Slashdot Mirror

How do you allow advertisers to target, say, latin-dancing party ads to a market segment "interested in Hispanic culture" without permitting the kind of discrimination talked about?

The kind of discrimination talked about being Fair Housing Act-related discrimination?

I believe that you do it by not advertising housing... which latin-dancing party ads would not be doing.

It's less fun when you don't get to make-up overly broad forms of unlawful discrimination, I know...

The people who place the discriminating ads are the ones who should be sued, not the advertising platform.

Actually, they should both be sued. From the charges themselves:

1. It is unlawful to make unavailable or deny a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin or disability. 42 U.S.C. 3604(a), (f)(1); 24 C.F.R. 100.50(b)(1), (3); 24 C.F.R. 100.60(a); 24 C.F.R. 100.70(b); 24 C.F.R. 100.202(a).

2. It is unlawful to discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of the sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin or disability. 42 U.S.C. 3604(b), (f)(2); 24 C.F.R. 100.50(b)(2); 24 C.F.R. 100.65(a); 24 C.F.R. 100.70(b); 24 C.F.R. 100.202(b).

So, as expected, it's illegal to place the ads. But then it goes on with...

3. It is unlawful to make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published, any notice, statement, or advertisement with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin or disability, or that indicates an intention to make such a distinction. 42 U.S.C. 3604(c); 24 C.F.R. 100.75(a), (b), (c)(1).

All of which is to say (and going back to your knife analogy), Facebook is no more allowed to publish illegal housing ads than a switchblade manufacturer is allowed to sell switchblades in my state. If someone with a switchblade goes on a murder spree, the manufacturer likely won't be on the hook for the murder, but they will be pursued for the crime of having sold an illegal weapon. Likewise, while Facebook isn't on the hook for the poster's crime, they are on the hook for their own crime of unlawfully printing a discriminatory ad.

the National Fair Housing Alliance et al (NFHA) need to step back and breath. I don't see Facebook as having done anything wrong if NFHA managed to give Facebook a neutrally worded ad with filters restricting whom the ads were being shown to. Yes, that would be a sneaky underhanded technique, but claiming that "Facebook broke the law! Give me money!" for falling for that technique would be equivalent to a landlord putting up advertisements in local papers in neighborhoods that omit protected groups. Or for that matter, having a landlord put up any advertisement in any media, and omitting selected medias for the purpose of making it so that protected groups are unlikely to see the advertisement in the first place. I just browsed the Fair Housing Act and I don't see any where in it that claims that you have to target your ads to the entire population, I do see that you can't have an ad that states that protected groups are not wanted, but there's nothing there that says that you have to make certain that the ad is available to everyone.

Actually, limiting where you put up the advertisements in order to omit protected groups would clearly be a violation under 109.25 Selective use of advertising media or content. https://www.hud.gov/sites/docu...

The Fair Housing act begs to differ: https://www.hud.gov/sites/docu...

Folks can debate whether it should or should not be a law all they want, but the issue of legality is pretty clear.

The Act very clearly covers advertising as well in section 109.5

  109.5 Policy.
  It is the policy of the United States to provide, within constitutional limitations, for fair housing
throughout the United States. The provisions of the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3600, et seq.)
make it unlawful to discriminate in the sale, rental, and financing of housing, and in the provision
of brokerage and appraisal services, because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status,
or national origin. Section 804(c) of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3604(c), as amended, makes
it unlawful to make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published, any notice,
statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling, that indicates any
preference, limitation, or discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial
status, or national origin, or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination.
However, the prohibitions of the act regarding familial status do not apply with respect to housing
for older persons, as defined in section 807(b) of the act.

Actually billboards are specifically mentioned in the HUD document http://www.hud.gov/offices/fhe... . So yes this applies to real estate.

Careful. There is no law that says you have to take affirmative measures to ensure that your housing ads reach all races equally, BUT it is illegal to INTENTIONALLY skew housing ads to disproportionately target, or avoid targeting, specific races. More info here [hud.gov]. So would it be illegal for someone advertising an apartment for rent to use Facebook's service? Maybe. If they were using it to ensure they were reaching all races equally, that would likely be legal. Otherwise, likely illegal. The same is true for ads for employment and credit. Other advertisers face no such restrictions.

http://www.hud.gov/offices/fhe...

There is no law saying you have to market housing equally to all races.

Careful. There is no law that says you have to take affirmative measures to ensure that your housing ads reach all races equally, BUT it is illegal to INTENTIONALLY skew housing ads to disproportionately target, or avoid targeting, specific races. More info here.

So would it be illegal for someone advertising an apartment for rent to use Facebook's service? Maybe. If they were using it to ensure they were reaching all races equally, that would likely be legal. Otherwise, likely illegal.

The same is true for ads for employment and credit. Other advertisers face no such restrictions.

Which is exactly why the Bush administration made an appearance before the Democrat-controlled congress and warned them of the consequences of congress's pushing Fannie Mae to continue to underwrite (and to essentially REQUIRE underwritten banks to provide) things like no-income-proof, no-down-payment mortgages to people who couldn't possibly afford them once their rates ballooned. That Clinton-era policy, of putting more people into home ownership no matter what, started that bubble growing, and the congress under Pelosi and Reid kept pouring gas on that smoldering fire. The Bush administration spent six years trying to push through Fannie/Freddie control measures, and repeatedly warned congress about the problems and the dire consequences.

The same Bush administration that was championing the ownership economy to justify his tax cuts? The same Bush administration with a Zero downpayment initiative?

Where's the Bush-era policy of correcting the housing bubble? Where's the Bush-era policy of warning about an unsound economy? He had enough States of the Union to do it. It took him until 2008? And even then, he doesn't mention anything about holding Banks responsible for their misdeeds.

No, no, with you, it's always Democrats, always Democrats, who are to blame when it comes to anything wrong. That's your consistent approach. You even try to excuse George W. Bush, because Democrats controlled Congress?

Well, in that case, who controls Congress now? Why haven't they fixed anything? Why haven't they done the job you want done? Where's their plans?

People selling derivatives around that mountain of unsecured, bloated housing debt didn't cause people to lose houses and banks to put the brakes on dishing out more credit. People lost houses because their income couldn't keep up with foolishly chosen mortgages, and because they had speculated on the prospect of a get-rich-quick turn around on the house in the near future, they owed more on those houses than they were really worth. It's not exactly mysterious.

People selling derivatives that were bogus were trying to get themselves rich, not serve anybody other than themselves. People who bought a mortgage, sold to them by the lender at the bank, weren't exactly given fair and upfront information about it. People who bought a house, and wanted to make payments, were suddenly asked to compensate for the bank's risk-taking, not their own. It's not exactly mysterious.

Eventually somebody had to place the wrong bets, and when it did, the whole house of cards started to tumble down.

The banks got stuck with enormous piles of worthless debt, and houses it cost more to foreclose on than were often worth the trouble.

Nope, the banks made sure the rest of us got suck with piles of their manufactured worthless debt, and deliberately engaged in foreclosure processes that were reckless, at best, haphazard at worst.

Exactly why you can't hold them responsible, I don't know.

For reference, $1094 a month's rent gets me:

1) 1 bedroom, 1 bathroom, living room, big kitchen, total 781 square feet, single floor unit and located on the first floor.

Rent in my area is almost as expensive so I figured rent was a huge ripoff and consequently bought a house for $800/mo through my local bank via the Federal Housing Administration at 3% interest; 3 bedroom, 2 bath, total 2300 square feet, 1 acre. Mortgage payments include home owner's insurance, mortgage insurance and property taxes in an escrow account.

So, are you saying that we lost our Freedom around 1914? I'm very curious, what was happening then? Well, there was the build up to the Great Depression. I'm probably giving you too much credit. You probably just don't know how old our country is.

Federal Income Tax. Evidently, I know your history at least somewhat better than you do.

The Free Market is a lie. It has never existed, and it never will.

That's putting it straight, sure... Completely false, but nicely straightforward, thank you.

Mind you, the CIA and the NSA have been doing this shit for decades now

CIA and NSA are only invading my privacy. It is a serious transgression, to be sure, but they don't care, how I raise my children, what I am paid, what sort of light-bulbs I use (a new excuse for the government to check my bedroom), nor, indeed, where and I how I buy my car — just to put this conversation back on topic.

You should read up on what the US did in South America

Stopping the spread of Communism — the deadliest school of thought known to man (even Hitler's peculiar strand of Fascism is but a distant second) — was and remains something to be proud of. Compare Chile, where we succeeded, with Cuba, where we failed... One is Latin America's top economy, the other a crap-hole, which even Michael Moore's brilliant propaganda can't turn into a chicken sandwich.

But we are talking about domestic laws, not foreign policy, so let's stick to that.

If you don't want to help the needy, fund basic education for the betterment of all

I don't want to be forced at gun-point to pay for all those things — and that's exactly, how IRS collects the monies. But, if I must subsidize those poor, would you accept their disenfranchisement? For any recipient of public assistance is to state the Pauper's Oath — and not participate in any poll while receiving such assistance and for, say, three more months after recovering their self-sufficiency?

Why wouldn't you accept that — the unfortunates temporarily down on their luck will not care, while the life-long takers will, at least, lose their say in the affairs of the country. No, it is neither a poll tax nor a property requirement — you can be dirt poor and still vote, as long as you don't ask for public assistance.

Still a no?..

I don't know where you got shelter and telephone service from...

From the government's subsidies for housing projects, fuel assistance, and the telephones — both wired and cellular (affectionately referred to as "Obamaphones"). Evidently, I know more about the country's present than you as well — not just history.

go live in fucking Somalia

(Manners, young man, manners. If you lose your temper, I win.) Why don't you instead go live in fancy North Korea — where laws abound, effective taxes exceed 90% (what is not government-provided is unaffordable) and every one is equally poor?

With my taxes, I buy civilization. I'm going to bike my hippy ass to work tomorrow on publicly funded roads

Is not it terrible, that one still has to pay for the bicycle to e

Really? that is crazy. I am in california and there are fairly strong restrictions on when a landlord can enter property and a lease can't change that. you can apparently look them up by state here:

http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page/portal/HUD/topics/rental_assistance/tenantrights

People sure weren't complaining when these guys were giving them cheap capital to buy speculative housing and gigantic SUVs. We're all in this together.

I would disagree about "we're all in this together".

I am of the opinion that the easy credit was a response to the loss of jobs caused by inequitable and unbalanced free trade and the diversion of income out of the American economy from the middle class and working poor into stasis in the holdings of the top 1% or, worse, into building new factories to take yet more American jobs.

In short, the housing (and SUV buying) bubble occurred because of a decision by the Fed and their cohorts in banking, Wall Street, and the Republican Party to use easy credit to replace income from jobs that were being lost in the manufacturing and service sectors. The American people's addiction to Madison Avenue's guidance was used to conceal what was actually being done to them.

I suspect that the primary regret that the Goldman Sachs alumni in that last Administration as well as the membership of the Fed have is that they could not sustain the illusion of a functional economy until after a Democratic Administration had taken office - which was inevitable given the Iraq revelations, DOJ corruption, et al.

But that failure, too, was a function of the fact that we are not "all in this together"; that last Administration flat out refused to regulate the hedge funds and rein in the speculation - to include the creation of artificial scarcity - in hydrocarbons which was hammering the American people; indeed, the Administration added to the upward consumer price pressure by increasing food prices through the diversion of corn products into an inefficient ethanol production system.

The resultant surge in prices - particularly energy, but pretty much all consumer prices - tipped enough mortgage holders over the edge to reveal the underlying corruption and lack of value in the highly leveraged mortgage financial instruments.

The point at which the conscious decision to drive our economy with easy credit and flaky mortgages - and profit from the leveraging of those bad mortgages - can be discerned by reading this Bush speech http://www.hud.gov/news/speeches/presremarks.cfm given in June of 2002. In it, Bush brags of having put the arm - the Presidential arm - on Fannie Mae with the result that "about $440 billion" in "capital" was "created".

From a pragmatic perspective, the last Administration and their Republican cohorts in Congress were all about economically raping the American economy and our Treasury. They did a good job, too. Goldman Sachs should be proud; but then again, they have some experience at it; John Galbraith observes their contribution to the crash of 1929 in his book The Great Crash, 1929.

No, it was socialism that got us into this mess. Not the free market. If anything, GWB is culpable for *not* bringing this issue to the public sooner while in office.

That last President had a vested interest in not bringing it to the public's attention - he and the Fed were continuing a policy of using easy credit to drive housing and housing-related jobs so as to conceal the ill-effects of "trickle-down" economics and inequitable free trade (expecting an American worker to compete with somebody whose cost of living is 1/10th or less of that American worker's is simply ludicrous).

Bush knew what he was doing. In George's own words on June 18th, 2002 (http://www.hud.gov/news/speeches/presremarks.cfm/

The goal is, everybody who wants to own a home has got a shot at doing so. The problem is we have what we call a homeownership gap in America. Three-quarters of Anglos own their homes, and yet less than 50 percent of African Americans and Hispanics own homes. That ownership gap signals that something might be wrong in the land of plenty. And we need to do something about it.

We are here in Washington, D.C. to address problems. So I've set this goal for the country. We want 5.5 million more homeowners by 2010 -- million more minority homeowners by 2010. (Applause.) Five-and-a-half million families by 2010 will own a home. That is our goal. It is a realistic goal. But it's going to mean we're going to have to work hard to achieve the goal, all of us. And by all of us, I mean not only the federal government, but the private sector, as well.

And so I want to, one, encourage you to do everything you can to work in a realistic, smart way to get this done. I repeat, we're here for a reason. And part of the reason is to make this dream extend everywhere.

I'm going to do my part by setting the goal, by reminding people of the goal, by heralding the goal, and by calling people into action, both the federal level, state level, local level, and in the private sector. (Applause.)

And so what are the barriers that we can deal with here in Washington? Well, probably the single barrier to first-time homeownership is high down payments. People take a look at the down payment, they say that's too high, I'm not buying. They may have the desire to buy, but they don't have the wherewithal to handle the down payment. We can deal with that. And so I've asked Congress to fully fund an American Dream down payment fund which will help a low-income family to qualify to buy, to buy.(Applause.)

The President of the United States of America gets what he wants from any government organization - to include quasi-governmental organizations like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Ironically, the ARMs and subprime loans are given disproportionally to blacks and hispanics, even when looking only at higher income subgroups. So the effect of the law is the opposite of what was intended.

There is a specific exemption for those communities as their "needs" are different the a younger population. There are requirements though for what can and can't count as a senior community though.

As regards violating the Fair Housing Act, there is a shared living exception. It seems to me that if roommates.com added a "shared living" checkbox to its form, it could AJAX-open the additional fields regarding gender and sexuality, and thus avoid falling afoul of the FHA. Roommates.com would still not be covered by the Section 230 exception of the Communications Decency Act, but it wouldn't need it.

The fair housing act doesn't always apply, there are times when it is legal to discriminate based on gender etc. http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/FHLaws/yourrights. cfm There is an exemption for owner occupied buildings (i.e. you want to rent out that extra bedroom in your house). Also if you are just looking for a roommate, you are not the landlord so it would similarly not apply, in fact I would think this would be protected under the 1st amendment as freedom of association.

http://www.hud.gov/offices/hsg/fhahistory.cfm

Mortgage loan terms were limited to 50 percent of the property's market value, with a repayment schedule spread over three to five years and ending with a balloon payment.

You were right. Thanks for catching that.

I am a fair housing attorney. Before anyone goes ballistic, I should explain that I only defend fair housing cases. I have been handling this type of case for over 20 years and have never represented a plaintiff. I defend these cases because they are a challenge to win and the consequences of defeat are absolutely horrendous, both financially and emotionally. I have never lost a fair housing case. I am a lawyer, not a magician. I keep my clients from defeat by promptly settling cases they cannot possibly win.

Stating an illegal preference is clearly illegal under the Fair Housing Act. The law does not only condemn racial discrimination. Federal fair housing law protects all but a very short list of persons:

1. Current users of illegal drugs. Property owners can refuse to rent based on that use. 42 U.S.C. 3602(h).

2. Transvestites, who are not considered to be handicapped. Act of Sept. 13, 1988, P.L. 100-430, 6(b)(3), 102 Stat. 1622.

3. Persons who pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others or who would cause substantial physical damage to the property of others. 42 U.S.C. 3604(f)(9).

4. Illegal ("undocumented") aliens. The Fair Housing Act does not prevent discrimination based on citizenship status. Espinoza v. Hillwood Square Mutual Association 522 F.Supp. 559 (E.D. Va. 1981). See "Response to concerns about housing security following September 11, 2001." http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/library/sept11.cfm /

Under federal law, discrimination is illegal when it is based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin. 42 U.S.C. 3604. In California, it is also illegal to discriminate on the basis of ancestry, marital status, age, sexual orientation, source of income or medical condition. California Government Code 12955(a) and 12926. California Civil Code 51-51.3. California also prohibits "arbitrary" discrimination. Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIV, 52 Cal. 3d 1142 (1991). (I realize that the craigslist case was brought in Illinois, but I am not licensed to practice law there.)

Since everyone has a gender, everyone is protected from sex-based discrimination. Similarly, everyone is either in a family or not, has a race or color and a national origin, and either has or does not have a religion. "Handicap" or disability is a very broad category. The law also protects people from discrimination because they associate with a person in a protected category or because they are incorrectly perceived to be in a protected category. For practical purposes, just about everyone is covered by the Fair Housing Act.

A landlord cannot advertise that the apartment is near a church or synagogue because this implies an illegal preference based on religion. The Mexican restaurant isn't a big problem, but saying the neighborhood is Hispanic implies that anyone else is not welcome. "Godly, Christian Male" expresses both a religious and a gender preference; but it's fine to require cleanliness. The ad about "2 guys in their mid-twenties who throw parties all the time" is illegal based on a gender preference; but the landlord could ask for people who don't throw parties. The last four ads may sound fine, but they imply that a family with children would not be welcome.

Renting residential property is a business, and property owners and managers are held to a strict standard of compliance with fair housing laws. Amateurs who do not bother to learn the rules are likely to get bitten by them. I have written a number of fair housing articles which are available at http://www.msslc.com/ I believe that the federal judge who dismissed the craigslist case acted correctly. While the statements made were illegal under the Fair Housing Act, craigslist should not be liable under the CDA. I doubt this decision will be appealed, and if it is I confidently predict it will be upheld.

Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act), as amended, prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings, and in other housing-related transactions, based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status (including children under the age of 18 living with parents of legal custodians, pregnant women, and people securing custody of children under the age of 18), and handicap (disability) So go ahead and discriminate against druggies slobs and people without jobs all you want. Discrimination isn't illegal unless its based on what is mentioned above. http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/FHLaws/

Furthermore, statistics show that poor people almost never get loans, because the banks know they're not getting paid back.

Whew. That'll come as a great relief to all of these people who seem to be under the mistaken impression that the poor are often preyed upon by mortgage banks offering loans they know can never be paid off. I'll be sure to let the attorneys we employ whose sole responsibility it is to handle these types of cases know that they can move on to ther things.

Salt is required...and sometimes I healthy shake of malt vinigar. This is the guy who said
"I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace." [here]

I guess it's not a stretch to say that whatever he likes and interpret it however he wants.

--

"Because that's the way Americans are now. They're always willing to trade away a little of their freedom for the feeling, the illusion--of security." George Carlin on airport security

Pardon me if I mis-interpreted, but it appears to me you are posing a rhetorical question to the effect of: if sueing the people making a tool is OK, who is sueing Smith & Wesson?

If so, this isn't a rhetorical question. The answer is: The US Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, usually known as "HUD". At the time, S&W was owned by a British company, who thought it was a good idea to settle:

http://www.hud.gov/library/bookshelf18/pressrel/gu nagree.html

The results were disastrous for S&W. The "agreement" required S&W to impose additional burdens above and beyond federal law on dealers. As a result, many dealers dropped S&W products altogether. The remaining dealers found themselves unable to sell an S&W product to anyone that was familiar with the HUD fiasco.

S&W was nearly bankrupted, even after massive layoffs. Tompkins LLC finally sold S&W for a small fraction of its value to an American company. They are turning a profit again, but only after the US Government has effectively repudiated the agreement.

Nobody should have to live in mortal fear of losing their job

Anyhow, if you think that ANYBODY lives in poverty in the US, then you need to visit a third world country. Not being able to afford satellite TV on the latest flat-screen HDTV is not poverty.

People living in "poverty" in the US have clean drinking water, access to at least some health care, a roof over their heads, some food to put in their bellies, etc. Their most basic of human needs are met.

I don't think anyone should be allowed to bitch about poverty in the US who hasn't visited a third world country. That is poverty.

By the way..
Contrary to some common misconceptions, the following are still legal bases for discrimination in hiring and lending.

age (if under 40) sexual orientation odor clothing choice hairstyle choices in liesure activity sports team preference etc., etc., etc.,

You are completely wrong! The homeless are tracked. Congress required all agencies receiving funding from HUD to be using a Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) to track the homeless and their use of services. Communities are then required to report this information and are often required to collaborate with neighboring communities to provide regional information. In my state of Massachusetts, some homeless agencies have been using HMIS for as much as 6 years. Excellent statistics for the city of Boston are available as they have required all agencies in the city receiving city funds to use HMIS for at least 5 years. The published statistics do not specifically tell who was where when for what. They do give detailed demographic information and types of services received. The city of Cambridge is beginning to use HMIS to do a gaps analysis, creating statistics to see the difference between the need and what is provided. More information can be found at
HMIS

I am invloved in an effort to produce an open source HMIS, so that if we are required to have tracking systems, at least they will be inexpensive and under the control of non-commercial entities. You can see a demo of the open HMIS at: homeless-mis.net It uses PHP and Postgres (or MS-SQL if you like that sort of thing....)

The idea of integrated information systems actually started with homeless advocates that wanted to improve services through coordinated service delivery. But, like any tool, HMISs can be mis-used, and sometimes you wonder what motiviates these federal requirements.

1. The goal of HMIS is not to create a "massive homeless tracking system" but to obtain statistical and demographic data about homeless people to inform federal homeless policy. The aggregate and anonymous data HUD wants is vitally necessary to the goal of ending homelessness.
2. The federal HUD office has never expressed any interest whatsoever in collecting client-level data about homeless people on a federal scale. I have written and oral confirmation of this from senior-level policy makers in HUD's DC office. The way HUD has chosen to implement HMIS, by creating an unfunded mandate devolving the ownership, development, and management of HMIS data to local governments, will make it very difficult, if not impossible, for the federal government to collect identifiable client data without a court order.
3. HUD wants aggregate, de-identified information about the number of homeless people, their patterns of service usage, their income sources, and the causes and duration of their homelessness. This data is simply necessary to the formation of sound homeless policy, and it does not currently exist. They don't care who is homeless, they just want to know why, so that they can address the underlying causes of homelessness. Having also worked for HUD, I can say with confidence that they have neither the time, the motivation, nor the budget to do anything useful with a nationwide homeless tracking system. HMIS is for policy analysis.
4. Clients must be informed that their information is being collected, have access to said information, and have the ability to correct errors. Establishment of consent/assent will vary by locality, though many communities in my area plan to require the written consent of their clients to enter their personal data into an HMIS.
5. Local Continuums of Care have full control over the data they collect, how the information is used, and who can access it. Generally, written MOUs are required between any data-sharing organizations, carefully delineating what information is to be shared, who can access it, and for what purposes it may be used. This includes law enforcement agencies; as Chapter 4 of the Draft Data Standards clearly states, "An HMIS user or developer may... disclose protected information for a law enforcement purpose to a law enforcement official... A court order or search warrant may be required for the disclosure of information about an individual in an HMIS." In essence, the accessibility of information by law enforcement will be determined by local HMIS policy.
6. HMIS systems must be fully compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, which creates very strong privacy safeguards concerning the sharing of personal information.
7. Participation in HMIS is only required of agencies receiving federal funding. If they don't like, they can find money elsewhere.
8. There is a huge need for accurate information about the homeless population, which simply cannot be generated without an HMIS. Some of the policy goals:
   • Produce an accurate, unduplicated count of homeless people so that progress can be accurately measured. I can tell you from personal experience that many communities don't really know how many homeless people they have, and that they often

1. The goal of HMIS is not to create a "massive homeless tracking system" but to obtain statistical and demographic data about homeless people to inform federal homeless policy. The aggregate and anonymous data HUD wants is vitally necessary to the goal of ending homelessness.
2. The federal HUD office has never expressed any interest whatsoever in collecting client-level data about homeless people on a federal scale. I have written and oral confirmation of this from senior-level policy makers in HUD's DC office. The way HUD has chosen to implement HMIS, by creating an unfunded mandate devolving the ownership, development, and management of HMIS data to local governments, will make it very difficult, if not impossible, for the federal government to collect identifiable client data without a court order.
3. HUD wants aggregate, de-identified information about the number of homeless people, their patterns of service usage, their income sources, and the causes and duration of their homelessness. This data is simply necessary to the formation of sound homeless policy, and it does not currently exist. They don't care who is homeless, they just want to know why, so that they can address the underlying causes of homelessness. Having also worked for HUD, I can say with confidence that they have neither the time, the motivation, nor the budget to do anything useful with a nationwide homeless tracking system. HMIS is for policy analysis.
4. Clients must be informed that their information is being collected, have access to said information, and have the ability to correct errors. Establishment of consent/assent will vary by locality, though many communities in my area plan to require the written consent of their clients to enter their personal data into an HMIS.
5. Local Continuums of Care have full control over the data they collect, how the information is used, and who can access it. Generally, written MOUs are required between any data-sharing organizations, carefully delineating what information is to be shared, who can access it, and for what purposes it may be used. This includes law enforcement agencies; as Chapter 4 of the Draft Data Standards clearly states, "An HMIS user or developer may... disclose protected information for a law enforcement purpose to a law enforcement official... A court order or search warrant may be required for the disclosure of information about an individual in an HMIS." In essence, the accessibility of information by law enforcement will be determined by local HMIS policy.
6. HMIS systems must be fully compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, which creates very strong privacy safeguards concerning the sharing of personal information.
7. Participation in HMIS is only required of agencies receiving federal funding. If they don't like, they can find money elsewhere.
8. There is a huge need for accurate information about the homeless population, which simply cannot be generated without an HMIS. Some of the policy goals:
   • Produce an accurate, unduplicated count of homeless people so that progress can be accurately measured. I can tell you from personal experience that many communities don't really know how many homeless people they have, and that they often

The Fair Housing Act covers most housing. In some circumstances, the Act exempts owner-occupied buildings with no more than four units, single-family housing sold or rented without the use of a broker, and housing operated by organizations and private clubs that limit occupancy to members.

Do yourself a favour and check your facts before shooting your mouth off. I think you need to take some time and read up on the Fair Housing Act (US Title code 42, chapter 45). It explicitly prohibits discrimination in housing based on race, nationality, religon, sex, maritial status, and disabilities. The only real exemptions are private, owner occupied buildings. So for example if you are renting a spare room in your house, you may discriminate on whatever basis you like, however if you own an apartment you may not. The full text of the law can be found here.

Check out the HUD Sacramento website. According to their webmaster (my father), they had several design requirements.

1) They had to post all of the information made available by the Freedom of Information Act and make it easily accessible.

2) The site needed to be usable by the general public from streetside web terminals, public libraries, etc...

3) All of the sites, regional and national, had to have the same "look and feel".

IMHO, they did a pretty good job. The site's pretty easy to navigate, it's fast loading, and it holds an ASTOUNDING amount of information. If you've got any questions about the design of the site, feel free to e-mail the webmaster.

• Who's running for the school board, and where is my polling station?
• Where's that Taste of the Town food fest being held?
• Where can I find a Unitarian church, and do they have a web page describing themselves?
• Is it true my office is on a toxic waste site? (Yes. Don't lick the dirt.)

• Participants building up individual identities. You know who you're talking to.
• High signal to noise ratio.
• A magic number of posts -- too many drives people away; too few is just an announcement list.
• Enough of a focus that you have something to talk about. I've seen very general lists, like "This is a list for the town of X" on eGroups, that fizzle out for lack of something to say.
• A few alpha-posters that invest time into high-quality posts.

Here are a couple more thoughts. I would love to hear some feedback on these:

1 - Government is slow, realy slow. They will have a very hard time adapting to these changes for several reasons - most are outlined in the article.

2 - In the past (a long time ago), there were issues with infrastructure, cost etc of setting up and maintaining a national post service. This is changing. Now there are fewer barriers and there is competition.

3 - There is still a need for the service they are providing. However, if the service s not used as much, we should cut the budget accordingly and be happy.

4 - The USPS should not try to enter areas that are currently being addressed with provate business, which will naturally be more efficent. I do not see any problems with the post office downsizing. It is a bastion of the US, but we should be able to move on and advance and not have to hold onto old, outdated services just because uncle sam wants to.


ok i did not want to but

5 - Lets make the USPS a public certificate authority and start getting competion (even artificial - ie government) in that area. The USPS would have a great image that they could market and leverage that could compete against Verisign and their high prices and questionable procedures, they are soooo quick....