Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

CT High Court Rules GIS Data Can Be Kept Secret [UPDATED]

Posted by timothy on from the dihydrogen-monoxide dept.

kinema writes "A few days ago the Supreme Court of Connecticut ruled that the town of Greenwich's Department of Information Technology does not have to release the images and GIS data that the town keeps. The court found that mandatory disclosure of the data under the state's freedom of information statues is exempted under a recently passed state law that allows information to be kept secret 'when there are reasonable grounds to believe that their disclosure may result in a safety risk.' I'm sure I'm not the only one in the audience that has a hard time swallowing this. I am looking into filing a similar request to obtain the GIS data for the Portland Oregon metro area. As the data is currently available to anyone willing to shell out the nearly $900 per year, the local government isn't going to be able to argue that the data could be used by terrorists and should therefore be kept from the public which paid untold amounts for the data to be collected through their taxes." Update: 01/11 16:51 GMT by M : This story is incorrect. Although the case was just heard by the court, there has been no decision either for or against the disclosure of the GIS information.

5 of 243 comments (clear)

  1. Another Fine Edit by aardvarko · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here's the actual link to the Wikipedia article about GIS. Editors, or button-pushers?

  2. Most of the GIS data in the world is unavailable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    In europe, GIS data isn't free, and is only available with non-disclosure agreements and steep yearly license fees. It's considered as a valuable commercial resource that can be milked for years and years.

    The US government is still refusing to release VMAP2 GIS data for european countries, because of partner deals with GIS agencies of those governments, even though the data was collected by american satellites with US taxpayer dollars.

    They absolutely refuse to respond to FOIA requests.

  3. Re:Are you a map maker? by TWX · · Score: 3, Informative

    As long as the Government wants to use my money to do anything I feel that I should have the right to see how they're spending that money, in all but a very, very specific set of circumstances for the immediate moment, and ultimately in every aspect as soon as information isn't critical. I believe that I should be able to look up water main locations, power line information, sewage information, telephone line/pole leasing, and the like, because I might find some gross abuse somewhere that warrants public scrutiny.

    The only exception that I could make at all would be for ongoing criminal investigations. Things where the court hasn't yet decided but is scheduled to decide, or where the police are investigating and releasing information could compromise the investigation.

    The odds of terrorists attacking the water main that leads to my house are miniscule. My city so wide and low density that any terrorists would be foolish to attack here for the purposes of making a large number of kills. That doesn't mean that it's impossible, it just means that it's not something that I'm going to lose sleep over. If I were in San Francisco, New York, or any other really high density place I might have some kind of concern, but not here, even if I am in the fifth largest metro area.

    Besides, this is just another attempt at security through obscurity, when it's possible (and even likely) that much of the information on infrastructure is already recorded elsewhere anyway, so claiming that they're protecting it for some actual reason is absurd.

    Remember, if we all go paranoid, the terrorists really do win.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  4. Re:Terrorism paranoia by AEton · · Score: 3, Informative
    Data aggregation in the State Department ran into some serious problems with that report. The article you cite is dated in late April 2004; by June Per CNN was carrying the story that they had grossly underestimated the issue:

    The State Department eventually conceded that the original report failed to include a number of deadly attacks in the latter part of 2003, including a car bomb that exploded in a housing compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and a series of attacks in Istanbul, Turkey, all of which took place in November.

    Black said the report was "marred by significant errors" when it was originally released. But he said those errors were the result of "honest mistakes, and certainly not deliberate deceptions."

    Allegations have been raised that the Bush administration deliberately made the State Department advertise a reduction in terrorist attacks - i.e., demonstrate a tangible 2003 victory for the "war on terror". Of course, when the data point the other direction, it's just as easy to say that the Bush administration abused the State Department's fearmongering abilities to hype a security claim in an election year.

    I personally suspect that it was a simple error of data aggregation; these things happen in bureaucracies.

    The summaries, original and revised, illustrate the difference.

    Original:

    There were 190 acts of international terrorism in 2003, a slight decrease from the 198 attacks that occurred in 2002, and a drop of 45 percent from the level in 2001 of 346 attacks. The figure in 2003 represents the lowest annual total of international terrorist attacks since 1969.

    Revised:

    There were 208 acts of international terrorism in 2003, a slight increase from the most recently published figure of 198* attacks in 2002, and a 42 percent drop from the level in 2001 of 355 attacks.
    *As new information becomes available, revisions are made to previously published statistics. The current running total for international terrorist incidents in 2002 is 205. [huh?!]

    Original:

    A total of 307 persons were killed in the attacks of 2003, far fewer than the 725 killed during 2002. A total of 1,593 persons were wounded in the attacks that occurred in 2003, down from 2,013 persons wounded the year before.

    Revised:

    A total of 625 persons were killed in the attacks of 2003, fewer than the 725 killed during 2002. A total of 3646 persons were wounded in the attacks that occurred in 2003, a sharp increase from 2013 persons wounded the year before. This increase reflects the numerous indiscriminate attacks during 2003 on "soft targets," such as places of worship, hotels, and commercial districts, intended to produce mass casualties.

    Original:

    In 2003, the highest number of attacks (70) and the highest casualty count (159 persons dead and 951 wounded) occurred in Asia.
    There were 82 anti-US attacks in 2003, which is up slightly from the 77 attacks the previous year, and represents a 62-percent decrease from the 219 attacks recorded in 2001.
    Thirty-five American citizens died in 15 international terrorist attacks in 2003

    Revised:

    Thirty-five U.S. citizens died in international terrorist attacks in 2003 [the other paragraphs disappeared - no mention of whether the number of anti-US attacks changed]

    The House Democrats released a report analyzing the changes in the revised format. If their analysis strikes you as biased, content youreslf with the presumably ve

    --
    We recently had heard in the office over one of the Yellow Machine that's made by Anthology Solutions.
  5. forget $900 THIS is free in Portland Oregon by scotch51 · · Score: 3, Informative
    Perhaps you will be amused to know that the city of Portland Oregon puts most of that stuff online now... for free. The home page is http://portlandmaps.com but that won't suggest how much fun it can be. Let's pick on one of my neigbors at random:

    General Info

    Satellite Mapping

    With Property Lines

    Elevation

    Crime Stats
    Well you get the idea.

    --
    In Nearly All Paradigms, Shift Happens.