MuckRock Release ALPR Dataset Covering 200 Gov't Agencies And 2.5 Billion License Plate Records

from the auto-panopticon dept

MuckRock has concluded its national automatic license plate reader survey. Or, at least, it's as close to completed as humanly possible, what with more than a handful of agencies still refusing to turn over data. But there's a ton of info in the dataset and more than a few concerning aspects about nationwide use of ALPRs.

Let's go ahead and start with the biggest number -- one that shows just how much tracking these devices that aren't technically tracking devices do.

Today we are releasing records obtained from 200 agencies, accounting for more than 2.5 -billion license plate scans in 2016 and 2017. This data is collected regardless of whether the vehicle or its owner or driver are suspected of being involved in a crime. In fact, the information shows that 99.5% of the license plates scanned were not under suspicion at the time the vehicles’ plates were collected.

Billions of plate/location data points, shared by hundreds of law enforcement agencies, creating a massive database of people's lives that agencies can dip into at will. This is already a problem, thanks to lax oversight of ALPR programs, most of which allow for extended retention of plate records. The problem becomes that much worse with sharing, because retention policies at one agency don't apply to others accessing the same data.

[L]egal requirements on the treatment of ALPR data differ state to state, and each agency crafts its own policies for controlling and overseeing that data. It’s unclear which policies and laws govern ALPR data when it crosses state boundaries. For example, a sheriff’s office in California may require officers to attach a case number to every search of ALPR data, whereas a police department in Georgia may not have any similar requirements. Meanwhile, Georgia law requires ALPR data to be destroyed after 30 months, whereas other states may allow agencies to hold onto the data indefinitely.

Agency policies and state-level data privacy protections become background noise when billions of records pour into a central database maintained by ALPR manufacturers. On average, law enforcement agencies are sharing data with 160 agencies. But there are outliers. MuckRock has compiled a list called the "800 Club:" agencies that share their captured plate data with at least 800 other government agencies, most of which are located in California or Texas.

The dataset [available to download here] appears to be as comprehensive as anyone can make it, given the reluctance to release this information and some lack of clarity in law enforcement agency responses. The good news is most law enforcement agencies were cooperative with requesters. The bad news is pretty much everything else. Billions of plate records are collected every year and stored indefinitely by ALPR manufacturer Vigilant. But if there's any inconsistencies or errors in the data received from the agencies polled, one entity in particular could clear up any and all misunderstandings.

To our knowledge, there is only one entity capable of disclosing a comprehensive dataset that would near perfect accuracy: Vigilant Solutions itself. We urge the company to publish this data, which would not only save our time, but also the time of every law enforcement agency staff member who must process our public records request.

Public records requests only go so far. Vigilant could clear this up, but won't, and there's nothing in the law that says a private company has to release this information to the public. But it should. It is definitely of public interest. And, given that its collected from citizens and handled by government agencies, it seems the public has more right to the complete dataset than a single company with a large number of law enforcement customers.

Filed Under: alpr, license plate reader, surveillance
Companies: muckrock

License Plate Reader Company Says Public Records Requests For ALPR Documents Are Just Clickbait

from the price-of-freedom-is-eternal-Vigilant-open-letters dept

It turns out the most oppressed demographic in this country is the one with power, guns, unions, extra rights, and plenty of civil immunity. Law enforcement agencies around the country currently besieged by public records requests are having their fears assuaged and brows unfurrowed by the nation's largest provider of automatic license plate reader technology.

Earlier this year, the EFF and public records clearinghouse MuckRock joined forces to file approximately 1,000 public records requests with agencies partnering with Vigilant. Apparently this influx of up to one additional records request per agency has pushed law enforcement to its limits. Vigilant Solutions has stepped up to let law enforcement officers know it has their back during this ongoing national nightmare. (h/t Dave Maass, Camille Fassett)

Dear Vigilant Solutions Customer,

We know you are experiencing an onslaught of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Public Records Act (PRA) requests from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and MuckRock regarding your use of our license plate reader (LPR) technology. We write this letter to let you know, quite simply, we support you and are here for you.

Just to be clear, this "onslaught" is composed of one request per law enforcement agency. There's no point in doubling up on requests since that would just waste time and resources. There may be some inadvertent double filings, but that would only mean some agencies have seen more than one request for Vigilant documents. In no case are any agencies being targeted with mass duplicated requests. So, this "onslaught" might be cumulative in total, but it basically comes down to a 1/1 ratio of requests/agencies.

From there, Vigilant's letter [PDF] devolves into talking points about the great law enforcement work being done with its passive collection systems. It highlights a handful of nonspecific success stories -- stories it claims the EFF and MuckRock ignore -- as justification for 24/7 gathering of license plate/location data. Again, this poor attempt to slam both entities as anti-law enforcement fails. No one disputes ALPRs help catch criminals. The problem is they're often put into place with zero public comment, zero discussion by public officials, zero guidelines for data gathering and retention, and with an eye on law enforcement efficiency above everything else.

The letter tries to mock EFF as being noble fools for pointing out how many agencies have access to Vigilant plate data.

The EFF has noted that California agencies are sharing with the U.S. Forest Service, universities on the East Coast, and airports in Tennessee. EFF is apparently unaware that criminals travel across state lines. Perhaps these writers have not read the countless stories about crimes committed on college campuses, at airports and even in National Parks.

This willfully ignores the reason the EFF points out the long list of agencies with access to data. It's not that the EFF doesn't know suspected criminals move around the country or that criminal acts can occur anywhere. It's that hundreds of agencies are dipping into this data without clear, concise guidance on what they can access and how they can use it. For some agencies not tasked with law enforcement, it's unclear why they're even able to pull data from a database supposedly created for law enforcement use only.

But the most ridiculous part of the letter is its ending, in which Vigilant claims the EFF and MuckRock are doing this for the clicks.

The real impetus behind this campaign is so EFF and MuckRock can capitalize on the most well-known emotional trigger for fundraising: Fear. Their aim is to paint a false picture of sharing LPR data by leading their readers to believe it is reckless, unrestricted and used to track individuals. In short, they are attempting to scare individuals into hitting one of the countless "Contribute" and "Donate" buttons on their website.

Wow. Way to stick it to a couple of nonprofits, Vigilant. The "doing it for money/eyeballs/ad revenue/etc." argument is a full-throated admission you can't find anything legitimate to complain about. Vigilant sure seems defensive for an entity that believes it's nothing but a net gain for public safety. This letter is hilarious -- an admission Vigilant can be put on the defensive by a steady trickle of public records requests from around the nation.

It's also kind of hypocritical. Vigilant has brought lawsuits against states claiming their anti-ALPR laws violated the company's First Amendment right to collect license plate photographs en masse. Now, it's reaching out to law enforcement agencies to let them know Vigilant will be there for them while citizens exercise their First Amendment rights by requesting a much smaller quantity of public records. This open letter of Vigilant's is terrible optics. Either it shows Vigilant can be put on the defensive by people seeking information about its products, or it believes law enforcement officers are feeling threatened by the incremental increase in FOIA paperwork. Either way, it's a terrible look and a terrible response.

Filed Under: alpr, foia, law enforcement, license plate readers, police departments, public records, transparency
Companies: eff, muckrock, vigilant solutions

Database CIA Claimed Too Difficult To Compile For FOIA Requesters Released In Full On CIA Website

from the three-years-of-fuckery dept

The CIA has millions of declassified records stashed away in Maryland -- something it claimed was accessible to the public. Actual access, however, resembles something out of Terry Gilliam's "Brazil," rather than what any reasonable person would call "accessible."

This so-called "publicly accessible" database -- known as CREST -- has been the target of MuckRock contributor Mike Best, who kickstarted an effort to liberate records from the vault through the use of manual labor. The records can be accessed by computer, but only certain computers, and only if you know exactly where to find them.

This is the CIA's "publicly available" records system front-end.

And here's how you locate it.

Accessing the information isn't easy. Researchers have to go to the back of the 3rd floor library at the National Archives building in Maryland, which is unfortunately unstaffed for half the day. Tucked away in the library are the only computers that can access the millions of pages of declassified records. If researchers ask the the main "Information" desk, they're answered with confused stares and incorrect directions. Researchers trying to look up on the National Archive's website where to access the computers, won't find it on the page about doing research at that location or on the page for electronic records at that location. That information is tucked away on the page for online databases - despite not being online.

Best's crowdfunding effort sought to free these documents from their four-computer cage. But the only way to do so was to visit in person, print out pages, and rescan them. All of this would be done under multiple forms of surveillance at the National Archive.

To expedite the process, MuckRock turned to litigation. Three years after commencing its FOIA lawsuit against the CIA, MuckRock has emerged victorious. The CIA has released the contents of the CREST vault online at its site, something it repeatedly claimed would take dozens of years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to complete.

The story behind the CIA's forced transparency is amazing. The claims made by the CIA during its opacity efforts are simply astounding. MuckRock has published a long, detailed recounting of its FOIA battle against the agency at its site and I wholeheartedly encourage you to click through and read it. But here are some of the highlights.

First off, everything in the database is in an unsearchable format by choice. The CIA only uses TIFF files, claiming that these are more resistant to alteration. But when faced with litigation, the CIA reversed course on the supposed hardiness of TIFF files.

The declaration... says that CIA cannot release these TIFF files in electronic form because they can be so easily altered by the mere act of a CIA FOIA analyst looking at them, and that the security measures they must take to remove this accidental metadata for an electronic release (involving editing each file separately by hand) would take 28 years and 1,200 CDs.

And there's where the hilarity begins. These are the DOJ's claims as to the difficulty of releasing the database it just released well ahead of its 28-year estimate. Not only is the process supposedly far too onerous to even begin to consider undertaking, but the DOJ claims the documents it just made available to the public at the CIA's website are not of public interest -- this despite being (technically) available to for public viewing at the National Archive for several years now.

In another filing, the CIA admits the 1,200 CDs that would take 28 years to compile have actually already been compiled -- and there are actually 1,450 CDs of records, but it will only consider releasing the quoted 1,200 if forced to. Unless the CIA is still porting these documents over to the CREST system at the National Archive, its claim of "28 years" looks even more ridiculous. From one of MuckRock's filings:

"Moreover, when [CIA] estimates that it would take 28 years just to create copies of the CREST database, it begs the question of how CIA loaded CREST in the first place. The system has only been operational since 2000.”

Then it claimed it would need $108,000 and six months to make copies of the CDs it already had in hand. And it doubled down on its contradictory claims about TIFF files, stating they were so easy to alter because they were so difficult to alter.

This lead to one of the best rebuttals (and lead-offs) in FOIA history:

I file a sur-reply drawing on my extensive experience as a person with a working brain, closing with the following thought:

“Last, CIA claims that ‘the act of a CIA employee opening a document on his or her terminal may cause metadata to embed itself on the image header.’ This is a frivolous statement for two reasons. First, files on PCs are not altered unless they are saved after the alteration. Simply opening a file and then closing it without changing it does not embed metadata on the file. Second, if this were a valid concern, it would apply to every file processed by the CIA FOIA office, not just CREST files. Since it clearly does not (which would paralyze the FOIA office), then the Court should view this claim very skeptically.”

Kel McClanahan -- the author of the post and MuckRock's legal rep for this case -- digs into the DOJ/CIA's repeated assertions about the "burdensomeness" of complying with this FOIA request. By the time he's done, everyone and everything is covered with government bullshit.

In 2000, using cutting edge 2000 technology, CIA populates CREST over a matter of months. For the next 15 years they insist that the only way to protect this system is to videotape people who want to access it. In 2015 they say that, using cutting edge 2015 technology, it will take them 28 years to make CD copies of CREST. Then they say that they already MADE CD copies of CREST in a matter of months if not weeks, meaning that it will only take 6 years to copy THOSE copies.

But they can copy those records to the web in 4 years. Less than a year later, they say that because of the huge public interest in CREST over the last several years (that they expressly disavowed less than 6 months before, did you remember?) they will have all of CREST online within a year because nobody needs to be videotaped any more. Then, less than 2 months later, they put all of CREST online.

The CIA and DOJ insist this stonewalling had nothing to do with the CIA's online release of CREST files. Apparently, it did all of this out of the goodness of its heart, forfeiting a shot at $100,000+ in FOIA fees and chance to do next to nothing for the next 30 years. It's obvious the effort to move these records online increased once it became apparent the government was going to come out on the losing end of these FOIA lawsuits (Jason Smathers was suing the CIA over the same database). Rather than be on the hook for legal fees, the CIA preempted any judicial judgment by releasing them to the public (the same public it said had "no interest" in these files) in bulk before final rulings could be made.

Filed Under: cia, crest, foia
Companies: muckrock

CIA Admits It Hasn't Touched FOIA Request In Six Years... Says It Will Close Case If Requestor Doesn't Reply

from the this-is-bad-and-you-should-feel-bad dept

Back in 2011, MuckRock user Jason Smathers filed a FOIA with the CIA for all responses they had sent to requesters containing the term "record systems." This was a reference to two earlier rejections he had received from the Agency, which cited the inability to perform a search in the system based on the terms Smathers had provided.

In response, the agency sent him partially redacted copies of those same two rejections.

Smathers immediately appealed, on grounds that it beggared belief that he had been the only requester to have ever had an exchange with the CIA that contained the words "record system."

Six years go by, and we hear nothing from the Agency regarding this request. Then, just this week, this letter arrives in the mail.

Which is worse? The casual admittance that they haven't done anything for over half a decade, or the unfathomable audacity of putting Smathers on deadline? And while two months sounds pretty generous, keep in mind that they've been sitting on this for 72 months -- a mere 36 times what they're giving him.

To give this some further context -- Smathers' request was assigned an internal MuckRock tracking number of 238. If you were to file a request today, you'd be given a number in the 31,000s.

To the CIA FOIA officer (not) reading this: There have been children born since this appeal was filed that you could have a conversation with. This is bad, and you should feel bad. Please don't be bad, be good instead.

And get rid of that damn fax machine.

Republished from Muckrock

Filed Under: cia, delay, foia, jason smathers
Companies: muckrock

EFF Heads To Court To Fight Off Smart Grid Company That Can't Wrap Its Mind Around Section 230 Protections

from the internal-logic-failure dept

Apparently the legal battle between a bunch of contractors providing "smart meter" equipment to the city of Seattle and FOIA clearinghouse MuckRock isn't over. The last time we checked in, a judge had overturned his own hastily-granted injunction, relieving MuckRock of the impossible demands placed on it by miffed tech provider Landis+Gyr -- which included handing over the details of everyone who might have seen Landis+Gyr's documents and "retrieving protected information that may have been downloaded" from the site.

MuckRock was allowed to reinstate the documents and Landis+Gyr walked away from a debacle of its own making. Another contractor utilized by Seattle Power and Light (Ericsson) had pursued a similar injunction but dropped MuckRock from its complaint, following Landis+Gyr into battle against the entity that had released the documents to requester Phil Mocek: the city of Seattle.

But there's still one company pursuing a case against MuckRock. The EFF, on its way back into court to fight the tenacious litigant, points out that Elster Solutions, LLC is still hoping to hold MuckRock accountable for publishing documents received from the city of Seattle. But it's impossible to ascertain why it's going after MuckRock.

First off, Section 230 shields MuckRock from this sort of litigation.

Section 230 provides broad protections for online platforms such as MuckRock, shielding them from liability based on the activities of users who post content to their websites. Given that broad immunity, MuckRock cannot be sued for hosting public records sought by one of its users regardless of whether they contain trade secrets.

MuckRock isn't the correct target because it only hosts the documents. It did not demand them itself, nor did it actively participate in the posting of the documents. MuckRock's system is automated. Default user settings will, without addtional input or control, post all correspondence and responsive documents pertaining to public records requests routed through the site. This makes Mocek's request and published documents third party, user-generated content.

The other reason why Elster's decision to name MuckRock as a defendant is completely misguided is this simple fact:

MuckRock currently does not host any documents from the company, Elster Solutions, LLC, that are subject to the public records request.

Even if MuckRock were able to obtain these documents, it wouldn't be doing so directly -- which is exactly what Elster claims has happened or might possibly happen. It wants to prevent the release of unredacted documents to the site (via requester Phil Mocek), but its litigious attention should be solely focused on the entity releasing them, rather than the site hosting them. At this point, MuckRock doesn't have anything Elster wants to argue about, and yet, it's doing so anyway. Its complaint is not only seemingly unfamiliar with Section 230 protections, but also severely deficient. From the EFF's motion to dismiss [PDF]

The Court should dismiss MuckRock from the lawsuit due to the obvious deficiencies in in Elster’s allegations in the Complaint. With respect to MuckRock, the Complaint contains precisely the type of bare, conclusory, or formulaic allegations the Court said were insufficient in Iqbal. See Yates, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71077, at *8 (“[b]are, conclusory and formulaic allegations of involvement do not state a claim for relief against a particular defendant”). The Complaint mentions MuckRock in only three paragraphs, and in all three instances fails to specify any conduct by MuckRock that underlies any purported claim against it. (See Complaint ¶¶ 2, 6, 18.) Paragraph 6 references MuckRock’s domicile and state of incorporation. Paragraph 18 merely recites that Phil Mocek made a request for certain documents. And paragraph 2 is an introductory paragraph vaguely alleging that Mocek “and/or” MuckRock submitted a records request.

This lawsuit shouldn't last for much longer. What's surprising is that it's lasted this long already.

Filed Under: cda 230, documents, foia, hosting, seattle, section 230, smart meter
Companies: eff, elster solutions, landis+gyr, muckrock

MuckRock & Vice Announce Fellowship To Investigate Peter Thiel

from the will-charles-harder-be-given-a-new-target? dept

So this is interesting. MuckRock, the really useful FOIA platform (that I regularly use for filing FOIA requests), has announced what it's calling MuckRock's Thiel Fellowship, in which it's offering to give free service to between one and three "Thiel Fellows" who decide to do FOIA projects involved in investigating some Peter Thiel-connected companies:

MuckRock is offering a grant of 250 requests (a $1,000 value), plus our invaluable FOIA expertise, to between one and three inaugural Thiel Fellows who propose projects that help the public better understand organizations or areas of research and public policy connected with Thiel.

As MuckRock notes, many of Thiel's efforts touch on government activities (which would make them open to certain FOIA requests):

Peter Thiel - co-founder of both PayPal and Palantir and an early Facebook investor - has profoundly reshaped industry after industry and, ultimately, remade the world to fit his radical vision of the future. Unfortunately, despite his impact in industries ranging from digital payments and mass government surveillance to radical life extension and seasteading, the media has done relatively little reporting on the details of his companies, often leaving the public in the dark on his contributions to society.

Vice's Motherboard tech site has also stepped up and agreed to double the amount so that even more people can file Thiel-related FOIAs.

Of course, the name MuckRock chose for this is a clear play on the well-known Thiel Fellowship, in which he gives $100,000 to entrepreneurial college students to work on building companies, rather than completing school.

And while I'm not so sure how much Thiel-related info is really FOIA-able, this may put to the test Thiel's stated claim that he wasn't against journalism that made him look bad, in funding lawyer Charles Harder to sue Gawker into oblivion, but rather to "send a message" about protecting privacy. Of course, when you try to silence the press, there's always a chance that the press decides to turn an even bigger spotlight on you. I guess now we have to wait and see if Harder starts threatening MuckRock with trademark infringement claims over the name...

Filed Under: foia, investigative reporting, journalism, peter thiel
Companies: facebook, muckrock, palantir, vice

Court Dumps Hastily-Granted Restraining Order, Says MuckRock Can Publish Smart Meter Documents

from the prior-restraint-much? dept

It took a little less than a week, but the EFF, with the invaluable assistance of Venkat Balasubramani of FOCAL PLLC, has persuaded a Washington state judge to strike down the temporary restraining order against MuckRock he hastily granted back on May 27th.

Landis+Gyr, a multinational corporation owned by Toshiba, recently secured a contract to upgrade Seattle's "dumb" meters to smart meters. Privacy activist Phil Mocek requested information on the city's smart meter plan through MuckRock and was handed two Landis+Gyr documents in unredacted form by the city.

These documents worth suing over spent a month uploaded to MuckRock before Landis+Gyr took notice. Once it had secured the city contract, L+G then demanded -- via a request for a temporary restraining order -- that MuckRock take the documents down, turn over info on site users who may have seen/downloaded them, and somehow help L+G shove its smart meter genie back into the bottle.

Fortunately, the judge has now struck down the restraining order he issued earlier in the week.

Agreeing with EFF, King County Superior Court Judge William Downing ruled that the previous order amounted to a prior restraint on speech that violated the First Amendment, and rescinded it along with denying plaintiffs’ request to extend it.

Not that Landis+Gyr didn't try to keep its restraining order alive -- despite openly acknowledging that one of the two documents contained nothing worth withholding. In its final attempt to salvage its request, L+G claimed that an internet full of evildoers now has access to sensitive information that could place citizens in danger.

Defendants knowingly posted Landis+Gyr’s protected information on its publicly-accessible website, where Landis+Gyr’s competitors, as well as hackers and saboteurs, had access to the information. In fact, internet traffic surrounding the disclosure reveals the danger caused by Defendants’ refusal to remove the information. See Second Supplemental Declaration of Eric Lee Christensen in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ¶¶ 2, Exhs. A. (“I read all your secret information, you [expletives deleted]”), ¶ 4, Exh. C, p. 8 (“visit the link below to download disputed documents”).

Without access to the exhibits, I can only assume the deleted expletives were "censorious asshats" and that "visit the link below to download disputed documents" is internet code for "seize the means of production, starting with the power grid."

Landis+Gyr's fears of terrorism are overblown, if these are the best pull quotes it could find to illustrate its "hackers n' saboteurs" theory. It may be that its trade secret claims are more based in reality, but that still doesn't explain its attempt to silence a third-party FOIA clearinghouse for doing nothing more than publishing documents handed to it by a government body.

Filed Under: foia, prior restraint, seattle, smart meters, streisand effect
Companies: eff, landis+gyr, muckrock

Court Says MuckRock Must Take Down Smart Grid Company's Documents Because Judge Has 'No Time' To Review Case Properly

from the ain't-nobody-got-time-to-consider-free-speech-implications dept

Last week, we covered a multinational corporation's attempt to force MuckRock to take down documents supplied by the city of Seattle to Phil Mocek. Landis+Gyr, which was awarded the contract to supply the city with "smart meters" in conjunction with the publicly-owned utility, claimed the documents released -- along with documents the city was planning to release -- would be a boon to competitors and terrorists, although it didn't specify which of these it was more worried about.

The company also demanded MuckRock turn over information on site users who may have seen or downloaded the documents. It also (hilariously) demanded MuckRock assist it in the "retrieval" of disseminated documents.

The company's request for an injunction against MuckRock and the city of Seattle went before a judge on Thursday. It has been (partially) granted. Ansel Herz of The Stranger says, after speaking to Landis+Gyr reps, that the judge granted its request -- not on its merits but because there just aren't enough hours in the day.

At a King County court hearing yesterday, Commissioner Carlos Velategui granted the companies' request for a temporary restraining order, lawyers for the companies told me. "There's no way that I can spend the time to look at all this," Velategui said. Neither Mocek nor the city showed up to defend themselves.

The request was filed on the 23rd and granted on the 26th. That's an impressive turn radius for government machinery. This compressed timeframe likely explains the court's harried decision, as well as the lack of defendants in the courtroom.

MuckRock will be fighting the order, but it will now have help. The EFF has stepped in to represent MuckRock and Mocek against Landis+Gyr (Update: Mocek notes in our comments that EFF has only offered to help MuckRock so far). The documents MuckRock is currently unable to provide to the public can be found here: L+G Managed Services Report and L+G Security Overview (in case you want a copy).

Landis+Gyr may have achieved the first step in its plan to herd its PDF cats back into the bag, but its complaint should have been limited to the government organization that released the documents it claims are sensitive, rather than the FOIA requester and clearinghouse that received them. And, trade secrets or not, the company is working in conjunction with a city government to install devices with possible privacy implications on every home -- so more transparency, not less, is exactly what's needed.

Filed Under: carlos velategui, foia, injunction, phil mocek, prior restraint, seattle, smart grid, smart meters
Companies: landis+gyr, muckrock

'Smart Grid' Company Demands MuckRock Turn Over Info On Anyone Who Might Have Seen Public Records Docs Involving It

from the because-trade-secrets-and-terrorism dept

Earlier this year, FOIA enthusiast/privacy activist Phil Mocek requested documents from Seattle City Light, the city's public-owned utility. Mocek was seeking info on the utility's proposed "smart meter" system, which carried with it some obvious privacy implications.

Pursuant to RCW Ch. 42.56 (Public Records Act), I hereby request the following records:

Plans for, schedules of, policies dictating the performance of, requests for proposals to, contracts for, discussion of, and results of all security audits performed of "smart meter" devices (remotely-addressable electrical meters sometimes referred to as "advanced metering infrastructure"), along with metadata. These devices are designed to replace traditional electric meters. They contain sensors that monitor activities inside subscribers' premises and automatically communicate information collected by those sensors to machines in remote locations.

The replacement of regular meters with potentially-invasive "smart meters" is due to begin in 2017, despite concerns about health and privacy. As the EFF points out, the power company's ability to record pinpoint data on customers' power use may seem innocuous, but it's not nearly as benign if that information is shared, either purposefully or inadvertently.

It’s not just utilities who will have access to your data.   It’s potentially a series of third party corporations including (but not limited to) the utility’s contractors and government agencies. Law enforcement agencies in particular are very keen to be able to see this information. There have already been a lot of cases where utility records have been provided to police who use them to bust marijuana growing operations, and this is simply using the raw energy use data.

[...]

Insurance companies and employers might also be interested in your personal energy usage information. Smart meters crack open this door into your private life, making available a huge amount of very personal data.

And that's not even factoring in the unauthorized uses that smart meters may inadvertently lead to if not secured properly.

Multiple documents were provided to Mocek by Seattle City Light, including documents related to the company awarded the smart meter contract: Landis+Gyr. Landis+Gyr isn't happy the city of Seattle has made these documents public, so it's logically responded by suing MuckRock. Yes, it's also suing the city and the utility, but for some reason has decided MuckRock (and Phil Mocek) should be included in the litigation, despite them only being the recipients of documents Landis+Gyr wants to keep out of the public's hands.

It's seeking to have future planned responses from the city involving its "trade secrets" blocked. (Seattle plans to release another batch of documents to Mocek on May 26.) But it's also making requests pertaining to MuckRock that are both chilling and completely ridiculous. Not only does Landis+Gyr want the documents taken down, but it also wants info on every MuckRock reader who may have viewed them.

[A]fter receiving certain unredacted documents through inadvertent, accidental, or improper release by the City in circumstances demonstrating that Defendants knew or should have known the documents contain sensitive network security information and trade secret information, Mocek nonetheless allowed the information to be posted publicly and in unredacted form on the internet site of Defendant MuckRock.com. Plaintiff Landis+Gyr notified Mocek, MuckRock.com, and Defendant Michael Morisy of the apparent error and requested that Landis+Gyr’s sensitive and proprietary information be removed from the MuckRock.com website and that MuckRock.com provide reasonable assistance to allow Landis+Gyr to identify entities that may have obtained access to is sensitive information.

Michael Morisy refused Landis+Gyr's first request. Now, it's upped the ante by petitioning the court to force MuckRock to assist it in the ultimate fool's errand: the removal of information from the internet.

Immediate relief is needed to require Plaintiffs’ protected information to be immediately taken down from the MuckRocks website, to require MuckRock.com to provide assistance to Plaintiffs to identify and retrieve protected information that may have been downloaded from the MuckRocks website…

If that wasn't enough, the multinational corporation would like the government to engage in a little prior restraint on its behalf.

[...] enjoin Mocek and MuckRock.com from posting Plaintiffs’ protected and sensitive information in the future.

Landis+Gyr seems to be most concerned about the pending release of documents containing pricing info and details about its "smart grid" technology. But, it's also demanding the removal of the two documents already released, both of which are fairly innocuous (and can be viewed below!) As MuckRock's Michael Morisy points out, it should be under no obligation to remove the documents as it's received no notice from the city of Seattle that the documents it has in its possession weren't supposed to be released.

Morisy and MuckRock don't plan to back down.

We believe that these legal threats are a chilling attack on free speech and we will not be complying with their demands.

We also believe people have a broad right to understand the security implications of technology purchased by their governments, particularly if, as is the case with the smart electrical meter systems provided by Landis+Gyr, that technology monitors the activities of people in their homes.

At this point, the injunction doesn't appear to have been granted, which means MuckRock can still (for the time being) host the docs it has already obtained as well as anything else Landis+Gyr-related Seattle sends to Mocek while its request is being reviewed.

Filed Under: foia, phil mocek, seattle, smart grid, smart meters, threats
Companies: landis+gyr, muckrock

NYPD Wants $42,000 To Turn Over Documents Related To Discharges Of Officers' Firearms

from the The-Man-sticks-it-to-the-public...-again dept

The NYPD is jerking around FOIL (Freedom of Information Law) requesters again. Usually, the NYPD just pretends it's the CIA (somewhat justified, considering its hiring of former government spooks) and claims everything is so very SECRET it couldn't possibly be edged out between the multiple exemptions it cites in its refusals.

It tried the usual deflectionary tactics with Shawn Musgrave, who's seeking the department's mandatory reports on firearms discharges by its officers. After five months of promising to get to his request, the NYPD finally sent out a response letter denying him access to every document he requested, citing a plethora of FOIL exemptions.

While the NYPD may be (purposefully) terrible at remembering pertinent FOIL-related court decisions, Musgrave isn't. He quickly responded with this:

The NYPD FOIL office has not claimed inability to find the requested 24-hour and 90-day reports following firearm discharges for 2010 through 2014. Rather, the NYPD errantly claims that these documents are exempt from release under FOIL for a variety of reasons.

All of the cited exemptions are categorically incorrect. No less an authority than the Supreme Court of the State of New York has ruled as much in a case that is virtually identical to the present request.

In January 2009, the New York Civil Liberties Union submitted a FOIL request to the NYPD for 24-hour and 90-day shooting incident reports from 1997 through 2008 (see http://www.nyclu.org/case/nyclu-v-nypd-seeking-access-police-shooting-incident-reports). As you can see from my original request, these are precisely the same documents I seek.

The NYPD rejected that request, claiming that such reports were exempt from disclosure pursuant to:
1) Public Officers Law 87(2)(a), New York Civil Rights Law 50-a(1);
2) Public Officers Law 87(2)(b) and 89(2);
3) Public Officers Law 87(2)(e)(i-iv);
4) Public Officers Law 87(2)(f);
5) Public Officers Law 87(2)(g);

Conveniently, these are the same exemptions by which the NYPD FOIL office has rejected my present request. I will allow Judge Goodman's ruling in the NYCLU case (see http://www.nyclu.org/files/releases/NYCLU%20v%20%20NYPD%20Shooting%20FOIL%20decision%202-14-11.pdf) to address the invalidity of the NYPD's response in my own case:

"The issue is whether the 24-hour and 90-day firearms discharge incident reports are categorically exempt from disclosure under FOIL. After a careful review of the NYPD Firearms Discharge Manual containing the 28 section form for the 24-hour and 90-day firearms discharge incident report, the Court finds that these reports are not categorically exempt."

Having been reminded that the Supreme Court of its home state had previously said it couldn't do the very thing it was attempting to do, the NYPD's FOIL team regrouped. A month later it finally admitted Musgrave's appeal had been accepted. Three weeks after that, it told him it could have all the documents the state's highest court had declared any citizen could access... for the price of a late model SUV.

It is estimated that the copying fee for preparation of the requested copies, including redaction and copying thereof, is $42,000. Preparation of the copies will commence upon receipt of payment of in the form of a check or money order in the amount of $42,000, payable to New York City Police Department.

The response doesn't explain how the NYPD reached this dollar amount. It simply states that it is the dollar amount the NYPD will be charging and that nothing will be done until the money is in its hands.

Having failed to discourage Musgrave with its bogus exemption ploy, the NYPD has gone for another favorite technique of open records request-resistant agencies: pricing requesters out of the market. Musgrave will certainly be appealing this estimate, but until forced to back down by higher authorities, the NYPD has successfully managed to evade yet another records request.

Filed Under: fees, foia, nypd
Companies: muckrock