Your Right to Know in a Digital World

Oklahoma County judge issues ruling in public employee DOB case

The issue over whether state agencies can and should release the birth dates of public employees has been partially resolved by an Oklahoma County district judge.

In a summary judgment issued this afternoon, District Judge Bryan C. Dixon told state agencies to continue a process outlined last year by the attorney general. In effect, each state agency is supposed to determine whether releasing its employees’ birth dates constitutes an “unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”

You can read Judge Dixon’s order here.

We are still digesting the order, but it looks like it’s not a clear win for any of the parties. Any appeals to the state Supreme Court are due in about a month.

First, some quick background: The case started with an Open Records request back in February by The Oklahoman for all names, job titles, employee identification numbers, hire dates, birth dates and salary information for all state employees. The request came as the Legislature was contemplating closing off  some of that information.

The newspaper wanted the information to check the backgrounds of state employees. The birth date is a key secondary identifier if employees have similar names. Meanwhile, employee ID numbers are useful in tracking public employees if they get married, change jobs or change their names.

The Oklahoma Public Employees Association, joined by an association of state troopers, filed a lawsuit to block the release of the birth dates and employee IDs. Other groups later joined the lawsuit, including the Tulsa World, other media groups and state agencies.

Today’s ruling

In today’s ruling, Dixon said that employee ID numbers are not subject to disclosure by any state agency. In effect, he agreed with arguments put forth by the Office of Personnel Management and the Office of State Finance that knowing those could compromise the security of the state’s Employee Self-Service system for managing payroll information. The employee ID is used as the login for that system.

As our attorneys pointed out, this is despite the fact that we have been getting more than 36,000 employee ID numbers along with our regular monthly state payroll files since at least 2007. We stopped getting them in March. In his ruling, Dixon did not cite any specific statute limiting access to the employee ID numbers.

On birth dates, Dixon said state employees did not have any rights to individually challenge the disclosure of DOBs by state agencies on privacy grounds. That leaves the decision on disclosure to the heads of each state agency. The judge gave the agencies 60 days to make that decision. (The Attorney General’s office already provided a list of its employees’ birth dates to The Oklahoman back in March, before the OPEA and the troopers association filed their lawsuit.)

Finally, Dixon ruled that legislative personnel records are exempt from the Open Records Act. He ordered OSF and OPM not disclose “any records and personnel records concerning Legislative staff.”

This last point is confusing to me on several levels. First of all, does that mean the state should immediately stop putting salary information of legislative staffers on the Open Books site maintained by the Office of State Finance? Secondly, don’t taxpayers have a right to see who is working for their elected officials down at the Capitol?

–Paul

---

2010 Oklahoma Legislature: Open records/FOI wrap-up

UPDATE, 6/2/10: Oklahomans for Responsible Government points out that another version of the school district transparency bill, Senate Bill 1633, did in fact pass. (Hat tip: Peter J. Rudy)

—–

In case you missed it, my Watchdog colleague John Estus had an update of some of the major open records, transparency and freedom of information developments in the 2010 legislative session that ended last week.

———————————————————————————————————————————-

Open records draw action

By John Estus

Staff Writer

jestus@opubco.com

The Legislature dealt with several issues affecting freedom of information this session:

DATES OF BIRTH

THE BILL: Senate Bill 1753 exempted public employee birth dates from the Open Records Act.

AUTHORS: Sen. Debbe Leftwich, D-Oklahoma City, and Rep. Randy Terrill, R-Moore.

RESULT: Failed. The bill did not receive a vote on the House floor after Rep. Lucky Lamons, D-Tulsa, added an amendment requiring the Legislature operate under the Open Records and Open Meeting acts. Terrill later put the birth date exemption in other bills he controlled, but those bills weren’t voted on until the birth date exemption was removed.

HIGHWAY PATROL VIDEOS

THE BILL: House Bill 3382 made audio and video recordings taken from Oklahoma Highway Patrol cruisers public records in certain situations.

AUTHORS: Rep. Randy Terrill, R-Moore, and Sen. Anthony Sykes, R-Moore.

RESULT: Failed. It did not receive a vote on the House floor after Terrill added language to it exempting public employee birth dates from the Open Records Act.

AUTOPSY REPORTS

THE BILL: House Bill 3155 let district attorneys decide whether autopsy reports should be made public.

AUTHORS: Rep. Leslie Osborn, R-Tuttle, and Sen. Ron Justice, R-Chickasha.

RESULT: Failed. The bill stalled in the House after members raised concerns that keeping autopsy reports secret could harm oversight of the medical examiner and law enforcement.

OPEN BOOKS 2.0

THE BILL: House Bill 3422 improved the state’s Open Books website by requiring all purchases made with state funds be disclosed there as individual expenses.

AUTHORS: Rep. Ken Miller, R-Edmond, and Sen. Clark Jolley, R-Edmond.

RESULT: Passed; awaiting governor’s signature.

FILM, MUSIC RECORDS

THE BILL: Senate Bill 1351 exempted certain aspects of film proposals submitted to the Oklahoma Film and Music Office from the Open Records Act.

AUTHORS: Rep. Dale DeWitt, R-Braman, and Sen. David Myers, R-Ponca City.

RESULT: Passed; signed by governor.

MUNICIPAL COURT RECORDS

THE BILL: House Bill 2541 exempted Social Security numbers, credit card numbers and bank account numbers from public municipal court records.

AUTHORS: Rep. Marian Cooksey, R-Edmond, and Sen. Clark Jolley, R-Edmond.

RESULT: Passed; signed by governor.

SCHOOL SPORTS

THE BILL: Senate Bill 1729 would make the Oklahoma Secondary School Activities Association subject to the Open Records Act.

AUTHORS: Sen. Charlie Laster, D-Shawnee, and Rep. Shane Jett, R-Tecumseh.

RESULT: Failed. The bill did not receive a vote on the House floor.

SCHOOL DISTRICT TRANSPARENCY

THE BILL: House Bill 3253 opens school district spending data for inclusion on a public website administered by the state Education Department.

AUTHORS: Rep. Gus Blackwell, R-Goodwell, and Sen. Randy Brogdon, R-Owasso.

STATUS: Failed. The bill did not receive a vote on the Senate floor.

SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY

THE BILL: Senate Bill 2968 required sex offenders register with an address that can be mapped and includes a ZIP code.

AUTHORS: Sen. Clark Jolley, R-Edmond, and Rep. Mike Sanders, R-Kingfisher.

RESULT: Passed; signed by governor.

---

Oklahoma driving record fee now highest in nation

From Saturday’s paper:

———————————————————————————————————————————-

As part of the state budget agreement, Oklahoma motor vehicle records will now cost $25 apiece – the highest fee for such records in the nation. Insurance companies use the records to set rates.

BY PAUL MONIES

Database Editor

pmonies@opubco.com

A budget plan to more than double the price of driving records gives Oklahoma a new distinction: it now charges more than any other state.

With the passage of Senate Bill 1556, motor vehicle records will cost $25, up from $10. An additional fee of $2.50 remains for online sales by NIC Inc., the company that operates the state’s website. The online charge was not raised.

The bill now goes to Gov. Brad Henry, but the increase was part of the budget agreement finalized last week between the governor and legislative leaders.

Charges for motor vehicle records vary widely nationwide, according to a compilation of rates by public records publisher BRB Publications Inc. Rhode Island charges $19.50. New Mexico provides copies of the records for free, although it does charge $4.95 if they are ordered online.

More than 20 states charge extra fees for online access to the records.

Michael Sankey, president of BRB Publications and author of several books on motor vehicle records, said a handful of states increase the fees on those records each year.

It’s a money-making deal for states because the actual costs for motor vehicle records are far lower than what most states charge, he said.

The higher Oklahoma fees mean the state could make more than $30 million a year selling motor vehicle records to insurance companies, data brokers and employment verification firms. A fiscal analysis of SB 1556 prepared by legislative staff shows the increase could add $12 million to the state’s general fund and $6 million to a revolving fund for the state Department of Public Safety.

In the past five years, Oklahoma has brought in about $13 million each year for selling those records, according to records.

Included on the records are names, birth dates, driver’s license numbers and recent driving histories. The type of information sold is governed by the federal Drivers Privacy Protection Act.

The act contains more than a dozen possible scenarios that allow numerous public and private organizations and individuals to obtain the records, but most of the buyers are insurance companies.

Jim Walker, a lobbyist for State Farm Insurance, said he heard earlier this year Oklahoma’s fee might be raised to $15. Walker said the company was “shocked” last week to see the fee raised to $25.

“This could ultimately translate into higher insurance rates,” Walker said.

Insurance companies use the driving history part of the records to set car insurance rates. Walker said Oklahoma’s higher fees could mean State Farm buys the records less frequently. That would give it less flexibility in setting rates for good drivers.

“If you’re a good driver, we don’t want to charge you the same as a bad driver,” Walker said.

——

UPDATE, 6/1/10: I went back and looked at Gov. Henry’s budget proposal from February and saw the following passage on Page 10:

Certified Copies of Driving Records
The State charges $10 to persons attaining a certified copy of a driver record. The Department of Public Safety forecasts that it will collect $10.6 million in FY-2011 at the current rate. This budget proposes doubling the fee for such copies to $20. This generates an additional $10.6 million in revenue for FY-2011.

---

State poised to make millions more selling drivers license data

A key part of the state budget deal means Oklahoma could bring in another $18 million a year from selling motor vehicle records to insurance companies and employment verification firms that include the personal information of all licensed drivers.

We wrote about those sales back in April; the Tulsa World had an update last weekend.

From April’s story:

The state of Oklahoma makes tens of millions of dollars selling personal information about people that some lawmakers and labor organizations want kept secret for government employees, The Oklahoman and the Tulsa World have learned.

At least $65 million has been made in the past five years from the sale of millions of motor vehicle records that include birth dates and other personal information of all state drivers, Department of Public Safety records show.

A private company has collected about $15 million conducting most of those transactions on behalf of the state, records show.

Here’s the relevant graphic from that story:

The sale of motor vehicle records is allowed under the federal Driver’s Privacy Protection Act. Information sold includes name, birth date, driver’s license number and recent driving violations.

Now, as part of the budget agreement, Senate Bill 1556 would more than double the price of each motor vehicle record to $25, up from $10. The bill is by Sen. Mike Johnson, R-Kingfisher, and Rep. Ken Miller, R-Edmond.

According to a fiscal analysis prepared by legislative staff, this increase could bring in an extra $12 million to the state’s General Revenue Fund, with an additional $6 million earmarked for the state Department of Public Safety revolving fund.

That means the state revenue from those data sales could go from an average of $13 million a year to more than $30 million a year under the increased fees.

–Paul

---

Last-minute DOB privacy legislation, Part II

We just got word tonight that Rep. Randy Terrill has filed new legislation that will close off the dates of birth of all public employees in Oklahoma. This is despite the fact that the state makes millions selling the same information for registered voters, licensed drivers and college students.

Sensing that a standalone bill like the changes to HB 3382 made last week was unlikely to survive scrutiny by his fellow House members, it now looks like Terrill, R-Moore, has put the language into a so-called omnibus bill dealing with the  state Department of Corrections.

The lengthy conference committee substitute for HB 3379 was filed this evening with the following provision:

D. Public bodies The Department of Corrections shall keep confidential the home address, telephone numbers and, social security numbers, employee identification number and birth date of any person employed or formerly employed by the public body.

The next section then takes the exemption for DOC employees and makes it applicable to all public bodies. It also renders moot a pending Open Records Act request by The Oklahoman for the birth dates of public employees by making the bill retroactive:

E. The provisions of subsection D of this section shall be applicable to all public bodies and to any request made pursuant to the provisions of the Oklahoma Open Records Act prior to the effective date of this act for which a public body has not provided a response as of the effective date of this act.

It’s my understanding that new legislation has to sit on the House calendar for at least 24 hours before being considered by the House. That means this bill could come up for a vote as early as Wednesday evening.

For previous blog coverage of this issue, check out the following posts:

• Oklahoma brings in millions by selling personal data
• Special mailing list deal for Oklahoma Public Employees Association
• “Privacy pirates” and the politics of fear
• DOB bill compromise attacks spirit of Open Records Act
• Public employee date of birth bill resurrected

–Paul

---

Public employee date of birth bill resurrected

UPDATE, 5/20/10: The Tulsa World has a good wrap up of Wednesday’s action in the Senate on this bill.

It looks like an effort to exempt the birth dates of public employees from the Oklahoma Open Records Act has been brought back to life, this time as part of the conference committee report to House Bill 3382. That bill originally dealt with removing the existing Open Records Act exemption to copies of Oklahoma Highway Patrol dashboard camera footage.

Things like this happen all the time in the closing days of the legislative session. The original birth date bill, Senate Bill 1753, died last month. But as they say at the Capitol, nothing’s ever dead until they bang the gavel for sine die.

As well as Rep. Randy Terrill, R-Moore, several other lawmakers signed off on the conference committee report changes to HB 3382:

• Rep. Rex Duncan, R-Sand Springs
• Rep. Mark McCullough, R-Sapulpa
• Rep. Mike Christian, R-Oklahoma City
• Rep. Joe Dorman, D-Rush Springs

–Paul

---

Amazon sues North Carolina over customer data

In a case that could have repercussions here in Oklahoma, online bookseller Amazon has filed a lawsuit against North Carolina’s tax agency, accusing it of wanting personal information about Amazon’s customers in the Tar Heel state.

The Associated Press has more here.

Amazon filed the lawsuit Monday in federal court in its home state of Washington. (Read a copy of the complaint.) From the lawsuit:

The [Department of Revenue] is auditing Amazon’s compliance with state sales and use tax laws. To date, Amazon has cooperated fully with the audit, providing the DOR with voluminous information about its sales to North Carolina, including, for each transaction: the order ID number; the city, county, and zip code to which the item was shipped; the total price for the transaction; the date of the transaction; and Amazon’s standard product code for each item (known as the Amazon Standard Identification Number or ASIN). With these product codes, the DOR is able to immediately find on Amazon’s website the full description of every product purchased by Amazon’s North Carolina customers since 2003 – nearly 50 million items in all.

As the AP story notes, states are desperate for all kinds of revenue amid the recession. Lawmakers in Oklahoma are still crafting the state budget for FY 2011, but Gov. Brad Henry has recommended expanded tax collections, including those for online sales. (The Oklahoma Policy Institute has a good discussion of streamlined sales tax collections.)

In its lawsuit, Amazon is claiming that handing over the names and addresses of its customers would violate their First Amendment rights and Amazon’s own privacy policy:

There is no allegation by the DOR that any of the products Amazon customers purchased is in any way unlawful. Rather, the identities and expressive choices of these customers have become subject to government scrutiny only because those products were purchased from an out-of-state retailer. The DOR’s actions threaten to chill the exercise of customers’ expressive choices and to cause Amazon customers not to purchase certain books, music, movies or other expressive material from Amazon that they might otherwise purchase if they did not fear disclosure of those choices to the government.

–Paul

---

DOB bill compromise attacks spirit of Open Records Act

UPDATE: House leaders decided not to hear the bill on the floor April 22. That means SB 1753 is dead for the year, although lawmakers said they are still working on possible alternate compromise language to be inserted into another bill before the end of the Legislative session. Read Capitol Bureau reporter Michael McNutt’s story.

——————————————————————————————————————————-

A floor amendment to Senate Bill 1753 was posted late Monday night by Rep. Randy Terrill. That means a vote on what Terrill calls compromise language for the disclosure of birth dates of public employees could come by Wednesday or Thursday on the House floor. A previous version of the bill passed unopposed in the Senate in February.

The compromise by Terrill, R-Moore, makes a bad bill worse and turns the whole Oklahoma Open Records Act on its head.

In effect, the bill would now grant public employees greater privacy protections than registered voters, licensed drivers and people who buy prescription drugs in Oklahoma. All of those transactions collect, sell or reuse date of birth information in some way to verify identity.

Terrill’s amendment makes clear that it’s never been about identity theft or protecting public employees in sensitive jobs from potential stalkers and criminals. It’s about the control of information and protecting special interests like the Oklahoma Public Employees Association.

Under the amended language, for the first time ever in Oklahoma, the public would be required to tell a governmental body why it wants records.

In writing.

With an unspecified time line.

The Open Records Act currently presumes that government records are open unless they are specifically exempt. In this Terrill’s scenario, the burden of proof would now lie with the requestor, not with the public body. That is contrary to both the spirit and application of the law.

In my experience, public bodies routinely ignore parts of the Open Records Act they don’t agree with or find troublesome. This could give them another excuse.

If the changes are enacted, it would be a slippery slope for the rest of law to require a requestor to explain why he or she wants to inspect public information. That paternalistic style of “government knows best” would be a blow to transparency efforts everywhere.

–Paul

P.S. Here’s the relevant section of the proposed law that is at issue:

SECTION 1. NEW LAW A new section of law to be codified in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 24A.7-1 of Title 51, unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:

A. No public body shall release to any person or entity the exact date of birth for any employee of the public body.

B. For purposes of the Oklahoma Open Records Act, an employee’s date of birth shall not be subject to disclosure by the public body except for the procedures prescribed by this section for responding to requests to confirm or deny a date of birth with respect to a person identified in a request for verification.

C. A person or entity may request a verification from a public body that a birth date for a specifically identified person whom the requestor reasonably believes to be employed by the public body as of the date of the request is the same as the birth date for such employee as reflected by the employment records of the public body.

D. The requestor shall submit a written request for verification of date of birth to the public body which request shall contain:

1. The complete name of the person whom the requestor reasonably believes to be an employee of the public body as reflected in the information or document relied upon by the person or entity making the verification request;

2. The particularized and specific reason that the requestor is asking for verification of the employee date of birth for each employee included in a verification request; and

3. Any other identifying information related to the information or document in the possession of the requestor that would allow the public body to determine whether or not the person identified in the request is an employee of the public body.

E. For purposes of verification requests submitted by any person or entity and for purposes of responses to such requests by a public body, a person’s status as an employee shall be determined as of the date that the verification request is submitted to the public body.

F. The public body shall have a reasonable period of time from the receipt of a verification request within which to review the request and any document or other information identified in the request to ascertain whether the person named in the verification request is an employee of the public body.

G. If the public body determines that the person identified in the verification request is or may be an employee of the public body, the public body shall respond in writing to the person or entity making the verification request that the date of birth of the employee is the same as the date of birth provided by the requestor with respect to the person identified in the verification request.

H. If the public body determines that the person identified in the verification request is not an employee of the public body, the public body shall respond in writing to the person or entity making the verification request that the date of birth provided by the requestor with respect to the person identified in the verification request does not match the date of birth of any employee of the public body.

I. Within a reasonable period of time after a public body receives a verification request pursuant to this section and prior to the date as of which the public body provides a written response confirming a birth date of one or more of its employees, the public body shall provide written notice to any employee whose date of birth has been the subject of a verification request by a requesting entity of the identity of the requesting entity and the reason provided by the requesting entity for the verification request.

J. Prior to making the written verification to a requesting entity with respect to an employee date of birth, the public body shall notify any employee whose date of birth will be confirmed to a requesting entity that the public body will be providing a confirmation of the date of birth to a requesting entity.

SECTION 2. It being immediately necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is hereby declared to exist, by reason whereof this act shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage and approval.

---

OPEA mailer lands in mailboxes

It’s been a couple of weeks since we wrote about the Oklahoma Public Employees Association and its special mailing list deal set up by a state lawmaker last year.

This week, the second of OPEA‘s two mailings have begun arriving the mailboxes of more than 30,000 state employees. OPEA has said that the second mailing was not sent to about 10,000 existing members. The association had its mail vendor do some database matching to separate existing members from prospective members, a process that OPEA decries as “data mining” and “privacy piracy” when others do it.

Here’s the other parts of the two-page mailer:

–Paul

P.S. For more on this issue, see our special coverage page on the public records dispute.

---

“Privacy pirates” and the politics of fear

(d)1.a.  The home addresses, telephone numbers, social security numbers, and photographs of active or former law enforcement personnel, including correctional and correctional probation officers, personnel of the Department of Children and Family Services whose duties include the investigation of abuse, neglect, exploitation, fraud, theft, or other criminal activities, personnel of the Department of Health whose duties are to support the investigation of child abuse or neglect, and personnel of the Department of Revenue or local governments whose responsibilities include revenue collection and enforcement or child support enforcement; the home addresses, telephone numbers, social security numbers, photographs, and places of employment of the spouses and children of such personnel; and the names and locations of schools and day care facilities attended by the children of such personnel are exempt from s. 119.07(1).

This is how the state of Florida deals with law enforcement and open records for state personnel. Anyone want to guess what’s missing? Any reference whatsoever to dates of birth.

But the Kabuki theater continues down at the Oklahoma Capitol. For the second time in two weeks, the lawmakers on Senate Bill 1753 held a news conference on whether the birth dates of public employees should be exempt from the Open Records Act.

Last week, it was to announce their support for a lawsuit by various public employee groups against a pending open records request by The Oklahoman.* This week, it was law enforcement’s turn. See our story here; the AP version is here.

Backers of SB 1753 have cycled through several arguments for closing off the birth dates of public employees: fear of identity theft; fear of “unwarranted invasion of privacy”; and now fear of harm to law enforcement. (Read the press release here.)

At Tuesday’s press conference, Rep. Randy Terrill picked up a talking point first advanced last week by his friends at the Oklahoma Public Employees Association: that reporters for The Oklahoman were “privacy pirates” who have no regard for state employees.

“This is not a case where there has been an allegation of corruption or impropriety involving a specific employee or group,” said Terrill, R-Moore. “This is just a fishing expedition based on the presupposition that every state employee is a criminal, crook, thief or wrongdoer just waiting to be discovered by the data miners and privacy pirates on a newspaper’s payroll.”

Terrill is a skilled legislator. Capitol observers will tell you he is one of the most well-prepared lawmakers under the dome, but he finds himself in a tough spot: caught between the media, OPEA and law enforcement.

On one side, Terrill wants credit for filing a bill, HB 3382, to open up DPS dash cam footage. On the other side, he has accused The Oklahoman of manufacturing stories and practicing advocacy journalism.** Of course, one person’s “manufacturing” is another person’s investigation:

Special mailing list deal for Oklahoma Public Employees Association

Oklahoma lawmaker Randy Terrill to return 2010 campaign money

Oklahoma brings in millions by selling personal data

All of the law enforcement agencies appearing at this week’s press conference have their funding controlled at least in part by Terrill’s chairmanship of the House appropriations and budget subcommittee for public safety and judiciary. Negotiations on the budget for FY 2011 are ongoing.

In fact, Commissioner of Public Safety Kevin Ward and Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation Director DeWade Langley rarely make themselves available to the media. But they were front and center at Tuesday’s press conference.

Later that same day, OSBI held a separate press conference about its homicide clearance rate, but Langley was a no show. Instead, he let OSBI spokeswoman Jessica Brown deal with the questions that have been raised about OSBI’s handling of recent murder investigations. Here’s how the AP put it:

OSBI Director A. DeWade Langley has not responded publicly to criticism of the agency. “That’s why he hired me,” Brown said. “He does his things and I do mine.”

Back to the DOB issue. Can you make an argument that there should be a balance between the public’s right to know and the privacy rights of public employees? Yes. Such a balance exists in the Open Records Act: the Social Security numbers, home addresses and home telephone numbers are already off limits.

In effect, under current law, all public employees in Oklahoma enjoy the same protections as law enforcement personnel in Florida.

Let me repeat that: All public employees in Oklahoma enjoy the same protections as law enforcement personnel in Florida.

It’s a fact of life that we leave a paper trail in most of our public and private transactions. I wonder if  any of the dozen law enforcement agencies represented at Tuesday’s Capitol press conference have personnel policies that limit their employees having telephone numbers in the phone book, buying property, registering to vote or holding driver’s licenses?

The privacy rights of public employees, including those who work in law enforcement, are already fewer than those in the private sector. The names, agency and salary of state employees are readily available on the state’s Open Books site. Under a 2003 law, state employees can be fired for not paying their state income taxes, something that usually won’t get you fired in the private sector. Furthermore, every employee’s employment application is an open record.

Terrill, who has used “personal information” from voter registrations for his political campaigns, has said in interviews those records are different because you voluntarily register to vote. But don’t you also voluntarily become a state employee? There is no indentured servitude in state government.

What we’re talking about here is the difference between public information and confidential/private information. A recent Government Accountability Office report details the differences:

● Public records such as birth and death records, property records, motor vehicle and voter registrations, criminal records, and civil case files.

● Publicly available information not found in public records but nevertheless publicly available through other sources, such as telephone directories, business directories, classified ads or magazines, Internet sites, and other sources accessible by the general public.

● Nonpublic information derived from proprietary or nonpublic sources, such as credit header data, product warranty registrations, and other application information provided to private businesses directly by consumers.

Other states have developed detailed policies regarding the use and reuse of those types of information. In fact, one of the best policies I’ve seen is from neighboring Arkansas. They have a “data matrix” that spells out how governments should deal with personal data. Here’s some examples of what Arkansas deems “very sensitive”:

Social Security numbers

Most home addresses

Attorneys’ files

Comprehensive law enforcement data

Domestic abuse data

Educational records

Foster care data

Health and medical data

Library borrower’s records

Signature imaging data

Welfare records/data

Credit card numbers

Competitive bids

Civil investigative data

Criminal history data

Economic development assistance data

Food assistance programs data

Head Start data

Juvenile delinquent data

Counselors’ data

Trade secrets data

Since the state just hired its first ever chief information officer, maybe one of his tasks could be developing a similar data sensitivity policy here in Oklahoma.

–Paul

(*Full disclosure: I have signed an affidavit in the pending court case in Oklahoma County.)

(**This blog, which began two years ago, occasionally advocates for open records, open government and open data.)

---

Powered by Wordpress | WP Premium theme by WP Remix
Copyright 2007. Data Watch. All rights reserved

• Home
• RSS Feed
• About
• NewsOK | Right to Know