Slashdot Mirror
Court Rules GIS Data Can't Be Kept Secret
Silverbear writes "In an update from a Slashdot story posted in January, The Connecticut Supreme Court has ruled that there is not a significant security risk to the town of Greenwich in making its GIS Data available to the public, and therefore must do so. Greenwich had claimed that the data could compromise personal and national security, and was sued under CT Freedom of Information laws. The legal ruling is available."
So, tax information (boundaries and assessments), streets and address ranges, future land-use plans, city/county boundaries, building permits, census data, and waterways information. Yes, obviously all these is sensitive data that needs to be protected from possible terrorists.
Believe me people, if the terrorists wanted to poison the water supply they wouldn't need the GIS data to figure out how to do it. They also probably really don't care about the Census data to figure out population centers (especially in Greenwich). I highly doubt they care about tax information like assessment values and boundaries as Greenwich is all high-cost living for the most part.
GIS data should be freely examinable. We paid for it as taxpayers and even helped to contribute the data (Census) so why shouldn't we be able to access it? In fact, Portland's $900 for the data is too steep. It should be free for non-commercial use IMHO.
Next they'll make it all available but in a ROT-13 CSV file so they can protect it under the DMCA! Blah.
At least the courts knew better this time and ruled in favor of open information that the public paid for.
Geographic Information Systems (I believe)
It's basically maps - elevation, road, land cover, buildings, that sort of stuff.
-dave
http://millionnumbers.com/ - own the number of your dreams
I am actually quite surprised this ruling occurred... I was listening to a news story on NPR a couple of days ago about some people taking pictures near bridges/with bridges in the background, or with other things around (like oil refineries, or in one instance, the FBI building was in the background) ... but these people had their film confiscated... ... and that's just for taking pictures casually... but who knows, maybe Conneticuit courts figure "Eh, we're not New York" ...
... I think its ridiculous... but... I am just surprised...
===
Not that I think we should be paranoid, I think this hysteria over terrorism is exactly what both sides want (the government gets to take more control and the terrorists get to disrupt our way of life and our happiness)
MoM++ - A Classic Expanded - [Master of Magic 1.5]
http://mompp.sourceforge.net/
I live in CT and have worked in Greenwich. They live in another dimension of reality there, entirely contained in their heads. They don't act as though they believe themselves to be part of CT, they have police preventing access to taxpayer funded town owned roads because they don't want commoners going near the wealthy and famous, and have the state's largest concentration of arrogant self-important snobs outside of the Avon-Simsbury region.
If the other 168 municipalities have to be wide open to publicly availible taxpayer funded satellite scans then so should they. I have a feeling however that they will keep on fighting this decision until Hell freezes over.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
So what's the point in hiding "public" information. Its like banning "google maps".
It's worse. Google is a for-profit company that creates software solutions for the public using public data. If they are charged for the use of the GIS data, fine.
The public, who paid for and even submitted the information stored in the GIS databases, should be able to freely examine and use the information as they see fit. There should be no restrictions on this, especially monetary or it will be another double-fuck fleecing of the public.
Yay, we paid for the taxes to collect this data and wasted our free time giving you Census information and now we have to pay to see it used in a useful manner?
If someone banned Google Maps I wouldn't really care. If the governments continue to close up our free access to information I will continue to get annoyed.
From google "define gis"
is the abbreviation for geographic information system. GIS are special-purpose digital databases in which a common spatial coordinate system is the primary means of reference. GIS contain subsystems for: 1) data input; 2) data storage, retrieval, and representation; 3) data management, transformation, and analysis; and 4) data reporting and product generation. It is useful to view GIS as a process rather than a thing. A GIS supports data collection, analysis, and decision making and is far more than a software or hardware product. Other terms for GIS, and special-purpose GIS, include: Land-Base Information System, Land Record System
GIS = Geographic Information Systems ... here's a decent writeup from Wikipedia ... basically allows you to analyze data in terms of location and draw inferences from it. So for instance, based on rainfall patterns, you can predict where grass will grow ;-)
Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
For those joining us from overseas and parts West, Greenwich, Connecticut is among the more -- what's the word? -- 'tony' of digs. Sort of like a Beverly Hills for the New York glitter- and media-rati who don't like the feel of sand between their toes out in the Hamptons.
We, the public, paid for the government bureaucracy that gathered this data. We shouldn't have to pay for it again when we want to look at it. Kudos to the judge in this case.
At least the courts knew better this time and ruled in favor of open information that the public paid for.
What is it with the "this time" stuff? After a case goes through the full process of being heard, being appealed, and being heard at higher courts, it's reasonably certain that the outcome is correct according to the law. If the courts produce a decision you don't like, then you probably need to look to your lawmakers, not your justices.
Of course, most of the "decisions" that people complain about around here never go to court. i.e. The case procedes as:
1. Person get cease and desist or notices a rights violation.
2. Lots of complaining about how bad the courts are, and how they're all in Bush's/Clinton's/Jimmy Carter's pocket.
3. Case never goes to court, despite the law actually stating the "correct answer".
4. More complaining about how bad the courts are.
Yeash people. Believe it or not, the US court system does tend to work correctly.
Ok, I'm done with my rant now. You can mod me offtopic. (Because I am.)
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Look at the NSA, CIA, random military bases. You're liable to be shot on sight if you sneak into them, and the information available there is simply an order of magnitude more sensitive.
GIS data (as I have proven) is not sensitive information. I have a feeling that at least some of what the CIA and NSA do is probably top secret and a cause for concern of our Nation's security.
Where taxes go up and down is not sensitive. How much my neighbors pay in taxes on their houses is quite important and is even more important when you are looking for a place to live (the true reason they don't want to pony up the information).
Let's not compare oranges and apples here. GIS != NSA/CIA regardless of how it is funded.
Yeash people. Believe it or not, the US court system does tend to work correctly.
It tends to work correctly on shit that really doesn't matter (i.e. GIS data). It doesn't seem to work very well for civil rights violations such as the Patriot Act.
Yes, the people should stand up and revolt against the Patriot Act and those lawmakers, regime leaders, and officers of the court that aren't doing anything to stop it. Should we get bent out of shape over GIS data? No.
This is a step in the right direction showing that the information does need to be public even if someone uses the word "sensitive" or "terrorism".
I used to work in GIS and the recurring issue was: Information generated using public funds should be made publicly available. In the old days we would provide data so long as they paid for the media and the wages of the staff to generate the area in questiona and the computer operator for cutting the tape.
When I worked for Washington State Department of Natural Resources, they had a formal system for selling their data that included a licensing agreement! Not sure if it was ever challenged in court or how they were able to justify licensing their data.
BTM
That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
In some town on Long Island, they copyrighted their GIS data and tried to refuse to supply it under NYS's FOIL (Freedom Of Information Law). They were sued and lost, but .... were allowed to keep their copyright. So now the people who receive the data can only republish it if they don't violate the town's copyright. Blah.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
As a software developer at a GIS company, I can tell you that it's all spatial information. Modern GIS data often includes names & addresss, parcel information, communities, etc.
Basically, think of it as a new kind of database. One that is capable of generating maps.
And just like any other database, it could have who knows what in it. Some information is very private, and some isn't.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
Greenwich: "If we make this information public, Saddam might bomb our latte shops."
Court: "Saddam is in jail."
Greenwich: "We meant Iran. There is great personal risk to our over-priced coffee industry."
Court: "I think you can survive."
Greenwich: "What about trade secrets. A map of our town is a trade secret."
Court: "You are aware that they are available at the corner gas station for a dollar fifty, right?"
Greenwich: "Not the electronic kind."
Court: "...which is free at Mapquest."
Greenwich: "You are abusing your authority!"
Court: "Get out before I have you shot."
Greenwich: "The next time you are drinking an double express mocha and a AGM-154 JSOW lands on you, just remember, we told you so."
Court: "Next case!"
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story Id=4705698
r .html
and here is a link to a blog that refers to the photographer's rights: http://blog.photoblogs.org/2004/06/photographers_
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
Court: "Bailiff?"
Balifff: "Yes?"
Court: "Judging from the name, Greenwich likely voted for Ralph Nader, and is a Satanist. Please take the prisoner to Gitmo."
Baliff: "Gladly, Worm, your honor!"
Court: "Now, call the schoolmaster!"
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Is this a first? Authorized and legal duplication of information is being called "theft" here.
"Especially since GIS people put so much work in the converges, then see it taken and abused by the public."
And here is the other thing wrong with your statement. Government road crews put a lot of hard work into building and maintaining roads, don't they? And yet, if it is not a toll road, you will be shocked to find that there are businesses that actually have company cars and trucks using these roads. Such an abuse! And libraries? There are legions of nonfiction authors who research those free library books and then make a profit from the information when they sell their books. I bet you agree that it would be a great improvement if libraries charged $10 for each book checked out! Stop those profiteers from stealing information!
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Also, some parts of the patriot act have been found unconstitutional.
I have worked and setup numerous GIS systems across the country and the most common reason for local officials to ask for some system of blocking free use of GIS is not security or personal privacy or commercialization (private companies selling public data). It is to thwart public interest groups from finding out egregious local land-use and zoning practices. It also is to keep local real-estate and land speculators happy.
For some reason, they see providing any local information for "free" as a threat to their free-wheeling and dealing. Because GIS exoses local environmental violations, incompatible land-use practices, zoning violations, land holdings and conglomeration, and so forth. In recent years, GIS has helped to show redlining in communities (keeping poor people out of rich neighborhoods), gerrymandering school and election districts, and so forth.
Some cities mainly use GIS for fine tuning when and where to ticket parking violators. Washington DC was big on this. Some states (like Michigan) ban such practices, but by and large, local governments use GIS for activities that have not been fully sanctioned. Yet they are loathe to share GIS data with anyone else. For instance in Atlanta, they don't even share this information with other departments within the city or regional government. Their protectionist attitude puts to shame IP litigation we now see in the tech field.
I made most of my money in not setting up GIS systems, but how to keep the data away from public, public officials, and citizens' groups. The major software companies, mainly ESRI, have helped in this endeavor by creating tools to work around easy sharing. Only recently with OpenGIS and other initiatives, did this stranglehold began to loosen.
Anyway, needless to say, I don't work in this field anymore. And I sleep well now.