Slashdot Log In
CT High Court Rules GIS Data Can Be Kept Secret [UPDATED]
Posted by
timothy
on Sun Jan 09, 2005 02:20 AM
from the dihydrogen-monoxide dept.
from the dihydrogen-monoxide dept.
kinema writes "A few days ago the Supreme Court of Connecticut ruled that the town of Greenwich's Department of Information Technology does not have to release the images and GIS data that the town keeps. The court found that mandatory disclosure of the data under the state's freedom of information statues is exempted under a recently passed state law that allows information to be kept secret 'when there are reasonable grounds to believe that their disclosure may result in a safety risk.' I'm sure I'm not the only one in the audience that has a hard time swallowing this. I am looking into filing a similar request to obtain the GIS data for the Portland Oregon metro area. As the data is currently available to anyone willing to shell out the nearly $900 per year, the local government isn't going to be able to argue that the data could be used by terrorists and should therefore be kept from the public which paid untold amounts for the data to be collected through their taxes." Update: 01/11 16:51 GMT by M : This story is incorrect. Although the case was just heard by the court, there has been no decision either for or against the disclosure of the GIS information.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Outrageous... (Score:5, Insightful)
Compelling reason is: don't get sued (Score:3, Insightful)
There is. If a bad person does something the town does not want to be the source of that person's information. There will be no shortage of ambulance chasing lawyers suing the town if something happened and the town had provided info of its own free will, as opposed to be compelled to by a court order.
In my opinion, it's just a cop-out so they don't have to do any extra work to provide it to the public.
It
Re:Compelling reason is: don't get sued (Score:2)
If by "of it's own free will" you mean released under a federal law requiring that information to be given.
Re:Compelling reason is: don't get sued (Score:2)
Re:Compelling reason is: don't get sued (Score:3, Insightful)
If by "all this is is ignorance" you are referring to your own post, I agree. If you had bothered to read the article you would have known that the data involves more than terrain elevations.
Secondly, it is irr
Re:Compelling reason is: don't get sued (Score:2)
If the lawyer could win (see above on whether or not it could), then this says a lot on the current state of America.
Re:Outrageous... (Score:2)
Re:Outrageous... (Score:3, Interesting)
Another Fine Edit (Score:4, Informative)
A bit naive if you ask me (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:A bit naive if you ask me (Score:2)
* I don't actually live in America so this doesn't happen, but I see people complaining about it all the time so I assume it happens somewhat regularly. And yes, I know technically stores aren't allowed to force you and probably won't if you kick up ENOUGH of a stink, but the point is such laws often protect the government(s power), not the people(s rights).
Maybe.... (Score:2)
FWIW, I work in the GIS dept at a Water Company.
Re:Maybe.... (Score:2)
This isn't about national security. This is about the mighty dollar.
Re:Maybe.... (Score:2)
Most of the GIS data in the world is unavailable (Score:3, Informative)
The US government is still refusing to release VMAP2 GIS data for european countries, because of partner deals with GIS agencies of those governments, even though the data was collected by american satellites with US taxpayer dollars.
They absolutely refuse to respond to FOIA requests.
Re:You are confused (Score:3, Informative)
Greenwich CT??? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd be much more worried about the VERY detailed satelite images available at http://terraserver.microsoft.com/ [microsoft.com].
You can get sat images of ALMOST all of our military bases and probably every big city.
probably not a big deal (Score:3, Informative)
I just checked, and those images are now there; that's new... but after looking at the dates on the pictures, I'd suggest to you that those images are old, and not current enough to be of serious value to a terrorist enemy.
L
Re:probably not a big deal (Score:3, Interesting)
I was a manager at a pizza delivery place when 9/11 happened (heard the news on my way to work).
A couple days later we got a delivery order from a nearby government building (mapping agency, coincidently) and the driver came back just a tad rattled. He had nearly overshot the FIRST white stop line (double gate system). The guard told him it was good he'd made the stop. When he joked back about getting arrested the guard simply said "that's not what would have happ
Re:probably not a big deal (Score:3, Interesting)
Any coordinates that turn up blank, or which can be detected as out of date, would immediately become a priority point of interest. Often the ABSENCE of information can be even more revealing than the information itself.
-
Re:Greenwich CT??? (Score:3, Interesting)
In one high profile event two years ago, Eddie Lampert, the famous investor and private equity dealmaker (same guy who led the buyout of KMart this year and was in the news for that) was kidnapped and held for ransom (before being released by his incompetent kidnappers).
As for terrorist events per se, I don't know that it seems terribl
Portlandmaps.com (Score:3, Interesting)
Texas too (Score:2)
And for the rest of Texas, the Texas Natural Resources Information System [state.tx.us] makes various GIS data available for download.
Security through obscurity (Score:5, Insightful)
I can go down to the airport and pay someone to take me an hour long tour around town. I'll take my new Canon 8 megapixel camera along. If I wanted to do some damage, those pictures are going to work just as will as the GIS pictures. Might cost me a little more in short term, but what does that matter?
As an aside, Helena, Montana gives away GIS data to anyone who asks for it. The taxpayers of Helena payed for those pictures and that information in the first place. It's only right that we have free access to it. As a matter of fact, I have a hard drive around here with 10 gigs of photos and infrastructure maps of Helena and the surrounding area just for asking.
Re:Security through obscurity (Score:2)
USSA (Score:2, Interesting)
It's only a matter of time.
I just *love* the smell of BS in the morning... (Score:5, Interesting)
And have you checked out their website? They have such genuinely useful things as e-mail notification of town emergencies [greenwichct.org] to any affected residents. Please tell me that some of you also think that to be a marginal waste of resources. And what's this crap on the front page about needing permission to reproduce the town seal? Apparently the fair use train doesn't make stops in Greenwich also.
Congratulations, Greenwich, CT: you have successfully pissed me off.
I'm going to sleep now. Good morning, and good riddance.
Its not BS, its BO, take a shower (Score:2)
The folks in the cities are stressed because they feel targetted. The folks in the suburbs and country feel safe. Naturally the later are a perfectly logical target. You naively assume that the purpose of terrorism is a large body count. It is not, it is to make everyone feel unsafe. Right now large chunks of the country feel safe.
Re:I just *love* the smell of BS in the morning... (Score:2)
I'm curious to know what exactly you think "fair use" means. It's a short, somewhat loaded (and frequently misused) phrase that actually means something specific in US law.
Wikipedia has a decent explanation [wikipedia.org] of what fair use really refers to.
Duplicating the town seal without permission might or might not be covered by the fair use doctrine. It would depend on the context: if you reproduced it as an example in an essay discussing the h
The information is already available (Score:2, Interesting)
This is a fee, not unlike fees to use parks or fees to use roads (taxes).
The government already provides a means of obtaining this information but is not obligated to provide multiple ways of getting it.
Terrorism paranoia (Score:3, Informative)
For better or worse, the US's aggressive anti-terrorism foreign policy has had an effect. It's the invasion of Afghanistan that did it. The Taliban thought they were safe backing bin Laden - they'd beat the Russians, their country was landlocked and a long way from US allies, and the terrain favored them. Big mistake. Three months later the Taliban was out of power with its leaders dead, jailed, or on the run.
This made a big impression on dictators and warlords worldwide. Allowing terrorists to operate from your territory against the US is not survivable.
We'll probably have trouble again. But we have bigger problems. Compared to AIDS, hurricanes, and other problems, the death toll from terrorism is low.
Re:Terrorism paranoia (Score:4, Informative)
Allegations have been raised that the Bush administration deliberately made the State Department advertise a reduction in terrorist attacks - i.e., demonstrate a tangible 2003 victory for the "war on terror". Of course, when the data point the other direction, it's just as easy to say that the Bush administration abused the State Department's fearmongering abilities to hype a security claim in an election year.
I personally suspect that it was a simple error of data aggregation; these things happen in bureaucracies.
The summaries, original [globalsecurity.org] and revised [globalsecurity.org], illustrate the difference.
Original:
Revised:
Original:
Revised:
Original:
Revised:
The House Democrats released a report [house.gov] analyzing the changes in the revised format. If their analysis strikes you as biased, content youreslf with the presumably ve
Parent
Re:Terrorism paranoia (Score:2)
Apparently I am not a native (Score:2)
Re:Terrorism paranoia (Score:2)
Well, I'm not sure that's saying much. The worldwide stat is more impressive. The U.S. didn't have many terrorist attacks (on the homeland) before 9/11 either, and the latest one was by an American citizen. (The anthrax scare may have also been by an American citizen).
Until we have a few more years worth of data I wouldn't be so convinced the U.S. has made a dent in overall terrorism events. After all, crime statistics within
Two issues... (Score:2)
But the real issue here is that the poster seems to be trying to obtain this information for free, rather the paying the fees/subscriptions required by the states for providing the data in a presentable, standardized format. It seems to me he wants the all taxpayers to bear the burden of costs rather than the end user
Re:Two issues... (Score:2)
Excuse me?!?! If they already have this data in a GIS then the cost will be near $0. Maybe a few dollars for the time it takes to query the information and burn the data to a CD or upload it. If it is a non-standard query, then it may take more time-I can see doing this when it is conveni
We *can* have an effect, people (Score:3, Insightful)
Granted, it was under a completely different set of circumstances. The govt. agency *wanted* to give us the data, it was a relatively minor threat of us losing access to it, etc. However, the point remains that we still live in a democracy. If enough people make enough noise, some politician is bound to at least raise a minor stink about it, if for no other reason than to pander to some people for some votes.
So, having said that, write to your congressman [congress.org] and request that the data you paid for, and deserve to have, be made available to you.
Should we have less freedom because of fear? (Score:4, Interesting)
The fundamental issue here is not about map data, but whether we should allow ourselves to have less freedom because we fear terrorists.
Regarding this, it is valuable to educate ourselves about what we are fearing. Regarding that, it is valuable to know more about the activities of the U.S. government. Only a small percentage of U.S. citizens understand much about the involvement of the U.S. government with other countries. There is plenty of reliable information available, but learning more takes so much time most people haven't done it. Here is a small overview that I put together: History surrounding the U.S. war with Iraq: Four short stories [hevanet.com]. There may be other articles and books that are far more valuable to you, that article is just a contribution of mine.
Most U.S. citizens believe that the terrorists attacked without provocation. That is not true. The terrorists attacked after many decades of experiencing U.S. government violence. (Violence does not justify more violence, of course, but most people don't believe that, including the leaders of the U.S. Defense Department, and the terrorists.)
Am I saying that the U.S. government is a net evil force in the world? No. What has happened is that the government decided two things several decades ago. I'm sure those in power then did not understand that their decisions would eventually corrupt the entire government. At the time, the decisions seemed logical.
First, the government decided that it could act in other countries in secret. Second, the U.S. government decided it could act in secret to protect U.S. businesses in other countries.
What probably no one realized then was how much that would come to be a corrupting influence on the government. What no one realized then was how much additional profit there was to be made by arranging, in secret, for U.S. taxpayers to pay for the security arrangements needed by U.S. multinational businesses.
Soon huge businesses were arguing that the U.S. government should subvert democratically elected leaders, as the government did in Iran. Soon U.S. businesses would arrange unfair contracts with corrupt leaders, and when there was a protest, call for U.S. government intervention in the name of patriotism.
That's partly how we got to the present situation, where two men, whose family and business associates and friends have extensive investments in global oil businesses, are president and vice-president of the entire U.S. government, even though there is conflict of interest in such an arrangement.
Re:Should we have less freedom because of fear? (Score:2)
- Benjamin Franklin
IMHO 'nuff said
Re:Should we have less freedom because of fear? (Score:3, Insightful)
Benjamin franklin made his warning in response to the threats of his time, the threas have changed but the principle stands. The US was founded on a promise of freedom, a promise which has been shaped into a nation that has continually through its history attempted to strive for g
Regarding the Portland data (Score:2)
A year or so ago I was running scripts to download all the aerial photographs from portlandmaps.com. Imagine my surprise when I got a phone call the next morning from the admin of the site, begging me to stop killing their servers! Turns out the GIS server really didn't like the particular requests I was sending it, and I'd actually crashed one of them.
Of course, they charge $900/seat for the "license" as mentioned in the article, and I questioned that on the spot saying that it was a city-acquired reso
Insane (Score:5, Interesting)
This 'terrorism' straw man is getting ridiculous - it's encouraging government offices to keep things a secret just because they want to. Granted, if you're running a government office, this is probably a good idea. I won't name names, but I can say that there are states with D.O.T.s out there with records that are inexcusably inaccurate or horribly out of date (cue '40s radio drama organ because everyone is surprised). Being beauraucracies, the natural solution to this kind of situation is to keep anyone from finding the problem by limiting flow of information as much as possible rather than to simply fix the problem.
Of course, doing this requires that you start keeping as many secrets as possible - you see, if the American public ever found out how terrorists actually operate, they would realize that all of thse terrorism-related justifications for huge wastes of money, freedom, integrity, and time are just one huge bullshit excuse, and the whole thing would come tumbling down. We can't have that, because then every government official from the lowest county clerk all the way up to George "Paid Vacation" Bush would have to actually put time into carefully considering policy decisions and competently piloting the areas they govern rather than smoking rock and blaming hippies and muslims for their mistakes like they do now.
--
Politics: coming from the Latin roots 'poly', meaning many, and 'tics', meaning small blood sucking parasites.
forget $900 THIS is free in Portland Oregon (Score:3, Informative)
General Info [portlandmaps.com]
Satellite Mapping [portlandmaps.com]
With Property Lines [portlandmaps.com]
Elevation [portlandmaps.com]
Crime Stats [portlandmaps.com]
Well you get the idea.
Red Herring? (Score:3, Insightful)
It is my recollection that the person requesting the data is a businessman who wants the data for some sort of real estate sales analysis and is leveraging the public availability of the data to his economic advantage.
This guy wants the full data set. I think the City will give him small chunks of it at a time with no problem, but sees giving out the full data set as essentially poor stewardship of tax payer resources.
Who wouldn't agree? If I'd shelled out $10,000,000.00 for something, I'd be a little testy with someone expecting to get it for free.
In short I question the motives of the person requesting the data, but more on grounds of economic exploitation that on grounds that he may be any sort of security risk.
Having said that, one thinks they could come up with a better argument. "Security" has become so overused as an excuse to cut off debate on things in the past four years that we seem to have lost any sense of descrimination at all.
Re:Are you a map maker? (Score:2)
Re:Are you a map maker? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, this right must be curtailed in the interests of national security (this case is, however, ludicrous) and other citizens' privacy (as in your example of FBI files). But why shouldn't we have access to documents on the Kennedy assassination?
Y'know, I'd rather have the government hampered by FOIA requests. It keeps it from meddling with my life.
Parent
Re:Are you a map maker? (Score:4, Informative)
The only exception that I could make at all would be for ongoing criminal investigations. Things where the court hasn't yet decided but is scheduled to decide, or where the police are investigating and releasing information could compromise the investigation.
The odds of terrorists attacking the water main that leads to my house are miniscule. My city so wide and low density that any terrorists would be foolish to attack here for the purposes of making a large number of kills. That doesn't mean that it's impossible, it just means that it's not something that I'm going to lose sleep over. If I were in San Francisco, New York, or any other really high density place I might have some kind of concern, but not here, even if I am in the fifth largest metro area.
Besides, this is just another attempt at security through obscurity, when it's possible (and even likely) that much of the information on infrastructure is already recorded elsewhere anyway, so claiming that they're protecting it for some actual reason is absurd.
Remember, if we all go paranoid, the terrorists really do win.
Parent
Re:Are you a map maker? (Score:5, Insightful)
How do you know what "most" FOIA requests return? No one tracks that sort of information. All you "know" is that crackpots online use the FOIA to further their conspiracies and you've spent so much time reading them that you project that onto everyone because you have no other real experience with it.
The FOIA grants any information requested to the requester, given that such information exists and isn't vital to national security
No, no it does not. That's just one of a long list of exceptions.
Requesting the FBI file on yourself is clearly a right, but requesting the file on someone else? Not a right, IMO.
Well, good, because you're right. It's not a right. Personnel, medical and similar files that would constitute a "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" are exempt from FOIA requests.
Trying to finagle documents regarding the Kennedy assassination? Not a right, IMO.
Why the hell not? For what possible reason should the official government proceedings regarding a very newsworthy event that happened over 40 years ago be hidden? Information relating to law enforcement proceedings are protected, when they have reason to be, but there's no conceivable reason for that.
Personally, I'd rather see the roads fixed and utilities made more efficient than see a bunch of fat, sweaty geeks get their jollies by harrassing the government.
Considering you need to pay for document research time and duplication for FOIA requests, no one except crackpots thinks it's a good way to "harrass" anyone.
You can find the full text of the relevant Act here [usdoj.gov]. I suggest you at least skim it.
Parent
Re:Are you a map maker? (Score:2, Interesting)
Taxpayers paid for the data yet we can't spend a few bucks to freely publish it. If a "terrorist" has $900 (and acts like a white guy) he can get the data by buying a copy from the local council. It's none of the govternments bussiness what I want to use our data for.
I don't think you can get personal information from the FBI by waltzing in with an FOIA. If (in the case of JFK) they are a public official then "we the people" want to know how t