NSA spy apparatus is J Edgar Hoover on steroids

On page 63, of Robert Ludlum's, "Chancellor Manuscript", he describes J Edgar Hoover's penchant for information and rationale for collection of data.

"Every paper, every insert, every addendum related to Security crossed Hoover's desk.  And as we know, 'Security' took on the"Every paper, eve widest possible range.  Sexual activities, drinking habits, marriage and family confidences, the most personal details of the subjects' lives---none were too remote or insignificant.  Hoover pored over these dossiers like Croesus with his gold."

Ludlum describes in the fictional book, a 20th Century version of how a government agency hand powered their files to use for the purposes of national and domestic security.  But the National Security Agency's (NSA) version for gathering data and rationale for collection is so grandiose in comparison to what J Edgar Hoover did.  A similarity with the fictional Hoover (I contend real Hoover) and the NSA is the broad definition of "security".  Hoover had and the NSA has as their principle "we must collect everything we can" for the good of the state.  

I can picture old J. Edgar in heaven or hell salivating and rubbing his hands together and saying aloud, "If I only had this type of technology that NSA has."

The existence of NSA's broad scale intelligence gathering system disclosed by the Washington Post and The Guardian is no surprise to me.

We just have to review our government's (local, state, and Federal} history from Hoover's early days of collecting data when he was an employee of the Bureau of Investigation, to  military intelligence wiretapping Eleanor Roosevelt during World War 2, to the US Army intelligence spying on protesters in the sixties, and where even Minnesota State authorities kept collected data on innocent people during World War I to keep track of subversives -- often better known as German immigrants.

Now the NSA has a history of surveillance and spying since its birth in the early fifties.  Their efforts is documented in the Church Committees Volume 5 - The National Security Agency and Fourth Amendment Rights.  The NSA had two unique programs called Shamrock and Minaret.  One intercepted electronic communication, the other project dealt with telegraphic communication.

In comparison today with NSA's PRISM, there is none. The early programs of Shamrock and Minaret were very limited.  PRISM and it's sister program of phone number collection is a souped-up and wild behavior of filing, documenting, and preserving much more information about who an individual associates with, what they may think, and the coming and goings of their lives than Hoover could have ever dreamt of.

Now if Robert Ludlum wrote his book in 2013 maybe he might say something like this:

"Every e-mail, every video, every stored data related to Security crossed NSA's computers.  And as we know, 'Security' took on the widest possible range.  Sexual activities, drinking habits, marriage and family confidences, the most personal details of the subjects' lives---none were too remote or insignificant.  NSA pored over these electronic records like Croesus with his gold"

The Tubby Smith opinion intertwines with Minneapolis cops off duty behavior

The Sunday Star Tribune had a front page fold story which talked about cops and their off duty behavior.  Minneapolis Police is launching an investigation into alleged misconduct.  The article goes on to say there may be "questions about how closely the department monitors the widespread practice of off duty work and whether those jobs conflict" with rules and policies. But who monitor's the supposed watchers, the Minneapolis police administration?

Supposedly, the public, right?  The public was able to find out until 2008, public data, as to how much public employees got who did activity with a private business because of their public position.  But that all changed in 2008 when the Department of Administration did an opinion known as the "Tubby Smith" opinion.

The opinion basically says any kind of recompense or pay that public employees get from private parties who are in a relationship with a private party because of their public job is not public. For decades until 2008 the data was public.

In real terms, what does this mean.  It means a cop who works for someone and who wears the city uniform the amount he makes is not public.  The Director of a division of state agency who oversees an industry, but who on the side consults with the same industry, may be known to his bosses, but the public does not know what goodies or pay the person may get.  I could go on and on.

A coalition of bi-partisan legislators tried to overturn the Department of Administration opinion, but the legislation never came for a vote on the floor because of heavy pressure by law enforcement unions.  It just sat on the floor til adjournment.

So what do we have in Minnesota highlighted by the Star Tribune story today.  We have people who get paid by private interests who have a relationship for recompense or pay because they are a public employee or position they hold in government and may be in collision and competition with the public interest. This is troubling.  With recompense or pay being public data gives the public the ability to gauge what the tenor and depth of the relationship may be.

If the Minneapolis Police cannot do oversight over their off duty officers, the public needs to have the ability to do so with public data that should be available.  That can start with making "remuneration" data public again.

Can you "permit to carry" at St Paul Union Depot without note to Sheriff?

I went to the St Paul Union Depot this past week.  Hung off Door 1 entrance was a big sign with 17 rules plastered on it.

Number 7 of the 17th rule for the St Paul Union Depot, a multi-million dollar rehabilitation/restoration of a historic public building states that members of the public who have "permit to carry" need to do the following "carrying of firearms except as permitted under 609.66 sub.1g(b)"  I looked and said what does that mean?

So I looked up Minnesota State Statute 609.66, subdivision, 1g(b).  The specific section is the following:

(b) Unless a person is otherwise prohibited or restricted by other law to possess a dangerous weapon, this subdivision does not apply to:
(1) licensed peace officers or military personnel who are performing official duties;
(2) persons who carry pistols according to the terms of a permit issued under section 624.714 and who so notify the sheriff or the commissioner of public safety, as appropriate;

This means if you have a permit to carry and are carrying a pistol you have to send a note to Sheriff Bostrom of Ramsey County before you go into the St. Paul Union Depot. Very similar if you wish to do so at the Minnesota Capitol, you would send a note to the Commissioner of Public Safety.

My understanding of the "Permit to Carry" law allows a law-abiding citizen to generally enter a public building with a pistol if they are permitted under the law 624.714.  Of course there are exceptions for schools and court houses (Ramsey County Court House) under judicial order and other situations.

I knew the policy (Rule 7) was wrong.  Many people who are law-abiding could run into possible felony charges because of what the rule stated if they violated it, on the other hand, people would not be able to ascertain their legal rights to permit to carry if the rule was wrong..

I decided to call Ramsey County Sheriff Spokesperson, Randy Gustafson.

I asked Mr. Gustafson if the Sheriff has received any letters from permit to carry holders to comply with the law when they visit the St Paul Union Depot per Minnesota State Statute 609.66, subdivision. 1g(b).  He was surprised by the question it seemed.  He had not heard of the rule for the Depot, but he was aware of the Minnesota Capitol situation.  He indicated he would get back to me.

Since the St Paul Union Depot is owned and operated by Ramsey County I decided to contact them. I eventually made contact with Josh Collins, Communications Manager at Ramsey County Regional Rail Authority

I stated to Mr. Collins that I think your rules in regards to "permit to carry" is wrong for the Union Depot.  It is denying people their legal rights per 624.714 (Permit to Carry law).  Can you tell me why you have the policy of having to send a letter to Sheriff Bostrom?  He stated he would get back to me.

Low and behold, Mr. Gustafson got back to me the following day. The Sheriff's spokesman stated the "Sheriff's office was not involved in crafting or reviewing.....the building rules."  Mr. Gustafson also indicated he made contact with Mr. Collins.

Later on that day, Mr Collins left voice mail stating that they had the "wrong code" on their rules.  It was not their intention to "overly restrict" the public building.  He did admit that the County does not have the authority to implement the notification provision for the St Paul Union Depot.  It was an "innocent mistake."  Possibly by someone taking the sign that was being used at the Court House, he stated.  The signs at the St Paul Union Depot will be changed to reflect what the law is.

Over the years since the "Permit to Carry" law passed I have seen a number of times numerous public buildings with postings which say no firearms, period.  In other words, even though legal to have a permit to carry in a public building you are told you cannot, even though you can.  This just happened recently several months ago with a public library..  Had sign posted which said no firearms.  I said to the head person that it was wrong to post that sign because it causes confusion for the law abiding person who has every legal right to do so per the state statute.  There was no real comment, but the person knew I was right.

No matter what your view is on "permit to carry" laws, I illustrate my experience in this post with a much broader point in mind.

That point is to question policies and rules that you think are not correct. If the rules and policies are contrary to law or your constitutional rights, say something, do something, if not, a good possibility no one will.

Minnesota Supreme Court decides who the public is for hearing----its not you or me

Last week I spoke with Don Gemberling, a volunteer with Minnesota Coalition on Government Information. (MNCOGI)  I said to him I got the legal briefs for the Timberjay v Johnson Controls case which the Minnesota Supreme Court will hear on May 6, 2013. I said I was very much looking forward to attend.  He then stated bad news.  The public is not allowed to attend the hearing.  I reacted, What!  Gemberling said he received a media advisory from the Supreme Court saying the court hearing was to be at Roseville High School, but there was no detail how the public can attend.  He then got the message the hearing is not open to the general public based on correspondence he had with Court personnel.

I thought what the Minnesota Supreme Court stated to Mr. Gemberling was nonsense and illogical.  To keep the public from going to a court hearing.

A principle I strongly believe is the right to an open court principle, or the right of the public to have access and to view their judicial system. Today, the Minnesota Supreme Court is not honoring that principle.

I wanted to go to the Timberjay hearing because of the major issue of importance the case will decide.  Basically the point of discussion is: Whether or not data collected, created, received, and maintained by a private person which is doing a government duty or function comes under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.

I decided to call Jeff Shorba, Minnesota State Court Administrator and Dawn Torgerson, Deputy State Court Administrator and find out about this bad policy of not allowing the general public access to attend the hearing.  Left voice mails.  I did get a response from Lissa Finne, Court Information Officer via email indicating that the hearing at Roseville High School is part of the Supreme Court Traveling Oral Argument program.  Ms. Finne did not answer the question I left with Mr. Shorba and Ms. Torgerson, How can the general public and I attend the hearing on May 6th?

The response I got from Ms. Finne after leaving her a message and sending an email was very doublespeak.  She sent me back an email stating the Court is not excluding the public from the hearing.  The email also stated that "members of the public who are unable to attend for personal reasons or because the courtroom (Roseville High School auditorium) is full" can watch it on web cast or online.  But this is where the nonsense took a turn for more nonsense.

I then emailed back and stated how can I as a member of the general public get in line to view the court case in person.  It is not open to the general public when there is no opportunity for the public to stand in line to go to the hearing.  The response as follows:

Dear Mr. Neumeister,

Seating for this argument in the auditorium is reserved for the students, faculty and parties.

Regards,

Lissa Finne

So what does the statement mean in a previous email I received from Ms. Finne that said: "members of the public who are unable to attend for personal reasons or because the courtroom (Roseville High School auditorium) is full"  Who of the public is she's talking about?  I am willing to stand in line at 6:00AM to get a seat.

In other words, there is no opportunity for the general public to attend the argument hearing. The Minnesota Supreme Court closes access to the general public for a case on "public access" to predesignated public. (students, faculty, and parties) The people who the Minnesota Supreme Court chooses.

After I got the last email from Ms. Finne I decided to try again to see if there was a way for the general public to attend.  I called Jeff Shorba asking that he call me.  He did. I stated my concerns and that at least there could be a first come basis seats for the general public.  He stated basically that this is not his bailiwick.  So I asked who's is it?  He suggested that I speak with Commissioner Rita Coyle DeMeules.  I never knew the Minnesota Supreme Court had a Commish!  I spoke with the Commissioner about my concerns and about how I could attend the hearing and there could be some seats for the general public.  She said she would talk to the Court.  She called back and basically stated the Court said no to general public access to the hearing and that I and the general public can view it via web cast.

A public hearing about public access, but general public cannot attend because the people have been preselected as designated as general public by the Minnesota Supreme Court.

While it is commendable that the Court has chosen to hold this hearing on a public access matter before a segment of the public, the public is ill-served if the Court can pick and choose the individuals who can and cannot attend.

I urge the Court to reconsider it's position, and to allow full public access to this hearing as it does for every oral argument at the Judicial Center.

(Repost) The Artful and Foxy Words of Fine Print

With the 2013 Minnesota Legislature in three weeks ending the public again needs to be astute what are in those bills particularly this year with the budget.  I did this post a year ago.  The same points are just as valid now as then. Here it is:

As the Minnesota Legislature races towards the end be aware of that A-222 amendment which may have a short sentence with several words and placed on a conference committee bill or a so called must pass bill for the "sake of the state."

As the public has learned from such behavior in the past it can be hard to correct once the public finds out.  Just review the various media reports after last years shutdown.  Many stories of legislative surprises, revealing switches of money, and just out right "magical" disappearing of legislative language.

In the past, I have seen and discover such amendments,  There are many I ignore, some I tell others about, or I take action.  Several years ago, the Chair of the House Commerce Committee adopted a short sentence as an amendment, a provision which would have turned our state's strong medical privacy laws into Swiss cheese.  I spoke with him.  Did not see an issue.  I spoke with other legislators, but also with other privacy advocates.  The provision was taken out.

Another way of how things slip in is the "mumbo jumbo" of referring to Chapter 628 of the 5th subdivision, paragraph (a) with a few words added.  Many times law is made by amending current law.  But many people including legislators sometimes do not understand what an amendment may do.  The question may not be asked what the change may do to current law.

A case in point.  I spoke with a legislator this week about an amendment to our medical records statute.  She told me what the purpose of it was.  I said that was incorrect because it is already in current law.  She read the current law and decided to do language appropriately with what she and others wanted.

The Omnibus tax bill, the Health and Human Services bill, Legacy bill, among others including the "People's Stadium" bill is edging slowly its way towards the finish line.

We the public need to Stop, Look, and Act if we see sly, crafty, and smooth language in the bills we do not understand. So do the elected legislators we put into office.

Posted     Sunday, April 22, 2012

Games, Legislature plays with birth records and Mayo

This past week events at the Legislature reminded me of the Spinners mid 70's title song, Games People Play.  So much game playing on important legislation that affects accountability, transparency, and integrity of the legislative process.

First example, an amendment reared its head on a bill last Tuesday that would make all birth records data that is now public, confidential, except for a limited set of data.  HF 1233, Omnibus Health and Human Service Finance bill had a 474 page amendment with 12 new pages of policy language which never saw the light of day in the hearing process.  Those twelve pages were from pages 388 to 399.  The proposal dealt with the Minnesota Department of Health's vital statistics unit.  The law would also apply to local units of government where many people look up birth and death records.

The concerns about the bill that I had were several fold, one was the process, where new language magically appeared with no notice to the public, secondly, making birth records that have generally been public since the State of Minnesota began secret, and thirdly, fees to be charged to the public for inspecting and reviewing vital statistic records.  For example, last summer I looked at my grandma's birth certificate for free. I contended under the proposed language I would now be charged $9.00.

Granted, the language was eventually introduced as a bill yesterday as HF 1780.   But it was 6 days after the language appeared in an amendment that more than likely the general public did not know about.

Many times whether or not policy language that has not been introduced as a bill has the inertia to become law depends on who is at the meeting.  An old adage I believe in, "Laws are made by those who show up." In the House Human Services and Health Finance Committee last Tuesday, the new vital statistics language was adopted.  Public testimony on the bill was to be taken the following day.

I chose to testify.  I testified my concerns. Many times legislators may not know specifics about what a bill does or even how it came about.  Reason why importance for open public hearings and due notice.

Bottom line, House members on a bi-partisan basis believed that the language should not go forward.  It was taken out on the House side.  On the Senate side, a part of the proposal was deleted, the section dealing with making birth records confidential.

Second example, today there was a hearing on HF 1780 in the House Civil Law Committee.  Appeared unusually and strangely an amendment that would give a new entity, secrecy and a carve out from the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.  It would give this new entity unprecedented secrecy with data where members are public appointees.  The new entity is the Destination Medical Center Corporation, the purpose of the entity is new development for the Mayo Clinic with hundreds of millions of public dollars and Mayo's dollars.

The public and many legislators did not see the amendment until today.  The amendment pushed by the Chief Author of the Rochester Development bill presumed that the Civil Law Committee would pass the amendment on an an unrelated bill.  This was not to be the case.  Again that statement. "Laws are made by those who show up".

A bi-partisan approach of questioning by Representatives Holberg, Paymar, Chairman Lesch, Scott and others led to Lesch taking the initiative to state basically the amendment is not ready for prime time yet.  The amendment was laid over for the public and legislators to work on to make sure that a development that will get hundreds of millions of public dollars will be accountable and transparent.

The Mayo language is on the Senate side more than likely, but as of this post writing I have not been able to locate it.

The game playing of placing amendments on bills as the session winds down is not new.  Every legislator wants their bill to continue to live until it becomes law.  But to compromise integrity of the process by not giving due notice to the public even legislators of these kinds of proposals I have highlighted is a tragedy of the system itself.  As a bill gets to the floor, it is harder to kill or amend, the burden of persuasion is tougher, this is one reason why there is a committee process.

Those legislators that stand up to integrity for the legislative process, the public needs to commend you. 

Bye-Bye to your medical privacy in Minnesota

You may have to say good-bye to a strong part of Minnesota's health records privacy law if House File 824 passes as is.  House File 824/Senate File 970 is being pushed by Minnesota's powerful health industry. As one person said to me from the industry we need to "integrate" our business.  So we do away with one of the best medical privacy protection/rights provisions in the country?

The basic premise is that HIPAA, a federal regulation, sets a floor of some privacy protection and rights, but allows states to be more protective of your information or provides you with greater rights.  This is what Minnesota has done.  Even before HIPAA, Minnesota has been a leader in privacy protection. We are one of the most progressive states in the field protecting individual's privacy with their health records and giving patients more rights. Now a bit about House File 824 which dum-downs our privacy protections.

The bill as proposed states in part the following:

Sec. 4. Minnesota Statutes 2012, section 144.293, subdivision 2, is amended to read:  

Subd. 2. Patient consent to release of records. A provider, or a person who
receives health records from a provider, may not release a patient's health records to a
person without:
(1) without a signed and dated consent from the patient or the patient's legally
authorized representative authorizing the release;
(2) unless permitted or required under HIPAA or specific authorization in other
applicable federal or state law; or
(3) without a representation from a provider that holds a signed and dated consent
from the patient authorizing the release.

Under state law, the language with no underlines is current law.  This gives Minnesotans a strong consent provision.  In other words, you have control where your sensitive medical data goes.  What the new language does which is underlined in (2) is undercut Minnesota's privacy protections.  What ever HIPAA allows happens, therefore, your state law consent provisions are undercut.  It's a legislative sleight of hand.  A blatant attempt to gut the medical privacy rights of Minnesotans.

There are other sections of House File 824 which need attention also.

The bill has impact on your rights and privacy protections in many ways.  Some of them are as follows:

Consent to the use of medical information is not required under HIPAA if it is used or disclosed for treatment, payment, or health care operations. This is not the case with Minnesota law. The definitions of treatment, payment, and health care operations have broad definitions that encompass many activities that most people are not familiar with and may want to control what type of health record and where it goes to. Under Minnesota law a patient can restrict the use or disclosure of their medical data through the consent provisions.

Health entities are required to follow that consent. The Minnesota Department of Health in 2007 was asked to outline a standard consent form which allows Minnesotans to control their records and with our state law in mind. http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/hpsc/dap/consent.pdf

With lawsuits and other kind of judicial proceedings health care entities can only give out medical data in response to a valid court order, or consent under Minnesota law. Requires consent from the patient in regards to court orders from other states, subpoenas, and discovery requests per Minnesota law. This would not be the case under HIPAA.

Minnesota law generally requires written consent before before a health system can disclose any medical information about you for medical research to an outside researcher. A health provider needs to obtain consent or refusal to participate in any research study.

Law enforcement access to Minnesotans health records under HIPAA is a serious concern. Under HIPAA, some disclosures may be made to law enforcement without a warrant or court order. This is not the case with Minnesota law. Our state law generally does not allow the release of medical information to law enforcement without a valid court order or a search warrant. Minnesota law allows it in certain circumstances in limited situations.

For decades, Minnesota has had a comprehensive health records privacy law which has been recognized nationally. Why would we want to lower our standards? The federal regulations did not become law until 2003. Do not expect HIPAA to give you a comfortable feeling of reassurance that sensitive medical data is a matter between you and your doctor, you will be deluded. The federal regulations set standards for privacy where health industry, government, and public interests often prevail over the patients desire for confidentiality.