On February 28th, MNCOGI released its 2014 legislative issues document during a noon-time event at the Minnesota State Capitol.
During the 2014 session, MNCOGI will be closely following several matters, including the status of license plate reader (LPR) data, provisions surrounding booking photo data, and the creation of a legislative commission on data practices.
MNCOGI’s full list of issues is reproduced below:
Data Practices Legislative Commission
• MNCOGI position: Given the importance and complexity of data-related issues, the Minnesota Legislature should create a Legislative Commission on Data Practices. A commission would allow the Legislature more time to study data issues (both access and privacy issues), bring recommendations, and craft bills that could be acted upon during the regular session. The additional time afforded by the commission would allow the Legislature to take a “long view” of such matters, and aim for continuity in data policy.
LPR (License Plate Recognition) Data
• MNCOGI position: To ensure effective oversight, provisions should be included within state law to ensure public access to data about the scope, nature, and use of LPR technology by Minnesota government entities. MNCOGI also believes that a reasonable formula for dealing with data collected by LPR scanners is as follows:
All data collected by LPR scanners should be classified as “not public” data for a very short period of time after collection. A retention scheme should be instituted under which “non-hit” LPR data would be quickly purged during its brief, initial status as “not public” data. The remaining “hit” data that pertains to specific individuals or vehicles should be maintained as “not public” criminal investigative data until the closure of a criminal investigation.
Private contract, sub-contract data
• MNCOGI position: In light of the Supreme Court’s opinion in the Helmberger v. Johnson Controls case, the Minnesota Legislature should support changes to Minnesota law that would ensure that data about privatized government functions continues to be available for public review.
Booking photograph data
• MNCOGI position: Minnesota law should not be altered to treat requesters of booking photographs differently from other public data requesters. Two bills introduced during the 2014 session seek to institute certain requirements related to booking photographs. One of the bills (HF 1940) mandates that requesters submit statements regarding their intended uses of the photographs, as well as the locations where the photographs will be published. The addition of such requirements would weaken the overall framework of the MGDPA by introducing – for the first time – mandates requiring certain requesters to specify their intended uses of government data.
HF 1940 also seeks to institute a variety of penalties for failing to comply with some of its provisions. For instance, the bill requires that persons who receive booking photographs from other parties file use-related disclosures with police agencies, or else become liable for damages. Such an approach raises significant First Amendment issues.
Prosecutors specified in “Criminal Investigative Data”
• MNCOGI position: Prosecutors should be added to the itemized list of persons and/or entities that can receive and maintain “criminal investigative data” under Minn. Stat. 13.82. Such a change would codify a long-standing practice recognized by IPAD advisory opinions.
Affirmative right to record open meetings
• MNCOGI position: Minnesota law should be altered in order to codify an affirmative right to record any proceedings that are subject to Minnesota’s Open Meeting law. Such a change would codify a long-standing Attorney General opinion on the subject,
Police “body cam” data
• MNCOGI position: Several municipal police departments have either obtained – or are in the process of obtaining – “body cam” video recorders for patrol officers to wear. These mobile devices record daily police interactions in order to create a record for use in criminal or civil court proceedings. MNCOGI believes that the data created by police body cams should be classified as public “incident” data, similar to the way in which squad car video is considered to be presumptively public government data. In both cases, the public classification of the data ensures a measure of public review of police activities.
Mass surveillance data
• MNCOGI position: Given recent advances in technology, government entities may increasingly be able to engage in the mass collection of data about individuals that was formerly beyond the reach of large-scale capture. Such data could include, for instance, ongoing, “real-time” information about the locations and movements of thousands of individuals. The legislature should evaluate such technologies on an ongoing basis, and ensure statutory access to information about the nature, scale, and legal underpinnings of such technologies.