Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 11:49:51 -0800 From: Jim Warren Subject: GovAccess.110: ACTION ALERT! public-rcds access bill; ques; CNID This GovAccess primarily concerns one important public-access bill, however gargoyles attached at the end ask some historical questions, and offer feedback concerning Calling-Number ID discussed in the last GovAccess. Although this concerns California legislation, it will impact *numerous* states, since many others often pattern their legislation after that of California - for better and worse. If you have friends or associates in California, please pass this along to them, pronto - for *your* state's well-being. &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Mar.28th Public Records Vote Needs IMMEDIATE Faxes and Letters of Support The California Public Records Act (CPRA) is the primary tool used by citizens, good-government researchers, activists and reporters to pry open the public records of state and local agencies (excluding the Legislature, which exempted itself from the CPRA). There is a major push to improve it - most-especially to force open *modern* access to already-computerized state and local public records in their computerized form. Currently, it's an agency option and many agencies are very, uh, "coy" about releasing their public records in useful form. SB 323 by Quentin Kopp (Ind.-San Francisco area) can change all that. But the very-powerful League of California Cities is rabidly opposing this legislation. Some local officials dislike opening city and town records to easier and more useful oversight by citizens and organizations, including the press. Others would dearly-love to peddle the public's records in *useful* (computerized) form for big bucks - limiting access only to those who can generate profits for local agencies, even though all tax-payers paid for the records' creation and maintenance. The CPRA is not a perfect document, and these SB 323 amendments aren't perfect, but this goes a *long* way to modernizing public-records access. Uh, full disclosure: Since I drafted most of the original computer-access language for this legislation, I *would* think it's reasonably good - even after going through editing by the legislature's legal beagles. SB 323 NEEDS IMMEDIATE SUPPORT (details below) if the public's interest is to over-ride too-coy city and town officials, and the special interests of high-profit information services. The first hearing and vote on SB 323 is scheduled for the Senate Judiciary Committee next Tuesday, Mar. 28th, Sen. Charles Calderon, Chair (D-Whittier). --jim &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Key Details of SB 323 That Can Open Records to *Modern* Access - IF It Passes Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 02:31:15 -0800 From: Landon Curt Noll Subject: URGENT: CA SB 323 If you do not already know about California SB 323 (Kopp) you should. Kopp reintroduced his proposal on Feb 10, 1995 to "adjust the Public Records Act to the new information age". Kopp's Bill appears to require open, full access to public records held by any State, County, City or local agency. In particular section 6253 of the California Government Code would be added to read: "(c) A copy of computerized data shall be provided in any form that is requested from any of the alternative forms used by the controlling agency, including any forms used by the agency to make copies for its own use. An agency shall not be required to make records available in any form other than those forms used by the agency." Existing law requires an agency to justify withholding any record by demonstrating (1) that the record in question is exempt under express provisions of the California Public Records Act, or (2) that on the facts of the particular case, the public interest served by not making the record public clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record. Kopp's Bill would: "... require the agency to identify the provision of the law on which it based its decision to withhold a record or, if withholding is based on the public interest, to state the public interest in disclosure and the public interest in nondisclosure." Other interesting points of the Bill: "6253.3 Public agencies shall ensure, to the extent technologically and economically feasible, that systems used to collect and hold public records purchased or created by the agency after January 1, 1996, be designed to ensure ease of public access to public records. At a minimum, records systems shall meet the following requirements: (a) Allow for computer-assisted redaction of exempt information from an otherwise disclosable record. (b) Allow for production of copies of public records in a format generally acknowledged as being an industry-standard format for information exchange between computer programs. (c) Allow for provision by agencies of copies on computer information storage media of all materials produced by the agency or any consultant to the agency for elected or appointed decisionmakers in connection with any matter that is placed on an agenda for discussion, deliberation, or action on open session during a public meeting pursuant to the Ralph M. Brown Act or the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. (d) Allow for timely public access to copies of all computerized public records by way of the largest nonprofit, nonproprietary, public computer network. Implementation of the network-based computer-assisted public access shall ensure the protection and security of all data stored on or copies onto computer systems controlled by the agency. (e) Nothing in this section shall require the agency to violate any copyright, patent, trade secret, or any contract provisions made with a vendor prior to January 1, 1996. No agency shall be obligated to provide technical support or copies of manuals and documentation, expect those created by the agency, regarding the processing of the requested public records." In short agencies would be required to make all new records that are otherwise not excluded by law or public interest to be made available (such as via the Internet). If access to the record is denied, the public interest or law used must be stated. While the California SB 323 is not perfect, it does a long way towards mandating full electronic access to public records in California. CA SB 323 is being strongly opposed by the League of California Cities and strongly supported by the California Newspaper Publishers and the First Amendment Coalition. This Bill is scheduled for hearing on March 28, 1995 before the California Senate Judiciary Committee. I encourage you to express your opinion on this Bill to California Senator Kopp as well as your local California Senator. Landon Curt Noll Sunnyvale City Council Disclaimer: I am speaking as an individual Councilmember. The opinion above is not necessarily that of the City of Sunnyvale. The review above is based on my initial reading of the text of Bill, my reading of the Legislative Council's Digest as well as the League of California Cities Legislative Bulletin #10-1995 of 10 March 1995. &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& MAGNIFY YOURSELF! To Be Most Effective - Write It and Fax It ... NOW! A single, individualized, cogent letter - especially on letterhead stationary - is typically viewed as representing the view of 10,000 to 25,000 voters! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Fax your support letter, and copies of everything else (below) to the SB 323 author, State Senator Quentin Kopp, State Senate, State Capitol, Sacramento CA 95814. (His Aide handling SB 323 is Dan Friedlander.) Since time is so short, *FAX* your letter to Kopp at 916-327-2186 . Address another letter (can be same content) to the Senate Judiciary Committee, c/o Sen. Charles Calderon, Chair, attn: Gordon Hart, Consultant, Room 4039, State Capitol, Sacramento CA 95814. Phone them - 916-445-5957 - and ask for their fax number. If you know anyone who lives or works in the general area of Whittier CA, especially urge them to contact Sen. Calderon's office in support of SB 323. If you absolutely can't and won't write, then at least phone Kopp's office - 916-445-0503 - and voice your support for SB 323. A phone call is one or two iotas better than doing nothing at all, but it's orders-of-magnitude less powerful than writing a one-page letter or fax. Copy your letters to your county Board of Supervisors and city or town Council. Phone and write your city and town council members and ask them why the hell their League of California Cities is opposing modern public access to the public's records. *Lean* on these dudes and dudettes! Hard! Write to your local newspapers' "Letters" Editor and Editorial-Page Editor. You could even phone the radio talk-shows that you love and hate. BROADCAST THIS MESSAGE to everyone you know, online. &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& How to Say What You Say Use letterhead stationary if possible. Create it with your word-processor if necessary. Limit your comments to one page. Be polite, direct and cogent. Specific points are more useful than vague philosophizing. Some issues (purposely phrased, here, so you have to use your own words :-): * Public access to public records = good government. * Tax-payers already paid for creating and maintaining records. * Relation to California being a high-tech state. * Libraries, schools, nonprofits and job-creating businesses need access. * Local agencies not in "business" to profit from public's info assets. * (Use your own ideas and words - individualized letters are most useful.) &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Historical Questions re Crypto Suppression and Bawdy Censorship Being an awful history student, I only-vaguely recall learning something about the Middle Ages (the Dark Ages? whenever those were?) when the Church decided that scientific discovery was out of control and effectively suppressed it in Europe for a significant period of time. I'm drafting a series of columns about the idiocy of our federal government's bizarre attempt to suppress public-key cryptographic techniques and fundamental mathematical research - because it might be useful in creating cryptographic systems. Who said burning witches at the stake in the U.S. was a thing of the past? I've also been told that many of the early printing press operations moved to the Mediterrenean merchantile city-states to avoid the suppression of kings in other European nations, especially so they could publish "bawdy tales" that were apparently as much in demand in the 15th Century as bawdy images are in demand on the nets, today. Teevee news volks say that, "If it bleeds, it leads." Except of course, when there's a possible sex story. I am looking for reputable summaries of authoritative historical studies about (1) the Church's suppression of science (approximate period in history, relation to and dates of Dark Ages, Renaissance, Age of Enlightment, etc.; success of Papal repression, reasons for eventual downfall, etc.), and (2) similar summaries and citations regarding early "unapproved" bawdy publications. Help? Interesting how much things stay the same through centuries of change. --jim &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Maybe Calling-Number ID will *Not* Become Mandantory Next Month To: jwarren@well.sf.ca.us (Jim Warren) [responds to note in last GovAccess] From: PRIVACY Forum What the FCC mandated is that CNID data be passed between local telcos and IXCs on interstate calls starting that date. They also mandated that before that be done local telcos must provide free per-call CNID blocking (i.e. *67) for their subscribers, regardless of whether or not CNID display services were being offered to subscribers in that area. They also mandated that the privacy indication triggered by the use of per-call CNID blocking must be honored by all receiving local telcos. Note that: 1) This says nothing about the actual providing of CNID to subscribers. If the local telco decides they don't want to provide the ability for their subscribers to receive CNID, that's OK. 2) It says nothing about intrastate calls, which may still be under tighter controls (potentially with per-line CNID blocking still available). There are some technical issues revolving around the question of providing per-line blocking for intrastate calls and only per-call blocking for interstate calls. 3) It says nothing about calls to 800 or 900 numbers, which use ANI for caller (line) identification and are not affected by CNID restrictions. The issue of 800 numbers in particular is a thorny one, since the party paying for the call does need some way to track abusive and other usage. 4) Many state PUCs (and other entities) have apparently filed suits against the FCC regarding their ruling, particularly where the ruling would preempt the states' own rules for providing of per-line CNID blocking (at least as far as interstate calls are concerned). 5) Many local telcos seem quite confused about what's going on, and I *suspect* the April implementation date will not be fully met, especially since many local telcos, nor most IXCs, have said anything to their subscribers about use of *67 in those areas where CNID services are not being offered. I also saw that writeup in the "Hello Direct" catalog. By the way, one of the Caller ID boxes in their catalog, showing a name display, is displaying the name "Will Robinson". Guess they really might be Lost in Space. --Lauren-- &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& "All human knowledge is available on the internet. And furthermore it's reposted every two weeks." Mo' as it Is. --jim GovAccess is a list distributing irregular info & advocacy, maintained by Jim Warren, columnist, MicroTimes, Government Technology, BoardWatch, etc. 345 Swett Rd., Woodside CA 94062; voice/415-851-7075; fax/<# upon request> jwarren@well.com (well.com = well.sf.ca.us; also at jwarren@autodesk.com) & To add or drop the GovAccess list, email to jwarren@well.com . & & Past postings are at ftp.cpsr.org: /cpsr/states/california/govaccess & & and by WWW at http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/states/california/govaccess . &