Source: http://socialcapitalreview.org/2010/04/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 12:21:40+00:00

Document:
In March,Â Google launched its Public Data Explorer, expanding upon itsÂ public data search feature that’s been around since last spring. Earlier this month, Columbia’s Graduate School of JournalismÂ announced a joint degree program toÂ train tech-savvy journalists. It looks likeÂ computer assisted reporting is finally going mainstream and moving past itsÂ “hacker journalist” label and identity crisis.
That’s all well and good, but having all thoseÂ programmer journalists looking for access to public data brings to the forefront questions about who owns public records and who has the right to put limits on their use. Oklahoma, for instance,Â brought in $65 million in the last five years from selling data, and theÂ state legislature has proposed a law to limit the availability of data for such public records requests. Journalists can run into frustrations when data they’re relying upon become unavailable. Sometimes the data feeds are taken down because repeated requests become too burdensome for the public agency, which is whatÂ Crimespotting in Oakland encountered beforeÂ they worked it out with the Oakland Police Department. The public agency may also put limits on how the data are used, or require a licensing fee. Another potential hurdle is a dispute over who owns the data, particularly when a third party supplies the government entity with the data.
WhileÂ Section 105 of the Copyright Act makes works of the federal government ineligible for copyright protection, this provision does not apply to state and local governments.Â Nevertheless, there are strong reasons to doubt that copyright protection extends to much state and local government-generated data;Â lack of originality being the most obvious obstacle (see below). Moreover, because many states have public records laws that require disclosure of public records, the interplay between copyright law and state FOIA-like provisions vary from state to state.
In New York, for instance, state and local agencies may comply with their obligations under the state Freedom of Information Law while maintaining their copyright, and the public records law “does not prohibit a state agency from placing restrictions on how a record, if it were copyrighted, could be subsequently distributed.”Â County of Suffolk v. First American Real Estate Solutions, 261 F.3d 179, 192 (2d Cir. 2001).
South Carolina takes a similar stance in allowing local governments to obtain copyrights on records “to the extent it can be shown that it contains original material, research, and creative compilation.”Â Seago v. Horry County, 663 S.E.2d 38, 43 (S.C. 2008). Further, “the purpose of [state] FOIA is satisfied once the public information is provided. It does not violate FOIA for a public entity to copyright specially-created digital data and to restrict subsequent commercial use as long as the information provided is provided initially to the requesting person or entity.” Id.
On the other hand, Florida’s public records law “overrides a governmental agency’s ability to claim a copyright in its work unless the legislature has expressly authorized a public records exemption.”Microdecisions, Inc. v. Skinner, 889 So. 2d 871, 876 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004). California similarly requires “unrestricted disclosure” to promote the public records statute’s purpose of “increasing freedom of information by giving members of the public access to information in the possession of public agencies,” in ruling that “end user restrictions are incompatible with the purposes and operation of the CPRA.”Â County of Santa Clara v. Cal. First Amendment Coal., 89 Cal. Rptr. 3d 374, 399 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009).
Of course, even when a government entity claims copyright over public data, that protection is at best thin. In general, datasets are protectable as compilations, meaning only the original selection, coordination, or arrangement of facts is protected.Â Feist Pubs., Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340, 361-62 (1991). Individual data points are protectable only if they contain predictions and require judgment and discretion, and are not simply “pre-existing facts that had merely been discovered.”Â CCC Info. Servs., Inc.v. Maclean Hunter Mkt. Reports, Inc., 44 F.3d 61, 67 (2d Cir. 1994);Â CDN Inc. v. Kapes, 197 F.3d 1256, 1261 (9th Cir. 1999). Thus, to the extent that public records are “independent creations” that have been “selected, weighed and arranged,” data within public and private databases are protected by copyright.Â Health Grades, Inc. v. Robert Wood Johnson Univ. Hosp., Inc., 634 F. Supp. 2d 1226, 1234 (D. Colo. 2009). In contrast, “merely mechanical derivations” are not eligible for copyright protection.Â RBC Nice Bearings, Inc. v. Peer Bearing Co., 676 F. Supp. 2d 9, 22-23 (D. Conn. 2009).
Even if the data are not protected by copyright, state contract law may limit the permissible uses of the data. SeeÂ ProCD Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447, 1455 (7th Cir. 1996) (federal copyright law does not preempt state-law contract claims). In the case where a third party provides the government with information under a contract, the government agency may not be free to let you do anything you want with it. In addition, these contracts, if poorly written, can introduce uncertainty over who owns the rights to electronically distribute the data.
For instance, Routsey is aÂ popular iPhone app that uses prediction data fromÂ GPS transponders placed on Muni and BART buses and trains to predict the arrival of the next bus or train. The data was available, for free, in stations, bus shelters, andÂ online. Trouble was, a third partyÂ claimed that it had distribution rights to the data and demanded licensing fees for Routsey’s use of it in an iPhone application. The uncertainty over ownership of data wasÂ enough for Apple to kill the app, even though San Francisco Municipal Transit AuthorityÂ claimed ownership over the data and wanted to encourage its use.Â In the end, with the help of a lawyer, Routsey is back in the iPhone App Store.
Are you having trouble accessing government data for your public interest or journalistic application? TheÂ Online Media Legal Network may be able to help connect you with a lawyer who can walk through the issues of your particular case.
Today was the third regular weekly Public Data Ferret segment on KOMO 1000 News Radio Seattle, with “Nine2Noon” show co-host Brian Calvert and co-anchor Marina Rockinger, subbing for Nancy Barrick. We were talking about a report highlighted at this blog’s Public Data Ferret information hub from The U.S. Government Accountability Office about shortcomings in security at major federal office buildings and courthouses. Here’s the audio of the whole segment and below, the transcript.
When I first heard that Countywide Community Forums was going to focus on customer service as a county initiative I was a little underwhelmed. With May 1 the starting date for these forums, I am now enthused and motivated to participate in my neighborhood forum.
Why the change in heart? Think about it. You and I interact and benefit from essential services provided by King County each and every day. From public transportation, roads, bridges, vital records, sewer services, the county courts, police, the list goes on, and on.
A government employee culture — starting at the top — that embraces and rewards the treatment of you and I as true “customers” can only mean a more responsive, and thus, a more representative government. Isn’t that why we spend human capital talking about, implementing, and researching successful models for public participation and open government initiatives?
Of course it is. Not only is the topic of customer service as a government value a legitimate issue, it underscores the broader conversation about public trust in government, or the lack thereof, as many people would want to point out.
Civic cynicism and non-participation in the democratic process is rooted in the belief that government officials are unresponsive and inaccessible. That is where the issue of trust is undeniable to the health and well being of our civic and public institutions.
So, one vote, one voice, one opinion. If it’s yours, than it’s one of life’s most valuable possessions. From May 1 through June 13, Countywide Community Forums is giving you the opportunity to be heard. Plug in here and register, to get started. Then, bring your voice to a forum and make a crack in the wall of public cynicism.
BACKGROUND: SinceÂ the 1995 bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City perpetrated by Timothy McVeigh,Â killing 168 people and injuring 500, there has been increased emphasis on security procedures at high-traffic, high-risk federal facilities such as federal courthouses and regional federal office buildings (Class 4 facilities).Â The Federal Protective Service (FPS) has a budget of $1 billion to provide law enforcement and security for the almost 9,000 buildings overseen by the federal government’s real estate and administrative services branch, known as the General Services Administration. FPS employs 1,225 full-time workers and about 15,000 contract security guards who work at some 2,360 federal facilities around the country. In FPS Region 10, made up of Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Alaska, there are 369 guards at 111 facilities.Â For the contract security guard program, FPS obligated $659 million for fiscal year 2009, about two-thirds of its budget. One of three FPS offices which is in charge of contracting with firms providing the security guards at facilities nationwide is located in the Seattle region, in Federal Way, Wash. Overall, as of last October, FPS had a total of 125 different guard contracts with 38 different contractors. With oversight from FPS, the contractors are responsible for management, supervision, training, equipment, supplies, and licensing of guards.
A PROBLEM: The investigative arm of the U.S. Congress, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), has found substantial shortcomings in the performance of the contract security guards at Class 4 facilities. Of particular concern is the continuing failure of the security guards to apprehend undercover investigators who are able to smuggle weapons and explosives into federal facilities, through security checkpoints.
KEY DOCUMENT: “Federal Protective Service’s Contract Guard Program Requires More Oversight And Reassessment Of Use Of Contract Guards,” U.S. Government Accountability Office, 4/13/10.
KEY FINDINGS: This new GAO performance audit first emphasizes that in an earlier, July 2009 report to Congress, the GAO noted that 10 of 10 attempts by undercover investigators to smuggle into Class 4 facilities the components of an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) concealed on their person, were successful (p. 16 of new report). The new report discloses things have improved only slightly since then. Subsequent FPS “penetration testing” shows that in 53 specific probes spread across six of the service’s 11 regions, guards identified prohibited items – guns, knives and fake bombs – in just 18 instances, and failed to do so 35 times. (p. 17 of report).
The quality of guard inspections and reports is inconsistent.
Additional training for guards on X-Ray machines and metal detectors will not be fully complete until year-end 2010.
One contractor related to GAO that FPS fails to require contractors train guards to deal with “challenge and response” scenarios such as a suicide bomber, active shooter, evacuation, or shelter in place. Instead the emphasis is on basic prevention and detection. Investigators found some guards did not know how to execute emergency steps such as locking a building or accessing controls to the building ventilation system.
FPS inspectors meant to ensure quality performance of contracted security guards say they aren’t given enough time to finish inspections of guards due to the agency’s emphasis on inventorying building structure vulnerabilities. The human performance factor gets short shrift.
FPS has failed to conduct any comprehensive review since 1995 of the contract guard program.
Identify and evaluate ways other than the contract guard program to provide adequate security for Class 4 federal facilities.
Implement far more rigorous quality control of contract guards through better performance monitoring and contractor enforcement; a standardized record-keeping format; provision of reliable and comprehensive real-time data; scenario-based training; and more thorough verification of guard certification and training.
One of the School Committee’s newest members is attempting to streamline the district’s method of providing financial reports, saying the data should be made more accessible to the public in order to increase transparency in local government.
Bill O’Keefe, a Bank of America employee who was elected to the School Committee in November, said he was shocked when the committee was asked to approve a list of expenditures that included nothing but a total dollar amount at a meeting on April 5.
To obtain a detailed expense report, O’Keefe was told to make an appointment with the superintendent’s office during business hours, which veteran committee members said was standard procedure, he said.
“I’m going to have to take a day off in order to go and get this information? Are you kidding me?” he said recalling the event on Thursday.
As it turns out, a hard copy of the data was provided at the committee’s next meeting, and O’Keefe said school officials have been open to suggestions on how to streamline the process. Ideally, he’d like to see the data posted online or available in hard copy for the committee and the public to see.
“We have to vet this whole thing,” he said of the committee’s current practices for distributing public information.
In the meantime, he will continue to request financial reports and other documents. His recent request for a copy of Superintendent Roy E. Belson’s contract extension brought a clerical error to light that had slipped past numerous other departments, he said.
“It’s not that I’m looking for things to be wrong, I’m just looking to put a second set of eyes on it,” he said.
So far, O’Keefe said his efforts have been met positively by school officials and residents alike. His phone has been ringing constantly since his initial inquiry into the transparency of district expense reports earlier this month.
Social networking and online transparency are big right now in politics and government, and Microsoft today threw its hat into the ring with a new social media platform called “TownHall” that political campaigns and government officials can use to run interactive online sites for use by their constituents.
The codeÂ can be downloaded for free, but it runs on Microsoft’s Windows Azure cloud computing platform,Â with standard chargesdepending on the amount of usage.
Microsoft says an early version of the TownHall technology was used to run NASA’s “Be a Martian” site.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.