Town Fights FOI Request for GIS Data and Images 243
dweyerma writes "The state's highest court will now decide a landmark public records case involving access to aerial reconnaissance photographs and maps of Greenwich, CT. The town maintains the images in a tightly kept database known as a geographic information system, which a judge declared to be public records last December. The Connecticut Supreme Court announced Monday that it will hear the town's appeal of that ruling, expediting the case by leap-frogging the state Appellate Court. The move virtually coincides with the third anniversary of the initial complaint in the case, which Greenwich resident and computer consultant Stephen Whitaker filed with the state Freedom Information Commission after the town denied his request for an electronic copy of the entire database for security and privacy reasons."
FOIA Requests and the AG (Score:5, Informative)
I wonder if this has anything to do with the Attorney General Ashcroft's October 12, 2001 memo instructing federal agencies to stall on FOIA requests. [alternet.org]
The Greenwich case appears to be an extension of the precident set by General Ashcroft. If FOIA is curtailed, how will journalists and watchdog groups get their information they use to keep government honest?
Um... (Score:2, Informative)
Terra Server (Score:5, Informative)
Of, if you prefer, the Greenwich, Connecticut Topological Map, 01 July 1986 USGS [microsoft.com]
Re:Um... (Score:5, Informative)
So clearly this data is already available to anyone who wants it, so it's not about security. Restricting aerial photography, that's been paid for by tax money in the first place, just keeps it out of public programs like NASA's World Wind viewer (featured yesterday on Slashdot). I'm sure the greedy bastards at Greenwich would have no objections to selling the photos to a provider like Keyhole instead of just give them up for free. Crying "terrorists, security breach!" is just the fashionable thing to do these days when don't feel like cooperating.
And let's face it. Programs like Keyhole and the free World Wind are only going to get better from here on. 5-10 years from now you're going to able to pan from San Francisco to Paris, either way around, and have a 1-5meter resolution all the way, so that you can count every Starbuck along the way if you feel like it. The globe is going to be mapped completely, deal with it.
Re:Maps want to be free! (Score:2, Informative)
"As of 1999, the Canadian government only has three taxation bands, the highest of which is 29%, starting at CA$59,180. The US government taxes its second band of taxation at almost as high a rate, 28%, starting at US$25,750 for a single person. The US third band - comparable to Canada's highest band - is 31% starting at US$62,450 for a single person."
When my girlfriend had to go to emergency here in Gatineau, QC for an ultrasound after having constant, severe abdominal cramping, we had to wait ten hours(!!!) to see a doctor. Things aren't ok. What if it was an ectopic pregnancy? She could have died waiting.
Yes excellent roads, that's why cities are running defecits just keeping their transit systems going, and chomping at the bit for a share of a 2.5% tax on gas so they can finally fill some potholes.
I'm sorry, I'm Canadian, but painting a rosy picture of what's wrong with our country in some egotistical cherade aimed at impressing Americans is no different from Americans claiming they have they greatest democracy on earth, while their supreme court is deciding elections. Just stop, please.
Re:Maps want to be free! Eh? GPL GIS! (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.atlas.gc.ca
This is built on Chameleon [maptools.org], a GPL frontend for the GPL UMN mapserver [umn.edu] whose development were partially funded by Canadian and American governments, respectively, for purely selfish reasons (reducing the costs of producing GIS servers, and being able to provide more information to more groups more cheaply.)
Re:Maps want to be free! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Maps want to be free! (Score:5, Informative)
Aerial photography purchases were done from the budget of a couple of the agencies in the county (Maryland National Capital Parks & Planning, Dept. of Public Works, Health and Human Services, Emergency Services, Dept. of Environmental Resources, and maybe one or two more agencies). Each agency would commit a portion of the money to the collection/maintenance cost (for both aerial data and the generated vector files). Other agencies in the county who chose not to help pay for the cost of the data were often not given access to the data without some payment (not done at my level). I don't know the exact details on the public getting data, but they wouldn't have had direct access to our department anyways so I can only guess they wouldn't have any access as well.
Now to further elaborate on the inter-county agencies, the education board wanted to do a bus routing project using the road centerline file (for E911 and Dept. of Public Works primarily). The school board didn't contribute to the aerial photograph collection and county directors would refuse to allow them access. I'm sure PG County Schools are similar to other school systems in having a limited budget so refusing access seems unreasonable to me, but you have to follow the county policy.
Now for public access, a few problems exist with this. In general, a private citizen wouldn't have much need for the information so releasing to the public would essentially benefit a very small set of people/companies. The benefit for this small group would essentially be paid for by all tax payers. Another problem is at what point do you release the data in the collection/maintenance process? While aerial photos are essentially a "complete" product, the derived GIS data is a "living" dataset that is constantly being updated for changes since the photography. New attributes can be added to the datasets as well so the product can rarely be seen as complete. Analysis done on data must always be made with understandings of the condition of the dataset.
OK, gotta cut this short here...
Some counties are now looking at leasing the data from the aerial photography companies now. By leasing the data, various agreements on who has access to the data are put in place. The benefit to the county is that the data is generally provided cheaper and more frequently. The aerial photography companies benefit is that they know they'll have a regular data customer but they may also sell to private companies/citizens as well.
As for the data being available to myself as a citizen (btw, I live in one of the counties adjacent to PG County so I have to get data for my area just like everyone else if I want it), I'm not sure that I have a need to see it. Sure, it would be neat to have the aerial photo over my house, but I can get that through an online interactive mapping site (http://terraserver.microsoft.com or the other one listed in a previous posters comment). I'm not sure that I'd need it in raw format.
Some data is available for download. Check out agencies like USGS, Census Agency, NGA, etc....
Re:Maps want to be free! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What does he want to do with this data? (Score:5, Informative)
Producing the data are expensive. Often, as well, the aerial imagery companies will retain ownership of the images (often not photos anymore) or ramp the costs of the service and imagery 'way up beyond what the city or state can afford. There's historical precedent to this, back when most of us didn't care or want those data...
He's asking for the whole database. Likely, if it's a reasonably designed GIS database, there's data of a tax/ownership nature that shouldn't be released electronically... if at all. There are some things about my taxes I don't see a reason for you to know, and if they're included therein (and they might be in a "reasonable" but not necessarily in a "good" design) then request was out of line.
In Texas, all GIS data derived with public funds but not restricted by contractual obligations are released as public data, or available from the various agencies upon request. (http://www.tnris.state.tx.us/ [state.tx.us])
This may change with restrictions and recommendations from the Feds bout reducing access to critical infrastructure data. For a variety of reasons, I can go either way on this. although I'm currently the "data wants to be free" guy in that duscussion.
That said, some of the GIS data we have in Texas on critial infrastructure and critical industries DOES come pretty close to qualifying for "due diligence" on the part of a terrorist. They'd get all the needed to mine the bridge, or do maximum damage to the chemical plant. Should we make it easy?
Finally, on the costs associated with requesting "free" data from state agencies: I've seen the numbers and have gotten the patient explanations on why they're so high. Let's say a CD-RW disk is $.25. Then you have to have a GIS analyst retrieve the data and place it in the burn directory. If it were something like, "Send me the whole database" this is relatively easy. Then you have to have someone burn the CD. Or CDs. The agency, at least in Texas, is required by State law to recover costs using a formula that incorporates the direct and indirect costs of the individuals doing the work, on a per-hour basis, shipping, and a depreciation allowance for the equipment, again prorated. A little bit here, a little bit there, eventually the CD costs $75, which was what TNRIS charged last time I went there rather than downloading the data directly...
There will be a quiz next hour.
Re:Maps want to be free! (Score:3, Informative)
And in the US people never have to wait to see a doctor!
It's generally agreed that Quebec's provincial health care is the worst of the various Canadian provinces. While there's no doubt that Canadian health care has some problems, a few facts should be kept in mind:
(1) Before Canada adopted national health care, the average life expectancy of Americans exceeded the average life expectancy of Canadians.
(2) Now, the average life expectancy of Canadians exceeds that of Americans by more than 4 years.
(3) Canadians, as a whole, pay significantly less for health care than Americans do.
Re:Stop with the acronyms! (Score:3, Informative)
I dunno about you, but I had no idea what those meant either.....until I read the submission.
Re:there have to be limits on release of data (Score:2, Informative)
Re:What does he want to do with this data? (Score:3, Informative)
Has he offered to purchase the information, or is he expecting to kick start his business with free information paid for by the city?
It's implicit that he'll pay for it. When you do an FOIA request, you do have to pay reasonable fees for the duplication of the information. Otherwise, people would abuse the system.