[10307] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
Re: California requirement for computer readable data?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (PACS-L Moderator)
Fri Jun 21 20:18:05 1996
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 18:32:36 -0500 (CDT)
From: PACS-L Moderator <libpacs@UH.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list PACS-L <PACS-L@UHUPVM1.UH.EDU>
Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L@UHUPVM1.UH.EDU>
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>From: jwarren@well.com (Jim Warren)
>Subject: Re: California requirement for computer readable data?
>At 11:44 AM 06/20/96, Jeff Brown wrote in FOI-L:
>>I am following up a statement that recent California legislation
>>requires that all FOIA information be made available in a
>>computer-readable format, it possible. Can anyone validate this for me?
>>
>>This info is also needed for other states and the Fed's as well.
>
>
>Notes and warning:
>
>1. This response applies in varying degrees to MOST states.
>
>2. There is a GREAT need for *librarians* and *independent public-policy*
>and *academic* researchers identified, below.
>
>3. Having been in the front lines of these battles for much too long, I'm
>self-indulgently sarcastic in pointing out some of the problems that
>public-records access advocates are encountering.
>
>
>This concerns *both* state public records and local-agency public records.
>
>
>First of all, the FOIA is federal legislation -- applying only to federal
>agencies (with tons and oodles of exemptions). [Freedom of Information
>Act.]
>
>For access to *federal* executive-branch agencies, one of the best
>documents to look at is the Office of Management and Budget's Circular
>A-130, initially issued around June, 1993. Generally, it sets forth
>*laudible* guidelines for how federal agencies should go about assuring
>public access to federal public records. (As of 1993, A-130 was available
>by ftp from nis.nsf.net as /omb/omb.a310.rev2, or by email query to
>nis-info@nis.nsf.net, or by calling Peter Weiss at 202-395-4814, but
>there's no telling what's happened since then.)
>
>[Federal *legislative* and *judicial* information is a total free-for-all
>right now, as is state-level judicial information -- although the U.S.
>Supremes have beem making their rulings available online for free for at
>least most of this decade (accessible at Cleveland Freenet and numerous
>other sites). For state legislative goodies, California and an increasing
>number of other states have put up laudible public-access sites for their
>legislative information -- e.g., www.sen.ca.gov for California (access
>initially mandated by Assembly Member Debra Bowen's AB 1624 in 1993;
>*excellent* web-access thanks to Dennis Miller, who's now an independant
>consultant <drinet@sna.com>).]
>
>
>Secondly, Californica <sic> (and probably all other states) has long had
>two primary laws in this area -- an Open Meetings Act (called the Ralph M.
>Brown Act, or simply "the Brown Act") ... that eternally irritates elected
>and appointed local and state bodies (coyly, the state legislature exempted
>itself from the inconvenience of Brown Act mandates), and the CPRA -- the
>California Public Records Act.
>
>It's almost-certainly the CPRA that you've heard about.
>
>CPRA BACKGROUND
>
>The CPRA says that all disclosable records (there are multitudinous
>exemptions) held in any form whatsoever, specifically including *any*
>computerized form, must be accessible for review on-site in the archiving
>agency's offices during normal office hours, and copies of them must be
>made available upon request for no more than the incremental cost of
>copying (again, both mandates have exemptions).
>
>The ringer is, the agency gets to determine the format in which the access
>or copies are to be made available. E.g., you want all of a county's
>disclosable assessor records so you can look for statistical abberations
>that might indicate "special beneficiaries" of the assessor's largess?
>Ahah! They are perfectly entitled to provide the copy of their
>computerized files ONLY as a massive printout -- with matching cost.
>
>Or maybe they will readily provide the files in their computerized form.
>But -- oh! -- you want the copy for no more than the incremental cost of
>creating the copy? Oh ... that's different -- you can either have the
>[almost useless] computer *print*out, at cost of copying ... or you get to
>pay through the nose if you want the data in *useful*, *modern*
>[computerized] form -- as it is already maintained and utilized within the
>agency.
>
>CPRA CURRENT STATUS
>
>For the last several years (began ~1991 or earlier), many of us -- Calif
>Newspaper Publishers Assn, Calif First Amend Project, Calif Common Cause,
>and on and on and on -- have been fighting to get one teeny-weeny little
>change in the CPRA ... to state that, when a copy is requested, that the
>requester can ask for it in any form in which the agency makes copies of
>their data for their own internal use and/or for other agencies use, AND
>that the long-established "incremental cost of copying" principle continue
>to apply, even when the copying cost is cheap and the [tax-paying public's]
>data is valuable.
>
>[I drafted the initial language to mandate such computerized access, that
>was in last year's unsuccessful bill to do this, authored by state Sen.
>Quentin Kopp.]
>
>The League of California Cities (tax-funded citys' lobbyists against the
>public's interest, in this case) and the California State Association of
>Counties (tax-funded countys' lobbyists against the public's interest,
>ditto) have *ARDENTLY* opposed these public-interest public-access
>proposals -- basically for two reasons:
>
>1. They want to sell their already-computerized disclosable public records
>at MARKET-value, rather than being forced to "give" them away (to the
>tax-payers who already paid for their collection and computerization) at
>COPYING-cost.
>
>2. They are [sometimes legitimately] concerned that they may accidentally
>release NONdisclosable information, in the process of responding to a
>requested for a mass of already-computerized disclosable records -- because
>they are increasingly (and justifiably) co-mingling disclosable records
>with nondisclosable information in a single, or linked flat-file or
>relational databases ... and almost-invariably have failed to build in the
>capability for automatically redacting [lawyer's word for removing] the
>nondisclosable components when responding to a request for the disclosable
>components.
>
>In my draft-language for the bill, I proposed that such automated redaction
>features be required for *new* systems that co-mingle such info, when they
>are requisitioned after some date a few years hence. The League and CSAC
>didn't like that, either.
>
>And also: *Sometimes* automatic redaction is easy -- as in traditional
>databases with limited, clearly-defined fields (name, address, phone, age,
>property value, etc.). But in other comingles systems, there is NO
>reasonable way to automate redaction -- especially systems that include
>free-text content (e.g., a police report or collective bargaining status
>report).
>
>Senator Kopp currently recently created a task force -- mostly composed of
>bureaucrats, but also including several of us "open records zealots" --
>that is attempting to work out *some* of the problems and disagreements.
>(Kopp's staff laison for the task force is Teri Burns, 916-445-0503.)
>
>And I might add -- we could sure use some more [knowledgable, experienced]
>open-government advocates on that task force, in my opinion (*especially*
>some computer-literate, outspoken librarians, public-records
>researchers/academics, etc.).
>
>
>So --
>
>1. Computerized Calif public records are NOT mandated-accessible in their
>useful/digital form ... and there are MAJOR hurtles <sic> to overcome
>before the Golden State will permit such access -- unless it's priced at
>maximum market value of the data ... thus limiting government access only
>to those who can buy it.
>
>2. Even if all those problems are worked out -- for disclosable records
>that a state or local agency *does* want to computerize, or has already
>computerized, for its own use and efficiencies -- there is NO proposal that
>I know of, and I doubt that there will be for years into the future, that
>mandates that all disclosable/public records be computerized (which was the
>original question). For a great number of reasons, that would be
>impractical and phenominally expensive.
>
>
>Yeah, I know -- this's probably more'n ya ever wanted to know ... but it IS
>applicable to most other states as well.
>
>
>In fairness, I've cc'ed this one of the chief spokesmen *for* the
>market-rate pricing proposal (Frank Lockfeld, Center for Urban Analysis,
>Office of the County Executive, Santa Clara County, frank@cua.co.scl.ca.us,
>408/299-3285 fax:408/277-0103) and to one of the best spokesmen for the
>privacy-protection issue concerning accidental disclosure (Ariel Pierre
>Calonne, City Attorney, City of Palo Alto, 250 Hamilton Ave, Palo Alto CA
>94301; 415-329-2171; fax/415-329-2646;
>email/Ariel_CALONNE@city.palo-alto.ca.us,
>http://www.well.com/user/acalonne,
>http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/home.html).
>
>--fed-up-jim
>Jim Warren, GovAccess list-owner/editor, advocate & columnist
(jwarren@well.com)
>345 Swett Rd., Woodside CA 94062; voice/415-851-7075; fax/<# upon request>
>
>[puffery FWIW: Hugh M. Hefner First-Amendment Award, Playboy Foundation;
>James Madison Freedom-of-Information Award, Soc.of Prof.Journalists-Nor.Cal.;
>Pioneer Award, Electronic Frontier Foundation (its first year, 1992);
>John Dvorak Lifetime Achievement Award; founded InfoWorld, DataCast,
>Peninsula Citizens' Advocate; Computers, Freedom & Privacy confs, etc. :-).]
>
>
>
