***Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative (Global)***

**Privacy and Information Quality Working Group (GPIQWG)**

Fairfax, Virginia

*June 29, 2006*

**Meeting Summary**

**Background, Purpose, and Introductions**

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs (OJP),
Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), and the Global Justice Information
Sharing Initiative's (Global) Privacy and Information Quality Working
Group (GPIQWG or Working Group) convened the meeting at 8:30 a.m. on
June 29, 2006, in Fairfax, Virginia. Mr. Robert Boehmer, GPIQWG chair,
and\
Ms. Jeanette Plante, GPIQWG vice chair, led the meeting in the
furtherance of and alignment with the GPIQWG\'s *Vision* and *Mission
Statements*.

The Working Group convened for the purposes of reviewing and finalizing
the information quality (IQ) fact sheet, entitled *Information Quality:
The Foundation for Justice Decision Making*, to review the 16 prominent
issues surrounding IQ that the group identified at the March 16, 2006,
meeting, to prioritize those the group will address with products, and
to discuss suggested solutions and resources to develop. Additionally,
the group was briefed on the Intergovernmental Privacy Issues meeting
held the day prior, on June 28, 2006, at the same location.

Chairman Boehmer welcomed the attendees and introduced the honored
guest,\
Ms. Jane Horvath, Chief Privacy Officer, U.S. Department of Justice. He
also congratulated Working Group members whose efforts had recently been
honored by national awards:\
Carl Wicklund, American Probation and Parole Association, received the
2006 U.S. Congress Victims\' Rights Caucus Allied Professional Award;
Steve Siegel, Denver District Attorney\'s Office, recipient of the
Office for Victims of Crime National Crime Victim Service Award; and
Steve Correll, Nlets --- The International Justice and Public Safety
Information Sharing Network, named a 2006 Laureate in the Government and
Non-Profit Organizations category of the Computerworld Honors Program.

**Attendees**

The following individuals were in attendance:

+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| **Mr. Robert P. Boehmer, Chair**  | **Ms. Jeanette Plante, Vice       |
|                                   | Chair**                           |
| *Institute for Public Safety      |                                   |
| Partnerships*                     | *Office of Records Management     |
|                                   | Policy*                           |
| *University of Illinois at        |                                   |
| Chicago*                          | *Justice Management Division*     |
|                                   |                                   |
|                                   | *U.S. Department of Justice*      |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| **Alan Carlson, Esquire**         | **Mr. Bob Greeves**               |
|                                   |                                   |
| *The Justice Management           | *Bureau of Justice Assistance*    |
| Institute*                        |                                   |
|                                   | *Office of Justice Programs*      |
| **Mr. Owen M. Greenspan**         |                                   |
|                                   | *U.S. Department of Justice*      |
| *Law and Policy Program*          |                                   |
|                                   | **Erin Kenneally, Esquire**       |
| *SEARCH, The National Consortium  |                                   |
| for Justice*                      | *eLCHEMY, Incorporated*           |
|                                   |                                   |
| *Information and Statistics*      | **Barbara Hurst, Esquire**        |
|                                   |                                   |
| **Ms. Jane Horvath**              | *Rhode Island Office of the       |
|                                   | Public Defender*                  |
| *U.S. Department of Justice*      |                                   |
|                                   | **Ms. Erin S. Lee**               |
| **Ms. Susan A. Laniewski**        |                                   |
|                                   | *Homeland Security Technology     |
| *Justice and Public Safety*       | Policy Studies*                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| *Bull Services*                   | *National Governors Association*  |
|                                   |                                   |
| **Mr. Richard A. MacKnight**      | **Mr. Thomas MacLellan**          |
|                                   |                                   |
| *Office of Science and            | *Social, Economic, and Workforce  |
| Technology*                       | Programs*                         |
|                                   |                                   |
| *National Institute of Justice*   | *Division*                        |
|                                   |                                   |
| *U.S. Department of Justice*      | *National Governors Association*  |
|                                   |                                   |
| **Mr. Steve Siegel**              | **Ms. Cindy Southworth**          |
|                                   |                                   |
| *Denver District Attorney\'s      | *National Safety and Strategic    |
| Office*                           | Technology Project*               |
|                                   |                                   |
| **Ms. Martha W. Steketee**        | *National Network to End Domestic |
|                                   | Violence Fund*                    |
| *Independent Consultant*          |                                   |
|                                   | **Mr. Steve Wall**                |
| **Mr. Carl A. Wicklund**          |                                   |
|                                   | *American Indian Development      |
| *American Probation and Parole    | Associates*                       |
| Association*                      |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| [Observers]{.underline}           | [Staff]{.underline}               |
|                                   |                                   |
| **Mr. Larry English**             | **Ms. Christina Abernathy**       |
|                                   |                                   |
| *INFORMATION IMPACT               | *Institute for Intergovernmental  |
| International, Inc.*              | Research*                         |
|                                   |                                   |
| **Mr. Rith Peou**                 | **Mr. Robert E. Cummings**        |
|                                   |                                   |
| *Cambridge Research Group (CRG)*  | *Institute for Intergovernmental  |
|                                   | Research*                         |
| **Richard Wang, Ph.D.**           |                                   |
|                                   | **Ms. Terri Pate**                |
| *MIT Information Quality (MITIQ)  |                                   |
| Program*                          | *Institute for Intergovernmental  |
|                                   | Research*                         |
| *Massachusetts Institute of       |                                   |
| Technology (MIT)*                 | **Ms. Donna Rinehart**            |
|                                   |                                   |
|                                   | *Institute for Intergovernmental  |
|                                   | Research*                         |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

**Meeting Goals and Purpose**

Chairman Boehmer gave an overview of the meeting agenda (refer to
Appendix A for complete agenda), which included the following key
topics:

-   **Privacy Issues Across Federal Partners**

-   **Product III---*Information Quality: The Foundation for Justice
    Decision Making***

-   **Prominent Issues in Information Quality (IQ) and Solutions
    (Product IV)**

Mr. Boehmer informed the Working Group that based on the work and
priorities identified by the Privacy Technology Focus Group, a subgroup,
the Technical Privacy Task Team, would be formed under the Global
Security Working Group (GSWG) and would be made up of the technical
representatives from the Global Infrastructure/Standards Working Group
that participated on the focus group and some of the members of the
GPIQWG, for the purpose of addressing privacy issues in Global technical
products.

A suggestion was made that the GPIQWG address the telecommunications and
banking records issue (government collection of commercial data). Ms.
Horvath stated that DOJ is tasked with developing policy regarding
commercial data and reseller information. She thought they might be
putting together a committee on this to discuss what the federal and
state representatives could do to encourage commercial resellers to make
certain their information is accurate.

**Privacy Issues Across Federal Partners Meeting Overview**

Chairman Boehmer and Ms. Horvath gave an overview of the previous day\'s
discussions, which included a summary of the foundation work
accomplished to date, such as the Global *Privacy Policy Development
Guide*, the Justice Management Institute\'s (JMI) *Privacy, Civil
Rights, and Civil Liberties Policy Templates for Justice Information
Systems*, and the Bureau of Justice Assistance\'s (BJA) *Privacy
Technology Focus Group Executive Summary*. Topics included Challenge 1:
Commercial Data and Challenge 2: Local/State/Tribal/Federal Information
Sharing, including a report on the President\'s Information Sharing
Environment (ISE)

Ms. Horvath stated that there is a great push to share terrorist
information among agencies within the federal government, as well as
among local and state agencies. In this context, privacy and other legal
rights of Americans need to be considered. To address this, ISE Privacy
Guidelines were recently drafted and are currently pending the
President\'s approval. Ms. Horvath indicated that there was one section
set aside for \"Sharing with States.\" She mentioned that Mr. Alex Joel,
Civil Liberties Protection Officer, Office of the Director of National
Intelligence (ODNI), had suggested working with GPIQWG to develop that
section.

Other topics discussed at this meeting included fusion centers, Privacy
Impact Assessments (PIAs), Fair Information Principles (FIPs), etc. Of
particular acknowledgement, Ms. Horvath said that the meeting clearly
demonstrated that the states have done a tremendous amount of work and
that the Global *Privacy Policy Development Guide* was very useful and
had been referred to extensively in their writings. The participants of
that meeting developed 14 Next Steps (see Attachment B) that were
identified over the course of the discussions. Chairman Boehmer was
impressed by the fact that each of the privacy officers talked about
reliance on Global products and their willingness to work with the
Global committees. Ms. Horvath furthered that gesture by stating that it
seems very logical to combine the Global work in the federal privacy and
information sharing guidelines.

[Working Group Discussion/Questions]{.underline}:

The following are candid questions and comments made by Working Group
members regarding privacy issues at the federal level:

-   Will there be Global representation at any future federal privacy
    meetings? Ms. Horvath stated that they will definitely need someone
    to represent the local and state agencies. She mentioned,
    additionally, that she felt that they also needed someone on their
    ISE Privacy Guidelines group.

-   Let\'s not duplicate efforts. Global has invested a lot of work in
    their privacy products. They are useful and should be utilized.
    BJA\'s approach is for agencies, including federal, to take whatever
    they need from Global products and take ownership and use it.

-   Fusion Centers -- Regarding the *Fusion Center Guidelines*, DOJ has
    to add privacy language, such as how to apply the Global *Privacy
    Policy Development Guide*, for someone setting up a fusion center.
    Carl Wicklund stated that the Criminal Intelligence Coordinating
    Council (CICC) will be pulling together the privacy products and
    applying them to the *Fusion Center Guidelines*.

-   Advocacy Community -- Tim Edgar of the ODNI\'s Civil Liberties and
    Privacy Office was in attendance at the meeting. His previous
    employment as a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union
    (ACLU) would make him an excellent contact for vetting products and
    obtaining an advocacy community perspective.

-   The government has coercive influence over protocols and private
    third-party entities, and the questions are: Ought the government to
    get that information? What is the government\'s responsibility,
    especially with regard to disseminating this information? These are
    issues more relevant to accountability. How long are they holding
    the information, what is the purpose, and where does it go from
    there? An important distinction is that simply because the federal
    government has commercial data does not mean they intend to
    distribute it.

-   Sensitive data -- As an example, an address in a state system may
    mean nothing, but if it has been provided because it is the address
    of a victim of abuse and the government does not know that it is
    protected private information, then it may inadvertently be made
    available to the attacker. If standard tags are developed to
    indicate this, it will minimize the sharing of sensitive data.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   It is not just in the tagging of data, but also what is the
    responsibility/accountability of those that share or use
    information?

-   Metadata -- We need some terminology that accurately describes this
    concept (the tags that accompany the data that describe how it
    should be treated). If done well enough and if it permeates the
    public sector, given that storage costs are negligible, there may
    not be a problem getting them to carry those tags along with the
    data when it is gathered, stored, and disseminated.

-   Publicly available information -- A lot of information available
    from private commercial entities turns out to be information that is
    available publicly already.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Regulations/contract provisions -- There should be some sort of
    regulation of entities that collect and resell/distribute
    information regarding the collection and sharing of sensitive data,
    and the expectations underlying the regulations should be built into
    the contract provisions between the government and these entities.
    If these policies are built into contracts, this will eliminate
    anyone in government from buying information from vendors that do
    not follow these policies and use these tags. It will impact the
    market by motivating vendors to follow federal requirements.

-   We are looking at what we are doing now and the business rules as
    they are now, but we do not have a vision for where we want to be to
    influence the changes in legislation, etc. We should be driving
    toward, from a policy standpoint, the law enforcement exception. How
    are we going to refine these things, from a policy standpoint? As we
    develop the next information quality piece, we should very clearly
    look at what we want these things to look like in the future, not
    what our constraints are today.

Ms. Horvath explained that there were very strict guidelines prohibiting
the merging of private commercial data with government data. One of the
tasks of the privacy officers is a statutory requirement to protect the
privacy of the American people (defined by FIPs and the Collection
principle).

**Action Item:** Add Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 28 (28
CFR), Judicial Administration, Chapter 1, U.S. Department of Justice,
Parts 20, 22, 23, and 46 to the Global *Privacy Policy Development
Guide* Overview CD. Additionally, we should add DOJ\'s PIA guidelines
and template and, when finalized, JMI\'s *Privacy, Civil Rights, and
Civil Liberties Policy Templates for Justice Information Systems.*

**Product III: *Shared Vision for Justice Information Quality***

Chairman Boehmer introduced the revised draft of the information quality
fact sheet, *Shared Vision for Justice Information Quality*, to the
group and invited feedback from the group. He further stated that he
would like the group to thoroughly review the document and to come to a
consensus on the proposed changes so that a final version could be ready
for presentation at the Global Executive Steering Committee (GESC)
meeting, to be held August 2, 2006.

[Working Group Discussion]{.underline}:

The following outlines the main concerns expressed or changes proposed
to the IQ fact sheet:

-   We have to put this into better perspective to make this more
    understandable. It should be written for the layperson, not just
    those experienced in law enforcement. For example, there are
    sheriffs in very small counties who are elected without law
    enforcement experience. Rural small county police input a great
    amount of information. They do make decisions about how they are
    going to audit. We need to make the language more user-friendly for
    a broader audience.

-   We have collected pieces of information, but we need to define who
    the audience is. The managers who make the decisions and the
    laypersons who may not understand this information are two different
    audiences, and there are two different sets of action for them to
    take.

-   The front page currently leads a person into thinking the focus is
    accuracy, whereas the biggest problem is in having inadequate
    information available when trying to make a decision. The two cited
    examples revolve around the concept of not having adequate
    information available at the time it is needed. We need to disavow
    up front that the focus is not just accuracy, but that it is more
    than that. We need to treat accuracy in the examples as well.

-   We need a two-tiered approach, starting with the introductory piece
    for the executives. IQ is important and it is necessary to pay
    attention to it. Here are some steps to start with, and we will
    provide more resources later.

-   The more important point is to "grab" the unsophisticated reader and
    target the people who do not understand what IQ really means. The
    powerful pieces (scenario examples) are on page two. We should move
    one or more of these to the front page and create additional short
    vignettes on the back page. The scenarios are a good way to sell the
    notion that information quality is important.

> [Task]{.underline}: A small group volunteered to work together through
> lunch to develop a list of 1- to 2-sentence short vignettes as
> examples of what can happen as a result of poor information quality.
> These will be added to the last page of the document.

-   How will readers know, short of doomsday stories, that they have
    quality information? Are there other metrics along the way? One
    could read this and conclude, \"Well this has never happened to me,
    so I must have quality information.\" How do you grade your IQ or
    preempt? We need to provide them some metrics.

-   One main consideration with tribal groups is to convince them that
    this is important and to make them set aside other things and think
    about this and not feel it is another imposition by another agency
    into their way of life. This assumes people think this is important.

-   The definition of information quality on the front page is a
    subjective standard that does not translate into technical terms.
    Defining IQ by stating what the expectations are may be different
    for technical staff reading the definition than for anyone else. We
    need to drive the definition more towards some objective things that
    underlie the expectations---something more quantifiable. It should
    focus more on the data set rather than expectations. For one person,
    accuracy is absolute; whereas for another, if the data is valid,
    their processes are okay.

-   Agencies and agency personnel should understand that any information
    that is written and entered into a computer system should be written
    and entered with the acknowledgement that it will be shared. We need
    to incorporate the \"mind-set of always sharing data\" and add it as
    a bullet under \"What Can You Do About Information Quality?\" Move
    from need to know to write to share.

[Revision Tasks]{.underline}:

After an in-depth discussion, the group agreed to make the following
revisions to the *Shared Vision for Justice Information Quality*
brochure:

-   Rename \"What types of activities generate problems with information
    quality?\" to \"What problems arise from poor information quality?\"

-   Rename \"Information Quality is Multidimensional\" to \"A Framework
    for Information Quality\" and move it to page 2.

-   Add a third bullet under \"What Can You Do About Information
    Quality?\" that reads \"Move from need to know to write to share\"
    to create the mind-set of always sharing data.

-   Remove the links listed under \"Reading Resources\" and put them on
    the OJP IT site on a GPIQWG page and refer the reader to that link
    from this document.

-   Remove the \"Look for further guidance from Global\" bullet from the
    bulleted list and instead merge that statement into the language
    under \"Where Can I Turn for More Information?\"

-   Third bullet, \"Assess the level of information quality in your
    organization\"---Add to the last sentence: \"that will support and
    lead to a continuing and ongoing process improvement.\"

-   Shorten the paragraphs describing what Global is and who developed
    this product.\
    Ms. Jennie Plante will revise this section.

-   Revise the title of \"What Do Fellow Justice Leaders Say About
    Information Quality?\"

-   Revise the introductory text describing MIT\'s Table of Information
    Quality Dimensions to indicate that this is just one example
    demonstrating the multiple dimensions of information quality. We
    need to clearly state that we are not promoting this example over
    others, rather, that this is simply one example of many that reveals
    the complexity of information quality.

-   The group suggested a title change to the document: \"Justice
    Decision Making: What\'s Information Quality Got to Do With It?\"
    (Note, in final revisions, Working Group leadership revised this
    title as \"Information Quality: The Foundation for Justice Decision
    Making.\")

-   The section \"How Does IQ Intersect With Privacy?\" will move to the
    third page.

[Goal]{.underline}: Obtain approval by GESC at the August 2^nd^ meeting.

[Goal]{.underline}: Ready other products by the first of the year.

**Prominent Issues in Information Quality (IQ) and Solutions (Product
IV)**

A list was distributed to the group that outlined the 16 prominent
issues in information quality that the Working Group had identified at
the last GPIQWG meeting on March 16, 2006. Chairman Boehmer tasked the
group with reviewing and prioritizing the issues, as well as proposing
products/resources to develop. Products/priorities were divided up into
those that could potentially be addressed/developed within a six-month
period (short-term) and those that would require a much longer period
(long-term). Mr. Boehmer suggested that the priorities be presented to
the GESC at the August 2, 2006, meeting to get their input.

[Short-Term Production]{.underline}:

1.  Contribute input into the **privacy component of the *Fusion Center
    Guidelines*** (begin with a site visit to a fusion center to
    understand the fusion center processes).

2.  **Information quality assessment tool** -- Develop metrics for
    measuring the quality of justice data, including a baseline needs
    assessment.

3.  **Bibliography on information quality** -- Develop a listing of
    existing resources on information quality and a listing of
    complementary efforts.

4.  **Privacy Impact Assessment Tool** (and guidelines) -- Review the
    ISE Privacy Guidelines\' Privacy Impact Assessment Tool for
    applicability to local and state justice information sharing (ref.
    Ms. Jane Horvath).

5.  **A checklist for MOUs** -- Develop elements to be considered to be
    included in MOUs for justice information sharing to ensure data
    quality.

6.  **A short checklist for data resellers**. Develop a checklist of
    questions to ask for justice practitioners who are considering
    purchasing data from a data reseller. (For example, does the data
    reseller protect its data? Do they have a privacy policy?)

7.  **Short-term training and tying in to Global conferences** --
    Develop training for justice practitioners that introduces them to
    the dimensions of information quality and emphasizes the importance
    of information quality.

8.  **FAQs on privacy and information quality.** Develop a list of
    frequently asked questions on privacy and information quality.

9.  **Gap analysis** -- Develop analysis of current state and local laws
    regarding information sharing and privacy in order to address
    inconsistencies (gaps) that create barriers to information sharing.
    We can articulate those questions and present them to the attorneys
    general of each state. For example, what does expungement mean, as a
    matter of law, in your state?

[Long-Term Production]{.underline}:

1.  **Clarification document** -- Develop a document describing, in more
    detail, the information quality multiple dimensions, their
    application to justice systems, and basic instructions for how to
    measure where the data and organization are in relation to those
    dimensions (establish a measurement that can be ongoing). Include a
    vision for data quality for the future; where is this going?

2.  **Information quality guidebook** -- Develop a comprehensive
    information quality guidebook that includes goals, checklists,
    information quality elements (to insert in a strategic plan),
    recommendations, principles and improvement processes, templates for
    information quality policies, examples of information quality in the
    justice context, performance metrics, and documents that explain the
    information quality process and the steps needed.

3.  **Collaboration strategies** -- Develop strategies for ensuring
    information quality between agencies, including MOUs (mutual
    assurances that you are exchanging quality information).

4.  **Model data quality policy** -- Develop model data quality policies
    for the justice information sharing environment.

5.  **Information quality standards for commercial data resellers**
    (buying and selling) -- Develop an authoritative reference guide for
    what people should look for when buying information from commercial
    resellers (warranting the information).

6.  **Product or Web site listing resources for the privacy or
    information quality champion** -- Develop a justice information
    quality Web site that can include training materials (e.g., MIT and
    Larry English\'s resources), model contract provisions, and other
    information quality road maps/toolkits/blueprints.

7.  **Pilot site/project** -- Identify a pilot project to implement the
    *Privacy Policy Development Guide*\'s guidelines.

8.  **Revise the FIPs for justice information sharing.**

9.  **Ongoing outreach** -- Develop a plan for ongoing outreach and
    training to local and state agencies on privacy policies and
    information quality.

Dr. Richard Wang stated that there are **three components** of any
project: **Technology, Processes,** and **Management** structure. Most
information quality products are generic and do not apply specifically
to justice. Privacy and information quality are not naturally melded
together. GPIQWG has justice domain knowledge, but those in the private
industry have privacy knowledge, methodologies, processes, etc. Dr. Wang
suggested a pattern study that could be repeatable.

N-DEx and the R-DEx programs have a standard policy that nothing online
may be printed or copied from their site without calling their centers
and confirming the information is correct. That is one example of
ensuring information quality: a human one-on-one check of the data.

In Little Rock, Arkansas, there is an information quality project
starting this fall.

**Next Steps**

A consensus was made to review the privacy component of the *Fusion
Center Guidelines* and to request involvement in the next iteration of
the guidelines. Additionally, the group would like to secure a role in
contributing to the privacy subgroup, the Technical Privacy Task Team,
that is being assembled as part of the GSWG.

Chairman Boehmer recommended that Ms. Erin Lee invite representatives
from those agencies (e.g.,
[Michigan](http://www.govtech.net/news/news.php?id=100036)) that are
using the *Privacy Policy Development Guide* to come to a future GPIQWG
meeting to share their experiences and lessons learned with the group.
(Refer to Government Technology Article: NGA Center Announces Justice
Information Grants,
<http://www.govtech.net/magazine/channel_story.php/100035>**.**)

Ms. Cindy Southworth encouraged the members to request copies of the
*Privacy Policy Development Guide* and Overview CDs and to hand them out
to members' constituents, as well as at conferences and meetings.

Ms. Susan Laniewski announced the National Criminal Justice Association
(NCJA) meeting scheduled for July 29 through August 1, 2006, in
Baltimore, Maryland.

The next meeting should be scheduled around mid-September. A date will
be established over the coming weeks. (Note: The next meeting was later
scheduled to occur on October 4, 2006, in Phoenix, Arizona, and would
include a site visit to the Phoenix fusion center the day prior to the
meeting.)

Motion to adjourn at 4:15 p.m.

**Appendix A**

**Global Privacy and Information Quality Working Group**

**June 29, 2006**

**Agenda**

Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative (Global)

# Privacy and Information Quality Working Group (GPIQWG) Meeting![](media/image1.jpeg){width="1.6458333333333333in" height="1.6458333333333333in"}

![](media/image2.png){width="1.0173611111111112in"
height="1.0173611111111112in"}

Hyatt Fair Lakes

12777 Fair Lakes Circle

Fairfax, Virginia (703) 818-1234

**June 29, 2006**

> **Agenda---Page One**

***Commonwealth Ballroom A***

+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| 8:00 a.m.--8:30  | ***Continental Breakfast***                       |
| a.m.             |                                                   |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| 8:30 a.m.--8:45  | Welcoming Remarks and Introductions               |
| a.m.             |                                                   |
|                  | > *Robert Boehmer, GPIQWG Chair*                  |
|                  | >                                                 |
|                  | > *Jeanette Plante, GPIQWG Vice Chair*            |
|                  | >                                                 |
|                  | > Anticipated Discussion Topic                    |
|                  |                                                   |
|                  | -   *Update on Global working group activities*   |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| 8:45 a.m.--9:00  | Meeting Goals and Purpose                         |
| a.m.             |                                                   |
|                  | > *Robert Boehmer*                                |
|                  | >                                                 |
|                  | > *Jeanette Plante*                               |
|                  | >                                                 |
|                  | > Anticipated Discussion Topics                   |
|                  |                                                   |
|                  | -   Review of GPIQWG's privacy and information    |
|                  |     quality priorities                            |
|                  |                                                   |
|                  | -   Agenda overview                               |
|                  |                                                   |
|                  | -   Privacy at the federal level                  |
|                  |                                                   |
|                  | -   Finalize Product III information quality (IQ) |
|                  |     fact sheet                                    |
|                  |                                                   |
|                  | -   Review and scope of identified IQ issues      |
|                  |                                                   |
|                  | -   IQ solutions/resources to develop             |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| 9:00 a.m.--10:15 | Privacy Issues Across Federal Partners            |
| a.m.             |                                                   |
|                  | > *Robert Boehmer*                                |
|                  | >                                                 |
|                  | > *Alan Carlson*                                  |
|                  | >                                                 |
|                  | > *Erin Kenneally*                                |
|                  | >                                                 |
|                  | > *Cindy Southworth*                              |
|                  | >                                                 |
|                  | > Anticipated Discussion Topic                    |
|                  |                                                   |
|                  | -   *Update on federal privacy meeting held June  |
|                  |     28, 2006*                                     |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| 10:15            | ***Break***                                       |
| a.m.--10:30 a.m. |                                                   |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| 10:30            | Product III: *Shared Vision for Justice           |
| a.m.--11:15 a.m. | Information Quality*                              |
|                  |                                                   |
|                  | > Anticipated Discussion Topic                    |
|                  |                                                   |
|                  | -   Review and approval of the information        |
|                  |     quality fact sheet, *Shared Vision for        |
|                  |     Justice Information Quality*, for GAC         |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+

Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative (Global)

# Privacy and Information Quality Working Group (GPIQWG) Meeting![](media/image1.jpeg){width="1.6458333333333333in" height="1.6458333333333333in"}

![](media/image2.png){width="1.0173611111111112in"
height="1.0173611111111112in"}

Hyatt Fair Lakes

12777 Fair Lakes Circle

Fairfax, Virginia (703) 818-1234

**June 29, 2006**

> **Agenda---Page Two**

***Commonwealth Ballroom A***

+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| 11:15            | Facilitated Discussion: Prominent Issues in       |
| a.m.--12:00 Noon | Information Quality                               |
|                  |                                                   |
|                  | > Anticipated Discussion Topics                   |
|                  |                                                   |
|                  | -   Review of the 16 identified IQ issues         |
|                  |     outlined at the March 16, 2006, GPIQWG        |
|                  |     meeting                                       |
|                  |                                                   |
|                  | -   Scope of priority issues                      |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| 12:00 Noon--1:30 | ***Lunch***                                       |
| p.m.             |                                                   |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| 1:30 p.m.--2:45  | Facilitated Discussion: Prominent IQ Issues and   |
| p.m.             | Solutions                                         |
|                  |                                                   |
|                  | > Anticipated Discussion Topics                   |
|                  |                                                   |
|                  | -   IQ issues to be addressed                     |
|                  |                                                   |
|                  | -   Resources to develop                          |
|                  |                                                   |
|                  | -   Existing resources                            |
|                  |                                                   |
|                  | -   Template for resolutions                      |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| 2:45 p.m.--3:00  | ***Break***                                       |
| p.m.             |                                                   |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| 3:00 p.m.--4:15  | Continued Discussion: Prominent IQ Issues and     |
| p.m.             | Solutions                                         |
|                  |                                                   |
|                  | > Anticipated Discussion Topics                   |
|                  |                                                   |
|                  | -   Finalize outline of next IQ products          |
|                  |                                                   |
|                  | -   Working Group recommendations/next steps      |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| 4:15 p.m.--4:30  | Closing Remarks                                   |
| p.m.             |                                                   |
|                  | > *Robert Boehmer*                                |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| 4:30 p.m.        | ***Adjournment***                                 |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
|                  |                                                   |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+

![](media/image3.png){width="3.161111111111111in"
height="0.5513888888888889in"}

> **Attachment B**
>
> **Intergovernmental Privacy Issues Meeting**
>
> **June 28, 2006**
>
> **Next Steps**
>
> **Intergovernmental Privacy Issues Meeting**
>
> **June 28, 2006**
>
> **Next Steps**

1)  Pursuit of [data reseller/reselling]{.mark} standards

    a.  Formation of an ad hoc group

    b.  Development of language and guidelines around this issue

2)  How do we [classify/identify/tag information]{.mark}? Consideration
    given to subsidiary components of *language/nomenclature* and
    *standardization.*

    a.  Sensitive But Unclassified information (SBU)

    b.  Privacy-related tagging

3)  Further discussion on the [development of the Information Sharing
    Environment (ISE) Privacy Guidelines]{.mark}

    a.  Reference/leverage the Global *Guide* process

4)  Facilitation of [privacy guidelines/policies oversight and
    auditing]{.mark}

    a.  Development of a resource/tool: Checklist

5)  [Memorandums of Understanding]{.mark} (MOUs)

    a.  Development of a resource/tool: Checklist enumerating elements
        to be considered

6)  Articulation of the broader [Vision for Information Sharing]{.mark}

    a.  Including enumeration of [new communities of interest]{.mark}
        (e.g., health and human services, first responders)

7)  [Training, training, training]{.mark} related to privacy issues --
    in all communities of interest, in a variety of methods/capacities,
    across the entire justice-interested landscape

8)  [Cross-pollination of federal and state/local privacy
    groups]{.mark}:

    a.  Federal Privacy Officers involved in GPIQWG

    b.  GPIQWG representatives included on Federal Privacy Group

9)  **Immediate Issue**: Collaboration to [refine Global's *Fusion
    Center Guidelines* privacy chapter]{.mark}, to include:

    a.  PIAs

    b.  Federally supplied language

    c.  GPIQWG Guidelines cross-reference

    d.  JMI templates cross-reference

> Within a week, a conference call will likely be held in pursuit of
> this refinement.

10) [Fusion center field trips]{.mark}\
    Suggested centers:

    a.  Delaware

    b.  Massachusetts

    c.  Baltimore

    d.  San Diego

11) [Working Smart: Collaboration and Outreach Activities]{.mark}

    a.  Survey of complementary privacy efforts

    b.  Cross-pollination

    c.  Leveraging like activities

    d.  Informing partners of complementary efforts and opportunities
        for collaboration

12) Effective engagement of the [advocacy community]{.mark}

    a.  (Perhaps paired with Vision Statement task)

    b.  Critical to determine message up front, vet through community,
        and follow up

    c.  Broaden concept of "advocacy partner" *and* research the most
        appropriate people to include from these agencies

    d.  Public meeting

13) [Outreach and education regarding fusion centers]{.mark}

    a.  Need for uniform message communicated as to what a fusion center
        **is** and **is not**

    b.  DOJ/DHS/DNI, along with Global, should collaborate to craft this
        message

14) [Outreach to state and local agencies re: privacy issues]{.mark}

    a.  Via mechanisms such as GJXDM Training and Technical Assistance
        (GTTAC),

        i.  e.g., GJXDM User's Conference in September