MN Judge Refuses To Throw Out Case Against Citizen Recording Police, EMS

from the one-step-forward,-two-steps-back dept

Back in January, I wrote about an exceptionally odd case in Minnesota in which a private citizen had his recording device liberated from his person by police after he recorded them patting down a bloodied man before putting him in an ambulance. What made it odd wasn’t what the police did initially, as that happens far too often these days, but in that Andrew Henderson was then charged with disorderly conduct and obstruction, with the paperwork describing what he’d done as a HIPAA violation. In case your common-sense-o-meter isn’t functioning today, that claim is bullshit, since HIPAA covers actions by healthcare providers in how they deal with patient information. In addition, the claim is at odds with another recording Henderson made of the officer that took his property, in which deputy Jacqueline Muellner claimed she was taking the device in as “evidence.” This “evidence” was subsequently deleted before Henderson’s recording device was given back to him, leading me to wonder when the case against Henderson would be tossed out to make room for one against deputy Muellner.

The answer, unfortunately, might be never. Ramsey County Judge Edward Wilson has denied Henderson’s attempt to get the case thrown out, saying that the first amendment doesn’t apply. He also refused to throw out the obstruction charge, despite the fact that the bench Henderson had been sitting on is roughly thirty feet from where the ambulance was parked.

Wilson, the judge, wrote in his order that "it is not necessary that one engage in a physical act to interfere or obstruct. It is sufficient if the defendant's actions or conduct had the effect of physically obstructing or interfering with a member of an ambulance crew."

Got it now? Obstruction doesn’t actually mean obstruction, it means either obstruction or doing something that makes professional police and EMS folk not able to do their jobs properly. This, apparently, includes recording them from thirty feet away, which puts into question exactly how many Minnesota police and EMS workers suffer from the kind of ADD my dog has when I take her on walks. I can imagine it now: EMS worker kneels in front of patient, EMS worker begins wiping away blood on patient’s face, EMS worker asks patient if he remembers his name, EMS worker cannot hear response because he’s run into heavy traffic chasing a squirrel.

And, while the disorderly conduct charge absolutely reeks of the police throwing feces at the wall to see what sticks, deputy Muellner ran away and retired to become former-deputy Muellner, with all of her benefits in place and without any formal inquiry into why she destroyed evidence so important that it was worth seizing private property.

However, while the news is all bad thus far, Henderson’s lawyers are promising to take this to trial, so we’ll just have to see if the judicial process has a bit more sense than judicial officers of the court.

Filed Under: andrew henderson, destruction of evidence, minnesota, recording police, recordings

Another Judge Figures Out What Prenda Is Up To, Reopens Closed Case, Demands Information On Settlements

from the well,-look-at-that dept

It would appear that yet another federal judge has taken an interest in what Prenda Law was up to for the past few years. Over in Minnesota, US Magistrate Judge Franklin Noel has reopened a case that Prenda had dismissed and ordered Prenda's local counsel, Michael Dugas, to supply an awful lot of information about the settlements they collected from people during the shakedown. The court points out:

In light of Mr.Cooper's letter and Judge Wright's order, it appears to the Court that the plaintiff has relied on forged documents in securing multiple court orders authorizing the discovery of information that, in turn, led to settlements in the above-captioned cases.

Because of that, it's reopening the case:

The Court agrees with the reasoning of Pino and concludes--based on its own interpretation of Rule 60(b)(3) and Rule 60(d)(3)--that it has jurisdiction to strike a plaintiff's notice of voluntary dismissal, reopen the case, and award appropriate relief when allegations of a possible fraud on the court come to its attention. This interpretation of Rule 60 is necessary to preserve the integrity the of judicial system.

All three elements of the Pino test are met here: (1) the plaintiff attached a fraudulent document to the complaint; (2) the Court relied upon that document in authorizing the discovery of internet subscriber information--information the plaintiff was not entitled to receive absent a court order; and (3) after obtaining the discovery (which--at least as far as the Court is aware--is the only relief the plaintiff ever seeks in these cases), the plaintiff settled and voluntarily dismissed all of these cases.

Given that, the court has ordered Dugas to supply the details of everyone in the case who settled, including their contact info, their attorneys' contact info, the exact terms of the settlement agreements, "including to whom any money was paid and the manner of payment" while also saying that Dugas needs to supply all of those who settled (and their attorneys) with Judge Wright's order in California describing Prenda's scheme. Given the identifying info, this will be filed under seal, but Dugas has only five days to do so. Either way, it seems that more and more judges are aware of what happened, and they're even going back into old cases to explore...

Filed Under: alan cooper, franklin noel, michael dugas, minnesota, otis wright, prenda
Companies: prenda, prenda law

First Hand Account Of Judicial Smackdown Of Prenda In Minnesota

from the a-bit-of-confusion dept

Yesterday we had a story about how a judge in Minnesota, Judge Ann Alton, angrily accused Paul Hansmeier of fraud in the lawsuit filed by Alan Cooper against Prenda. There was some confusion by the judge about whether Cooper and Godfread were in on the fraud too, which seems to have made the judge less open to possible damages against Prenda. Either way, without a court reporter, Matthew Sparby, who was in attendance, wrote up the following first-hand account of what happened in the court room. It's definitely disappointing to see that the judge made a few bad assumptions about Cooper/Godfread, but good to see that she knew that Prenda has been up to no good.

I am not an attorney. I attended today's hearing out of curiosity and convenience. I happened to have an appointment across the street from the Hennepin County Government Center today and decided that it would be interesting to see the wheels of justice in motion first hand. As such, it is important to note that these are the observations of a layperson.

As the session started, Judge Alton announced that there was no live court reporter and that there was an audio recording being made instead.

Two other cases were called first, and then the Judge called Cooper vs. Prenda. She began by saying, "This one gives me a lot of pause." Then the attorneys introduced themselves.

Paul Godfread was present representing Alan Cooper (who was not in attendance) and Paul Hansmeier was present representing Prenda, et al. He sat alone at the table and I don't believe any other Prenda principals were in attendance.

Judge Alton then started off by addressing Hansmeier saying that it would appear he had a bit of a conflict relating to some findings of law, "[an] order from a US District Court Judge sanctioning you for fraud, among other things." She went on to say, "I'm not sure I should hear you at all." She asked Hansmeier if Morgan Pietz had filed the list of Bar Associations to which the Prenda principals were admitted as well as whether Pietz had sent copies of Judge Wright's order to all of the other Judges presiding over Prenda cases. Hansmeier replied, "I believe he did, your honor."

Judge Alton was clearly agitated going into this. In reference to the Prenda business model she said, "This is fraud, clear and simple." She also said, "I will be reporting this to the Lawyers Board." In fact, she would make a similar comment at least one more time at the end of the hearing. Still addressing Hansmeier, she went on, "Your involvement in this case is a TRAVESTY!" She added impact (both figuratively and literally) to that point by slapping her hand on the bench.

If I closed my eyes, I could have very easily assumed I was watching an episode of Judge Judy at this point. Judge Alton's passion and inflection as she admonished Prenda's behavior was, quite frankly, a tremendous surprise to me as a non-attorney. My discussions with actual attorneys after the hearing confirmed the abnormality of the scene.

In an attempt to defend their activities, Hansmeier referenced the the actions of the RIAA and MPAA. Judge Alton was unimpressed. She told him, "That doesn't mean you become your own zealot!" Further berating Prenda's pattern of mailing threatening settlement letters to alleged copyright violators, Judge Alton said, "You are guilty of fraud every time you send one of these letters." Hansmeier then began to reference the Jammie Thomas-Rasset case. Again, the Judge wasn't interested, interrupting with a curt, "So what?"

Now things got a little bit confusing. The Judge called Paul Hansmeier a fraud. Then she said that Alan Cooper is a fraud and that Paul Godfread may be a fraud as well. I looked to the person sitting next to me and the look on his face showed the same confusion. Quite humbly, Godfread told Judge Alton that he took exception to being labeled a fraud. He tried to clarify the situation but his message didn't seem to get through. In fact, for much of the hearing, Judge Alton was under the impression that Judge Wright's order actually implicated Alan Cooper as a Prenda Principal. Luckily this comes up again later.

As Godfread was explaining Cooper's actual position in reference to Judge Wright's findings, Hansmeier objected. He complained that there was no evidence to support the findings and said that they weren't given the opportunity to cross examine Cooper during the sanctions hearing in Los Angeles.

Throughout the hearing, Judge Alton would frequently refer back to Judge Wright's sanctions order, reading portions of it both to herself and out loud to clarify various points including asking where "Nevis" is. Godfread said it was an island in the Caribbean, most commonly known as an offshore tax haven. While he was saying this, Hansmeier was shaking his head.

The Judge continued to review the various exhibits filed with the case and Paul Hansmeier again raised the issue of not having been given the opportunity to cross examine Alan Cooper in L.A. Judge Alton glared at him saying, "That, right now, does not concern me."

She then turned her attention to Godfread saying, "You're not going to get any damages out of me. I don't give damages when everyone is a fraud." Again, she appeared to be under the impression that Alan Cooper was complicit in Prenda's actions. Godfread repeated his earlier assertions that Cooper was merely a caretaker for John Steele's property in Minnesota. The Judge then said, "Mr. Steele worked for Prenda Law which is running these phony lawsuits."

After reading further into Judge Wright's findings, Judge Alton finally identified the portion that clearly separated Alan Cooper from Prenda's actions and identified him as a victim of their fraud rather than a willing participant.

Unfortunately, this new realization didn't seem to alter Judge Alton's stance on refusing to grant any damages. Godfread decided to approach it from a different angle, though. In lieu of damages, he suggested that Judge Alton order Prenda to return all of the settlement money it had received over the course of its campaign. Judge Alton rejected that suggestion saying that it wouldn't be possible unless, via discovery or other means, they are able to determine how much money that actually is.

The Judge then took a moment to reiterate that Prenda's methods of threatening people are not allowed before moving on to the topic of service. This is, after all, a Default Hearing. Hansmeier repeated the assertion that Prenda never received service of the complaint. The judge looked through the folder in front of her and suggested that Godfread may not have properly served Prenda. She asked Godfread if he served them through publication. He said that he didn't, but told her that, as shown in his Affidavit of Service, he sent the complaint and the interrogatories via certified mail and provided a receipt from the US Postal Service showing that it was received by Prenda on March 18th. He also refers to the fact that Prenda DID respond to the interrogatories, so how can they claim they never received service of the rest of it? Judge Alton then said, "That will satisfy me."

Hansmeier then claims that Duffy received only the interrogatories and not the complaint, and that Godfread's receipt doesn't prove that the complaint was sent in that envelope. The Judge responded with, "Mr. Duffy's credibility is not good and he's not here."

Judge Alton then asked Godfread about other facts such as whether they have proof that Prenda was keeping the settlement money. Godfread said that Hansmeier himself admitted as much. Hansmeier responded saying, "That is categorically false."

The Judge then asked if Cooper had actually testified to the fact that he did not authorize the use of his name in the AF Holdings cases. Godfread confirmed that Cooper did testify to that. Then, talking to Godfread, Judge Alton said, "I can't find a conspiracy to harm him. I believe you but I can't find it."

She then made her order. She ordered that Prenda and its principals immediately cease using Alan Cooper's name, "and that's all. That's as far as I'll go."

In parting, she addressed Paul Hansmeier, once again saying, "I believe you to be in violation of a whole lot of rules." She then repeated her earlier statement that she was forwarding the case folder to the Lawyers Board.

And that was the end. Judge Alton then called a recess before the next case.

After leaving the courtroom, I sat down with another observer for a cup of coffee as we discussed how strange the hearing was. A few minutes later, Paul Godfread walked up and we chatted for a while about how the hearing had unfolded in such an unexpected way. He understandably lamented the lack of a damage award. When I told him that following all of this over the last several months has been educational, he expressed a fear of it being a poor source of education given how atypical these proceedings have been.

Still, I'm glad that I was able to attend today and I would encourage other members of the laity like myself to make an effort to observe these kinds of proceedings themselves. It was a truly fascinating experience.

Filed Under: alan cooper, ann alton, fraud, john steele, minnesota, paul godfread, paul hansmeier
Companies: prenda, prenda law

Angry Judge Tells Prenda To Stop Falsifying Alan Cooper's Signature; Calls It Fraud

from the another-failure dept

Looks like Prenda continues to have problems in court. In the lawsuit in Minnesota that Alan Cooper brought against Prenda and John Steele for fraudulent use of his name, it appears that Judge Ann Alton made fairly quick work of getting the whole thing off of her docket. Someone going by the twitter handle "J.P. Baggins" was in attendance, and says that the judge ordered Prenda to stop using Alan Cooper's name and brought the case to a close. There won't be any damages awarded, but it seems clear that the judge was not at all happy with Prenda. She referred to Paul Hansmeier, appearing for Prenda Law, as acting in a way that is "not appropriate for an attorney" while also claiming that what they had done was "fraud, pure and simple." She also told him that she believed him "to be in violation of a whole lot of rules" and she'll be reporting him to the lawyer's board (just one more to pile on, I guess).

Another person in the courtroom, Matthew Sparby noted that the judge was a bit confused at the beginning, apparently misreading Judge Otis Wright's infamous order to also implicate Cooper as well, and while that was eventually cleared up by Cooper's lawyer, Paul Godfread, Sparby thinks that may be why no damages were awarded.

She apparently also closed by telling Hansmeier to "never EVER send" fraudulent letters "EVER again" and noted that she was "offended this case is here" before abruptly ending the whole thing. Seems like another bad day for Prenda.

Filed Under: alan cooper, ann alton, falsified signature, john steele, minnesota, paul duffy, paul godfread, paul hansmeier
Companies: af holdings, ingenuity 13, prenda, prenda law

According To MN State Auditors, Success In The Music Biz Means Signing With A Major Label; Not Touring

from the and-if-you're-not-raking-it-in,-you're-not-interested-in-being-successful dept

Have you ever wondered how a tax auditor defines artistic success? Neither have I. In fact, it's probably one of the great unanswered questions, largely due to its status as one of the great unasked questions.

[The only thing I can think of that comes close to this intersection of red tape and artistic expression took place in 1990, when the members of the electronic/experimental rock band Legendary Pink Dots were denied visas to tour the US due to "lack of artistic merit." Apparently, the customs official was not familiar with the obscure rockers, despite a release schedule (32 albums, 52 live albums and compilations) that would choke The Fall.]

Now, we have an answer and it's every bit as awful and ignorant as any collision between a state's revenue service and an indie artist could conceivably be. This story starts out with the artists (married couple Venus DeMars and Lynette Reini-Grandell) being informed that their Minnesota state tax returns for 2009-2011 were being audited.

No one wants to be in this situation, but most people who find themselves facing an auditor are rarely subjected to unsolicited opinions and advice on how to run their businesses/careers better, along with countless flabbergasting statements about their industry in general.

“We’ve had several meetings with the auditor since November, and at the last one he said a preliminary determination had been made that we were hobbyists, not artists, and therefore could not write off our expenses,” said Venus, a visual artist, songwriter, bandleader and performer. “This has been unbelievably demoralizing. He basically is saying that if we really knew what we were doing, we should have been more profitable by now, and should have known to give up.

Charming. Apparently, Venus and her partner aren't successful enough to write off expenses. I guess that's a privilege left to artists with real careers and real expenses to write off. The auditors made the claim that any deductions for touring expenses were nothing more than the couple trying to write off personal vacations. Why would they draw this conclusion? Because they understand nothing about touring.

They also really don’t like that I tour. They say I tour way too much and that really, my name is already out there enough, after all this time in the business, there is now no need to do any promotional touring. I have this statement in writing. I attempted to show them, and tell them that this was the industry standard, approved, well-documented, way to build one’s fan base, to expand on it, to inspire interest in one’s work because of the direct contact one has with an audience. They replied that there’s no reason to return to the same cities and venues, and that I’m wrong, that I’m really touring only for pleasure and recreational reasons.

After "all this time in the business," the Rolling Stones are still touring. Perhaps they should stop. After all, their name is "already out there enough." Touring is the expectation when you're a musician. It can be a lifetime experience for some. Hopefully, these artists aren't a.) Minnesotans or b.) writing off touring expenses. (Nothing says "vacation" like a panel van full of equipment, band members and BO making a 6-hour run across the state on less than 2 hours of sleep. Relaxing!)

So, according to reps from the Minnesota revenue service, Venus DeMars hasn't achieved enough success to justify listing "artist" as an occupation, but is too successful to gain anything by touring. As an ideal, "success" is a pretty vague term. How do tax collectors define success in the music biz?

The tax guy said that by this point in my career I needed to be signed by a major label, that I should have been signed to a major label by now, that I needed to be signed to a major label to establish myself. [He said that] there was no evidence that I was actively sending my records to major record labels, so therefore I must not be interested in profit, and not running a for-profit business.

How delightfully old school. You can't spell success without the letters EMI (or UMG). While some musicians may not feel they've "made it" until they've signed away their rights to their creations signed with a major label, it's been a long time since the two terms were inseparable.

What we seem to have is someone (or someones) who don't understand the realities of the music business setting arbitrary ground rules on what constitutes a career in the music field, or at least what defines a career in terms of acceptable tax writeoffs. Touring is unimportant but a major label contract is everything. The auditors also made the claim that because DeMars allowed her music to be used on a public radio network (NPR), it meant she was uninterested in turning a profit.

Her partner, Lynette Reini-Grandell, didn't dodge the entire state vs. art "debate," either. The state's reps also questioned her business acumen as a writer.

The tone of all these proceedings have been completely anti-art. There has been an emphasis on creating a product, advertising it for sale, and then selling it. That’s not how it works on the creative end of literature. Writers need to spend a long time writing, getting feedback, moving up the levels of critique, and then they participate in the publishing industry by sending things out to publishers. One tries for the prominent ones first, gets rejected many, many times, and eventually finds a press and an audience.

Writers do not write a few lines and then advertise they have a poem for sale, making sure that the poem sells at a break-even point of what it cost monetarily to produce it. But this is what the Minnesota Department of Revenue insists I should be doing. It sickens me to have to participate in this because I know it is deeply wrong.

At this point, the state is telling the couple they owe over $100,000 in back taxes, an amount that may include a clawback of issued grants. This assessment seems to be based on the auditors' assertion that the couple simply isn't trying hard enough to make money. Based on what the state's representatives have said, not making enough money is the same as dodging taxes. But, even if you take the hardline and agree with the auditors' that the couples' livelihoods aren't sustainable without significant government assistance, you're still left with some unbelievably bad assumptions by the auditors and even worse career advice, all delivered in a thoroughly condescending manner. If the state is looking to recover these taxes, it needs to apply a more intelligent baseline than "stop touring and sign with a major label."

Filed Under: minnesota, tax, venus demars

Alan Cooper, Paul Godfread Call Prenda Law's Bluff On Defamation Lawsuit

from the this-won't-go-well-for-prenda dept

We were somewhat surprised by Prenda Law, John Steele and Paul Duffy choosing to sue various critics for defamation, and specifically charging Alan Cooper and Paul Godfread with defamation. Cooper, of course, was the home caretaker for some John Steele Properties who discovered that his name was somehow involved in Prenda Law's shell games with (at least) AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13. He eventually sued Prenda claiming that his identity was used without his permission. Following this, as we heard at the big Prenda hearing, Steele started leaving a bunch of voicemails for Cooper, potentially violating ethics rules about directly contacting parties on the other side in a lawsuit. Also, from the voicemails, it seemed clear that the intention was to intimidate Cooper.

As we noted at the time, it would seem that filing these lawsuits would open them all up for significant discovery, which they probably would not like very much. The Prenda and Duffy lawsuits were filed in Illinois, and as we noted, Illinois has a relatively broad anti-SLAPP law. The Steele lawsuit was filed in Florida, though it was quickly dismissed. The two Illinois cases are ongoing, and the two named people sued -- Alan Cooper and his lawyer Paul Godfread -- have now filed their answers to the lawsuit. As is required in such cases, they go through each statement in the original suit, and confirm or deny (mostly deny) the various allegations made. Specifically, they deny making the vast majority of the random comments made on various blog comment systems that the lawsuits accuse them of being a part of.

Following this, they present their defenses, which again all appear to be fairly standard. They don't believe they've done anything illegal, any statements made were true, and thus not defamatory, information about their own lawsuit against Prenda are protected by legal privilege and they argue that it is a SLAPP suit.

They also bring up a whole bunch of counterclaims, and as part of that reveal that the "intimidation" campaign wasn't just limited to Steele calling Cooper, but included Peter Hansmeier's emails with Godfread as well, with the following email revealed to the court, which really highlights Hansmeier's pure hubris.

Dear Mr. Godfread:

My firm has been retained by Livewire Holdings LLC to pursue claims in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota against you and your coconspirators arising from defamation, civil conspiracy and related acts. The alleged acts occurred in e-mail communications and blog posts describing my client as a criminal enterprise. As you know, such statements constitute defamation per se and are, quite frankly, wildly inappropriate. Less-egregious claims have resulted in multi-million dollar judgments, as I trust this one will. The facts of the underlying case are essentially a law school exam hypothetical of every possible variation of libel. Perhaps you can forward my client's complaint to your former professors at William Mitchell. My client is well-aware that you are a major contributor to these blog sites.

The purpose of this e-mail is to inform you of impending litigation so that you preserve all relevant evidence in your possession including, but not limited to, communications between yourself and David Camaratto, Morgan Pietz, Nicholas Ranallo and any other individuals associated directly or indirectly with the sites fightcopyrighttrolls and dietrolldie. Further, any and all other evidence that might be relevant to this matter must, of course, be preserved.

I suspect that you aligned yourself with these defamatory efforts as a marketing strategy. I don't know if these efforts paid off, but I can assure you that making baseless accusations of criminal conduct is not a wise move for a licensed attorney. All of that being said, my client knows that you didn't work alone in these wrongful efforts. If you think we are missing out on more serious actors in your enterprise my client would be willing to consider decreasing your liability in exchange for information about these individuals. Of course, that interest will disappear if someone else comes forward first. Think it over and let me know. If you're willing to take the fall for whole group then you are decidedly a "true believer."

Welcome to the big leagues.

Paul

That sign off line is quite a piece of work, and I'm sure it will go over well in federal court, where it's likely that the judge will have a chance to learn about the case in front of Judge Otis Wright in California. Furthermore, as Ken White points out, that email is most telling for what's not in there:

...please take note of the dog that did not bark in the night. That is, note what the letter does not say. Consider the context. Godfread, on behalf of Cooper, is telling courts that Prenda Law has stolen Cooper's identity, and has filed a lawsuit on that basis. What would you expect in response, if Prenda Law had an answer for that? If I were representing Prenda Law, and had an answer, there is no doubt in my mind I would articulate it. I would say, "As you and Mr. Cooper know, and witnesses will attest, Mr. Cooper was a willing participant in AF Holdings LLC and fully consented to being an officer." Or I might say "You have recklessly and without adequate basis suggested that your client is the Alan Cooper who is an officer of AF Holdings, when even the briefest inquiry would show that AF Holdings is led by the distinguished Alan Cooper of Nevis and St. Kitts." I would say something articulating why Cooper's and Godfread's assertions are false. As I so often say, vagueness in legal threats is the hallmark of thuggery. But Hansmeier says nothing of the sort. He has only adolescent puffed-up threats and insults. What do you think that signifies?

There is one seeming oddity in the response. As we noted Illinois has a decent, though not wonderful, anti-SLAPP law. But rather than rely on that, Cooper and Godfread, instead claim Minnesota's anti-SLAPP law protect them. They're both based in Minnesota, but it's still a little odd. Minnesota's anti-SLAPP law is definitely stronger than Illinois and as White notes, provides "immunity" from such lawsuits.

More importantly, by filing a bunch of counterclaims, Duffy and Prenda cannot easily walk away from this lawsuit, which is probably not the situation that Duffy, Hansmeier, Steele and others really want to be in right now. They've been playing a bullying bluster game all along, and suddenly their bluff is getting called, repeatedly, and they seem to think that if they just keep bullying and bluffing maybe it'll work out in the end. Of course, by the time Judge Wright is done with these guys, these cases in Illinois might not even matter very much...

Filed Under: alan cooper, anti-slapp, defamation, illinois, john steele, minnesota, paul duffy, paul godfread, paul hansmeier
Companies: prenda, prenda law

State Audit Finds More Than Half Of Minnesota's 11,000 Law Enforcement Users Misused Driver Data

from the unfortunately,-nothing-really-shocking-about-these-findings dept

It's been proven before by various government agencies and it still holds true: if you give someone more access than oversight when it comes to collected personal information, you can't be surprised when this tool gets abused.

The latest abuse of a government-harvested database was uncovered by state auditors in Minnesota. The report details extensive misuse of driver's license records by law enforcement agencies.

The review by the state's legislative auditor — highly anticipated by legislators and privacy advocates — said officers need better training in allowed uses of the protected data, and local and state agencies should do more to monitor use. Beyond 88 incidents of misuse documented in state records last year, auditors found even more suspicious activity buried in audit trails.

More than half of the 11,000 law enforcement users of the Driver and Vehicle Services (DVS) website in that time frame queried themselves or people with the same last name, for example, or disproportionately searched for people of one sex.

This study's findings will likely result in some additions to legislation proposed earlier this year, which seeks to add penalties and transparency to data breaches by government employees, requiring local agencies to post full investigation reports online should any breach occur. The legislation itself was written in response to a severe data breach traced back to a single government employee.

The legislation came on the heels of news that a former employee at the Department of Natural Resources had viewed thousands of drivers license records — almost exclusively of women — without a permissible use. That employee, John Hunt, is now facing criminal charges, and his actions have spurred five federal lawsuits against the state.

This employee might have been caught more quickly, but Hunt likely knew the limitations of the DPS auditing system and stayed below the radar, despite making nearly 19,000 queries to the database over the course of five years.

The report also recommended that because audits by the DPS largely detect heavy users, rather than suspicious use, local agencies should conduct more proactive monitoring. They suggested the department beef up its abilities to assist local agencies.

[Public safety commissioner Mona] Dohman said in an interview that the queries were so spread out that he did not emerge in their monthly review of the top 50 users.

In addition to the larger breaches, there were also cases where failure to deactivate accounts resulted in additional misuse of the DVS system.

During the 18 months ending June 30, 2012, 13 users conducted queries using access privileges associated with law enforcement agencies that no longer existed. Over the same time period, three former employees of state law enforcement agencies, as well as four former employees of local law enforcement agencies, accessed the DVS Web site using usernames and passwords that should have been disabled.

The current process for disabling accounts is almost farcical in its slowness. The report points out that the DVS allows accounts to remain dormant for 120 days before inactivating them. While this is a huge improvement over the 500 days it used to allow, it's still plenty of time for anyone looking to query a database they should no longer have access to.

Compounding the existing misuse issues is the fact that law enforcement agencies have exempted themselves from many of the policies affecting authorized civilian users. To begin with, sworn officers are not required to attend training or refresher courses on proper use of the DVS system, including policies regarding general security and appropriate data use. Officers are also exempted from the same user agreement that greets civilians at login and are otherwise not held accountable by any agreement when utilizing the DVS database.

DPS (Dept. of Public Safety) has not implemented other access management practices for all users. For example, DPS does not require a user agreement for sworn officers with access to the DVS Web site. Civilian law enforcement employees must sign a user agreement justifying their need for driver's license information, including their specific needs for access to driver's license photographs. DVS staff review the agreements before granting access. BCA (Bureau of Criminal Apprehension) has a signed intra-agency agreement with DVS. Agencies with employees who access BCA systems sign an agreement taking responsibility for access by their staff, among other things. Thus, it is only sworn officers who use the DVS Web site for whom DPS does not require an agreement, signed by the user or his or her employer, taking responsibility for appropriate access.

The findings of this study will certainly raise questions about this law enforcement double-standard. The proposed legislation and its attendant penalties and openness is, unsurprisingly, being fought by the law enforcement community.

House author Rep. Mary Liz Holberg, R-Lakeville, said she has already met resistance from some law enforcement entities.

"If you have bad actors in your bunch, then why shouldn't the public know about it?" Holberg said. "It seems like nobody wants any sunshine around this issue. And I think it would do a lot to rebuild the public trust if there was more public awareness of misuse and consequences."

It's pretty hard to rebuild public trust when you don't trust the public. Or, at least, don't trust them enough to be honest with them. The law enforcement fraternity has never been one for openness and consistency. As the study notes, misuse of the DVS system is handled differently by every law enforcement agency, if it's even punished at all. The lack of a codified "best practices" or even a basic "user agreement" that holds the individual officer responsible for his actions has led to widespread misuse. Minnesota's legislators are on the right track and this audit offers some very sound suggestions, but the feeling that those who enforce the law should be exempted from these same laws is somewhat endemic in law enforcement, meaning this has the potential to get worse before it gets any better. If they aren't careful, this legislation could reach passage with very few "teeth" intact, if it gets there at all.

Filed Under: abuse, data, driver data, minnesota, privacy

Minnesota Backs Down After Internet Rises Up: Now Encourages Residents To Use Online Learning

from the good-for-them dept

Last week, we were among those who reported on a ridiculous attempt by regulators in Minnesota to enforce a regulation aimed at stopping degree mills, by telling various legitimate online learning providers like Coursera that Minnesota residents couldn't take courses from without state approval. Thankfully, all of the attention has caused Minnesota officials to admit that this was silly and back down. According to Larry Pogemiller, director of the Minnesota Office of Higher Education:

Obviously, our office encourages lifelong learning and wants Minnesotans to take advantage of educational materials available on the Internet, particularly if they’re free. No Minnesotan should hesitate to take advantage of free, online offerings from Coursera.

He also said that the obsolete regulations should be updated:

When the legislature convenes in January, my intent is to work with the Governor and Legislature to appropriately update the statute to meet modern-day circumstances. Until that time, I see no reason for our office to require registration of free, not-for-credit offerings.

The internet wins, again.

Filed Under: minnesota, online learning, regulations
Companies: coursera

Old Regulations Strike Again: Minnesota Says It's Against The Law To Offer Open Courseware Class Without Approval

from the oh-come-on dept

Every day, it seems, we hear of yet another story of silly out-of-date regulations, which may have had a reasonable purpose initially, getting in the way of perfectly legitimate innovation. For example, there's been a massive growth in "open courseware" or open education programs, that put various educational classes online for everyone to benefit. They're not designed to replace the degrees of college, but rather to just help people learn. One of the biggest ones, Coursera, recently told people in Minnesota that they could no longer take Coursera classes, due to ridiculously outdated Minnesota regulations:

Notice for Minnesota Users:

Coursera has been informed by the Minnesota Office of Higher Education that under Minnesota Statutes (136A.61 to 136A.71), a university cannot offer online courses to Minnesota residents unless the university has received authorization from the State of Minnesota to do so. If you are a resident of Minnesota, you agree that either (1) you will not take courses on Coursera, or (2) for each class that you take, the majority of work you do for the class will be done from outside the State of Minnesota.

The key regulation here, 136A.6a is clearly about stopping questionable degree mills from being used in Minnesota. It specifically refers to "academic degrees":

The legislature has found and hereby declares that the availability of legitimate courses and programs leading to academic degrees offered by responsible private not-for-profit and for-profit institutions of postsecondary education and the existence of legitimate private colleges and universities are in the best interests of the people of this state. The legislature has found and declares that the state can provide assistance and protection for persons choosing private institutions and programs, by establishing policies and procedures to assure the authenticity and legitimacy of private postsecondary education institutions and programs. The legislature has also found and declares that this same policy applies to any private and public postsecondary educational institution located in another state or country which offers or makes available to a Minnesota resident any course, program or educational activity which does not require the leaving of the state for its completion.

The other law just says that the attorney general and the courts can shut down anyone who violates the law -- which is what they threatened to do with Coursera.

Tricia Grimes, a policy analyst for the state’s Office of Higher Education, said letters had been sent to all postsecondary institutions known to be offering courses in Minnesota.

But that seems to be a willful misreading of the regulation (which seems silly in the first place). Coursera isn't a degree mill. It's not about earning the degree, it's about actually learning. Minnesota's interpretation of the law is fairly ridiculous. It basically means that anyone who wants to access online educational material in Minnesota is limited by the state determining what it considers okay.

Filed Under: degree mills, minnesota, open courseware, regulations
Companies: coursera

Minneapolis Police Filming Their Own Work To Show Critics

from the good-move dept

We've had tons of stories about police arresting people for filming them. And we've seen plenty of other stories about mobile phone cameras being used to document and share evidence of police overreacting (especially at various protest scenes). However, the folks at On The Media had a great story recently about how the police in Minnesota are filming themselves when they deal with protests and then releasing the raw video footage in response to footage from others.


In the case above, it involved Occupy protestors using video footage of police arresting journalists. However, the police's own footage put the situation in a bit more context, including showing the police clearly reading out warnings to the crowd that if they don't help police remove obstructions in the plaza, that they will need to take enforcement action. Does this absolve the actions of the police? Perhaps not, though it may depend on where you sit. However, it is a really interesting strategy, and one that I think actually reflects a very positive development. Rather than hiding from cameras, the police can (and should) use cameras to their own advantage as well.

Amusingly, however, in the story, the police chief notes that the film in question was done by crime scene videographers, who are a little too focused on closeup shots, not knowing quite how to take wide shots that might show the scene in a bit more detail to provide additional context.

Of course, the police chief, Janee Harteau, isn't fully enlightened. While she does say that officers should always assume they're being filmed (and mentions permanent cameras in the city, as well as squad car cameras), she still complains that people with mobile phone cameras sometimes "interfere with an officer's ability to do their job." She doesn't really elaborate, beyond saying that police have a job to do in protecting the public. She does say that "the officer's word doesn't mean as much as it used to" if there isn't a video. I'm not sure why that's a bad thing. If there isn't more evidence, isn't it only proper to give the testimony less weight? Either way, I do think the overall idea of police filming themselves (and releasing that video) is a definite step in the right direction, and one that I hope other police departments start using.

Filed Under: janee harteau, minneapolis, minnesota, occupy, police, protestors