There are two House bills in the Louisiana legislature that could curtail the work of private investigators and subject them to torts, even when operating at the direction of an attorney.

HB51 amends the anti-stalking law, changing the language to a less explicit definition of stalking that could snare a PI conducting a legal surveillance.

Stalking is the [former language: willful, malicious,] [replaced with: intentional] and repeated following or harassing of another person that would cause a reasonable person to feel alarmed or to suffer emotional distress.

HB45 will require PIs to notify the police prior to conducting an investigation (which is not defined).

Provides that private investigators shall furnish certain information to the police or sheriff prior to beginning an investigation.

Prior to passing any stupid law the legislature should be required to notify their constituents, so they can be voted out of office.

legislation

The September 11 attacks on human life and the national security have since been used to limit citizen access to government records. Private investigators are mostly just citizens when it comes to FOI rights to obtain government documents. So we have received very little professional access. But even the 9/11 Report acknowledged that more access can lead to more security.

Rebecca Daugherty, a Director at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP), noted, in a recent email, the absurd logic the government is applying to release of information.

The 911 Commission findings were that a major contributing factor of 911 was the failure of sharing knowledge on the part of various public agencies — with each other of course, but they also failed to share with the news media, which in turn relayed little of the growing threat to the public, which in turn knew virtually nothing about escalating Islamic terrorism. And the result of 911 has been, across the board, demands for more secrecy. I wondered how extreme we’re going to get here if we keep demanding public ignorance in the fear that terrorists might learn something. Should we stop teaching reading in the public schools?

The 9/11 Commission Findings stated:

But the security concerns need to be weighed against the costs. Current security requirements nurture overclassification and excessive compartmentation of information among agencies. Each agency’s incentive structure opposes sharing, with risks (criminal, civil, and internal administrative sanctions) but few rewards for sharing information. No one has to pay the long-term costs of over-classifying information, though these costs—even in literal financial terms— are substantial. There are no punishments for not sharing information. Agencies uphold a “need-to-know” culture of information protection rather than promoting a “need-to-share” culture of integration.15 Read the report

freedom of information

Even as the Congress is about to revisit and hear proposals to expand the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) come these reports about governments narrowly interpreting FOI.

Since 1998, many federal departments have been reducing the amount of information they release to the public - even as the government fields and answers more requests for information than ever, an Associated Press review has found.

The locations of stores and restaurants that have received recalled meat, the names of detainees held by the U.S. overseas and details about Vice President Dick Cheney’s 2001 energy policy task force are all among the records that the government isn’t sharing with the public.

The tightening began even before the Sept. 11 attacks, and now government defenders say the nation needs protection from its enemies in the war on terror. But open government advocates worry that U.S. citizens’ freedom is eroding with every file they can’t access.

“This is an immensely troubling clampdown,” said Steve Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists’ Secrecy Project. “The law itself is unchanged, but it’s being interpreted more broadly to withhold more information.”

And from New York…

Freedom of Information laws can unlock the door to government records. But opening the door may require filling out a formal request and being not only patient but persistent in a search for documents, local sources said last week.

And more from New York on access to police records.

Idaho journalists with the FOI in hand uncover flaws in a court record keeping system.

A file that was sealed by agreement of parties and a file that had never been sealed both somehow entirely disappeared from the public access computer system, apparently as a result of a less than optimal computer program.

The public has benefited greatly from the intervention of the Post Register into these matters. But for their efforts, we could have gone years before discovering that vast amounts of what should have been public information (not just the Scout cases, but many others) was being mistakenly hidden from your view.

Louisiana uses September 11 as a excuse for withholding public record information.

Citing a need for protection from terrorists, Louisiana’s lawmakers are allowing public agencies to hide a much wider array of documents from public view since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Here’s an article that lists Sunshine events and guides to getting government information in Hawaii.

The media rely on the open government laws in Michigan to uncover the day-to-day workings of local governments but legislators are weakening the access laws..

Wisconsin has a subjective balancing test for release of records.

Share your Sunshine and anti-Sunshine news in the comments section.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center has private investigators, journalists and anyone who wants to gather personal information, including the public, on their dart board and they’re handing out darts to the Congress. Their proposal, which is likely to be delivered to the FTC and Congress, includes the demand (contravening the Supreme Court) that private investigators be restricted from going through people’s trash and that “federal, state, and local agencies that maintain public record systems must make substantial efforts to limit the disclosure of Social Security Numbers, phone numbers, addresses, and dates of birth.” pdf of the report

EPIC’s view of background checks is to restrict businesses. “Background checks should only be performed in contexts where fiduciary relationships are involved, where a large amount of money is handled, where employment involves care taking, or any of the jobs enumerated by the Employee Privacy Protection Act, 29 U.S.C.§ 2007.”

Access to police records, court files, social security numbers and third party data are all on the chopping block.

Join NCISS, the national organization working the halls of Congress for the private investigator industry.

It hasn’t been too sun-shiny for those of us who believe that democracy requires direct access to our government’s paper trail. National Sunshine Week isn’t so much a celebration as it is a public awareness campaign of the benefits — both to the pocketbook and personal liberty– of open government. Public access to our federal, state and local governments’ decision making and machinations is essential to healthy, smooth functioning commerce, exposing fraud and ensuring that government is by and for the people. Democracy hasn’t been handed to us and we must agitate to keep it. So advocate for access to government records. Submit a state public records act (PRA) request today. File a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. Then post a comment telling us what you did and the response you received.

The Associated Press site is a first stop information gathering point for listings of FOI organizations, state-by-state litigation, aids for filing FOIA requests and news on Sunshine Week.

Surprisingly, with all the ill informed commentary about privacy, Americans are highly concerned about the lack of transparency in their government. Most Americans are ignorant of organized attempts to shine light into the dark recesses of government. And only 30 percent have ever requested records from a government agency.

A new survey conducted by Ipsos-Public Affairs on behalf of Sunshine Week shows that seven out of 10 Americans are concerned about government secrecy, and more than half think there’s not enough access to government records. Read the press release and survey

Pending federal legislation related to open government, privacy and access to records is summarized here.

sunshine week
open government

A San Jose, California judge steered away from ruling whether blogger journalists have shield law status in protecting sources. James Kleinberg narrowed his opinion to the trade secret infringement issue inherent in publishing known proprietary information. Read the AP story

Online sources ordered revealed
JUDGE SIDESTEPS ONE ISSUE: ARE BLOGGERS JOURNALISTS?
By Dawn C. Chmielewski
Mercury News (subscription)
A San Jose judge ruled Friday that two Web sites have no right to protect the identity of people who gave them trade secrets about an upcoming Apple Computer product.

Judge Kleinberg observed that journalists don’t have protection from breaking the law. I would add, unless you’re powerful or of service to those who are. What’s happen to the one journalist, Robert Novak, who knows the source of the identification of Valerie Plame as a CIA agent? A time line on the identity leak is here and the Daily Kos has a recent posting. Slate explores the question of blogger journalism.

journalism

Our superduper PI advocate, Francie Koehler tells it like it is, providing a clear, everyday example of how private investigators use the social security number to solve legal cases.

Those who rely on these consumer databases to do their jobs worry about losing access. Francie Koehler, a licensed private investigator based in Oakland, Calif., said her organization, the California Association of Licensed Investigators, believes there should be stronger penalties for illegal access of databases and stronger requirements for access.

“Unfortunately, [the SS number] has become a national identifier and the only way we have of verifying someone is who they say they are. Private investigators spend a lot of time locating people. Unless you have a Social Security number, you can’t verify that is the correct person.”

For example, Koehler recently handled a background check of a potential witness who had falsified his graduate school credential.

“Without a Social Security number, you can’t even check that,” she said. “To eliminate that as a possibility would create some problems within the legal community.” Read the article

background checks

Okay, maybe it’s a bit of an exaggeration but it caught my attention! Finally, a media account of the field of investigations AND the topic of privacy that reflects well on all private investigators. The Contra Costa Times profiled yours truly, with a frontpage article titled, Privacy predicaments catch gumshoe’s eye (subscription!). Thanks to Dan Laidman, the reporter, who obligated me to spend hours with him at cafes, drinking coffee. On the issue of privacy…

“I definitely encourage people to take action to protect their access to information,” she said.

A key theme of the blogs is that privacy concerns should not lead to the across-the-board restriction of information. Thompson says there is a distinction between a licensed investigator’s work and that of a firm like ChoicePoint, the data-gathering company currently embroiled in scandal because it apparently sold personal information — including data on some 30,000 Californians — to criminals posing as legitimate businesses.

Thompson notes that when she tracks someone down at another’s request, such as a birth parent or former romantic partner, she gives the client’s contact information to the person she finds and not the other way around.

“If people want to make a bridge,” she said, “we act as intermediaries.”

Blogs that mention this article: The Open Society Paradox
privacy private investigator

It seems that every public figure is looking for a way to jump on the bandwagon for closure of public records. Now is the time to join the organizations that go to court to protect citizen access. I’ve mentioned some of those groups here and here.

Nevada police want records sealed
March 10, 2005, 07:05 AM

Police officers are asking lawmakers to allow thousands of public employees to request that public records containing some of their personal information be kept confidential. Read the article

U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and U.S. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) are sponsoring a Senate bill to create an advisory Commission on Freedom of Information Act Processing Delays, which would recommend procedures to reduce the excessive lag in response time to Freedom of Information Act requests (FOIA). Read the press release and bill

legislation

PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records), the online index of Federal court filings, is redacting personal identifiers, in accordance with the privacy policy of the Judicial Conference of 2001. Social Security Numbers in civil, criminal and bankruptcy filings are now truncated to the last four digits.

In 2001 the Federal courts began the process of requiring electronic filing of documents [Case Management and Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF)]. The Judicial Conference determined that it was incumbent upon attorneys filing documents to redact certain information including social security numbers.

Case documents filed prior to the implementation of the privacy rules will not be altered to comport with the new policy. Civil and bankruptcy documents are available through the electronic public access system but criminal filings are not.

Contentcentricblog summarizes the policy related to publishing personal information.

Attorneys also will have to redact certain information from court pleadings before filing them electronically. Last year the Judicial Conference of the United States adopted a national policy barring publication of sensitive information in electronic filings, including Social Security numbers, names of minor children, dates of birth, financial account numbers and home addresses. That information, if necessary to the case, may be filed in an unredacted copy under seal.

Eddy McClain, in his role as past President of the National Council of Investigation and Security Services (NCISS) warned against the rush to remove selected personal identifiers.

All investigations require positive identification of subjects. Courts do not tolerate incomplete evidence and investigators must constantly be able to differentiate between the true subject(s) of an investigation and persons with similar names or identification.

McClain added that while protecting people from identity theft is warranted, there’s an unseen hazard in restricting personal identifiers. Referring to bankruptcy records McClain noted, “When a “Robert Smith”files for bankruptcy, the other Robert Smiths of the world have a right not to be confused with the petitioner.” I would add, nor risk employment or good will through a false association with a litigant in a criminal or civil case.

The March 2005 update from the U.S. Courts web site on CM/ECF suggests that all of the Federal Courts will have instituted mandatory electronic filing by the end of this year.

CM/ECF systems are now in use in 68 district courts, 81 bankruptcy courts, the Court of International Trade and the Court of Federal Claims. Most of these courts are accepting electronic filings. Over 18 million cases are on CM/ECF systems. And over 160,000 attorneys and others have filed documents over the Internet. Under current plans, the number of CM/ECF courts will increase steadily each month through 2005.

court records

An extensive investigation by the Contra Costa Times (subscription) reveals that most California Bay Area public agencies do not respond to requests for their records according to established state law.

During a six-week period beginning in April, the Times sent 20 reporters and editors to agencies across the region. They identified themselves only by name in order to gauge the response to an average per