Town Fights FOI Request for GIS Data and Images

dweyerma writes "The state's highest court will now decide a landmark public records case involving access to aerial reconnaissance photographs and maps of Greenwich, CT. The town maintains the images in a tightly kept database known as a geographic information system, which a judge declared to be public records last December. The Connecticut Supreme Court announced Monday that it will hear the town's appeal of that ruling, expediting the case by leap-frogging the state Appellate Court. The move virtually coincides with the third anniversary of the initial complaint in the case, which Greenwich resident and computer consultant Stephen Whitaker filed with the state Freedom Information Commission after the town denied his request for an electronic copy of the entire database for security and privacy reasons."

Comments

I'm waiting for the 'Think about the Children'

[vertical_98]

The government is a body of individuals most notably ungoverned - Shepard Book

We used to to be the most loved country in the world, now we are the one that catches the most shit. I think the government should stop spoon-feeding us what they think we should know and let us have what we think we should know.

There are always somethings that can not be revealed: Witness Protection, Undercover Officers, etc. But the maps are already available they are just not together in a nice electronic format. Maybe its time for the government of, for, and by the people to become that again.

Vertical

Re:I'm waiting for the 'Think about the Children'

[Anonymous Coward]

There are always somethings that can not be revealed: Witness Protection, Undercover Officers, etc. Well the Bush administration seems to have no problem with revealing the identities of CIA NOC undercover officers. Especially ones who work WMD proliferation.

Re:I'm waiting for the 'Think about the Children'

[at_18]

From 12 september 2001 until bush started talking about invading Iraq.

Re:I'm waiting for the 'Think about the Children'

[intnsred]

But the Russians weren't so happy with us that day.

The Russians were still pissed that while they were fighting over 200 German divisions on the Russian front, the US and UK were fighting as few as 4 German divisions in Italy, in what the Russians considered a broken promise to open a second front as soon as possible.

Re:I'm waiting for the 'Think about the Children'

[abirdman]

It isn't up to the public to decide what they need to know

This is patently wrong, and a paranoid knee-jerk reaction to anti-terrorist FUD spread by well-meaning but clueless (and now campaigning) government functionaries. Public information is just that--public. And unless it is demonstrated before a judge that the information should be kept out of the hands of the public, then it belongs to the people. Hence the phrase, "government of the people, by the people, and for the people."

An uninformed electorate is a misled electorate. Government rules by the consent of the governed. And a gated-community, private club, members-only government is a government that has removed itself from the very public who has consented to place them in power.

One other point, which I think is relevant here, is that Greenwich, CT is one of the richest communities in the country. I think the reason they don't want aerial maps of the town made public is then we'd all know where and how they live. The anti-terrorist security angle is all just smoke and mirrors to hide the fact that America's richest elite class doesn't want to be noticed. Hiding behind the "national security" curtain is just plain cynical.

And what's worse is the poor computer consultant who wants the maps (and has got all the liberal lawyers up in arms and fighting for him) probably just wants them so he can sell good information to companies that do lawn care, swimming pools, and aluminum siding for castle estates.

Re:I'm waiting for the 'Think about the Children'

[Maudib]

The whole point of the second world war was to remove possible competition from Anglo-Saxon hegemony over the British Empire.

This theory nicely fits into marxist dogma, but really doesnt hold water. You could argue that the Germans started WWII in order to replace British-U.S. hegemony with their own, but to say that the Allies fought the war to remove competition is utterly absurd. Germany wasnt attacking British or French colonies, they were attacking Britain and France, trying to conquer them. The point of the war from the Allies perspective was purely self defense. The only other alternative was submission.

That it was purely a matter of self defense is further vindicated by France and Englands repeated efferts at appeasement in order to avoid wat.

No, waiting until 1942 to attack was certainly construed as diabolique by the paranoid Russians, however it took that long to build up the necesary resources. In 1940 the U.S. military was about half a million strong, how the hell is that supposed to turn into a second front overnight? That it only took two years is a testament to how quickly the Americans moved and how much they were trying to honor their committments to the russians.

It should be available

[reboot246]

If the database was paid for with tax money, then it should be available to the taxpayers. Besides, as others have pointed out, the same information is already available in a form that would be useful to terrorists.

I use USAPhotoMaps to access the terraserver. I have a database of aerial photos and topo maps of all the areas I work (nearly my whole state). The resolution of the photos is 1 meter per pixel and for the topo maps it's 4 meters per pixel. That info plus a program to show streets and roads makes my job much easier.

Stop with the acronyms!

[Quobobo]

I'm sure the headline makes sense to some people, but not many people are going to understand FOI or GIS. I can't be the only person who thought this was about Google image search data and images at first glance.

It's just kind of ridiculous when a native English speaker can't make sense of the headline. Please, at least explain these things in the submission.

What does he want to do with this data?

[arb]

From my reading of the article, he wants to use them for commercial reasons. He has asked for an entire copy of the GIS data and aerial photographical maps. That's a lot of data which would be expensive for anyone to generate. Has he offered to purchase the information, or is he expecting to kick start his business with free information paid for by the city?

Surely if he had a legitimate business idea, he would be willing to pay other data providers for the information he wants. There are several mapping, GIS and photographical companies that would no doubt love to supply him with the data he requires at a reasonable cost.

If this was a software company trying to use GPL'd software to build up a closed source business, people here would be up in arms.

Re:What does he want to do with this data?

[samael]

The City _is_ the people. If the city has made something then it should be freely available to all of its citizens - they paid for it.

And if people want to use GPL software to help run their close-source business, then that's great - so long as they release any changes along with the binary.

Re:What does he want to do with this data?

[base3]

there's data of a tax/ownership nature that shouldn't be released electronically... if at all.

I don't know about Greenwich, but in my jurisdiction, property tax and ownership data are public record (and are available for online lookup, as public records should be). What is your argument for non-disclosure of real estate ownership records? Whatever it is, I bet the public interest trumps it.

The major point in the problem described in this thread, though, is that Greenwich knowingly created a public record, and now wants to refuse to disclose it. They sould like they're saying "Oh, we knew it was public record, but it was only public to people in the know. We wouldn't actually want the public to have unfettered access to the data."

Re:What does he want to do with this data?

[budgenator]

This may change with restrictions and recommendations from the Feds bout reducing access to critical infrastructure data.
A worrisome aspect of that is the fact that the info missing is often as revealing as the info present.

If I were of neferious purpose, I'd be more conserned with the "black-areas" than the illuminated. In my area, there are places where an attack one an infrasturcter facility could stop the water going to millions of people or power going to an area the size of the last blackout.

Re:Maps want to be free!

[Caius_Julius]

"As for the data being available to myself as a citizen (btw, I live in one of the counties adjacent to PG County so I have to get data for my area just like everyone else if I want it), I'm not sure that I have a need to see it"

This is almost surely some engineering company that wants to harvest all of the town's data to set up a for-profit service. The argument about why or why not to favor this individual is hard to settle, but both sides of the argument about "freedom of information" and "security" are disingenuous.

Re:FOIA Requests and the AG

[caldfyr]

It is easy to misread the tone of a written message. Ever have a messenger conversation go to hell because of a quick-to-react emotional person on the other end gets a case of teh crazy on you? A conversation that would have gone an entirely different way over the phone or face-to-face?

The tone of his memo may be intentional. Sometimes telling people to be careful isn't enough. Sometimes, to get their attention, you need to use various means to provide emphasis on the message. Or , then again, the person that sent the message to the local goverment agencies was probably in a serious mood (it is, after all, a serious job) and the letter reflected it.

Some people think FOI means that everything should be put out into the public view for all to see. Personally, I would rather there be some judgment used. There is no need for the majority of people to know the exact layout of a sewage system, or the water distribution system, or the GPS coordinates of the government buildings in town, etc. The local government should be required to review each request and say "Oh, you're the contractor that's going to build over there? Sure, here's the info on the sewer and water." And "You're an ex-con and want to know about the power and underground access in the local financial district? Um....no"

Just because some of the loudest people are law abiding citizens doesn't mean everyone else is. I would like to know more than I do, but I realize that I don't have a need to know. And being a reporter doing a story will probably get a person past most FOI issues, so as long as the reporter and watchdog organizations remain responsible they should not have any problems keeping the government honest.