Metadata In Arizona Public Records Can't Be Withheld

jasonbuechler writes in with news of the first state to declare that metadata is part of public records and must be released when the records are. "Hidden data embedded in electronic public records must be disclosed under Arizona's public records law, the state Supreme Court said Thursday... The Supreme Court's unanimous decision, which overturned lower court rulings, is believed to be the first by a state supreme court on whether a public records law applies to so-called metadata. 'This is at the cutting edge — it's the law trying to catch up with technology,' [one lawyer said]. The Arizona ruling came in a case involving a demoted Phoenix police officer's request for data embedded in notes written by a supervisor. The officer got a printed copy but said he wanted the metadata to see whether the supervisor backdated the notes to before the demotion."

Comments

Re:Smart police officer

[timeOday]

I would imagine when cops turn against each other, all sorts of hilarity ensues. They know their rights, plus they known the workings of the system, plus they have a lot of exposure to nefarious/criminal minds. Sort of like when two ambulance-chasing lawyers have a fender-bender.

So, were they back dated?

[MobyDisk]

So I want to know if they really were back dated. And if so, I hope his supervisor gets fired and that they re-hire this officer. And give him a medal.

Re:Just a part

[rickb928]

You apparently have never filed a FOIA request anywhere. Government is at least as secretive as private industry.

In this case, clearly the police department didn't want to expose things such as 'when' and 'where', just the 'what' and 'who'. Add those other two items, and the 'why' becomes more evident.

Good job, though. Hope it works out for him.

Re:Smart police officer

[networkBoy]

I got stiffed on a contract job. Nothing big, ~$600 for install and config of 6 XP machines in an R&D lab.

They decided not to pay, and it wasn't worth fighting for it (I'd lose more money in time spent fighting them than had I simply worked another job), soooo I filed a 1099 for lost income with the IRS and called it good. Basically the way the law is written, by declaring they owed me the money, then forgiving the debt I could use that $600 to offset $600 earned elsewhere and not pay taxes on it.
The flip side is that their required to claim that $600 as income, and since they likely won't I have the satisfaction of them going through an audit.
-nB