the claims, to my health plans, and one or two others.  Her response, "You cannot do that."  It is either sign whole, or pay the $150 up front. Not having a major credit card nor $150 on me, my wheels started to roll.  I said you are "blackmailing" me in giving up my choice who I want my medical records to go and my rights which I am entitled by law to do.  To the best of my knowledge, I have always modified the consent forms in the past.

Direct and frank discussion continued.  I gave her rationale why this form is inappropriate.  She said in so many words:  Bottom line, no signature for the whole consent, or $150 for self pay, no $$$, no service.  I caved.  I needed to see the doctor.

So what happened.  My privacy rights which allows me to control where my medical records go was completely blocked.  I could not do a consent specifically only to this visit and transaction.  I had to sign a broad release form for possible visits in the future other than the one I did today and also to allow to have my data go to many places which is outside of my treatment and payment processes.

I told Katie I was interested to speak with their legal person on these matters or their privacy person.

Several hours later, I spoke to a person.  He is the head of the integrity and compliance of the medical/health service company.  Restated some of the points, but also hammering on the view that our state law allows choice to where are medical records go, but that we can also modify our consent forms to the single purpose of the visit.  

As someone in that position the gentleman wishes to listen to the patient, but he was also aware of my privacy advocacy background, independently, of me even saying anything.  It seemed he wanted to learn what was wrong in my view.  He brought up several times, this is a standard form.  Again I shot back, basically stating, it does not mean I give up my control over my medical data and give up my rights under Minnesota law.  He stated he was going to speak with their legal counsel and appropriate people and get back to me.  Stay tuned.

Link to the Minnesota Health Records Act

MINNESOTA HEALTH RECORDS ACT
144.291	Minnesota Health Records Act
144.292	Patient Rights
144.293	Release or Disclosure of Health Records
144.294	Records Relating to Mental Health
144.295	Disclosure of Health Records for External Research
144.296	Copies of Videotapes
144.297	Independent Medical Examination
144.298	Penalties

Updated on December 24, 2011

Public's right to know in danger in Minnesota?

What is the Dayton Administration trying to do with the public "right to know"?  I recently came across a summary sheet of the 2012 IPAD Policy bill.  IPAD is a division of the Minnesota Department of Administration and is the office that serves the public with questions on the Minnesota Government Data Practices.

The one pager has a listing of numerous proposals that can have a major impact on our privacy rights and how government can collect data on us, but also our ability to inspect public records.

One proposal is that the public will not be able to inspect the same public record if they had seen it previously in the last 6 months at a government agency.  It is under the umbrella of government reform and cost savings that the proposal is brought. Now government will have to keep track of people who ask for public data.  To be polite, the proposal is dumb for a number of reasons.

I encourage the Dayton Administration to review this specific proposal and others before it is put in a bill form to be introduced.  I have been pleased with the Governor's statements about open government and transparency, but some of the proposals run contrary.

Am I even being watched in the "can"?

I was in the Galtier Plaza Building this afternoon.  I had to use the bathroom facilities. I found it, but I had to buzz security to let me in.  Secondly, there was a sign posted which stated that the area is under surveillance.  When I got behind the locked door I was looking for the cameras or some type of surveillance item.  I was suspicious of an open ceiling panel which could be used for a cover for viewing.

As I contemplated possibly being viewed as I sat on the "throne", I thought of the law that Representative Macklin, now a judge, introduced and which I provided input on dealing with these kind of situations. Here it is: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.746&format=pdf

So if the Galtier Plaza Building has a camera invading my privacy or other buildings which may have a similar set up, it may be against the law, if not the law should be corrected.

Gang cops rogue again?

Two summers ago and through that fall it was a tumultuous time when law enforcement was under siege and under the microscope by the public and the Minnesota Legislature for what the Metro Gang Strike Force had been doing--miscues with money and property, issues of accountability and oversight, and violation of people's rights. There was a Legislative Auditor's report, a Special Investigation funded by the Department of Public Safety, and many public hearings by the appropriate legislative committees.

Reading the Star Tribune today I felt somewhat what Michael Corleone felt when he stated,  "Just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in."  The reports featured in the article are pulling the public back in to see what the heck is happening to Safe Streets Task Force which was supposed to be held accountable by an oversight group which has never met. 


After I read the Star Tribune article and the Department of Public Safety(DPS) reports I am left with many questions which the public has no answers for.  Some of them are as follows:

1. Should the Safe Streets Task Force come under the Violent Crime Coordinating Council(VCCC)?  Why are they not under the VCCC jurisdiction now?

2. By being under the auspices(Safe Streets Task Force)of the FBI, are the state reporting and documenting requirements, such as for forfeiture of money and property, being done by the local police?  Federal law may exempt local police to have to do this.

3. Where can the public get access to the public records of the Safe Streets Task Force for accountability and transparency reasons?  

4. What are the differences between the Minnesota's operating procedures and guideline manual and the FBI's control and policies?  Less accountability? More? Less reporting or more?  

5. Have people's rights been violated, for example, by taking their property illegally or denying their due process?

This is just the tip of the iceberg of questions that should be asked and answered by the appropriate people in front of the appropriate Minnesota legislative committees, Representative Cornish is chair of one, the other is chaired by Senator Warren Limmer. 

Various comments in the reports and article leave me flabbergasted, "that people who work here have differing opinions regarding exactly what their mission is."  So if there is misunderstanding of what "their" mission is, How is this playing out in the streets? 

So is there again playing out the divvies with law enforcement of who gets the cash or property which may or may not have been seized legally?  One gets that impression..

Quite intrigued by Howie Padilla's comments, who is the St Paul Police spokesman, when he states, hard to respond "to the allegations---when it is attributed to vague sources"  Well, ask to see their statements.

The many good cops, elected sheriffs, and police chiefs I know would find this kind of infighting, finger pointing, and lack of accountability, detestable and embarrassing.  So does the public.

Minnesota Sunset Commission begins with problems

Today was the first meeting of the Minnesota Sunset Commission.  The Commission was an initiative of the GOP reform efforts at the 2011 Legislature.  The Commission was a topic between the GOP Leadership and the Governor.  A compromise was reached in the secret "away from the public" discussions that occurred during the shutdown.

Problems exist as the Sunset Commission meeting brought out today.

Discussion right out of the shoot was over whether or not there was enough time for those agencies that are slated for bye-bye on June 30, 2012 to be able to do their report with the "statutorily specified information"  To add on the timeline problems the Commission must review the agency slated to disappear by January 1, 2012, and hold public hearings and give recommendations to the Legislature by February 1, 2012. Is there fair process for the agencies slated for disappearing to be heard with the time issues for 2012?

As part of the agenda, William D. Eggers, testified, "one of the country's best known authorities on government reform" which a Commission handout described him.  He emphasized for a Sunset Commission to be successful a number of points to meet are necessary.  Some of them are:

Strong staff capabilities
Strong legislative support
Time and space for substantive work, and
Strong legislative support

Discussion centered for a time on whether or not there was enough resources for the Sunset Commission to be able to do a thorough job in reviewing an agency.  The set up as I stated is that the agency slated for bye-bye is responsible for the "statutorily specified information" report.  Can the Commission do its due diligence with no staff specifically tied to it?  It seems that the members are relying on the agency report with current legislative staff who with other duties review the agency report.

It was emphasized that it's important for input by the various stakeholders and customers of that agency slated for disappearing to be a part of the "sunset" process.  Where that process begins is a question waiting to be answered.  Is it when the agency is doing it's evaluation before it submits its report or at the public hearings held before February 1st of the even year?

With the Sunset Commission being "created/compromised" as part of the closed budget talks and away from public scrutiny in July there are some weaknesses in the law.  It is not clear to me if the Sunset Commission is under the Minnesota Open Meeting Law and the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.  Hopefully the points raised by discussion at the Commission and ones I raise can be corrected and addressed.  If not, there will be less accountability and transparency for the public in this effort.

Note: There was a handout to members of the Commission and the public entitled, "Chapter 4. Case Study: Shining Light on Sunset.  I would encourage people to review this chapter. The chapter is part of a bigger report entitled:

Executing Government Transformation

This report is from the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas.

 

GPS, Privacy, and the Supremes

The US Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments for a case on November 8, 2011 that can have an major impact on your privacy/self autonomy and relationship with government.  The case is called, United States v. Jones.  The central questions of the case are as follows:

1. Whether the warrantless use of a GPS tracking device on a person's vehicle to monitor its movements violates the Fourth Amendment.

2. Whether the government violated the person's Fourth Amendment rights by attaching the GPS tracking device to his vehicle without a valid warrant.

The US Government argues that there is no privacy interest for an individual because the person's vehicle was "knowingly" in the public venue.  Other words, where the vehicle goes it can be seen all the time in public.  To bolster their argument they refer to a Supreme Court case that was decided in 1983 which had its origin in Minnesota called United States v. Knotts.  The case states that there is no violation of the Fourth Amendment when "technological enhancements" are used to follow a vehicle when in public view.

It is important to note in 1983, there was no such thing as GPS monitoring devices with links to satellites which gives specific location such as latitude and longitude and also time information.  What was used in the Knotts case was a beeper device where there had to be close monitoring by law enforcement because it relied on radio signals.  This is not the case with the current GPS tracking processes.

With current GPS technology a tracking device could be placed on a vehicle and could track an individuals movements for a week , three weeks, six months, or even a year with no judicial oversight or accountability.

The US Government argues that an individual has no expectation of privacy because a person's movements can be "readily" viewed in the public.  Other arguments voiced by the government is that there is no "widespread, suspicionless" abuse of GPS tracking.  To sum up their argument, GPS tracking "is used to gather information that could be observed by any member of the public, and cars have traditionally been afforded diminished Fourth Amendment protection.

Lying underneath this case is the crucial role of continuing improvement of technology, how law enforcement uses it, and then how to reconcile it with our constitutional protections.

The arguments on the other side of government state the person had a reasonable expectation of privacy not expecting "a satellite-based GPS device would not be affixed to his vehicle and used to generate and permanently store GPS data about his movements and locations." and constitutes a Fourth Amendment search.

Their argument continues that the US Government relies on US Supreme Court decisions that dealt with the "now-antiquated" beeper.  Technology has changed the discussion because location data can now be gotten and stored where it could not be "obtained through visual surveillance."

The case has a great number of Amicus briefs in support of the person and against the US Government position.  From the Cato Institute, ACLU, to Gun Owners of America are some of the organizations.  The briefs of the US Government, Mr Jones, and others can be accessed on the ABA website.

GPS technology can be useful to law enforcement, but at what expense.  Is it at the expense of our self autonomy, individual privacy, and freedom of association?  Should law enforcement be able to place an item on a vehicle with no accountability or independent oversight?  How much of a price are we willing as people to pay for technology's newest addition to law and order?

PERSONAL NOTE:
Back in 1989, the Minnesota Legislature enacted into law procedures for getting a mobile tracking device and a standard for law enforcement.  In 1989, there was only the "beeper" technology.  I was involved in working with members of the Legislature on that legislation.  There should be a legislative hearing in the future to get an idea how technology is advancing, how law enforcement uses it, and impact on our civil liberties.

What's Up? Gov Dayton and Speaker Zellers

I read the front page story of the Star Tribune today titled "Stadium Plans Thrown Into Limbo".  When I got to the part of the story stating Speaker Zellers had "repeatedly told Dayton he opposed a special session and felt the issue could wait until next year" and then to read Gov Dayton's response that he was "very surprised" by those comments, my first thought, "What's up with these two?

There was a disconnect here of some kind, either of them not listening to each other, maybe talking in a low low tone, maybe hearing problems, who knows.  But when you have the #1 and #2 most powerful people in Minnesota not understanding each others position it allows for the public to be concerned and to ask questions.

Many political people would rate this as inside baseball and of no consequence.  It may remind them of the scene in the movie "Casablanca" when Rick's Place is shut down by Captain Renault, played by Claude Rains who knows gambling takes place there all the time and says:  "I am shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!"

But to the public it is a different matter.

If the Governor and Speaker have unplugged communication on simple matters on what each thought of a special session to be held later this month, Will they be able to tackle the big issues facing Minnesota and communicate in the future?

What also complicates their rapport is the penchant of secrecy that surrounds the stadium issue and which also was a characteristic of the budget shutdown.  Each side making comments about what they said or did, then others saying that's not entirely correct or totally false.  When the public does not know who to believe, it is not good government.

Simple solution would be to have their conversations recorded at their meetings, just like many public bodies do such as the school board or city council.  Simple, yes, but more than likely will never happen.  So what's the solution.

How about reading, How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie

Seriously, just how many people know the facts about the politics and policy issues as it relates to the stadium discussions, only a handful.  The Governor and Speaker are a part of the handful which the public looks to for leadership and direct communication as to what's up with the stadium, not the miscommunication that two people may have.

Gov Dayton is the real dealer behind the Vikes Stadium proposal

The last several years has been one of stalemate with the various Viking stadium proposals.  Yes, several legislators took initiatives on a football stadium, but their leadership was with who they were, not based on the elected position they hold as a state wide leader, such as Governor, or elected political leader such as Majority Leader, Speaker, or Minority Leader.

I have to give Governor Dayton credit for sending a strong message, to come up with a proposal and vote for it, one way or the other, so the "stadium nightmare" can finally be over.  The Governor has  asked for the various proposals to be sent to him to where he either serves as broker with the various interests to hammer out the deal, or decides to make his own proposal, with a sink or swim attitude.

The public wants to know what happens behind the closed doors of the elected legislators, legislative leaders, and the Governor on the Vikings stadium ideas.  There needs to be a fully documented record as to how the "birth" happened to the deal, or to the "death" of a deal.  The public deserves better than some public relations piece announcing that we have agreement or no agreement with generalities.

The possibility of the Vikings leaving Minnesota is not some "small potato" issue.  It is a very major issue which hits every Minnesotan with nostalgia of the past and with hopes of the future.  For many Minnesotans there is an identity link and pride with the Vikings.  I even recently told the story how LA Rams came to the Twin Cities in 69 for the playoffs and how George Allen if I remember right was complaining about the cold.

It needs to be clear to the public what the horse trades are, the compromises, and where the common ground was found if there is a football stadium proposal.  If there is no proposal, no common ground found, it has to be clear what the "deal breakers" are.

You have a tough situation, Mr. Dayton, but you are leading, as Albert Schweitzer said, "Example is leadership."  May others do same.

The Patriot Act and Minnesota: 10 years later.

President G. W. Bush signed the Patriot Act 10 years ago today.  As many of us remember it passed with lightning speed with no public hearings.  The legislation being created in secret. Soon as the bill became public, the legislation was criticized from conservative and liberal groups.  There's been discussion of it ever since.  

But what many Minnesotans may not know about or remember is that there were attempts as with other state legislatures to have a state version of the Patriot Act.  This was done with various initiatives proposed by the Ventura Administration and legislators.

Suggestions and schemes ran from making secret public data that had been public for decades, easier access to our e-mails and phone calls,  to having a broad definition of terrorism.  This was just the tip of the iceberg of the many proposals.

I knew what was coming based upon press reports and speaking with legislators.  Many other groups and individuals also were also aware that there would be lot of action in the 2002 Legislative session.  What happened?

A broad coalition was formed from left to right, librarians to lawyers, citizens to professional lobbyists who monitored and engaged the legislators and the then Governor as the bills moved through the process.

The movement, progress, and end results of the "broad" Minnesota Patriot Act type bills was quite different than what happened in DC.  There were public hearings, legislators from different perspectives asking tough questions, and very important comments from the public.  I still remember a direct tit for tat discussion about the definition of terrorism between Representative Stanek and Peter Erlinder, Professor at William Mitchell Law School.

At the end of session as it sometimes happens with legislation, all the Patriot Act-Terrorism type related bills were put in one big Omnibus bill, and further complicating the situation there was a conference committee.

Myself and others monitored and engaged the conference committee as they met day and night.  I still remember being there at 3:00am in the morning when the agreement happened.  Many of the provisions I had concerns and lobbied about were either neutered, taken out, or balanced.

Minnesotans owe a big thank you to the legislators who asked the tough questions, reflected, and said we need a balanced bill when legislation may, can, and will compromise our civil liberties, privacy, and self autonomy.

But during the past ten years through today there are continuous proposals before our legislature emanating from the tragedy of 9/11 and from the same fertile ground where the Patriot Act was born.  Some of those I have mentioned previously in my posts, others will come in the future.  We, the public, still need to be engaged at the Legislature as we were in 2002, and ever vigilant.

A quote from Louis Brandeis, serves as one of many, a guide for me when there's legislation proposed that has impact on our civil liberties, privacy, and self autonomy.  It is the following: 

"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding."
Louis D. Brandeis

Does Minnesota DVS database need accountability?

In the October 4, 2011, edition of the Pioneer Press, reporter Brady Gervais writes, "DPS (Department of Public Safety) audits the DVS database monthly and monitors it regularly, Skoogman said. If patterns of potential misuse are found, DPS contacts the individual agency." Andy Skoogman is the chief public information officer for DPS.

Recently, I used the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act to request to inspect data of the Driver and Vehicle Services (DVS) database audit reports of agencies and police departments that were involved in recent allegations of misuse of the Minnesota Drivers and Vehicle Services database.  I also wanted to inspect all data related to the Department of Public Safety DVS audits as to policies, procedures, standards, and format for what the audit is, does, and how it is done.  Thirdly, all data as to what the process is for investigating violation of law as to the improper use of the DVS database.

You may be asking why would I want to do this?

First, I was concerned about the violation of our privacy with the DVS database that holds drivers' records, photos and personal data such as home addresses, phone numbers, and possibly medical data. Secondly, the DVS database has had problems and abuses for many years, and thirdly, media reports gives me doubts about the Department of Public Safety efforts to protect our privacy.

The response by the Department of Public Safety(DPS) to my data practices request is quite puzzling.

To my request to inspect DVS audit reports of law enforcement agencies.  The response was, "The Department does not conduct audits of law enforcement agencies and therefore the Department has no data that is responsive to this request."  Further because there are no audits, DPS states "there are no policies, procedures, standards and format, nor an explanation of how they are done."  As to what the process is in investigating improper use of the DVS database, the reply. "DVS does not investigate violation of law," therefore no data.  There are investigations for misuse, but it is done by the agency that misused the database.

Is there accountability and privacy protection in the Driver and Vehicle Services database?  Maybe not.

Spirit of J. Edgar Hoover still haunts FBI with N-Dex

J. Edgar Hoover was the long time Director of the FBI, 48 years to be exact.  Revered and despised by Americans for many reasons.  Some reasons for that disdain is emerging in modern day with Mr. Hoover's former agency with N-Dex.  N-Dex is the FBI push to have all police records throughout the nation be in one big data repository or database.

Mr. Hoover was a fastidious consumer and organizer of files and data. During his time the FBI had only millions of files, with N-Dex there will be hundreds of millions, if not billions.  Mr Hoover thrived on knowing as much as he could on everything he thought was important to fight crime and for the national security of the nation.  Sounds like similar rationale for N-Dex

Yes, time are a changing, but is there more accountability and transparency than in 1972 when Mr. Hoover died?  Yes, there is, but the institutional suspicions if the public questions are still there.

The FBI has approached Minnesota law enforcement and correction communities to share with them and to rest of the nation, millions of records on its people.  This information could be from the innocent stop by a police officer to ask where you are going and at same time takes down your identifying data, your call about noise or the barking dog about the neighbor, or your witnessing of a crime. The data is in the form of incident/case report data, arrest data, and booking and incarceration data from law enforcement, jails and prisons, and probation.

There will be personally identifiable information such as names, address, and phone numbers, as well as non identifying descriptive information about crime incidents and criminal investigations.  It is the local or state agency that determines what an incident report is.  The FBI does have parameters, but it is up to the local law enforcement agencies to submit within those guidelines.  The problem is the FBI parameters are very wide.

Victims, witnesses, reporters of crime, and alleged suspects names, adult and juvenile, will be in the database.
 
You might wonder why this matters to you, a law-abiding citizen.

And that's where what we have been hearing and reading in the media comes into play.  The incident of a great number of law enforcement officers looking up an individual on law enforcement databases.  Or even when our own State Legislature overwhelmingly supported a bill to ban participation of our state in Real ID, a Federal program which sets ID standards and collects information.  One huge factor why legislators opposed Real ID was the sharing of our data with Federal agencies.  An issue with N-Dex is our data can be shared to "aid in homeland security.

To illustrate even more is the recent story that was about suspicious activity reports and the Mall of America.  The article marks how data can get into an information system on a individual who is doing no wrong, and the data is shared with the FBI and possibly the Department of Homeland Security.

So what are consequences or potential unintended consequences of Minnesotans sharing with the FBI and being a part of a database for government officials and law enforcement people to have access to.

One consequence could be an injury to reputation or liberty if information is inaccurate from the get go on submits. Fearing the possibility of ending up on a government watch list is another.  Serious jeopardy of using data out of context, data in one situation is accurate and in another misleading. These records rolling into N-Dex from Minnesota about you WILL circulate.  People can see the potential for real harm and abuse to individuals, the loss of privacy and liberty being the outcome.

The FBI with its presentations have been direct in answering people's questions about N-Dex, but there are shortcomings.  One is that it is N-Dex files are not under the 1974 Privacy Act for purposes of subject access.  There are others.

The Criminal and Juvenile Justice Information Task Force will be discussing the approach which the state should take with N-Dex on Wednesday, October 12, 2011, 9:00am to 4:00pm at the Minnesota Judicial Center, Room 230.  The meeting is open to the public.

Basically, it comes to the following options.  Do nothing and the FBI will approach all the law enforcement, corrections, and jail agencies for all their records which they can do by current law and get them.  Or come up with a process to protect our privacy and liberties in a thoughtful way and then enact legislation to do that.

Hoover's legacy of secret files, deception, and trampling on rights and liberties hang over the FBI presently and in the foreseeable future.  But there has been change with the nation's top cop agency since the days of Hoover, evident by the FBI discussing publicly N-Dex.  Another alteration also has been a more ever vigilant public.

Voyeurs, government databases, and you

The stories that appeared in the Pioneer Press yesterday and today online brings again attention to the public the vast amounts of information that government has on us.  There are databases that government has which ranges from specific medical conditions that we have held by the Department of Health to the subject of the media articles, the drive license data.

Government is not the only entitiy that have databases filled with information on us, the private sector does too.  The subject of this post will only be government databases, private databases another time.

With technology there has been an invasion of databases in Minnesota state and local government.  For example, from higher ed information on students, to the Board of Pharmacy which has millions of records of prescriptions we take, to the new databases sprouting up within law enforcement agencies which with high-speed cameras quickly read thousands of license plates of our cars in a short time period and store the time and place where our car was seen or parked.

It is important to have databases for the work that government does, but are the laws in Minnesota up to par enough for the use, accountability, and transparency of them?

Are Minnesota laws strong enough for government employees when they misuse, abuse, and gain illegal entry to data bases with our personal info?

Should government be collecting the data and for how long should it be kept?

I started the title of this post with the word voyeur.  I am using the word in the following way, ": a prying observer who is usually seeking the sordid or the scandalous" Merriam-Webster. 

There are thousands of government employees who use the government databases in the proper way and within their duties.  But there are a number of people who use them for the wrong reasons.  It is more common than once in a blue moon.

The Minnesota Legislature in its oversight role can review and inventory all databases to review security, audits, and compliance of law for proper use.  Are they authorized under law?  Are the government databases organized to monitor abidance of privacy, access, and security rules and law?

Who is watching the watchers?  If the Legislature does not do it, who will?

Legacy projects offbeat? Is not Legacy Amendment unusual?

Yesterday, Mike Kaszuba did a story on Legacy grants in the Star Tribune that have been awarded primarily through the cultural/history portion of the Minnesota Legacy initiative.

The headline says, "---Legacy funds land far afield" and "helping some offbeat efforts."  What the majority of people voted for in 2008 could be called "offbeat", unusual, or unconventional. The people of Minnesota voted for an unconventional/offbeat way of funding programs and projects that would or may never get the attention of the public or legislators. Projects funded from the Lessard-Sams Council to the States Arts Board are now getting attention that generally only a group or a small number of people would have an interest in.

Some of the projects mentioned in the story ran the gambit from the oral history of psychiatry in Minnesota, history of comics in Minnesota, to the cultural legacy of Asian-Americans in North Minneapolis.

Mr Rod Grams is quoted as saying, "so tight on money, especially on the state level" it is difficult to justify them.  Does he mean some of the projects mentioned in the story or the "goodies" that the hunting and fishing groups have gotten?

What I know is this, I am not a hunter, not a fisherman, never hunted and the last time I fished was about 45 years ago, but I voted for the Legacy Amendment to give our State an opportunity for all the people to get a part of and to preserve our "Legacy" of fishing, hunting, environment, history, and culture.

Through thick and thin, or hell and high water, if there are attempts to repeal the Legacy Amendment I will work against it.

I appreciate the history and the culture of  Minnesota which all who have inhabited our state and who will in the future bring to Minnesota.  There needs to be a way for us to record, view, hear, and to learn and understand our cultural contributions and history of all people.  The Legacy projects do that.

As projects and programs are funded I am sure with some groups and individuals it will raise their eyebrows.  Which is good.  It is important for accountability, transparency, and openness as to how the Legacy monies are spent and for what.

This past session and special session I worked with Rep Dean Urdahl and Sen Ingebrigtsen to get a law passed to bring more accountability and transparency for the Legacy Amendment.

So let's say the the results of the study to see how women faced the culture of the St Paul Police Department, or history of maternity care in Duluth before 1941, or any of the other project results or finished products are not available and accessible to the public.  If that happens, there is a problem.

As these type of projects are funded and completed there needs to a way for the public to get access to them.  The products need to be online if possible.

The Legacy Amendment passed in 2008 had a expansive coalition of interest groups and individuals to support it.

The Legacy Amendment projects are a broad reflection of the diversity and history of our state.

We must recognize and understand that.  Is that unusual, unconventional, or offbeat?

Cops and cameras----Modern peeping toms?

The Star Tribune had a story today about the Minneapolis Police Department purchasing several roll-em cameras on poles which can be placed conveniently in areas throughout the city.  What the article failed to discuss is the right to privacy and anonymity in a public place.

The article states there is no law that bans or regulates recording in public places.  I take it meaning a city ordinance or state law.  In that respect, the reporter is right, but should there not be.

I believe there is a right to privacy in a public place.  This means there is behavior and actions that should be respected by government as a zone of privacy when it uses camera surveillance.  An example of that behavior or action are as follows as stated by Robert Ellis Smith, Publisher of Privacy Journal.

What's 'Public' Can Be Private

"There are many activities in public that are entitled to privacy protection, according to the clear implications of previous federal court holdings in the U.S. These include: going to and from a house of worship, an abortion clinic, or a medical facility; holding hands or embracing affectionately in public; participating in a political demonstration or wearing political symbols; reading a book or a magazine; mediating or praying, and perhaps chatting on a cell phone in a way that is audible nearby. The right to vote in the U.S. and Canada may be interpreted to prohibit videotaping citizens as they visit a polling place." 

Cameras have been a part of our lives for decades.  We would see occasionally 25 years ago a camera at the bank, maybe at a "secure" area, but not as prevalent as today. The Target Corporation gift of surveillance cameras in downtown Minneapolis to the multiple cameras used by the St Paul police left over from the National GOP Convention in 2008, our law enforcement agencies have their cameras rolling and recording.  This does even include the feed that some agencies may have connected from private cameras.

Technology is changing the dynamics of how law enforcement does its business, but at what cost to our liberty and privacy interests?  I do not oppose technology being used to keep us safe, but I believe it is important though for law enforcement to be accountable, transparent, and open as to what the new "toys" do.

There can and should be public discussion of the who, what, where, when, why, and how of this kind of  public surveillance.

What are the safeguards for specific tracking of individuals and cars?  About the use of the "zoom" or magnification on subjects of those powerful cameras?  Because of the sophistication of the video cameras featured in the story or used now by the various police departments and sheriffs, How does facial recognition technology play into the video surveillance system?  Are the cameras tuned up with behavioral recognition software as the University of Minnesota has done?  Do they have audio recording possibilities?  Are there audits?

Do public entities have the policies, rules, or laws that should govern these kind of surveillance systems that are improving daily as technology gets better?

We need to recognize our privacy/self-autonomy liberty and interests so that there is not "an imbalance of power between the government as "watcher" and the citizens as "subject".

(Quoted part of last paragraph is from Melissa Ngo, Senior Counsel of EPIC 
in comments submitted to the Department of Homeland Security in 2008)

Monitor or surveillance in Minnesota licensed facilities?

The Star Tribune article called "Granny Cams" which appeared yesterday caught my attention.  It is the constant conflict with technology and privacy that is the heart of the story.  Cameras that are designed so small to be used to prevent harm to others who are vulnerable.  Sounds like a good idea.  It is not so easy to implement though.

As Roberta Opheim, State Ombudsman for mental health and developmental disabilities recognized by her statement in the story, individuals who are vulnerable have liberty and privacy interests. There must be recognition of self autonomy.

Do not be in the rush to fancy all nursing homes, foster care places, and other licensed facilities with the latest equipment to monitor the employees and the people who live in them, particularly in their "living space" or their home without thorough public discussion.

In 2007, when authorizing language was done for the limited purposes of the foster care homes who did not want an employee for overnight purposes it was done in a very not public way.  There were amendments to the authorizing language in 2009 (245A .11 sub 7a Article 1--Section 4) which can give a framework for the Legislature to guide itself and the State if we wish to expand the use of technology to monitor or do surveillance

I would prefer "monitor" then "surveillance."  The actions, intentions, and purposes are quite different from each other..

E-mail to School Board Chair deep 6 supt finalist?

There are many times when public bodies interview people for positions for a city, county, or school district.  The positions can be for city coordinators/managers, superintendents, or even members for a commission of a public body or even the public body itself.

Recently, the Stillwater School District hired a new superintendent. An off shoot event with hiring of the superintendent ended with the Minnesota Commissioner of Administration.

The Stillwater School District asked the Commissioner for an opinion on a data practices issue.

One of the finalist's of the Superintendent search who did not get the position had knowledge that an e-mail was sent by an individual which he was the subject of. The e-mail was sent to the Board Chair.  The not successful candidate asked to inspect the e-mail.   This is the essence of the Commissioner's opinion.

When a job opening happens particularly a high profile position there are people who may want to comment on the job hunters.  Specially, if they think the person is not up to par for the job.  In those situations a party may communicate verbally.  E-mail is quite a different story.  When the Board Chair received that e-mail it became "government data" subject to the Data Practices Act.

It is human behavior, in general, if you do not get the job as Superintendent of a school district or any position you try to get an understanding why.

Was there something in the e-mail communication that could have had an impact on this person's candidacy?

The superintendent finalist may never know. The Commissioner ruled that the e-mail is correspondence between an elected official and an individual.  Even though the superintendent candidate was the subject.

The Commissioner based this on that the Board Chair did not share the e-mail with any person.  The School District in its request for an opinion stated, " The Board Chair did not disclose the email to any other board member, nor did he share it with School District administrators or employees. …"  The law in question is 13.601, subdivision 2.

Did the Board Chair share the contents verbally with others?  In interaction with other board members was there any verbal or written communication about any contents of the e-mail?  Does the Commissioner's opinion deal with the issue when verbal or written comments based on the e-mail are shared?

The opinion takes the position the e-mail communication as a whole is private as long as it is between an elected official and an individual. Should this be?

If you are a candidate for a position with the government and a subject of a memo, an e-mail, or something similar should you be able to access the government data about you if the communication was sent by an individual to an elected official and not shared physically?

Was the Superintendent finalist deep-sixed? 

NOTE****Elected officials do not include judges or legislators who are not under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act

Season for lobbyists at Legislature begins

After Labor Day for many people means the end of the summer easiness.  Back to the grind of work.  One place for sure where the "grind" starts is at the Minnesota Legislature.

Between now and the end of November when the grind slows down again because of the Holiday season, hundreds of lobbyists, interest groups, and many public and private associations will be visiting your state legislator and other members of the state legislature.

The visitors will be asking Chairpersons of various policy committees to be the Chief Author of their bill.  They may ask your legislator to sponsor a bill that concerns the area in which the elected official and you live in.  The interest group representative may go to a legislator because of the employment and background the elected person may have.  A number of reasons.

This is the time of year is when the legislator starts to think seriously of the bills he/she wants to introduce.  I have heard many times from elected officials when I ask them about legislation--"wait" until after Labor Day because they are back in their districts and rarely come to St Paul until after Labor Day. 

When the special interest representative meets with the legislator who you elected wants to discuss an idea for a bill and get their Chief Authorship, there are basically two ways of how the bill will be directed.  The interested party/lobbyist being the conductor or the Chief Author working and leading in concert with the interested party.  Most times a bill is created the concert way, but once in a while the conductor is the interested party/lobbyist.

Now is the most impelling time for you to meet with your legislators, when you can have an in depth conversation on issues that impact your community, district, and state.  You will be competing with others, but you are their constituent.  Time can and will be made for you

Ask your legislator----What are you thinking of introducing this year for the district?  Are you introducing any bills for any interest groups or associations?  I have an idea for a bill--Can I work with you on it?

A legislator's book fills up very fast with bills of legislation they will introduce.  You want to make sure you and others from the district are heard loud and clear.

To get on your way, the Minnesota Legislature has a great tool to find out who your Representatives and Senators are.

How about this kind of transparency for elected officials ?

The Minnesota shutdown created a lot of hubbub of how the public business is done behind closed doors.  Deals being agreed upon without scrutiny, public and interested parties not knowing what money or language was being cut or added, even many legislators did not know what their leaders were doing.  So what is a possible solution?

I recently read a New York Times article which intrigued me.  The story is how a chief minister in India came up with a new way to be open and transparent to the public he represents and works for. He decided to place a web cam in his office and feed it on the Internet, 24/7. (approx ahead 10 hour difference with central time)

The Chief minister or an equivalent of a state governor, Oommen Chandy, states to the NY Times, “ I believe that we have to create an atmosphere where everything should be in a transparent way."

The web cam that's been running since July 1, has had 293,586 users through the midpoint of July, according to the Times.

Local and state government in Minnesota is not in the"state of affairs" that India is in with bribery and corruption from its high levels of government to the small local entities.  But there have been calls for better transparency and accountability from the public for elected officials and employees for all levels of government in Minnesota.

If no one adopts the web cam here in Minnesota, which I think no one will-----What are ways technology can be used to make government more open, transparent, and accountable?

Though I can see this kind of set up being used if we are ever again in a shutdown situation where the State Capitol is closed to the public. Where decisions are made by a few people behind closed and locked doors.

Have the Governor's reception room and whatever conference room is used for discussion set up with camera, secondly, have audio.  The public would be able to see and hear everything.  What do you think?

Minnesota would be watching.

No more public info on who built Planned Parenthood What's Next?

An update from a past post. The City of St Paul went to the Commissioner of Minnesota's Department of Administration to have specific data on who's constructing the new Planned Parenthood building be secret. The Commissioner issued an opinion.

St Paul's Department of Safety and Inspection (DSI) has been relying on the opinion to keep the identity of subcontractor's, suppliers, and of the like away from the public, but only for the architectural file.

They have taken it one step further.  DSI has white washed the names of companies and businesses from the general permit filings from their website and databases which the public can see.  The names of subcontractors and suppliers were on it two weeks ago. No more.

If you put in the address where the building is being built you will see general words where a business or companies name would be.  Flannery Construction is listed as being the overall project contractor per City Ordinance.

As I have stated previously I question the broadness of the Commissioner's opinion and the interpretation by the City of St Paul.

Planned Parenthood and the City of St Paul indicated they want names secret because of threats and boycott campaigns.  What will the next step be? If a company receives threats and reports it to the police will that file become secret.  Information such as request of service and incident data has always been public

I have never seen before a broadness, sweep, and interpretation of an opinion that makes public data in this way so secret  Are facts or politics driving the opinion and the interpretation of it?

I spoke with Don Gemberling, well known expert on the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, how St Paul erased the identities of contractors.  His immediate response was "Did they seek the approval of the records disposition panel?"  The records disposition panel is a entity that gives approval to destroy official government records.  Is electronic permit data on the website an official record which documents an action by government.  Did the City of St Paul destroy an official record in violation of law?

The opinion and interpretation has been described by a number of people who are involved with open government as terrible, horrible, and possibly bizarre.  As a person to me stated the Legislature does not intend absurd results.  Is this though what's happening with the opinion and interpretation of it?

The use of "security information" to deny the public access to public data is becoming a new phenomena with government in Minnesota.  There has never been an oversight hearing on the opinion process since that law was created 18 years ago. 

I encourage the Legislature to take action.

Following the Shutdown Money

There's been hullabaloo at the Minnesota State Capitol since news reports appearing about legislators getting retroactive pay.  The Associated  Press and Star Tribune led with the stories which have gone state and nation wide.

There needs to be transparency and openness as to how the Minnesota House of Representatives in general pays its members. How does the House Administration handle requests of "I do not want to be paid?"  There needs to be clarification how the process works.

A number of House members publicly stated no paycheck for them during shutdown.  The public's view and the member's constituents, this meant not paid later, no deferment, it meant no paycheck, period.  House members may have announced before or after the stories hit yesterday that they are going to donate the check to charities, take half-pay, or whatever, but the perception of taking pay after one stated no pay raises questions which are legitimate.

The House legislators whose names appeared on the "list" and who have been confronted by media and constituents have to give kudos for dealing with the questions rather than hide.  I know a number of these Representatives.  They are hard working and good people.

A lesson can be learned though.  There needs to be rules, policies, and procedures laid out as to how information about expenses and salaries of the Legislature, both House and Senate, can be easily accessible by the public.  Currently, that is not the case.

Finally, I am aware the House suspended per diem of their $66 per day during the shutdown.  Did the Senate do theirs? 

The Shame of Minneapolis

I just finished reading a number of articles written by Lincoln Steffens.  Briefly, Lincoln Steffens was a journalist at the beginning of the 20th Century who wrote stunning exposes on corruption in city and state government.  He wrote for a number of magazines and newspapers, one of the famous being McClure's which these articles I refer to appeared in.

To get accountability, transparency, and openness of government was definitely no easy task for the public in the early 1900's.  Some people today would say its the same, "no easy task".

I read Tweed Days in St. Louis, Pittsburgh: A City Ashamed, and Rhode Island: A State for Sale among others.

But I was struck by the one he did entitled, the Shame of Minneapolis. 

"Minneapolis is a New England town on the upper Mississippi. The metropolis of the Northwest, it is the metropolis also of Norway and Sweden in America. Indeed, it is the second largest Scandinavian city in the world." is how Steffens describes the largest city in Minnesota in 1903.  There it was corruption and shenanigans in government at its best in Minneapolis.

Those events, behavior and people that Steffens describes 108 years ago can be parallel to today.  Not to the extreme as characterized in the 1903 article, but favoritism, greed, opportunity, use and gain of money, bribery, look the other way when the law is broken, continues and exists in all forms of government presently.

By reading Steffens articles, it's reemphasized to me that transparency and accountability are not new issues with government.  It has been a continuous fight between the public and the institution of government since our country's beginnings.  The institution of government which is to serve the public.

The Malarkey of St Paul Officials on the Library budget

I went to the Mayor of St Paul's budget speech at the Amsterdam today which is a new "venue" as the Mayor called it to help revitalize Wabasha Street.  Typical budget speech with cuts, lay off possibilities, and the raising of property taxes.

What caught my attention though was the cutting of 50 hours of public access to the St Paul Library System.  Living in downtown St Paul I wanted to know if my neighborhood library would be losing hours. As soon as the speech was over I looked for Kit Hadley, Director of the St Paul Library.  I asked her if the downtown Central would be losing hours.  She stated that the library budget will be released on Friday.  In other words, in her view it is not public.  I have known Ms. Hadley for decades she knows what I lobby and advocate for.  I stated to her that the data is public and that I could place a Data Practices Act request for it.  She indicated the data would not be released until Friday.

I tried again stating all I want to know is if downtown Central will be losing hours.  It is not a hard question to answer.  Her response was the Mayor stated that no information could be released about the Library budget until Friday. I stated to her it's plain BS that I am being told by her.  I have interacted with Ms. Hadley many times before on issues of public access and accountability.  Usually she is good on those issues,  but today she is just following orders.

Decided to track down the Mayor since he gave the order not to have any information about the Library budget released until Friday.  Direct question to Mayor Coleman, Is downtown Central Libray going to lose service hours?  He did not know.  I told him how I asked Ms. Hadley and she would not tell me based on the Mayor's direction.  I stated to him it is BS that a simple question as to whether or not the downtown library will lose hours cannot be answered.

Mayor Coleman was annoyed I believe about my question and statement.  We interacted for a minute or two.  He stated that the information will be released on Friday.

The Coleman Administration has a knack for wanting things to be secret or kept from the public until they decide to give it out even though it is public data.  In 2009, Mayor Coleman wanted to keep budget data completely secret and away from the public until the Mayor gives his speech.  With the recent selection process of the new St Paul Police Chief the administration wanted to have meetings closed.  There are other examples.

Before I left the Mayor, Erin Dady, the Chief of Staff told me to send her an e-mail.  I asked her a few minutes later if I did would she tell me whether or not the downtown library would lose hours.  Once again she stated the refrain the library budget will be released on Friday.   I again stated that the data is public. I also stated the City is just playing the game that government does with the public when they want to control the information and not release it.  Before I left the Amsterdam venue, Ms. Dady stated that the employees should know before the public does about hour cuts.

What I experienced is not what many members of the public experience when they ask questions or seek answers because most individuals do not persist.  What I encountered with the Mayor, the Library Director, and the Chief of Staff was not pleasant.  I am sure they were annoyed.  Why they could not answer a simple question or tell me I can give you the answer later today is beyond me.  It must be that secrecy and control thing.  Wait til Friday.

By the way I had a great conversation with St Paul Superintendent of Schools Silva.  I have never met her before.  I told her who I was and that I was critical of her in regards how she kept secret the school budget last year.  Indicated to her that hopefully she has learned from her experience and the public criticism that came with that episode.  She stated she has.  Is there hope?

Finally for those those who want to know what malarkey means.  Go here: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/malarkey

Well, that's all folks for now.  Got to rush across the street to City Hall to place my Data Practices request in to find out if the downtown library will lose hours.  By law that data is to be easily accessible for convenient use so that a simple question like mine can be answered.  Will see.

Who is actually building the New Planned Parenthood Clinic?

Every so often I check the Minnesota Department of Administration's IPAD web site.  On the site is information on our state laws that relate to access to government data and privacy rights.  It also lists opinions which the Commissioner of Administration has made decisions on as it relates to interpretation of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.

Last week I read the latest opinion issued by the Commissioner.  What a doozy.   It states that the City of St Paul can make not public or secret identities of contractors, subcontractors, and almost any one else that is involved with the new construction of the Planned Parenthood facilities.

Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota (PPMNS) is building a new facility in St. Paul.  In order to build, PPMNS must file building plans, get building permits, and allow inspection of the construction and get approval by city officials.

What is so unusual about the Commissioner's opinion in my judgement is the sweep of it to which St Paul is allowed to broadly decide what information should be public.  I have never seen an opinion like it before. The Commissioner in the opinion states that St Paul should not use it as "a blanket classification scheme."  I wondered about that so I visited the St Paul agency that oversees the permits and construction.  The name of the agency is the Department of Safety and Inspections. (DSI)

I called and visited with DSI staff about the opinion and how they were interpreting it.  I can understand why building plans, security, layout scheme and data specifically related to those areas of the facility can be not public per the opinion, but anything more I question.  The staff I met with indicated to me that DSI is taking the position that every document filed with them, in their entirety, architectural plans and other documents related to the construction of the PPMNS building is not public or "security information".

This would mean the names of the contractors, subcontractors, and others also would not be public.  I could see no rationale for that.  The opinion says that companies that have worked on PPMNS projects have been subject to threats and boycott campaigns. 

Threats towards parties that are involved in the PPMNS project cannot be tolerated by anyone and need to be dealt with immediately and investigated by law enforcement authorities.  I have no knowledge as to the degree of the threats, but I do not see it as blanket justification for closing public access to all identities of suppliers, vendors, subcontractors as it seems the City is doing.

Another side to this situation is what about the general permits that are public and collected by another part of DSI, for plumbing, electrical, and other venues of the building process for the PPMNS project.  When I questioned DSI staff as to whether or not the general permit data are public I was told that they may be applying the scope of the Commissioner's opinion to that data.  The City Attorney may be reviewing that question currently.

I do not believe that data that is public should be made not public under security information without without a very well documented, intensive and thorough review.  As to the plans of the building which involve layout and security the case has been made.  Identities no.  The City of St Paul is interpreting the opinion too broadly now and may in the future to other permit data.  Are they using it as "blanket" for all public data to the PPMNS project?

The public has a right to know who builds structures in their communities for a number of reasons from safety to accountability.  Another aspect to this situation is that some people in our community may have a viewpoint different than PPMNS.  A segment of our community would like to let people know what businesses are doing work on the PPMNS project or public members may not want to do work with companies or individuals who work on the project.

I spoke with Don Gemberling about the Commissioner's opinion.  Mr. Gemberling is former director of the division now known as IPAD.  He told me about a Minnesota Supreme Court that was decided in 1978 with similar issues.  

The court decision was named: Minnesota Medical Association vs State of Minnesota, 274 NW2d 84.  The case held that names of all physicians, clinics, and hospitals that had performed abortions with state monies are open to public scrutiny.  An argument used against having identities to be public was that there would be boycotts, pickets, and other threats.  33 years later similar arguments, different times, yes.

But it is a case in point not to allow the City of St Paul to arbitrarily deny the public access to public data of the PPMNS project, particularly identities of the contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, vendors, and others.

GangNet database going BYE-BYE?

A communication sent out by Ramsey County Sheriff  Matt Bostrom to other law enforcement agencies dated August 1, 2011 states that GangNet is to be shut down effective August 15, 2011

GangNet is a database run by the Ramsey County Sheriff's office since 1998.  Two years ago there was a story about the database in the Pioneer Press and a report done by the St. Thomas Law School Community Justice Project with the St. Paul NAACP.  The report and the news story created for the public a number of questions of how law enforcement collects data on people and the databases that police use to keep track of people.  The debate about GangNet and other related issues were front and center in 2010 at the State Legislature.

With the ending of GangNet by the Ramsey County Sheriff a number of questions still need to be answered to the public.  These are some of them:

Why did Sheriff Bostrom make this decision?
When he took office in January, 2011, did he have an evaluation, or review of the GangNet program done?
What did the report say?  Were there issues and problems? Did he talk with his colleagues in law enforcement and what did they say?
With thousands of people being in GangNet should not the subjects be made aware that they either are or were in the database? 
Granted GangNet disappears, Will it not appear in another form?  Is there a need to have such types of databases?  If so how can law enforcement guarantee accountability and transparency?

The GangNet program is an example of how law enforcement collects names and data on thousands of Minnesotans, some justified, some not, putting them in databases and sharing that information with others within the law enforcement community with the public not even knowing about it. There are many databases within Minnesota law enforcement agencies with individual names in them. These databases have names and data from contact reports to licence plate reader collection.

The broader concern of how law enforcement collects "intelligence" on the public, is the issue that underlies the discussion of GangNet.  The Minnesota Legislature in 2010 recognized this by forming a work group to study in essence a tough and expansive question:

How can Minnesota law enforcement collect "intelligence" on citizens to prevent crime and keep people safe, but at the same time have accountability, transparency, and respect Minnesotans privacy and civil liberties?

The group known as the SF 2725 Work Group met last fall.  Their proceedings, material collected, and their report is available through the link/BCA website.  Bottom line is the work group came to a general agreement on some issues, but on others they did not. "Key" issues such as how accountability and transparency is implemented, what is the trigger/standard that is used to collect "intelligence", among other points, there was no agreement.

So is GangNet really going Bye-Bye?  No, it will just rear its head in another form and named something else with less public scrutiny, accountability, and transparency.

What's Up at those City Council/County Board Meetings?

Have you ever gone to a public meeting of the city council, commission, or county board, school board, or other public body, and you want to know what the members of the meeting are talking about or referring to?  You may also want to look at the documents on the budget, or the licensing issue or any issue that could affect you that is the subject of the meeting.

I have many times.

What I look for is a folder/notebook which usually has all the printed materials   that members of the public body has before them.  The specific section of the law that gives you the right to inspect and review information/documents at a public meeting is 13D.01, subdivision 6.

There have been instances where I have gone to public meetings, and could not find the materials that should be available to public. When I have asked the person responsible for logistics and setting up the meeting-Where are the materials?.  The response sometimes is "Oh you can look at them on the Internet."or "I did not know that", or even "I forgot."

Granted this happens, but it does not mean that is excusable particularly using the Internet as a rationale.  Government entities should know what the law is.

Today I popped in the Metropolitan Council meeting.  I looked for the folder/notebook.  I did not find one, but what I saw was a number of copies of materials on the table in separate piles outside the meeting room.  My impression is that could have been the package of material that was before the Council per the Minnesota Open Meeting Law.  Have to compliment the Council if it was the material that its great to have more than one copy for public to review, inspect, and take if interested.

Next time you go to a public meeting of a public body, and you are wondering what the heck they're talking about, remember the section of law I have told you about.

Are you being N-Dexed?

You call to complain on a barking dog. Maybe you happen on crime on the way home from work. Maybe you're an innocent person stopped by police. Should your name go into a national database anytime you have contact with a law enforcement agency? 
It could happen.

The FBI and several other law enforcement organizations have been meeting with police agencies in Minnesota to introduce them to N-Dex.  N-Dex is a product of post 9/11 data-sharing. The FBI basically wants to set up basically a national database of all incident reports and other police files -- including names of suspects, victims, complainants and witnesses -- from every law enforcement agency.

There is currently a similar database called NCIC which has criminal history information, stolen properties, and other data.

But before N-Dex gets going full steam here in Minnesota we should be asking authorities: what do we -- as the ultimate authority in our state -- what information do WE want shared?

N-Dex proponents are going to each law enforcement agency and ask them to share their data.  So one agency can share everything as to what they consider incident reports, another may only give the FBI case closed files.  Should there be state standards?  Are there privacy and civil liberties interests?

The answers to these questions are too important to make up as as we go along. But that's what's happening as these N-Dex officials travel around Minnesota.

The above post was originally placed on Open Secrets on October 1, 2010.  Since then there have been developments with our state's involvement with N-Dex.

Update:
There has been major discussions about implementing N-Dex in Minnesota since last year.  The Criminal and Juvenile Justice Information Task Force  has taken a lead with work groups.  Next month the task force will start discussions as to what to recommend to the Minnesota Legislature on issues, for example, What kind of data should be shared with the FBI?, Should it go through the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension?, or should law enforcement agencies throughout the state be able to share what they want to share with the FBI?  What protections should there be for the people of Minnesota?

Think of N-Dex has a "large national data warehouse."  It is important the people of Minnesota be involved on this issue because it can and will have an impact on rights, liberties, and  privacy.

N-Dex has positives, but there must be thorough open and public discussion as to how Minnesota should participate.  You might wonder why this matters to you, a law biding citizen.  Well information about you and your contact with a law enforcement agency could end up in N-Dex.

I will be doing future posts on this issue in the near future.

Having Capitol open is more than symbolic

There were comments made in the media that the Capitol being open is a symbol of our representative form of government.  So true.  As many Minnesotans know though our Capitol was locked up "tight as a drum".  No public around other than essential employees, plus the elected officials, and the Capitol press corps.

But the Capitol is more than symbolism.  It is a living building which carries the vibrancy of history and the exhilaration of the democratic process.  Which the public did not experience for 19 days.

When entering the Capitol from the south steps today I was excited with the eagerness to participate in the process.  I wanted to see if legislation I fought for or against were still in the Special Session bills.

I engaged legislative staff in discussion.  Spoke and interacted with lobbyists who were there to see what may have happened to their legislative endeavour.  Spoke frankly with a number of legislator's about the last 19 days of having the Capitol wrapped up like a cocoon.

I have not seen the actual comments of Governor Dayton and Speaker Zeller when questioned by the press today on why all the secrecy the last few days.  Been told though, answers were basically, that public had opportunity for input on bills during regular session.  Also in the past meetings of legislators and members of the executive branch have been private.

But what was so different from public input on bills during the regular session and the private meetings as done in the past?

"Action and scenery of a great drama" called the Minnesota Shutdown.

For 19 days, this dramatic play took hold, people's lives were upset and the state shook.

The Capitol should have never been closed.

To have gone to the Capitol during shutdown people would have known we would get through this, the public would have been able to see and talk with their leaders and elected officials, for the public and lobbyists interested in legislative bills to engage and to participate.

The "People's House" is more than symbolic, it gives us a sense of continuity, it is who we are as a State and as a people.

Why Capitol should be open to public during shutdown

The public has a strong sense of what is right and wrong, and what is fair or not.  The situation at the "People's House" is very unique, but it does not mean the public should be locked out when legislator's behind an impenetrable Capitol discuss the public business.

How the legislative sausage is made during regular session is far different when there is a special session as I stated in a previous post.  If this was just a "regular" special session, the Capitol would be open, the public and lobbyists would be able to engage the elected officials and staff.  Ask questions, get materials, gather information and see things.

It is unique since the early seventies when the "Open Government" movement hit the Minnesota Legislature, the Capitol and Legislature is less accessible to the public for the last 18 days than since that time.

Per media and press reports, billions of dollars of state monies and how to spend or reallocate it are being discussed in conference committee/committees.  Deal making and horsetrading is going on to  get support from other legislator's, to comply with the GOP Leadership and Governor Dayton's agreement, and for many other reasons.  This happens all the time, but what's different, there's no public to see, watch, to ask questions, and put two and two together.

Since the announcement of the Gov/Leaders agreement the outstanding bills which include, the Health and Human Services bill, State Government Finance bill, and Legacy bill among others are on a "fast track."  Commissioner's, legislators, and staff are working "out hundreds of details" in these bills.  What does that mean?

It means that there is a big push to zip these bills through and that there will be changes of language, with shifts of money going from one program to another, language and money allocations in bills disappearing, possible new language being added, and an array of legislative slights of hand without any public scrutiny.

From the small non-profit who worked on language in a specific area with funding to the large corporate entity that wants less government regulation are all interested where the money and resources go.  There is also interest in the law and policy changes.  But we are all locked out.

With the public or interested parties to be able to be at the open "People's House" where discussion since July 1 has taken place there would be so many positive gains rather than the suspicions if the doors were only open.

The ability of the public to be at the Capitol would allow for Minnesotans to gain knowledge about the spending of public monies, priorities and policy changes that may be different because of the BIG DEAL. To gain a good realization of the entangled and challenging choices we in Minnesota face, but  also to be more broad minded about the negative consequences and to appreciate the Legislator's dilemma.  To see the various interests play out in the public we are able to discern the conflicts of interests, the special interests, and to watch the decision making about the public expense and policy which is about us.  We may also be able to bring a perspective, facts, or information that may help resolve an issue, error, or misunderstanding.

The Governor and the Legislative Leadership did not provide the direction for the Capitol to be open for the public during the shutdown time.  It was a slap to our faces, to our traditions of open government and accountability.  Even to the point, that legislators could not even escort their own constituents to their own offices.

Am I too idealistic about government of the people, for the people, and by the people.  Damn right I am.  I have a real appreciation of the process and I know the public can make a difference.

The public I think believes it was wrong and not fair to have the "People's House" closed and locked while legislator's and Dayton administration officials worked on our business.  The shutdown created the unique situation,"but that does not mean we should throw away Minnesota's tradition of accountability, transparency and openness."

As I said to the Pioneer Press "This is the weird backside, the ugliness of the shutdown. It's sausage making on the fast track, greased, without any public questioning."