~ sacramento county new criminal records system deeply flawed - possible 20 percent error rate ~

Not only is new not better, but a recent reconfiguration of the Sacramento County Criminal Court index could make matters worse for the very people the change was intended to protect. This report comes from the April issue of The Public Record Update, provided by BRB Publications, Inc.

For years, Sacramento County in California has offered online access to the docket index of court records. Recently they added a new twist. Requesters can now submit an exact DOB with the name as part of the search criteria. The resulting list of possible hits will still cloak or hide the DOB. Reportedly, county officials instituted this change to help record retrievers and to lessen the workload of the clerks pulling files. However, per the retrievers we spoke to who service this county, the new system has some serious flaws. The new system is missing cases. And, using the system discounts the many times a requester receives bad or transposed birth dates, or when an incorrect DOB is in the court system which leads to reporting a false clear report. For example, a recent test by a PRRN Member showed nearly 20% of the names with hits on the old system were
not shown on the new system. Until the new system offers a true measure of necessary due diligence, these retrievers will continue to do name searches without the DOB and pull files for their clientele to determine if case is a correct match. Users of this information should be advised to use caution and consider the new system merely a supplemental search, at least for now.

courts

~ reclassification of federal records removes them from the public sphere ~

The public is losing access to government documents that were formerly available under the FOIA. Low level federal employees are designating many of these records "Not For Public Dissemination" and there's no record of which ones are being reclassified.

Federal agencies under the Bush administration are sweeping vast amounts of public information behind a curtain of secrecy in the name of fighting terrorism, using 50 to 60 loosely defined security designations that can be imposed by officials as low-ranking as government clerks. Read the article

~ lists of accused priest molesters to remain private ~

From the AP wires via California First Amendment Coalition...

The California Supreme Court on Tuesday temporarily blocked the release of summaries of personnel files of 117 priests accused of molestation.

The move came just minutes before the documents were to become public on the Los Angeles Archdiocese Web site, publicly identifying for the first time some accused
priests. Read the article

~ fees for public records ~

Do government agencies charge the public too much for copies of public records? Surely, the one dollar per page cost many California agencies levy exceeds the "direct costs of duplication, or a statutory fee" [California GC 6253(b)]. The Kentucky Attorney General issued an opinion that his state was overcharging for copies.

"We find no support in existing legal authority for the fifty cents per page copying fee that the city currently imposes and that policy constitutes a subversion of the intent of the Open Records Act," Assistant Attorney General Amye Bensenhaver wrote in the opinion. Read the article

Can the robust California economy elevate the actual costs of photocopies that much more?

~ upcoming Washington State legislation ~

There are 3 public records bills that have had their first reading this session which Washington investigators may want to follow.

HB 1350 Regarding disclosure of public records.
(Show History)

Declares that the intent of this act is to make clear that: (1) Agencies possessing records must take every available step to assist and facilitate the identification and disclosure of requested records to the public and may not simply ignore or reject requests for disclosure on the basis they are "overly broad," and...

HB 1602 Concerning the denial of a public records request because the request is overbroad.
(Show History)

Amends RCW 42.17.320 to provide that an agency, the office of the secretary of the senate, or the office of the chief clerk of the house of representatives may not deny a public record request on the grounds that it is overbroad.

HB 2138 Limiting access to public records by persons convicted of a gross misdemeanor or a felony.
(Show History)

Applies to a public record requested by a person convicted of a gross misdemeanor or a felony who is serving a sentence of imprisonment in a federal, state, or county correctional facility in this state or any other state, or who is under the supervision of the department of corrections in the community, unless denial of the record would interfere with the person's right to mount a criminal defense under the federal and state constitutions.

state legislation
government

~ oregon court cuts record access fees ~

An animal rights advocacy group requested documents under the public records law and got hit with a $12,000 bill.

In its first-ever ruling on how public agencies must determine how much to charge watchdog groups for copies of public records, the Oregon Court of Appeals on Wednesday came out in favor of more access and lower costs.

All well and good but apparently the agency manually removed its employees' names, justifying the high cost. Is document scanning and keyword searching that futuristic?

"Animal activism nationwide has taken a very radical twist. The ruling recognizes our employees' safety is an important factor."

The article

~ shopping for a search engine ~

Perhaps comparing search engine results is just a bit too technology specific for PI News Link. I'll keep it short. Internet nerd compares top 3 search engines with become.com for unique search results. The conclusion? The top 3 are much the same but become.com delivered the most unique urls for the keywords searched. This is not a general search engine but a product and product review one.

If a url was found within the search results of a single search engine [engine A] but the url didn't exist in the top 10 results of either one of the other engines [engines B, C & D] then that url was considered unique for the search engine in which it was found [engine A]. Read the article

~ you can't get there from here ~

Government telephone numbers are hidden behind the September 11 excuse screen.

For years, a citizen who wanted to know the name and phone number of a Pentagon official could buy a copy of the Defense Department directory at a government printing office. But since 2001, the directory has been stamped ''For Official Use Only," meaning the public may not have access to such basic information about the vast military bureaucracy. Read more

~ litigation to close professional license ~

The California Board of Equalization was successful in closing access to its records by arguing that small businesses sometimes listed their home addresses. This virus may be spreading to other locales and government license records.

Nurse sues to keep address out of public records

A Juneau nurse, represented by the Alaska Civil Liberties Union, filed a class action lawsuit Monday against the state of Alaska to keep her personal address out of the public files, which she says can endanger her.

~ funeral industry privacy ~

Even funeral homes and cemeteries are clamping down on the release of personal information. I can recall many times when I contacted a mortuary or cemetery to "flesh out" a family tree or locate an heir. Between the privacy scare and the industry consolidation you may find that your inquiries drop you into the corporate maze.

The funeral industry loans money to people to bury their dead. Under Gramm-Leach-Bliley the industry is classified as a financial institution, limiting their release of personal information. The International Cemetery and Funeral Association reports the details in a May 2001 article, New Privacy Act May Affect Some Cemeteries and Funeral Homes.

GLBA allows consumers and customers to protect their "nonpublic personal information" (which means any "personally identifiable financial information" about the consumer that is not "publicly available information"). Information about a consumer is not publicly available information unless the financial institution reasonably believes the information has been made publicly available by lawful means (e.g., listed numbers in a telephone book). Personally identifiable financial information includes any information a financial institution collects about a consumer in conjunction with providing a financial product or service (e.g., the consumer's name, address and telephone number, their credit history with the institution and others). Even a list or database consisting only of names and addresses identifying persons who are "consumers" or "customers" of a financial institution contains protected "nonpublic personal information" about those persons.

privacy

~ status of federal legislation affecting private investigators ~

The National Council of Investigation and Security Services (NCISS) is the advocate for private investigators in Washington D.C. If you want to protect your livelihood send them a check today. This is an all volunteer organization. Even if you're not a member you can support our legislative effort: NCISS Legislative Fund, 7501 Sparrows Point Blvd., Baltimore, MD 21219.

Here are some of the bills NCISS is watching. It's a lengthy list but is organized by topic.

Data Warehouses
S. 500 – Information Protection and Security Act – Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL)
Latest Update: Sen. Nelson introduced the Information Protection and Security Act on March 3 and it was then referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. H.R. 500 is identical to H.R. 1080, sponsored by Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA).

Summary: S. 500 regulates information brokers and protects individual rights with respect to personally identifiable information. Specifically, it authorizes the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to promulgate regulations requiring information brokers to update the information they store and allow individuals to access their information; upon request by the individual, the information brokers must disclose what information they distribute and to whom it was given; the information brokers must also authenticate users before allowing usage; finally, H.R. 1080 authorizes enforcement by FTC and allows individuals the right to private action against the brokers.

H.R. 1080 – Information Protection and Security Act – Congressman Ed Markey (D-MA)
Latest Update: H.R. 1080 was introduced on March 3 by Rep. Markey and was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. H.R. 1080 is identical to S. 500, sponsored by Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL).

Summary: H.R. 1080 regulates information brokers and protects individual rights with respect to personally identifiable information. Specifically, it authorizes the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to promulgate regulations requiring information brokers to update the information they store and allow individuals to access their information; upon request by the individual, the information brokers must disclose what information they distribute and to whom it was given; the information brokers must also authenticate users before allowing usage; finally, H.R. 1080 authorizes enforcement by FTC and allows individuals the right to private action against the brokers.

Privacy / Identity Theft Protection
New! S. 751 – Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act – Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Latest Update: S. 751 was introduced on April 11, 2005 and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. This bill is based on California law, which is the first and currently the only State law requiring notification of individuals.

Summary: S. 751 requires a business or government entity to notify an individual in writing or email when it is believed that personal information has been compromised, with the exception of situations relating to criminal investigation or national security purposes. Examples of personal information include: Social Security number, driver's license or state identification number, or credit card or bank account information. The bill covers both electronic and non-electronic data, as well as encrypted and non-encrypted data.

New! S. 768 – Comprehensive Identity Theft Prevention Act – Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL)
Latest Update: Introduced on April 12, 2005, and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

Summary: S. 768 regulates information brokers, cracks down on the sale of Social Security numbers, and notifies Americans when their personal information is compromised. Creates a new Federal Trade Commission (FTC) office to help victims restore their identities. Creates an Assistant Secretary for Cyber Security in the Department of Homeland Security.
New! H.R. 1263 – Consumer Privacy Protection Act of 2005 – Congressman Cliff Stearns (R-FL)

Latest Update: Introduced on March 10 and referred to the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection on March 22.
Summary: Protects and enhances consumer privacy by instituting a number of requirements for data collection organizations, specifically to provide notification to consumers and to establish a privacy policy with respect to the collection, sale, disclosure for consideration, or use of the consumer's information.

S. 29 – Social Security Number Misuse Prevention Act – Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Latest Update: S. 29 was introduced on Jan. 24 by Sen. Feinstein and was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Summary: This bill amends the Federal criminal code to prohibit the display, sale, or purchase of social security numbers without the affirmatively expressed consent of the individual, except in specified circumstances. It directs the Attorney General to study and report to Congress on all the uses of social security numbers permitted, required, authorized, or excepted under any Federal law, including the impact of such uses on privacy and data security. S. 29 establishes a public records exception to the prohibition and directs the Comptroller General to study and report to Congress on social security numbers in public records. The Attorney General is granted rulemaking authority to enforce this Act's prohibition and to implement and clarify the permitted uses occurring as a result of an interaction between businesses, governments, or business and government.

S. 116 – Privacy Act of 2005 – Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA
Latest Update: S. 116 was introduced on Jan. 24 by Sen. Feinstein and was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Summary: S. 116 prohibits the sale and disclosure of personally identifiable information by a commercial entity to a non-affiliated third party unless prescribed procedures for notice and opportunity to restrict such disclosure have been followed. The bill grants the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) enforcement authority. S. 166 also amends Federal criminal law to prohibit the display, sale, or purchase of social security numbers (SSNs) without the affirmatively expressed consent of the individual. This legislation prohibits the use of SSNs on checks issued for payment by governmental agencies and driver's licenses or motor vehicle registrations. It prohibits a commercial entity from requiring disclosure of an individual's SSN in order to obtain goods or services, and it establishes criminal and civil monetary penalties for misuse of an SSN.

H.R. 82 – Social Security On-line Privacy Protection Act – Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ)

Latest Update: Rep. Frelinghuysen introduced H.R. 82 on Jan. 4 and it was referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection of Feb. 4.

Summary: H.R. 82 prohibits an interactive computer service from disclosing to a third party an individual's Social Security number or related personally identifiable information without the individual's prior informed written consent. The bill also requires such service to permit an individual to revoke any consent at any time.

H.R. 84 – Online Privacy Protection Act of 2005 – Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ)
Latest Update: Rep. Frelinghuysen introduced H.R. 84 on Jan. 4 and it was referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection.

Summary: H.R. 84 requires the Federal Trade Commission to prescribe regulations to protect the privacy of personal information collected from and about individuals who are not covered by the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (age 13 and above) on the Internet. It makes it unlawful for an operator of a Web site or online service to collect, use, or disclose personal information concerning an individual in a manner that is in violation of prescribed regulations, requiring such operators to protect the confidentiality, security, and integrity of personal information it collects from such individuals. H.R. 84 also provides greater individual control over the collection and use of that information by creating a process for such individuals to consent to or limit the disclosure of such information. Additionally, H.R. 84 directs the FTC to provide incentives for efforts of self-regulation by operators to implement appropriate protections for such information. Finally, it authorizes the States to enforce such regulations by bringing actions on behalf of residents, requiring the State attorney general to first notify the FTC of such action.

H.R. 220 – Identity Theft Prevention Act of 2005 – Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX)
Latest Update: H.R. 220 was introduced on Jan. 4 by Rep. Paul. It was then referred to the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Government Reform.

Summary: H.R. 220 Amends title II (Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance) of the Social Security Act and the Internal Revenue Code to prohibit using a Social Security account number except for specified Social Security and tax purposes. The bill also prohibits the Social Security Administration from divulging the Social Security account number of an individual to any Federal, State, or local government agency or instrumentality, or to any other individual. Conversely, no Federal, State, or local government agency or instrumentality may request an individual to disclose his Social Security account number on either a mandatory or a voluntary basis, among other prohibitions.

Internet
H.R. 214 – Advanced Internet Communications Services Act of 2005 – Congressman Cliff Stearns (R-FL)

Latest Update: Rep. Stearns introduced this bill on January 14 and on Feb. 4, it was referred to House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet.

Summary: The bill aims to promote deployment of and investment in advanced Internet communications services. It gives the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) exclusive authority regarding advanced Internet communications services, allowing the FCC to impose specific requirements or obligations on providers of advanced Internet communications voice service.

Homeland Security
S. 140 – Domestic Defense Fund Act of 2005 – Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
Latest Update: Sen. Hillary Clinton introduced S. 140 on January 24. It was referred to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

Summary: S. 140 provides for a domestic defense fund to improve the Nation's homeland defense by authorizing the Secretary of Homeland Security to award grants to States, units of local government, and Indian tribes for homeland security development. The grant awardees are required to develop a homeland security plan identifying both short- and long-term homeland security needs, among other items. 70 percent of grant funds are required to be allocated among metropolitan cities and urban counties based on the Secretary's calculations of various infrastructure vulnerabilities and threats such as proximity to international borders, nuclear or other energy facilities, air, rail or water transportation, and national icons and Federal buildings.

H.R. 91 – Smarter Funding for All of America's Homeland Security Act of 2005 – Congressman Rodney P. Frelinghuysen (R-NJ)

Latest Update: Rep Rodney Frelinghuysen introduced H.R. 91 on January 4. It was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security (Select), and also referred to the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure, the Judiciary, and Energy and Commerce for consideration of provisions as they fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. On February 25, it was referred to the Subcommittee on Health, where it currently is waiting for action by the Chairman.

Summary: H.R. 91 modifies the DHS grant program, authorizing the Secretary of Homeland Security to make grants to first responders. One new criteria will be "Threats to major communications nodes, including cyber and telephonic nodes."

H.R. 285 – Department of Homeland Security Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2005 – Congressman Mac Thornberry (R-TX) and Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)

Latest Update: Also known as the Department of Homeland Security Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2005. On January 6, Congressman Mac Thornberry and Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren reintroduced bipartisan legislation to create an Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity position within the Department of Homeland Security's Information Analysis and Infrastructures Protection Directorate. The Assistant Secretary position was originally introduced on the 108th Congress in H.R. 10, the 911 Recommendations Implementation Act, where it was approved by the House of Representatives, but ultimately was not included in the final version of the bill.

Summary: The legislation would allow for the Assistant Secretary to have primary authority within the Department for all cyber security-related critical infrastructure protection programs of the Department, including policy formulation and program management. The legislation touts strong support from the technology, education, and financial sectors.



legislation
homeland security

~ and what's so special about zabasearch ? ~

People have asked me to write about zabasearch.com, so I can't avoid it any longer. David Lazarus at the SF Chronicle finds it "scary". He wrote about it again, providing additional company details.

Zabasearch is a more aggressive marketing tool for selling background searches to the general public. It exudes the same wild west scent of its siblings, the numerous other single search Internet retail data sellers that make private investigators and legitimate data providers cringe. These quick buck merchants come and go while those of us who are professionals, providing services to attorneys, businesses and law enforcement are left to take the blame.

In the "terms" link at the bottom of the site page zabasearch associates itself with Peopledata, Inc. This California corporation's President, Nicholas Matzorkis, can be found on zabasearch. Another company of his, US Search, has elicited some complaints and the Better Business Bureau, which links Zaba and Peopledata, rates this company as unsatisfactory. I'm sure that Nick would appreciate a phone call: 877-385-4020. This is a business line. His home number in unlisted.

~ Google saves your web searches effortlessly ~

Google's My Search History feature, still in Beta, is better than the Internet Explorer Favorites folder for saving search results. My Search History automatically saves your search terms as you enter them in the search bar, listing the websites you visit under each search term. You can keep a running list of selected sites which are preorganized. Here's an example.

I entered the search terms which are listed as the first hyperlink. Underneath that are the two websites I visited. If you search a term but don't go to a site, My Search History still saves it.

attorneys "ask questions"
The Five Main Steps of a Trial California juries have been ... - 7:27pm
www.suttercourts.com/jurytrialsteps.asp
American Lawyer Media's Law.com - Ask a Simple Question - 7:25pm
www.law.com/jsp/law/sfb/lawArticleSFB.jsp?id=11129910102 70

Set up a Google Groups, Gmail or Google Alerts account then log in and select My Search History under Google Labs.

~ conservative former Congressman and ACLU advisor offers thoughtful reflection on Choicepoint and data aggregators ~

The ACLU should listen up and pay attention to its privacy consultants. Former U. S. Congressman Bob Barr is, curiously, advising the American Civil Liberties Union on matters related to personal information. And he argues for a long-term, deliberative approach to addressing the challenge of maintaining open access to information while protecting people from its fraudulent uses. His FindLaw commentary, Can We Protect Our Privacy Through Legal Solutions? Or Is Technology Now Beyond Our Control?The ChoicePoint Dilemma forecasts a more troubling outcome if our government clamps down on information services.

The risk we face if we target all data providers with knee-jerk, oppressive legislation or regulation, is driving them beyond the reach of any kind of control. In other words, making the United States singularly inhospitable territory for data services will encourage new entrepreneurs to simply set up shop in places where they are subject to no restrictions. And, if you think having your personal information on file in a data warehouse in Atlanta is bad, imagine how much worse it would be to have it in India, Bangladesh, China, or anywhere else the prevalence of cheap labor and minimal government control create a hospitable environment.

It may not be on the scale nuclear proliferation but ya gotta admit release of Choicepoint type data to a Pakistan can't be good. On the other hand, data aggregation brings benefits to consumers and businesses but the data collection companies have to recognize that they have a greater responsibility to the public.

Our message to data aggregators should be simple: if you demonstrate a commitment to fixing mistakes, safeguarding personal data, and playing by the rules, we want to have you as part of the legitimate business
community in America. If not, then we will do everything possible to curtail your operations, including working to stop other nations from offering you safe haven. This carrot-and-stick approach is by far our best option.

Looks like we're going to have some strange bedfellows in our future.

~ California Senator proposes to outlaw private investigators ~

The California legislature is spinning out of earth's atmosphere in its attempt to ameliorate the misuse of personal data a la Choicepoint. State Senator Jackie Speier introduced SB 550, which has been re-referred to the Judiciary Committee. The broad language of the bill can be interpreted to apply to any information services enterprise, which are foundational to our economy.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 550, as amended, Speier. Data brokers.
(1) Existing law generally regulates a business that discloses personal information about a California resident to 3rd parties.

This bill would further regulate a data broker, which would be defined as a commercial entity that collects, assembles, or maintains personally identifiable information about a California resident for the sale or transmission of, or provision of access to, that information to any 3rd party.

The bill would amend SECTION 1. Title 1.805 (commencing with Section 1798.79), adding to Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code. It defines data broker in such a way that many businesses, including private investigators, would not be able to gather information required for legal, litigation, due diligence and other business purposes. It states, in part:

1.805. DATA BROKERS
1798.79. For purposes of this title:
(a) "Data broker" means a commercial entity that collects, assembles, or maintains personally identifiable information about a California resident for the sale or transmission of, or the provision of access to, that information to any third party, whether that collection, assembly, or maintenance is performed by the data broker directly or by contract or subcontract with any other entity.

Doesn't this mean that the private investigator can't obtain the name, address or telephone number of a witness and pass that to their attorney-client?

Adding to the potential of a fraud layered upon the documented frauds, this bill proposes to let consumers decide the information about them that will be retained by data brokers, then to opt out of the databases all together.

1798.79.2. (a) Every individual may request that his or her personally identifiable information be excluded from any report prepared by a data broker. Every data broker shall establish a notification system, including, but not limited to, a toll‑free telephone number, through which an individual can provide notice to that broker that the individual's personally identifiable information shall be excluded therefor.

And then you'll have to tell your clients' that a background report on a witness will cost $3000, plus attorney's fees.....

SEC. 2. Section 1798.84 of the Civil Code is amended to read:
1798.84.
(a) Any waiver of a provision of this title is contrary
to public policy and is void and unenforceable.
(b) Any customer or individual whose personal information is disclosed who is injured by a violation of this title may institute a civil action to recover damages.
(c) In addition, for a willful, intentional, or reckless violation of Section 1798.83, a customer may recover a civil penalty not to exceed three thousand dollars ($3,000) per violation; otherwise, the customer may recover a civil penalty of up to five hundred dollars ($500) per violation for a violation of Section 1798.83.

Read the bill. Contact Senator Speier.

~ fight to get Las Vegas police reports ~

If you ask for police reports or court files in Las Vegas you may get the third degree.

A new policy in Las Vegas Justice Court limiting access to police reports and other public records is under fire from advocates of open government. The problem came to light when a Las Vegas Review-Journal reporter tried to access a court file in Justice Court and was told he had to fill out a special form.

The form requires those seeking access to a case file to identify themselves as a media member, a criminal defendant, a defense attorney or "other."

Allen Lichtenstein, an attorney who represents the American Civil Liberties Union, said certain information in criminal prosecutions and investigations must remain confidential.

But under the law, he said, the public is entitled to access police reports and other documents.

~ the state of iowa public records ~

Journalism students evaluate the accessibility of public records in Iowa.

An investigation by 15 Iowa newspapers and a senior 'journalism class at Drake University has found both improvement and some setbacks in the availability of public records in Government offices in lowa's 99 counties.

Two steps forward, one step back.





public records

~ georgia editorial on choicepoint gets it wrong ~

Those of you in the fine state of Georgia may want to contact the Atlanta Journal-Constitution about an editorial advocating the elimination of data aggregation. Huh. What Stone Age, anti-democratic planet are these people living on? And they're journalists. Well, actually, the author is probably a capitalist manager, pushing the advertising vehicle called a newspaper, which also has journalists writing for it. What am I steamed up over? Read this short editorial.

Here's the real low-wattage conclusion:

The better solution would be to prohibit companies such as ChoicePoint from warehousing personal information in the first place, since security has proved so problematic. Computerized collections of consumers' Social Security numbers, credit information, driving histories, medical and court records may make commerce more efficient, but they also present appealing targets to crooks.

Contact the editors, do some educating and propose an article with a counter view.

AJC: PHONE: 404-526-5151 (general); 404-526-5342 (news); ajc.com -- online AJC Richard Halicks 404-526-5635; Susan Hardin 404-582-7075; David Lee 404-582-7346; Nadirah Sabir; 404-582-5602; Carolyn Warmbold 404-582-7511

~ advocate for open police records in California ~

If you believe in open access to police reports get your advocacy hat on and head over to the California Attorney General's office, which is taking public comments on this very issue. Californians Aware reports:

June 7 is the deadline for written comments on the following two questions submitted by Senator Dean Florez (D-Shafter):1. May a district attorney withhold from public disclosure all police investigative reports, including those in which all confidential personal information has been redacted?2. Under the terms of Penal Code Section 964, may a district attorney provide summaries of police investigative reports in lieu of publicly disclosing such reports with the confidential personal information redacted?

PC 964 is the codification of the bill authored by Senators Ross Johnson and Dean Flores last year that gives District Attorneys sway over the release and redaction of police reports.

Send your comments to:

Deputy Attorney General Gregory Gonot, P.O. Box 944255, Sacramento CA 94244-2550. For further information call Gonot at (916) 324-7860. Comments or questions may also be e-mailed to Gregory.Gonot@doj.ca.gov.



police
legislation

~ blogging on background screening ~

Geoff Tipton has a start-up blog on topics of import to companies conducting background checks. Pay him a visit and post your comments at ScreenDiscussion.

~ california police personnel records remain exempt from California Public Records Act ~

The Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, in a recently published opinion, CAL Comm'n v. Super. Ct. of Sacramento County (04/07/05 - No. C045494), affirms that the California Commission On Peace Officer Standards And Training (POST) officer personnel records are exempt from disclosure under Gov. Code section 6254(k). The Los Angeles Times filed a petition for writ of mandate, seeking to compel POST to release the data.

In it's conclusion the Court provides for limited release of information.

In my view, the names of the peace officers should be exempted from disclosure under section 6254(c), but the remaining information requested by The Times is not so exempt and should be released. Disclosure of the data ordered by the trial court with redaction of peace officers’ names to shield their identities fairly balances the competing legislative concerns of preserving individual privacy while promoting openness in government.

Thus, I would uphold the trial court’s order that POST disclose the employing department names, appointment type (new), date of appointment, and date of termination, if any. I would issue a peremptory writ directing the trial court to modify its disclosure order to excise the names of individual officers and to require that a random identifier be assigned to each individual officer’s record to assist in tracking employment trends or the movement of officers in, out of, or between different departments.

Read the opinion



police

~ congressional financial reports to be shredded ~

Before being distracted by the short-sighted pursuits of the Department of Homeland Security I had in mind a tid-bit from the Congressional Quarterly titled, Law Clears Way for House Clerk to Purge Old Documents. [Only available by subscription.] The Lobbying Disclosure Act requires the House and Senate make available lobbying information "for a period of at least six years."

The clerk's office already disposes of many of these documents - such as personal financial disclosure statements - as soon as laws, regulations and House rules allow or require. The trouble is that some disclosure laws,
including those that cover lobbying records before the 1995 law and some foreign travel documents, are not as precise about how long these documents must be preserved, which the clerk's office complains has created problems storing and tracking the filings. At the same time, some materials stored by the clerk are duplicated in records preserved elsewhere - including decades of campaign finance reports also kept by the Federal Election Commission.

A provision added to the fiscal 2005 omnibus appropriations gives the clerk permission to purge some of the material. Under the law, any document the clerk is required "to make available for public inspection" must be preserved "for a period of six years from the date on which the document is filed" - unless other laws, regulations or rules specifically require that they are preserved longer. The provision only applies to House documents - similar documentation maintained by the Senate secretary is not affected.

legislation

~ homeland secure from leftists but not rightists ~

The Congressional Quarterly reports on a curious Department of Homeland Security decision in, Animal Rights Groups and Ecology Militants Make DHS Terrorist List, Right-Wing Vigilantes Omitted. Homegrown acts of politically motivated violence span the spectrum from the ideological left to the right but Homeland Security has limited its domestic terrorist list to left leaning groups, excluding right-wing ones, such as, white supremacist and anti-government groups that have caused the death of hundreds of Americans.

Domestic terror experts were surprised the department did not include right-wing groups on their list of adversaries.

“They are still a threat, and they will continue to be a threat,” said Mike German, a 16-year undercover agent for the FBI who spent most of his career infiltrating radical right-wing groups. “If for some reason the government no longer considers them a threat, I think they will regret that,” said German, who left the FBI last year. “Hopefully it’s an oversight.”

homeland security

~ privacy advocates update their "Model Regime" ~

Daniel Solove and Chris Hoofnagle have released version 2 of their Model Regime of Privacy Protection, which incorporates references to criticisms they received from their prior paper. This Model Regime seeks to "regulate information privacy"; its current impetus set in motion by recent data leaks and thefts that haved drawn the attention of Congress. "We hope that this will provide useful guidance to legislators and policymakers in crafting laws and regulations."

One recommendation in the position paper is that states establish greater uniformity in standards and qualifications for licensure of private investigators. This would benefit our industry. But Solove and Hoffnagle couldn't restrain themselves from demanding restrictive legislation in investigative practices, such as using a pretext to verify any information.

Each state should be required to establish minimum standards for licensure and oversight of the private investigator industry. Such standards should address the use of pretexting (pretending to be another person in order to gain access to someone's account or to gain information), establish a duty of care to those who are investigated, and prohibit the use of invasive practices, such as sorting through individuals' trash, employing electronic listening devices, etc.

According to the ominous sounding Model Regime, private investigators provide limited benefit to society. The authors continue to mine the much sighted instance of the sale of a DMV address, many years ago, to a looney, who then killed Rebecca Shaeffer, while claiming there are "many" such occurrences. No others are noted. The California legislature responded in an baby-out-with-the-bathwater manner by eliminating PI access to DMV address information.

Certainly, there are beneficial examples of private investigators using personal information (i.e., to locate lost children). But private investigators engage in other practices that the public is largely unaware of. Moreover, there are many instances of private investigators assisting unscrupulous individuals, stalkers, and others bent on violence. For example, the stalker who murdered Rebecca Shaeffer obtained her address from a private investigator.133 We believe that because private investigators engage in a significant amount of personal information use that they should be subject to the Model Regime just as other principal users of such data are. Failure to address private investigators would leave a significant gap in protection.

The authors also object to the government's use of the commercially available personal data to develop patterns pointing to prospective criminal activity. Background screening for pre-employment investigations is also addressed. Download the complete report



Privacy
legislation

~ public records company battles Google ~

Private investigators have recently been receiving telephone calls from Intelius, a database company, soliciting new subscribers. The company is suing a couple of California public records providers over a trademark claim which smells much like the recently settled lawsuit brought by Geico against Google.

Intelius files suit against rivals over online ads
By JOHN COOKSEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER
Bellevue-based Intelius Inc., the online public records company founded by former InfoSpace Chief Executive Naveen Jain, has sued two California competitors for buying online advertisements through Google that use the Intelius name.
Sacramento-based Confi-Chek, which operates the Enformion.com and PeopleFinders.com Web sites, and Santa Monica-based Maverick Internet Ventures, which operates a number of public records Web sites, including PrivateEye.com and FindPeopleToday.com, are accused of running deceptive advertising campaigns through Google that infringe on Intelius' trademark and trade name.

~ well placed coffee ~

The mythical private investigator needs a well placed phone booth to make a quick costume change. But I'll settle for a cafe with Wi-Fi and an electrical outlet for my computer.

~ georgia regulates data brokers ~

Georgia lawmakers have given the Governor the okay to sign a bill requiring consumer notification by data brokers if consumer information is compromised. About 20 other states are considering similar but broader bills. Read the article [registration required] Read the bill

identity theft
legislation
state legislation
georgia politics

~ Oregon takes our garbage rights away ~

The Oregon Court of Appeals threw in its vote on the application of the Fourth Amendment to the collection of curbside trash. Chipping away at long established Supreme Court opinions, which I wrote about in some detail first here and then here, the Judges delivered yet a new twist on search and seizure.

Prosecutors argued that once people put out their garbage for curbside collection, they have given up any legally protected "privacy or possessory interests'' in it. The appeals court disagreed, saying the defendants put their garbage cans "in a particular place in order to facilitate a limited purpose ... pickup and disposal by a designated collection company. ''The unanimous three-judge panel added: "Defendants did not implicitly authorize anyone else to paw through their garbage and view or take items of garbage.'' Read the article

Didn't implicitly authorize anyone? Then why is it called garbage? Clearly, these Judges aren't the ones who put the garbage out at their houses. Anyway, the garbage service contracts with the municipality not the individual tenant. So, I guess the government agency could claim that the curbside trash is theirs, just as they do with items left for recycling. And maybe that gives the police even more right to the contents.

Garbage cans, like bicycles or cars, are commonly left on or near the street by individuals and, even if those individuals do not take the precaution of securing such items with locks, we would not infer from their unlocked state that the individuals who placed them there intended to abandon them.

You might be miffed if someone took your garbage can but we're talking about the contents here. People, lock your plastic bags!

Read the opinion and tell us whether this also applies to civilians, who may not be obtaining trash for legal evidence.




court decisions
fourth amendment privacy

~ data aggregators in the California Senate ~

California State Senator Jackie Speier convened a panel of the concerned at a Banking, Finance And Insurance Committee informational hearing entitled, "After the Breach: How secure and accurate is consumer information held by ChoicePoint and other data aggregators?" Read the list of presenters

We can only hope as the data vendors change their approach to supplying customers' information they won't go overboard. At least not before the Congress or State of California passes an ill considered law.

The AP version:
ChoicePoint to allow people access to personal records

Scrambling to protect their hides, Choicepoint made this offer to California legislators yesterday. [LA Times, subscription site.]

Don McGuffey, the company's vice president for data acquisition, told the state Senate's Banking, Finance and Insurance Committee that ChoicePoint was developing a system to give individuals "a single point of access" to review a variety of reports generated from databases that are sold to law enforcement and government agencies, employers, landlords and insurers.

Let's just hope the non subscribers don't get to alter the content in the database. I would rather they append their personal information with any that is self reported or documented.

View the video of the California Senate Identity Theft Summit that was held March 1, 2005 and listen to some of your favorite privacy advocates.

identity theft